That's what the animal friend perk is for.

I hope so.

I sometimes like to talk my way out of things and use reason that goes beyond: "If you don't do what I say, I will insert this axe into your head."

Conflict does not equate to violence. There is plenty of literature where not an ounce of blood is spilled that remain engaging. Have you ever watched Doctor Who? It's the longest running science fiction series on t.v.... ever. The Doctor faces evil aliens, warlords, spirits, and other strange anomalies out to destroy/take over the earth. And he almost always finds a diplomatic way to repelling the threats facing humanity. Now, that doesn't mean every one survives, or that his plans always work out, and sometimes he is forced to kill. But only when there is no other choice. Point is, the show has tons of conflict without the crutch of violence. And this is how it should be done in Skyrim, IF it was in the game. Not all quests could be solved peacefully, but it wouldn't hurt to make it an option. And hell, it is an rpg after all, If I want to save/ redeem someone, I should be given the tools to at least try. Whether I succeed or not isn't important, the CHOICE is.

I hope the game is not too combat fixated. Also, I don't want to sound misogynistic but seeing female bandits is a bit.. out of place. I mean really, out of all the occupations in the world I think it would be men that would generally land the "brutish thug" jobs.

With that in mind, I think depending on what type of character you play, certain types of enemies will be more likely to be immediately hostile. For instance, say if you were to run into some highwaymen:


- Character A is a big brutish Nord warrior. The highwayman notice this, and rather than attempt to reason with you (and get within your mace range ) they try to jump you outwright, in hopes of killing you and taking your stuff.

- Character B is a high personality imperial woman, just jumping out on a limb here but it's less likely that highwayman will rush out and beat you to death without being provoked. Not super intimidating, and naturally charismatic. Highwaymen will initiate dialogue with you and ask you for your money, since they figure they can bully you around without using force.. during dialouge you can befreind them with speechcraft and avoid the "toll" and fight altogether. Non-combat.


Really it should just be a matter of what your character is like. Tough looking low personality characters should naturally draw negative attention and raise aggression levels of enemies, wheras high personality, less intimidating characters would be more likely to get chances for dialouge, or have enemies simply not initiate combat like they would for a character who "looks like trouble." I mean a barbarian with a battle axe strapped to his back is more likely to draw a fight than a lightweight and high personality person. Would be nice if bandits and highwaymen would have a higher chance of initiating dialogue with non-intimidating characters than intimidating characters.

I agree, morrowind had plenty of this if i remember correctly.

In DAO, the PC has no character because it's a projection of what the player wants that character to be. In ME2 the character is flat because you only get benefit if you go full [censored], or full niceguy. If you try to remain neutral, or pick and choose between the two, the game punishes you. The game encourages you to make your character flat, which is just ridiculous.

ME has no long lasting decisions except for one. What I do in Feros doesn't affect what happens in Noveria or vice versa. You can talk down Saren, and that is a consequence, but it's hardly long lasting. It's just a simple "skip the boss fight" type choice, which you can do easily in many RPGs with or without sufficient diplomacy. I'm playing through NWN2 right now, and I've already talked my way out of 3 "major" encounters (I've fought several as well). It's not a long lasting consequence. Mass Effect "choices" all boil down to picking red or blue, and sticking with it. They both lead to the same consequence and have no effect on the story. Now there was one major choice that actually mattered on Virmire, but one event does not a game make. And it wasn't all that major unless you chose to stick with the default party.

Now, I'm not saying that all choices need to have long lasting consequences, but saying that ME was "the perfect way to make more realistic human interaction" is a joke. Seriously, I've played RPGs where NPCs will stop talking to you if you piss them off enough and you say that ME has realistic human interaction? Please.

Speechcraft (as a whole system, not just the Oblivion system) is essential to RPGs. There should almost always be a way to talk your way through something unless it is something major like Alduin or something obvious like fighting a wolf. It just makes sense. And it isn't always a "Beg for mercy or fight" choice. It can be convincing someone that their ally is betraying them, or threatening them or even a simple "Look over there!" thing.

Red or blue is not flat, by any means. You apparently think that a character who is good or evil has no character then, right? Because they don't make realistic decisions based on the situation? Well ME was one of the first games of late to actually give you a neutral option in each dialog situation, and you can go back and forth between good and bad the entire game. How that affects the end of ME is not the subject of this topic. Obviously, it limits you later on if you choose neither, and I don't agree with that either.

OT: Let me put it this way, in Oblivion I could walk up to a beggar and ask him where to find something, and if I asked him again all he would say is the exact same thing over and over again, and I could do this indefinitely. Would you say that's more realistic human interaction?
Try the same thing with a random person in ME, most will say a comment about you or tell you to go away, or compliment you, or say nothing at all, and a very few will actually have a conversation with you. THAT is more realistic, and much more like real humans. Go to your nearest mall and try it out to see the point IRL.

As for any additional argument to state that ME is not a good example for improvements on dialogue and persuasion, refer to the original point I made and understand the simplicity of it. Being able to use dialogue to make drastically different decisions instead of just typical combat has been a huge part of both ME games. I could point out hundreds of missions where this is the case. For a good example - Bring Down the Sky - ME1

I think that should make my point clear enough for you to see despite your apparent bias against the example I made. (Keep in mind also, I made the reference to all Bioware games, past, present, and future, not just ME)

Edit: Oh yeah, I almost forgot how ridiculous your first sentence there is. Stating that "the PC has no character because it's a projection of what the player wants that character to be" is such a great example of making no point whatsoever. That is EXACTLY how all the TES games are designed to be, along with almost all RPG's I know of. What RPG is there that doesn't make the PC what the player wants the character to be??? :rofl:

I agree. I had played through the original Fallout one time with a diplomatic character who barely had to fight. I enlisted some allies (who did most of my fighting for me) and resolved to finish the main storyline by seeking a less conflictive approach. I believe in both end-game areas (the military base and the Master's hideout), you could basically sneak through by dressing as the enemy and passing various speech/lie checks.

Every RPG I've played through gives you a neutral option for most dialogue. In some, there are several options, they and often lead to differing consequences. I honestly think that ME could have had better C&C simply by making the results of charm different from the results of intimidate different from the results of neutral. Neither one would have to be superior to the other, but depending on who you were talking to, one could be better than the other. Also, if you try to go back and forth between good and evil the entire game, you'd have to be pumping your skill points into both of them and ignoring your other skills. Just as much of a punishment as if you chose to go neutral and missed out on some sweet sweet quest rewards.



In ME you can only talk to a select few people. These people got care from Bioware to give you a superior conversation than any TES game has offered. Ever. TES dialogue is consistently used as a way to present information on what to do to the player rather than as a storytelling medium as Bioware uses it. And why couldn't I ask the person whose wife's body I just retrieved the directions to Flux? What's up with that? Well, it's because your conversations are there to progress story, not to get you information. If you talked to a person once, but forgot what they told you it would svck if they refused to talk to you again, no? I'm pretty sure that, in reality, I can say "oh could you repeat what you told me? I'm afraid I forgot".



There are no drastically different decisions unless you purposefully pick the inferior middle path. As long as you stick with red or blue, you will get the same (read: the best) result every time. That said, I haven't played any expansions of ME, only the main game (but I've played that 3 times, so it totally counts ).



Mass Effect

A certain quest in Oblivion involves mistreatment of a prisoner with torture. You can use speechcraft and spells to avoid that violence (thankfully for me or it would have ruined the guild for me).

It adds a rewarding element to games when you can control situations with the spoken word. After all "Death and life are in the power of the tongue:"- Proverbs 18:21.

While I agree there should be, sometimes, the option of peaceful resolution in some contexts, Elder Scrolls leans more (and this is debatable of course) towards sword and sorcery than anything else. And sword and sorcery is about adventure and danger (and lone heroes).

Yes. Oblivion's speechwheel mini-game was so poorly done. Options like threatening should be available to avoid bloodshed.

"- Back off!"
"- Or what?"
"- Or...else!"

Some people seem to be getting het up about the whole OB approach to speechcraft. That is the LAST thing I want. It was a pretty useless and boring skill, with no sense of actually talking to someone. I took it several times regardless, because it suited the characters I was choosing to play. Even the MW speechcraft system was better than that.

What I'd REALLY like to see is speech and dialogue trees which will/won't work based on which options you choose (some options may sound good but have a negative effect) and also depend on the level of your speechcraft skill. As I qualified in the OP, I don't think it's likely to happen, but that's what I'd really like to see, and what would really improve the gameplay for me. I'd even like it if sometimes, there's just no way to convince someone, even if you choose all the right lines and your skill is maxed, because, to be honest, sometimes people just won't budge on an issue. But I'd like the option to try in all instances.

I disagree whole-heartedly with the suggestion that dialogue lacks conflict. In many ways, it's just a different kind of fighting, and if I'm talking in an attempt to save my life (or someone else's), and there's a risk that I'll say the wrong thing and have to fight anyway, then I'd say that's conflict and tension for you. Afterall, the conflict arises from two characters having different goals (e.g. a bandit and the player), and it's only the resolution that would change with this speechcraft idea (e.g. slaughter the bandit, convince him to leave you alone).

I'd llike to see that too, Vicorva. FNV gave lots of options and I think it made for deeper stories when you could mediate and/or negotiate. I'm looking for great writing with depth and emotion in Skyrim along with great gameplay using magic and combat. I want the stories to touch me and make me feel something. If Skyrim does that, I'll be a happy Dovahkiin.

:::dragon/dovahkiin smiley here:::

I really like the Fallout way. You can actually get the "last boss" to surrender with a good speechcraft skill. It should be the same here.

I'd like to see some Speechcraft options that also rely on secondary stats:
Intimidate could use the average of Speechcraft and Strength to affect how likely an NPC is to feel threatened.
Admire could use an average of Personality and Speechcraft to determine how well an NPC accepts a compliment.
Taunt could use Agility and Speechcraft to determine how angry and frustrated the NPC becomes.
Joke could use something like Luck and Speechcraft to reflect a "carefree" philosophy.

That way, a physically powerful character would be better at Intimidation, a "proper gentleperson" would be more effective at Admiring, a shifty "sneak" would be able to Taunt and survive the consequences, and a naturally 'happy-go-lucky" character would have better odds at telling jokes. That doesn't mean that a character without those secondary traits would be unable to do them, but it would require higher Speechcraft skill to accomplish them successfully.

Of course, all of this assumes that TES V doesn't go with the mind-numbingly boring "automatic success" philosophy that OB used for most of its actions, or the Speechcraft mini-game abomination that had absolutely nothing to do with "speech" beyond the lables on the buttons.

I have to disagree. Persuasion will be a viable way of conflict resolution if and when games are able to parse natural human language. Till then, i would appreciate those in favour of softer approaches to provide other implementations.

?I disagree whole-heartedly with the suggestion that dialogue lacks conflict.?

As any self help book on fiction writing will tell you, dialogue is a form of action, and therefore can indeed possess tension and severe latent conflict. However, we're talking about human generated dialogue, with its infinite possibilities,nuances, body alnguage amplification, voice tone, context, and so forth. Dialogue in video games is a needed oversimplification that strips aways most of the natural expressivity. Current imlementations via dialogue trees are just too clumsy fot it to be a viable tool .

The attempt at a peaceful resolution to a situation should NEVER be a "given", and should always contain some element of risk. If you're trying to "talk down" an axe-wielding robber, there should always be a possibility that the NPC feels that he or she is being manipulated, and resorts to a violent ending of the conversation. The POSSIBILITY of a peaceful resolution is all I ask for; a guarantee just because your character meets some minimum requirement would be blatantly unrealistic and not very fun in my opinion.

I got that "blatantly phony" impression with a lot of the skill checks in FO3. If you met the requirement, it was automatic; if you didn't, it was impossible. There really needs to be a "gray zone" between the two, not necessarily (hopefully not) as wide as with many of the skill checks in MW, but still there.

Bull. The limits in game would make sense. Obviously games cant match human interactions anyway near perfect, but by your own reasoning we should do away with any dialogue, peaceful or violent, simply because we cant perfectly match human interaction . It takes nothing away from the tension as long as it is implemented well. In Mass effect there was a point in the game when team member A is fighting with team member B, and there are three outcomes, depending on your paragon/renegade level.

1. You side with team member A and now B hates you.

2. You side with B and A hates you.

3. You convince both of them the reapers are the enemies and both stay loyal.

This is a perfect example of conflict within a video game that has a lasting consequence, since whoever isn't loyal will more then likely die. I remember the first time this happened to me, I had literally sh*t my pants worrying who to side with because my paragon points weren't high enough. Now, it wasn't perfect, but it was effective. I know Skyrim isn't the same kind of game as Mass effect, but even if they adopted a more NV type system they could very effectively craft quests with plenty of conflict, and a chance at a peaceful resolution.

EDIT: I just want to add that speech shouldn't be a skill you can upgrade, but based more on your reputation, allies, and general interactions with people. Again, similar to NV, but more organic, and expanded upon.

It doesn't have to be perfect, which no feature is, nor does it have to mimic human speech like an IBM supercomputer. Just bring dialogue to par with current combat complexity and a solution will begin to loom. The current dialogue tree model seems inadequate , to say the least.

I do find your Mass Effect example the opposite of what 's desirable. I'd much rather have those outcomes be decided *BY ME* through action and then have member A and mermber B act accordingly.

Opposite of what you desire maybe. Speaking is a type of action. I want people to respond to what I say and respond to what I do. No reason it HAS to be one or the other.

As I said before, I wouldn't want speech to level up, as it should be more organic then that. NV's system should be modified and adopted to do away with any speech skills and instead just improve the reputation system between factions, towns, etc. That way social interactions are based entirely on who you know, what you've done, and how you act, limiting the effectiveness of what you say without taking away the option of saying it. And the ME thing was an example of conflict in a video game where there is no violence in which choice mattered, not an example of how the dialogue system for skyrim should be.