Approaching Choice To Dialogue

[BloodletterQ]

Having grown more fond of the western RPG as of late while still wanting to make a JRPG, I am wondering what your feelings on choosing the dialogue for your protagonist will be like. Since I'm also basing it from a novel I am writing, this means . I know that the Telltale Games have an established player character but give you the freedom to choose. Of course there's also the matter of making these choices matter. What are your feelings on making an option of dialogue feel authentic and not an illusion of freedom?

 

[MasterTaffer]

The best method I've seen is where the choices are based on what the player is doing rather than what they are saying, while having the game react accordingly. Doing it through dialogue is kinda tacky because you are essentially putting words into the player's mouth, which can grind against the player's actual intentions.

Also, keep in mind that in order for choices to be choices, the player needs to have some understanding in the moment of what effect the choices they are making will have on the game, be it now or later. Otherwise, you are making a game about consequences, not choice. Though both approaches can work if used correctly, it just depends on the game and situation.

 

[KenKrath]

Having grown more fond of the western RPG as of late while still wanting to make a JRPG, I am wondering what your feelings on choosing the dialogue for your protagonist will be like. I'm also basing my from a novel I am writing, this means . I know that the Telltale Games have an established player character but give you the freedom to choose. Of course there's also the matter of making these choices matter. What are your feelings on making an option of dialogue feel authentic and not an illusion of freedom?

I thought about this when I worked on my project, but the feeling was that for every choice that's given a repercussion would happen. IMO I think that is the only way you can make the option feel authentic. Once I started to think about how much work it was going to be I figured I'd just divert my resources and very limited time into creating an episodic film, because like you I also write a novel. To put this in perspective I could have had a character in my project participate in a battle or head to a tower to save someone. The end result might have been the same where he escapes but the repercussions of choosing one over the other would have been so severe that it would have been almost impossible to create all of these story branches. I know you mentioned dialogue and my example doesn't quite illustrate that, but it is something that I would do with dialogue choices as well.


You can also have choices that would lead the character into "Game Over" if they made the wrong choice, but at the end of the day the story outcome will be the same if there is only one correct choice.


Hopefully that helps.

 

[Anthony Xue]

Having grown more fond of the western RPG as of late while still wanting to make a JRPG, I am wondering what your feelings on choosing the dialogue for your protagonist will be like. Since I'm also basing it from a novel I am writing, this means . I know that the Telltale Games have an established player character but give you the freedom to choose. Of course there's also the matter of making these choices matter. What are your feelings on making an option of dialogue feel authentic and not an illusion of freedom?

First of all, it's probably a question of what the player is used to. I come from the school of western RPGs, and at first I didn't get why there were no dialogue choices in RPG Maker games at all. However, note that even in western RPGs dialogue choice for a long time wasn't used to express emotions, but to create dialogue puzzles, where the player would have to talk with the right persons about the right topics to advance a mystery plot, for instance.


That being said, I think you should be looking for this:


- Authenticity: If you're worried about staying in line with an established character, maybe offer choices only at points where they actually make a difference. If a dialogue only serves to hand some information to the player, choice is not relevant. But at conversation points where choice does matter, I think that every character with a bit of a brain will think his answer through. A certain response might be more in line with the character's personality, but even the kindest person will have a point where she will not agree with a suggestion because it would mean going against her own beliefs and self-interest too much. And then there are the really hard decisions, like if the only choice is between two evils (accept the help of the baron's army and risk him occupying your lands or face the invasion alone and risk losing the battle). Taking such a decision out of the hands of the player removes much of what makes a game different from a novel, in my opinion.


- Illusion of Freedom: Of course, this only matters if the decisions will actually make a difference, and this usually means much more work for you. In the "baron's army" example the game world would look really different afterwards depending on the player's choice. And the amount of work multiplies if you have to take into account the overlaying consequences of multiple decisions. This is why most developers shun away from giving the player actual options.


It might be possible to satisfy both needs by giving the player small choices at first, tracking the nature of his decisions and thus allowing him to develop the character instead of being force-fed a personality. For instance, if the player always donates to beggars, increase the character's "benevolence" flag. Then, when the big decisions arise, you could limit the available choices (thus saving yourself some work with the consequences) by referring to the player's "benevolence" or "selfishness" flags. The "Choice of" gamebooks follow this system.


There are other ways of having the player's dialogue choices matter without too much work, like lowering the merchant's prices if the player is always kind. But in the end, it comes down to how much more effort you can afford. Note that many of the Telltale games have choices, but no consequences, because if the player chooses an answer that would not coincide with the planned progress of the story, usually an NPC shows up and "fixes" the situation no matter what the player does.

 

[Studio Blue]

Having grown more fond of the western RPG as of late while still wanting to make a JRPG, I am wondering what your feelings on choosing the dialogue for your protagonist will be like. Since I'm also basing it from a novel I am writing, this means . I know that the Telltale Games have an established player character but give you the freedom to choose. Of course there's also the matter of making these choices matter. What are your feelings on making an option of dialogue feel authentic and not an illusion of freedom?

Due to the limitations of game engines, all dialogue choices are the illusion of freedom. The trick is to make the player feel like an option is close as humanly possible to what they would say in the given situation.


Telltale is an excellent example of how to do this, as their choices are pretty broad in the spectrum of responses. Actually, let me qualify that: The Walking Dead games have a rather broad range of responses. Game of Thrones does not. For example, in Walking Dead Season One, I opted to make Lee tell the truth, no matter how painful. A lot of the choices reflected the difficulty in telling the truth, and I found myself empathizing with Lee during those choices. In Season Two, I opted to have Clementine continue that tradition, having learned from Lee, and options came up to have her tell others "I won't lie for you."


So it's more than having a strict set of choices (like in games like Dragon Age) and more of having the choices you make in early sections influence the choices you can make later on (like in TWD). The more the player feels like they're tailoring the character to their personality, the more they'll appreciate the dialogue choices.


On the other side, there are players who will just hate being forced into any dialogue choice, and want total freedom (or as close to it as they can get). If you're catering to those players, best to leave the dialogue choices to only accepting quests, rejecting quests, and furthering quests, like in games like Skyrim.


I hope this helps. You actually bring up a very complex part of game design that has no one right answer. In the end, the story you are trying to tell will mold your dialogue options.

 

[LaFlibuste]

In (more modern?) western RPGs dialogue choices are used for the player to roleplay his character. This not only works but is mandatory to some extent because the main character(s) are blank slate character for which the player can select looks, stats, etc. This wouldn't work so well for a pre-defined character in a pre-selected rigid class with no customization option whatsoever. JRPGs are often much more story driven and main character customization is pretty limited if available at all, so dialogue choices make much less choice. Indeed, if your main character is supposed to be a simpleton farmhand, how could he conceivably have dialogue choices where he expresses knowledge,t act, refinement or anything like that? It would just feel weird... But if the player gets to decide who/what his avatar in the game is, he should also get to decide what he says and how he interacts (to some extent)...

 

[Basileus]

This takes me back to Chrono Trigger, specifically the beginning. I feel like the courtroom scene was an excellent example of choice and consequences - and Chrono is a silent protagonist so there isn't even dialogue!


For those not familiar, after the first arc with rescuing Marle from the time portal we find out that she is the princess and Crono gets arrested on suspicion of kidnapping her (since she likes to sneak out of the castle and they lost track of her due to said time portal). Apparently the people of this kingdom actually have some rights because Crono is brought before an actual judge and jury for trial. Now a lot of games would simply play the cutscene out and find an excuse to declare Crono guilty. Well Chrono Trigger decided the player should actually be judged. Several character witnesses are called in to either vouch for Crono's good deeds or condemn his selfish actions, all depending on what the player did at the Millennium Fair at the opening.


Choosing to pick up Marle's pendant before talking to her when you first bump into her causes one person to vouch against you.


Trying to sell Marle's pendant to a merchant who wants it another one to turn on you.


Trying to leave Marle while she's shopping is another.


Eating an old man's lunch that is lying on the counter is another.


Not helping a girl find her lost cat is another.


If the player acts like a jerk, all or most of the witnesses testify that Crono is a jerk and he is judged guilty. If the player was nice then the witnesses testify on his behalf and Crono is found innocent of all the worst charges. Sure, Crono ends up in jail and awaiting execution either way, but if the player made good choices then it only happens because the scheming minister lies to the warden about Crono's much lighter sentence and Luca ends up saving him regardless because she was worried. But there's just something so satisfying about showing up the minister in the courtroom and forcing him to rely on outright cheating instead of walking straight into his trap and feeling like you got what you deserved when all the people you were jerks to/near testify against you.


I feel like choice should be handled more like that in games, where the player's actions have noticeable consequences even if the overall story ends up the same. Dialogue choices can work the same way if you plan them out enough. You don't need to write multiple entirely different stories - you just need to find points where multiple things can lead to similar outcomes. Perhaps branch the story a little then loop back, like a choice taking you to one of three different roads that all end up at the same town to continue the story. Just having those three segments where something different happens it cool and worth going back to even if it doesn't actually change the hero's destination.


My strongest bit of advice is that you need to stop thinking like a novelist and start thinking like a programmer. Look at everything as a single system - instead of "different scenarios" see them as one program that does actions sequentially, checks for switches and variables, performs actions based on those factors, and ultimately progresses the player along. Think of things you can track or how to call them later. Player makes a jerk choice? Player_Jerk_Int +1. Player needs to get an item from someone? If Player_Jerk_Int >= 5 Then player has is told to take a hike and needs to find another way, Else player receives item because he's not a jerk. Nearly everything the player does can be tracked and with switches, variables, and Common Events it is possible to call the things you track to decide how events should play out. You don't need a single choice point that makes huge shifts in the story, just have cumulative scores that let you add some nuance to alter how scenes play out based on how the player has played up to that point. The feeling of getting to tailor a playthrough to the player's actions is very powerful if done well.

 

[Ryzler]

Not just dialogue but actions are choices too, as has been said here already.


It may be worth taking a look at how the Dark Souls series handles consequences and outcomes to your actions. Whether it is for fighting a side boss, freeing an NPC from prison, killing an NPC. A lot of actions have bad consequences and good results. For instance, in Dark Souls 3 I killed a knight for his armor, but then I later found out that he could of helped me fight a Fire Demon as well as giving me a new emote. The armor could of been worth it to some but it was too heavy for my build and I just wanted it for my collection, I didn't need help fighting the Fire Demon, would of liked to have the emote in my collection as well.


For every choice you need at least two things to change: One good and one bad. Let the players decide what is most important to them. For instance, if you free someone from prison then you can get them to join your party, but you have to go through a really difficult side boss because the "Warden" wants him behind bars. But if you leave him in prison then you miss out on the chance at a party member but further down the road you haven't alienated yourself with the town guard and can join them like a guild/faction. Game changing and world altering results should usually be obvious before making the choice so that the player does not accidentally ruin their game. But surprises are also necessary and your players should find out less defining (but still important to some) reactions to their choices later down the road.

 

[Eraine]

I'm working on a game that relies heavily on the consequences of your choices. NPC's behave differently depending on your choices/answers, action become available (or not) etc. I do find it hard to write at times though, 'cause I would really like the players to experience certain outcomes, and have to keep myself from turning all choices into fake-choices by making the endresult the same.


I'm also thinking about building in some sort of "groundhog day"/game-over feature in case of choices that end in NPC's leaving or similar consequences, choices that cause the player to be unable to achieve the game's endgoal.


So I think having choices of dialog or action that really matter are great (that's why I'm working on this game), but it surprises me that even though I know I love and want that, I still have a hard time "punishing" my player for choosing what I consider to be the "wrong" option. (Also, coming up with these "wrong" answers without them being very obviously the the wrong ones is difficult in some cases)

 

[Basileus]

@Eraine


That sounds like a cool project. As a player, I certainly wouldn't mind at least a few instances of railroading if you think a certain experience/outcome is cool enough. As long as you let me have the freedom to make my own choices (and be damned by them if need be) then it's all good.


As a dev, if you're having trouble with punishing your player for some of their choices then I highly recommend you try out some visual novels. Some of the really good ones have amazing "Bad Ends" where certain actions or choices lead to death. These can be really awesome scenes since they can give a lot of characterization that you wouldn't get from a more "normal" outcome and it allows for some optional foreshadowing where players that take a bad choice see a character's true colors before they would otherwise be revealed in the story. This allows for a variation of player experience where some players will take the good choice and not find out until later that the character was actually evil and/or crazy while others take the bad choice and have the character suddenly knife them to death...which can add a lot of tension when they reload and play through while knowing what this character is truly capable of. They don't always have to be a Game Over though, it could just mean killing off an NPC and having the play the rest of the game without them. Find a few that are cheap or free, or maybe look up a let's play of some famous visual novels like Fate/Stay Night, Tsukihime, or School Days. 


With a little inspiration, you too can force sadistic choices and punishments on your players that stick with players years after they play the game. Here's a sample of an infamous, vicious one from Fate/Stay Night:


1. Save [major highly-sympathetic female character you just defeated].


2. Bring down the knife.


Guess which one leads to a Bad End and which is required to progress the story. The answer may surprise you.