Bay 12 Games Forum
Dwarf Fortress => DF Suggestions => Topic started by: Scoops Novel on March 14, 2017, 05:42:52 pm
-
What are the options DF has for improving the chat system?
Toady doesn't want to use the same system as books, as he finds it's immersion breaking. But to be honest, without going full chatbot i'm struggling to see what else is feasible with a shred of personality.
-
Are there any examples of perfectly simulated conversation without a script anywhere? If that's what he's aiming for (and I'm not sure that was implied in his fotf answer) he's going to have to invent something new.
Ultima Ratio Regum has been working on simulated conversation for quite a while now and it still seems to be at the 'tell me about...'--'simulated reply of knowledge with variations' stage which isn't that much more complex than DF.
Is full natural conversation actually needed (or indeed, an aim of the game)? Filling in the gaps with imagined small talk seems to work.
A filter on background noise would be nice. By which I mean, I like having various conversations going on around me, but perhaps limit them to one or two at random. Feasibly I'm not going to pick up on 10 ongoing conversations in a noisy pub. Then add an option to listen more carefully to a particular conversation that you find interesting. Or an option to listen for a particular topic (rumours of artifacts for example).
-
Hey, i said nothing about perfect conversation. Stuff like the value judgement system people can discuss is a good start, but you need banter in the game for conversation to feel natural. None of us would care about our favorite characters if all they ever talked about was the nature of justice.
Abstraction seems like the only option for that.
-
Hey, i said nothing about perfect conversation. Stuff like the value judgement system people can discuss is a good start, but you need banter in the game for conversation to feel natural. None of us would care about our favorite characters if all they ever talked about was the nature of justice.
Abstraction seems like the only option for that.
But abstraction isn't particularly personal, is it?
"Urist recounts how his village was destroyed by a dragon in the midwinter of 675."
"Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold".
Right now characters have enough information to argue values, say how they're feeling, say what they want/need, recall elements of their own history, mention rumours and tell jokes without punchlines.
They could also feasibly display individual mannerisms (scratches his scar) and spontaneously start performing. So what's missing?
Variations dependent on personality/ethics/upbringing would be a good start (like URR). That's just a matter of adding a whole bunch of text to draw from.
Then location specific stuff would help although that would be harder. 'Ooh a dark cave, let's hunt some Kobolds'. 'Watch out for alligators!'. They already know enough to mention that 'giant ostriches roam free out here'.
What else is needed to make characters seem more real?(Besides continuous perfect conversation, which we'll put aside for now).
-
Emoting and gestures would greatly help in making characters seem more realistic. Most human conversation is non-verbal after all, and it would help avert the "that makes me feel angry" trope that dominates DF conversations right now.
Consider the implications between the following, and how it would help make the characters seem more "real" and personalized.
Urist McWarrior, stoic: Death is all around us.
Urist McCivilian, terrified: Death is all around us.
Urist McPsychopath, laughing: Death is all around us.
Much better than "Death is all around us. This makes me feel X".
One thing that could be interesting is if there were an "emotion cube" with a few individual axes to determine a unit's emotional state. These could be modified and influence how other creatures treat you, similar to how yielding works.
One possible such "cube" could be an "positive-arousal-dominant" cube.
Relaxed/Negative/Submissive: Stoic
Aroused/Negative/Submissive: Afraid
Relaxed/Positive/Submissive: Smiling
Relaxed/Negative/Dominant: Contempt
Aroused/Positive/Submissive: Laughing
Relaxed/Positive/Dominant: Smirking
Aroused/Negative/Dominant: Enraged
Aroused/Positive/Dominant: Excited
This could be useful from an AI standpoint because units could respond to cues from each axis separately. The dominant axis could be linked to morale, the positive axis could be linked to friendship, and the arousal axis could function as a multiplier.
-
But abstraction isn't particularly personal, is it?
"Urist recounts how his village was destroyed by a dragon in the midwinter of 675."
"Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold".
Nah man, you're missing all the descriptors where the meat is. "Urist cries, face scrunched into bitter rage. He lingers on hows easily they were ruined." "Thorin gets bored and seques Actually songs are already more interesting then the example you gave.
I ain't saying strip all the first-person details we've already got in the game, and i would really like URR's Q&A system. I think you need a abstract system in addition for the edge cases, like banter.
Good ideas otherwise, peeps.
-
But abstraction isn't particularly personal, is it?
"Urist recounts how his village was destroyed by a dragon in the midwinter of 675."
"Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold".
Nah man, you're missing all the descriptors where the meat is. "Urist cries, face scrunched into bitter rage. He lingers on hows easily they were ruined." "Thorin gets bored and seques Actually songs are already more interesting then the example you gave.
I ain't saying strip all the first-person details we've already got in the game, and i would really like URR's Q&A system. I think you need a abstract system in addition for the edge cases, like banter.
Good ideas otherwise, peeps.
Hmm. But where would you put something like that and still have it seem natural? "Right, now I'll stop travelling and indulge in banter" seems odd and being stopped by the system to look at some abstracted banter would be annoying.
Right now we can catch fleeting extracts of conversation around town and half pay attention to our companions as they argue which all seems natural (if somewhat limited in content). Throwing in an extracted description in amongst that noise would be distracting. So how would you see it working?
-
BTW, i agree the conversation spam near npc's needs work. It should really blur together, with maybe the odd snippet breaking through.
On topic, banter is mostly so conversations aren't just information dispensaries. At the moment, i can effectively walk up to a stranger and get into a in-depth conversation about Syria without anyone batting a eyelid. Realistically, you'd sidle up to someone who didn't look too busy, say "Hi, odd question i know but where did you get those shoes? I love them!", natter for a minute and then you explain you've been in a coma and would quite like to know about current affairs.
In other words, you need a system for small talk, buttering people up and putting them down. When spirits get low around the campfire, you don't talk about the righteousness of your mission, you tell a joke.
So you'd have a friendliness system which determines how willing people are to talk to you, socializing which can affect mood and perception of the player, etc.
"Right, now I'll stop travelling and indulge in banter" seems odd and being stopped by the system to look at some abstracted banter would be annoying.
Now that you mention it, fast travel could do with being a sight less vague. It would be annoying to force a discussion about the local gossip, so instead you could set your conversation preferences during fast travel, bounce it off your companions own preferences and have the result summarized at the end of the journey. You would only be pulled out of fast travel for a conversation if it suddenly got weighty or key information was divulged. You could also be informed of individuals mood (or the parties for large groups), so morale and leadership become an ongoing concern.
Right now we can catch fleeting extracts of conversation around town and half pay attention to our companions as they argue which all seems natural (if somewhat limited in content). Throwing in an extracted description in amongst that noise would be distracting. So how would you see it working?
Lastly, the idea is that people discussing something actually important will stand out rather then the opposite. Throw a stick at the moment and it will land by 6 people hyperventilating over how terrifying someone is.
-
I don't know, based on real life conversations, unless you're with friends, literally half of it is talking about the weather. That doesn't seem like it would be too hard to write in. Your adventurer isn't going to be great friends with most people he talks to, and he isn't going into business with most people he runs into (so that excludes a large purpose-driven area of conversation), so between personal history, stories, and other things the game does manage, weather would seem to cover most of the remaining routine conversation.
-
Weather conversation exists already. Nothing needs adding except the triggers for making npcs do it a bit more. (And more variety of course, but that goes for everything).
-
Weather conversation exists already. Nothing needs adding except the triggers for making npcs do it a bit more. (And more variety of course, but that goes for everything).
Ah. Mostly play fortress mode, so I hadn't noticed the few times I was in adventure mode.
I think people are over-estimating the variety of conversation topics that occurs with people you aren't close to, especially once you factor out conversation types that adventurers don't need. (Your adventurer is probably not going to the local carpenter and ordering custom cabinets, for example). If those topics are a bit formulaic, well, I don't expect the game is going to miraculously become a font of original metaphor and hyperbole - passing the Turing test for just the conversation part seems a bit far-fetched as even being worthwhile.
-
Come on mates. Being a conman needs to be a viable playstyle in adventure mode, or what is the planned thief playstyle actually worth? This could be the first "rogue"like to put "charming" back into it's vocabulary.
I mean, how else are you supposed to defuse a situation, or gain someones trust? What mechanic would you create that allows me to explain you've got the wrong guy? Adventure mode is supposed to generate interesting stories, not just detailed murders.
I think you need a generalized system to do this properly, not just a "small talk" option or a "calm down" option or the inevitable 50 million options that it would take if you do it case by case. Something like URR's collection of conversation keywords,
(https://i.imgur.com/jwWdPeS.jpg)
forming abstract, lightly detailed descriptions instead of URR's time-consuming, individualized precreated sentences. Just like books.
(http://i.imgur.com/DZZIhnp.jpg)
Shoot me if that seems impossible.
-
Folks could discuss work and pass on work small amounts of work skills maybe? Particularly useful for something like swimming that cannot really be learned safely by experience.
-
Folks could discuss work and pass on work small amounts of work skills maybe? Particularly useful for something like swimming that cannot really be learned safely by experience.
That'd be good. Have some training going on between companions like in Fortress mode. That's going quite a bit beyond conversation though.
I think the problem is that 'camp for 10 hours' or 'build a hut for 3 days' all happens off-screen (and most would prefer it that way) and that's where all the friendship forming conversations between companions would take place. Which leaves you with offering the player the choice of seeing what they're talking about or not. And if you do that you've lost the natural spontaneous nature of DF conversation.
A bit of flavor text for the 'time passes' screen would be kind of interesting I suppose. Not sure if it achieves what the op was after.
Camp for 2 days
...
Urist teaches Roder how to bite
...
Udir recalls the battle between you and a Kea which occurred 2 days ago
...
Sleeping
...
Urist prays to Zam Powerswords God of light, dark, hope and torture
...
-
Exactly. :)
-
Folks could discuss work and pass on work small amounts of work skills maybe? Particularly useful for something like swimming that cannot really be learned safely by experience.
That'd be good. Have some training going on between companions like in Fortress mode. That's going quite a bit beyond conversation though.
I think the problem is that 'camp for 10 hours' or 'build a hut for 3 days' all happens off-screen (and most would prefer it that way) and that's where all the friendship forming conversations between companions would take place. Which leaves you with offering the player the choice of seeing what they're talking about or not. And if you do that you've lost the natural spontaneous nature of DF conversation.
A bit of flavor text for the 'time passes' screen would be kind of interesting I suppose. Not sure if it achieves what the op was after.
Camp for 2 days
...
Urist teaches Roder how to bite
...
Udir recalls the battle between you and a Kea which occurred 2 days ago
...
Sleeping
...
Urist prays to Zam Powerswords God of light, dark, hope and torture
...
The problem is basically the same as the economy. The problem of given that everyone does not exist when we are not here how can things possibly work consistently.
The solution is to use metrics. If during play X amount happens in Y time, we simply upload what happens to the metrics that control the global values underlying the system. Basically we start with a generic value and then when the player offloads we calculate what is actually going to change in a given day based upon how long the site was offloaded, changing the value accordingly.
-
That...has nothing to do with small talk...or skill training within an adventurer party...or anything really.
--Awaits thread destroying massive walk of text to explain why small-talk is impossible without a complex socio-political model in place--
-
Okay, back on topic. Is there any alternative to the system we've proposed? Like i said, Toady has floated the idea but he's dismissed it as immersion breaking.
-
Okay, back on topic. Is there any alternative to the system we've proposed? Like i said, Toady has floated the idea but he's dismissed it as immersion breaking.
I agree with Toady, switching screens is immersion breaking, abstract conversation is too (and I don't think there's a natural place to put it).
Simply adding value discussions makes npcs (especially arguing companions) seem so much more alive than they were before.
More variety of responses, filtered background noise on crowds (and chance to focus on topics of interest) and a smattering of location awareness would enhance the current system.
Then variations on everything based on personality and relationship. And a mechanism to adjust your own tone maybe.
It's a lot of monotonous typing for Toady, but it'll make a big difference I think.
Now, when romance is introduced it'll get complicated. Maybe it'll all be poetry, gift giving and late night dancing but something slightly more robust is probably needed.
-
--Awaits thread destroying massive walk of text to explain why small-talk is impossible without a complex socio-political model in place--
<3
Sortofish on topic I don't really care which system he goes with, they both serve their purpose as far as I'm concerned, if the current conversations get too repetitive throw in even more lines. NPCs need to get way better at recognizing context across the board though, in either case, like maybe not go on about how enjoyable it is to improve your fighting when said fight has cost you both arms and your balls.
-
And a mechanism to adjust your own tone maybe.
So you'd add that on something like the URR system? I'm not actually sure trying to put your own spin on one of several premade lines is actually preferable to a more vague system. You'll become an actor choosing how to deliver his lines rather then a guy making a point.
I like the idea of copying URR and adding a lot of variation depending on the character, but you can't prepare every conceivable sentence. I think you've got to use something vague for the edge cases so players can say weird shit.
So, you'd end up with something like;
"Where is the chef?"
"Why would i tell you, *insult*?"
You expound on the virtues of silence in the eyes of the anathi people. The elf looks amused. Offhandedly, you conclude with a mention of their genocide at your hands. The speech is full of dry menace.
"He's in the shower. Hey man, there's a therapist in Oldtown. I'm just saying."
The tattooed elf backs away slowly.
I think that flows pretty well.
-
That...has nothing to do with small talk...or skill training within an adventurer party...or anything really.
--Awaits thread destroying massive walk of text to explain why small-talk is impossible without a complex socio-political model in place--
It does.
-
Are you worried it will be weird if companions can teach skills and exchange information, but say rival adventurer parties can't?
If you're concerned about whether the system itself is feasible, i'm pretty confident.
-
Are you worried it will be weird if companions can teach skills and exchange information, but say rival adventurer parties can't?
If you're concerned about whether the system itself is feasible, i'm pretty confident.
Player fortress dorfs currently train each other, even though no-one else in the world can manage it. Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to have your adventuring companions do the same. Just skip some time, same as building a hut.
But perhaps at this point, Toady would rather simulate something more universal for all sites and adventuring parties.
Not sure what would happen if all those goblin hordes started training every day for hundreds of years before attacking you though...
-
Come to think of it, you need some kind of interrupt system. 3 options;
- Long-winded speeches will provide a "interrupt?" prompt halfway through
- People who want to interrupt eveybody all the time can enable a option which provides the prompt every turn
- You should be able to interrupt retroactively, in case succinct but mindblowing information is provided and the above options weren't available.
-
Player fortress dorfs currently train each other, even though no-one else in the world can manage it. Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to have your adventuring companions do the same. Just skip some time, same as building a hut.
But perhaps at this point, Toady would rather simulate something more universal for all sites and adventuring parties.
Not sure what would happen if all those goblin hordes started training every day for hundreds of years before attacking you though...
That is a problem with training in general, actually a problem with skills in general. What the game badly needs is skill caps, so that not everybody can become a legendary whatever in just a few years of training, whether this is formal training or just work conversations along the lines I suggested earlier. Actually the game needs three caps, the first is the amount that can be obtained without a specific trainer of higher skill, the second is the amount that can be obtained from training in general and the third is the total maximum a given individual can obtain.
The goblin hordes training for 100s of years will not become invincible because there is a maximum limit to how good a creature can get through training. To exceed that the creature would have to actually practice the skill for real and would still be capped at any rate.
-
Player fortress dorfs currently train each other, even though no-one else in the world can manage it. Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to have your adventuring companions do the same. Just skip some time, same as building a hut.
But perhaps at this point, Toady would rather simulate something more universal for all sites and adventuring parties.
Not sure what would happen if all those goblin hordes started training every day for hundreds of years before attacking you though...
That is a problem with training in general, actually a problem with skills in general. What the game badly needs is skill caps, so that not everybody can become a legendary whatever in just a few years of training, whether this is formal training or just work conversations along the lines I suggested earlier. Actually the game needs three caps, the first is the amount that can be obtained without a specific trainer of higher skill, the second is the amount that can be obtained from training in general and the third is the total maximum a given individual can obtain.
The goblin hordes training for 100s of years will not become invincible because there is a maximum limit to how good a creature can get through training. To exceed that the creature would have to actually practice the skill for real and would still be capped at any rate.
Yes, agree with this. It should take several years of training and real-life practice to get anyone to a half-decent level. When we can start interacting with the surrounding pops we should hire soldiers to do real soldiering and train low level militia rabble in their downtime to fend of keas and giant rats.
Of course, it's 'fantasy simulation' and not 'real-life simulation' and there's always the odd immortal character in fantasy books who's won thousands of duels and is close to invincible in one on one combat. So absolute caps for training sure but perhaps fractional increases for actual practice that would be unnoticeable except after many hundreds of battles.
-
That is a problem with training in general, actually a problem with skills in general. What the game badly needs is skill caps, so that not everybody can become a legendary whatever in just a few years of training, whether this is formal training or just work conversations along the lines I suggested earlier. Actually the game needs three caps, the first is the amount that can be obtained without a specific trainer of higher skill, the second is the amount that can be obtained from training in general and the third is the total maximum a given individual can obtain.
The goblin hordes training for 100s of years will not become invincible because there is a maximum limit to how good a creature can get through training. To exceed that the creature would have to actually practice the skill for real and would still be capped at any rate.
I think there should be a absolute cap for individuals, determined randomly based upon character and attributes. That would be among other things necessary to give the adventurer's labour an economic value to sites (with a functioning economy).
-
IMO a (mostly) abstracted conversation system would work FAR better than actual dialog. With current technology, there are limits to how realistically you can simulate dialog, and those limits are unfortunately not very impressive. Here's just an example of a few abstracted conversation pieces that would probably be quite hard to simulate as actual dialog:
1) CraftsDwarf and FarmerDwarf discuss the intricacies of making toy anvils. CraftsDwarf appears to be knowledgeable on the topic, while FarmersDwarf appears to not understand most of what CraftsDwarf is saying. CraftsDwarf appears to be immersed in the conversation, with a hint of smugness. FarmersDwarf appears to be uninterested in the conversation, and is trying to discreetly steer to a new topic.
2) HeroDwarf makes a snarky comment about BanditA's face. HeroDwarf makes a masterful delivery of the joke. HeroDwarf appears to be calm. BanditA appears to be fuming with rage. BanditB is rolling on the ground, laughing.
3) WarriorDwarf is delivering a passionate speech about defeating the elfs to the group of soldiers. WarriorDwarf mentions the power of friendship and religion, and denounces the evil elves. The speech is delivered passionately, but WarriorDwarf stutters throughout. The group of soldiers appears to be listening intently to the speech. The group of soldiers appears to be disheartened. Some of the soldiers are quietly laughing.
4) ConDwarf is claiming to KingDwarf that he is his long-lost son HeirDwarf. ConDwarf recounts a fake story of how he has disappeared and his life up to this point. ConDwarf's story is exceptionally believable. ConDwarf appears to be passionate and excited. KingDwarf appears to be totally buying ConDwarf's story, with a hint of being of excited. KingDwarf is barely holding back tears. The king's bodyguards are listening intently. The king's bodyguards appear skeptical of ConDwarf's story. Some of the bodyguards are grimacing at ConDwarf.
If you ask me, I'd be fine with the above examples being abstracted like this in the game, because how could the game realistically simulate:
1) A discussion on the intricacies of a random, technical topic?
2) A masterfully delivered joke about some guy's face?
3) A poorly delivered speech?
4) A long-winded, made-up but believable story by a conman?
These are just some of many examples of conversations that couldn't realistically be well-simulated in the game as dialogs. Some more simple statements and questions(e.g. "What's the price of dwarven beer here?") could be displayed as actual dialog, sure, but I'd rather have an abstracted, but complex and believable conversation system, rather than a concrete but poor paraphrased dialog system.
Remember, the less time Toady has to spend implementing a bunch of pre-scripted conversation templates that would get old and repetitive quickly anyway, the more time he can invest in making conversations more diverse, detailed and believable.
-
I think you should presents each characters vocal quirks the first time you hear them, and then in a separate window to keep it from being too information dense. We already have things like "he has a scratchy voice", you just need to add stuff like accents, "he talks ponderously", slang, etc. There's also physicality; are they waving their hands around, getting in your face, pacing?
You need to be able to dial in on particular people if you're talking to crowds, see their emotion, pay attention to them in particular. Attention; you can only have so much of it, and your empathy skills should determine how well you can read a crowd (which needs to be its own entity). You shouldn't be able to "look" at everyone before you reply (not smoothly anyway); you could glance at everyone or stare at someone but not both.
-
Attention; you can only have so much of it, and your empathy skills should determine how well you can read a crowd (which needs to be its own entity)
Obviously. Social skills should be a huge factor in conversations, and how they play out. Currently, social skills are almost all the same and have an exceedingly minor role in the game. I imagine they could be improved in a way like this:
1) Conversationalist: determines mainly your capacity for small-talk, but also has a slight effect on other types of conversations. A high conversationalist skill lets you make small-talk that is actually interesting to the second person, opening the way for things like making a friend, getting someone's guard down, making someone more likely to divulge information that they're not normally supposed to, etc. Capped by your empathy level.
2) Comedian: determines the quality of your insults, and how likable you are in general. While conversationalist is meant to have a greater effect on long-term relationships, comedian can be used to gain a temporary, but significant, relationship boost with someone(if the context is valid, of course). High-quality insults could also be used to make someone lose their temper, potentially making them make rash and irrational decisions. Capped by creativity.
3) Judge of intent: how effectively you can judge other's emotions and detect lies during a conversation. A high level in this skill lets you get accurate info on what the other person is feeling, how interested they are in the conversation, how believable they are finding your story, etc. while also letting you see through otherwise highly believable lies. Capped by the your empathy or intuition, whichever is higher.
4) Liar: how good your lies are, obviously. For simple lies, like answering 'yes/no' questions dishonestly, only this skill is used, but for more elaborate lies(including made-up stories like the one I made above) it is used in conjunction with the persuasion skill. Capped by your creativity.
5) Intimidator: how legitimate your threats come across, obviously.
6) Persuader: used when trying to convince someone to do a particular action, or trying to change their values. Also used when making long, elaborate lies. Capped by your empathy.
7) Negotiator: used mainly when haggling or making some kind of contract/deal. Capped by your patience(?).
-
Persuader and negotiater are iffy. You want the player to feel like they said the right thing, not their skills. With those 2, you should choose how you want to deliver your argument, based on your own perceptions.
-
I think you should presents each characters vocal quirks the first time you hear them, and then in a separate window to keep it from being too information dense. We already have things like "he has a scratchy voice", you just need to add stuff like accents, "he talks ponderously", slang, etc. There's also physicality; are they waving their hands around, getting in your face, pacing?
You need to be able to dial in on particular people if you're talking to crowds, see their emotion, pay attention to them in particular. Attention; you can only have so much of it, and your empathy skills should determine how well you can read a crowd (which needs to be its own entity). You shouldn't be able to "look" at everyone before you reply (not smoothly anyway); you could glance at everyone or stare at someone but not both.
The problem is the 'crowd needs to be it's own entity' bit. Are we proposing to round up everybody within the hearing range when we begin the performance, but people move about the place, into and out of the area in question.
-
That's "street preacher" mode, with a lot of disinterested observers. Usually you'd specify who you're talking to fairly naturalistically- start talking to someone while looking at them, pointing, specifying "you guys!" etc.
-
That's "street preacher" mode, with a lot of disinterested observers. Usually you'd specify who you're talking to fairly naturalistically- start talking to someone while looking at them, pointing, specifying "you guys!" etc.
So you are saying we have to manually select every member of the potential audience? That sounds to be an interface nightmare.
-
Select an individual in the middle of the crowd, and some ability or other is used to work out the size/fall-off of the groupspeaking 'footprint'. The act of choosing something like "...and I'm talking to you, Sir/Madam..." creates this coverage, which lasts for a few game-minutes. A larger crowd might need to be 'grabbed' by several "You, there... And you over there... And I'm talking about an issue that you off to the side are also quite concerned about, though you may not yet know it..." actions, which you need to pepper in again (at the cost of actual persuasion/whatever) to keep up the interest factor across the assembly.
Perhaps targeting bored individuals who start shuffling out of the crowd and wandering off at the edges, with either a direct appeal or a crowd-turning put-down to consolidate the rest (if you do it correctly).
-
The game needs a way to form and recognize groups. If 3 buddies go to the pub, they should be automatically considered a group and react together when i address one of them.
-
Select an individual in the middle of the crowd, and some ability or other is used to work out the size/fall-off of the groupspeaking 'footprint'. The act of choosing something like "...and I'm talking to you, Sir/Madam..." creates this coverage, which lasts for a few game-minutes. A larger crowd might need to be 'grabbed' by several "You, there... And you over there... And I'm talking about an issue that you off to the side are also quite concerned about, though you may not yet know it..." actions, which you need to pepper in again (at the cost of actual persuasion/whatever) to keep up the interest factor across the assembly.
Perhaps targeting bored individuals who start shuffling out of the crowd and wandering off at the edges, with either a direct appeal or a crowd-turning put-down to consolidate the rest (if you do it correctly).
Why would I ever want to talk to the whole crowd? If you tell a member of the crowd something he will soon enough pass it to all the other folks nearby. We already have the shout out function to speak to everyone in earshot at the same time but I don't think I have ever used it except to control companions in battle.
-
Why would I ever want to talk to the whole crowd?
You wouldn't have to. It's just my view of how that "street preacher" thing might work.
And "Hey, mac... you know I'm the guy who killed that roc, right?" (whether or not you, or indeed anybody, did this) is a strange way to start off your runaway popularity in a town, trusting on your confident to rush off to a friend of theirs, point you out unsubtly while muttering excitedly, then them both rushing off to tell others, who tell others... "Citizens, rejoice! The roc is dead by my hand! Fear no more and live your lives!" whilst surrounded by a gaggle of villagers seems much more the way to get yourself lauded.
Or "There's some goblins on the way, would you care to join me in the defence of your town, sir?" multiple times, compared to "Who among you stout yeoman will join me in repelling this force of vile bandits?", to the masses...
-
And "Hey, mac... you know I'm the guy who killed that roc, right?" (whether or not you, or indeed anybody, did this) is a strange way to start off your runaway popularity in a town, trusting on your confident to rush off to a friend of theirs, point you out unsubtly while muttering excitedly, then them both rushing off to tell others, who tell others... "Citizens, rejoice! The roc is dead by my hand! Fear no more and live your lives!" whilst surrounded by a gaggle of villagers seems much more the way to get yourself lauded.
Or "There's some goblins on the way, would you care to join me in the defence of your town, sir?" multiple times, compared to "Who among you stout yeoman will join me in repelling this force of vile bandits?", to the masses...
If you tell somebody something interesting than they will tell all the other people around them that information. What we seem to be calling for here is the ability to decide how loudly we are going to be speaking to our target and having folks able to overhear what we are saying. It seems to work better to be able to select (Shout at PersonX) which increases people's ability to overhear what we are saying but also starts a normal conversion than to have to enter a custom list of all the folks that we are trying to speak to. It also allows us the player to eavesdrop, especially if people involuntarily raise their forces according to their personality+mood.
The only reason situation where we would need to actually convey information to a lot of people directly is if time is a premium, which is generally very much is not at the moment.
-
Yes, it's a different thing from the only way that it works now (which is different from the omniscient "you tell one person, you've told the world" thing, for reputation at least, back in the earlier versions).
I just feel that it is a viable option. 'Twas in response to "we have to manually select every member of the potential audience?" (I think, it was a while ago) in saying that, no, we don't have to. But various options along the way might yet work well in maintaining the immersion in some circumstances...
-
It isn't manually selecting a custom list. It would be more like setting a cone if you're pointing at 6 people together in a room, or establishing line of sight if you're talking to someone directly opposite you. People have got to know they're being talked to, which is why i'm suggesting that you make it clear in a naturalistic way. Otherwise you'll say "lovely weather today!" to thin air, for all intents and porpoises.
It's important to be able to cut out your audience from a larger group, as much as to address everyone.
-
It isn't manually selecting a custom list. It would be more like setting a cone if you're pointing at 6 people together in a room, or establishing line of sight if you're talking to someone directly opposite you. People have got to know they're being talked to, which is why i'm suggesting that you make it clear in a naturalistic way. Otherwise you'll say "lovely weather today!" to thin air, for all intents and porpoises.
It's important to be able to cut out your audience from a larger group, as much as to address everyone.
While that works as a mechanic, it still does not make sense realistically if we are using sound. A sound will travel freely for some distance so that it is not really possible to direct what you are saying in a focused way at a particular group of people.
Again I fail to see the utility of this concept, why would you want to speak to a group of people out of a larger group anyway?
-
I think we're just talking at cross purposes. (Ironically. ;))
-
When Aragorn talks to the hobbits, does he yell out to the whole pub about making for rivendell or does he quietly take them aside for a chat?
-
When Aragorn talks to the hobbits, does he yell out to the whole pub about making for rivendell or does he quietly take them aside for a chat?
The rest of the pub can notice him taking them aside.
-
Yes, but they won't hear him whispering about rivendell. C'mon mate.
-
Batmen probably would. :3
-
Yeah, but they're all "We're Batmen!" and brooding and all about the black...
-
Yes, but they won't hear him whispering about rivendell. C'mon mate.
Sauron's agents will, random folks won't.
-
Sorry, i took that the wrong way first time round. Yeah, people need to notice when you act completely tone-deaf. If something is off-topic and uninteresting that's easy, and with a little more work you can add an emotional spectrum that rules out anything that isn't related to X or is too long or whatever. Not just happy/sad, stuff like Tranquility or Suspense could have their own place on the wheel.
-
Sorry, i took that the wrong way first time round. Yeah, people need to notice when you act completely tone-deaf. If something is off-topic and uninteresting that's easy, and with a little more work you can add an emotional spectrum that rules out anything that isn't related to X or is too long or whatever. Not just happy/sad, stuff like Tranquility or Suspense could have their own place on the wheel.
??? ??? ??? ???
-
Npc's should have conversational preferences, and they should change depending on their emotions. If you talk to them about something they're not in the mood for, they should be unreceptive. If it's something interesting but your tone is wrong (waking someone in the night to excitedly tell them about a discovery, per se), same thing.
Emotions can be pretty varied. I'd like toady to go beyond happy and sad and include feeling nostalgic, or really immediate emotions like the suspense you get when your life savings ride on a horse race. It's easy enough to give each emotion a set of guidelines for discussions and randomize it a little according to personalities.
Lastly, basic etiquette has a place. If you suddenly ramble off-topic, you may annoy, and in general if you're doing something out of place it should attract attention. This can be achieved by just comparing to nearby NPC's, or associating events with particular tones. E.g, irish wake = tearful celebration = no gambling.
Make sense?
-
Npc's should have conversational preferences, and they should change depending on their emotions. If you talk to them about something they're not in the mood for, they should be unreceptive. If it's something interesting but your tone is wrong (waking someone in the night to excitedly tell them about a discovery, per se), same thing.
Emotions can be pretty varied. I'd like toady to go beyond happy and sad and include feeling nostalgic, or really immediate emotions like the suspense you get when your life savings ride on a horse race. It's easy enough to give each emotion a set of guidelines for discussions and randomize it a little according to personalities.
Lastly, basic etiquette has a place. If you suddenly ramble off-topic, you may annoy, and in general if you're doing something out of place it should attract attention. This can be achieved by just comparing to nearby NPC's, or associating events with particular tones. E.g, irish wake = tearful celebration = no gambling.
Make sense?
The problem is that the conversation interface and the clumsy iinterface in general is not really going to appreciate us having to assign emotions to everything we say.
-
The problem is that the conversation interface and the clumsy iinterface in general is not really going to appreciate us having to assign emotions to everything we say.
You remind me of a very old post of mine about deep-encoding of meanings within the text, to allow languages which exhibit the subtleties to do so...
Within the context of DF, of course, the grammatical parsing and rearranging is not so impossible, for a limited (and predefined) number of stock components are all that needs to be touched, and either the held-in-raws/executable-embedded phrases can be marked up like "We can sell you five tin cans of cat meat that we can ourselves." to form "{pluralpronoun}We {auxverb:nosubtext}can {verb}sell {singpronoun}you {numeric}five {materialmodifier:currentform}tin {object:pluralform}cans {preposition:composition}of {materialmodifier:sourcedfrom}cat {object:massform}meat {prepositionalobject}that {pluralpronoun}we {process}can {pluralpronoun:reflexive}ourselves"[1] so that the a grammatical conversion could be performed.
e.g. to "packaged!tribalresponsibility!meatblock!cat(originated) within!container(cylindrical)!tin(formedmaterial)!fivefold-plurality sell!toyou!byus!ispossible(neutraltone)" prior to dictionary conversion to something probably completely unlike "SchuNaKragdarPurrid ikTrenPraIgso MellochEeAyKell" (<= not intended to be anything 'real', except within the context of this explanation).
Compare with "We would sell you one tin... <rest unspoken, subtle gestures only>" would be the English version of the still full and formal "SchuNaKragdarPurrid ikTrenPra MellochEeAyKepin" ("packaged!personally!meatblock!cat(originated) within!container(cylindrical)!tin(formedmaterial)!fivefold-plurality sell!toyou!byus!ispossible(doubtfultone:cause_is_disagreement_at_tribal_leader_level) <gesture towards traditional bribe-pocket in clothing>" in the grammatical markup) if you allow for a little extra markup to contextualise the nature of doubtfulness and the possible resolution thereof, and acknowledge that there will be information lost in translation (but also lost in non-translation, since the tribal leader disagreement is something that could be specified as a background feature of a human's speech, but not be expressed except if spoken by a human who is speaking to our hypothetical 'otherrace' in the 'otherracian' tongue with a sufficient proficiency in said language to avoid an effective conversion to "(doubtfulone:nonspecific)" or even "(joyoustone:just_witnessed_a_rainbow)" for the particularly inarticulate. ;)
Or is that a far too complicated treatment of the original problem? :-\
(Yes, yes it is. Though I sliced off the unimportant bits.)
That was in a different context, though. In this one, how about taking emotions from the character status1, so that your speech is conveyed with a grin or a grimace, a smile or a snarl. Assuming you don't want to override that (or attempt to, with suitable acting/deception/political skills) for deliberate effect. "Sure, you want me to kill another troglodyte.. ? I'd be... happy... to do that for you." Or "The d-d-d-d-dragon? Kill it? Erm... What if I told you that I'd already met... I mean not just met... But, what I'm saying is that. I don't need to kill it for you. I killed it for you already. Yep, definitely. So, like, the ticker-tape parade... Totally mine. Can we have it now, because I have to be somewhere else tomorrow." (Not literally on-screen, but in a "...(she/you) said, exasperatingly bored" or "...(he/you) squirmed, looking shifty" sort of additional flavour to the additional speech. Add disdain, fanboishness, lust, disgust, desperation, distraction, etc to the mix, according to what flavourousness one can derive from the hidden variables and (optional, skill-limited) player-led intentions to hide or play up their 'true' feelings.
Long idea, still. Just being conceptual, at this stage...
1 Not normally present in the Adventurer character, but "has recently seen a trusted companion die" might be possible, except for callous meat-shield gameplaying being a thing... Having recently been injured/rested/had a good (or bad, or at least repetitious) meal, though, is definitely something trackable.
-
"Sure, you want me to kill another troglodyte.. ? I'd be... happy... to do that for you."
Uhhh... so, that comes out as "i tersely agree to kill the Trog." This is old ground, why retread it?
1 Not normally present in the Adventurer character, but "has recently seen a trusted companion die" might be possible, except for callous meat-shield gameplaying being a thing... Having recently been injured/rested/had a good (or bad, or at least repetitious) meal, though, is definitely something trackable.
It shouldn't be hard to track/generate the same kind of emotions as in fortress mode, should it? Especially if you narrow down the detailed version to just NPC's we talk to.
The problem is that the conversation interface and the clumsy iinterface in general is not really going to appreciate us having to assign emotions to everything we say.
Duh. Trying to do this with the current conversation interface would be raw hell (as is everything else). Toady should mimic URR's (Ultima Ratio Regum) design, and/or allow us to search for keywords. Better yet, allow us to save premade sentences under our own heading and search for those.
-
URR uses a new screen for conversation. Precisely what Toady doesn't want (right now).
-
Bare minimum if you keep the current interface is searching for keywords.
-
Duh. Trying to do this with the current conversation interface would be raw hell (as is everything else). Toady should mimic URR's (Ultima Ratio Regum) design, and/or allow us to search for keywords. Better yet, allow us to save premade sentences under our own heading and search for those.
I don't know. Default emotions would go a long way, if we started with what the emotion that the person we *are* would imbue the phrase we are saying with. Then we basically get to apply 'fake emotion' according to our skill with such things. If we get it wrong we end up using our initial emotion or a similar emotion to the one we are trying to fake.
-
Toady agrees that, mostly, forcing a character on us is a bad idea. If we get to play as a storied hero from the off, uncontrolled emotions could be pretty immersive, alongside some vocal quirks. Faking emotions on top of that is pretty clever. Using that with standard adventurers is right out though.
You raise a good point though; how do Npc's know your faking? They've got to be able to draw up some kind of assumed psych profile of your character, based on your rumoured actions/dress/etc. It could be basically like the dwarf personality screen, with information gradually filling in as rumours spread and you do something character defining. Their should be some archetypal personality types NPC's may or may not shoe you into - so a renowned warrior is assumed to be a conan-y take no shit loudmouth, a necromancer is stereotypically a edgelord, etc etc.
Some of the more general personality archtypes could be premade by toady - scientist, lawyer, detective - while the ones that vary from world to world like wizards or nationality can be generated based off that world's history and stories.
-
Toady agrees that, mostly, forcing a character on us is a bad idea. If we get to play as a storied hero from the off, uncontrolled emotions could be pretty immersive, alongside some vocal quirks. Faking emotions on top of that is pretty clever. Using that with standard adventurers is right out though.
You raise a good point though; how do Npc's know your faking? They've got to be able to draw up some kind of assumed psych profile of your character, based on your rumoured actions/dress/etc. It could be basically like the dwarf personality screen, with information gradually filling in as rumours spread and you do something character defining. Their should be some archetypal personality types NPC's may or may not shoe you into - so a renowned warrior is assumed to be a conan-y take no shit loudmouth, a necromancer is stereotypically a edgelord, etc etc.
Some of the more general personality archtypes could be premade by toady - scientist, lawyer, detective - while the ones that vary from world to world like wizards or nationality can be generated based off that world's history and stories.
Adventure mode needs us to be forced to be a certain character at least to a certain point (aka stuff we don't consciously control). If not then we end up with everyone being the exact same person with a different name attached.
Why pick a fake emotion when a real emotion will do? The 'real' emotion at the moment is just as a fake as the fake emotion but it cannot be detected, we are picking stuff for gameplay mechanic reasons not because we feel anything at all. If we decide to play out of character then we should be able to but we should be forced to pretend, we should only get to be genuine if we are actually playing in character.
-
Why not both?
Toady has talked about writing yourself into the world (i think), maybe through multiple choices like Adom. He's also mentioned starting people off as established characters in interesting moments.
-
Why not both?
Toady has talked about writing yourself into the world (i think), maybe through multiple choices like Adom. He's also mentioned starting people off as established characters in interesting moments.
We already pick the personality of our characters when we create them, so allowing us to pick who we are and then binding us to what we choose is basically the same as forcing a character on the player, which the devs are apparently against. This is however a major problem when it comes to the whole matter of us pretending to be people that we are not. Once that's in the situation occurs where, since we are able to be whoever we want to be it does not make sense to actually pretend to be someone when we can simply actually become that person and then become somebody else. If we can behave as anyone we like, then who we are at the moment is a cynical matter of strategy; why pretend to be something when you can at the press of a button actually become the thing that we would otherwise be pretending to be?
It is actually a similar problem to the 'become a hated ruler and then have him commit suicide' problem, which is why we are forbidden from becoming existing historical characters. The solution I think is actually to restrict what the player can do, not by outright stopping them doing it but by forcing the player to risk potentially revealing their true identity as a possessing spirit. If you keep making people doing stuff they would not do, they will conclude at some point that they are in fact possessed by an evil spirit and then we can get 'exorcised'. If we force people to do things that are REALLY out of character then we might sometimes simply lose the character then and there.
The thing is that if you lose control of a character then the character goes an blabs about your existence. The more aware everyone becomes of your existence, an idea which is spread like other ideas the more easily you can get cast out by those you possess. Eventually certain places become warded against you, so it becomes impossible to assume the identity of anyone in said places.
-
We already pick the personality of our characters when we create them, so allowing us to pick who we are and then binding us to what we choose is basically the same as forcing a character on the player, which the devs are apparently against.
I'd forgotten about that. I think picking the personality is basically so that characters will act "in-character" when they're retired. There's no reason not to let players change that whenever they feel like it.
It is actually a similar problem to the 'become a hated ruler and then have him commit suicide' problem
There's no way to stop players from breaking the game if they feel like it. I think including that meta-game in the actual game is a viable game mode though.
The solution I think is actually to restrict what the player can do, not by outright stopping them doing it but by forcing the player to risk potentially revealing their true identity as a possessing spirit.
The game already has shades of this in legends mode. It would be nice to optionally manifest this (in addition to true roleplaying mode).