1) Somtimes choosing different dialog options has no effect.
Of course. BUT they allow you to better roll play your character. If I am playing an a-hole and have 4 dialog choices that all have the same result, that's fine because I get to RP/choose the A-hole option.
Yes, and as I suggested in the original post, when it is about role play characterisation, but ultimately leads to the same result one sentence on regardless, there should be no rolling or skill checks involved; there was no variable outcome. Too often, this is not the case, currently - you are asked to make skill checks which do not actually matter in the slightest, and that's poor design.
2) You think you are given a false choice. "Give me the antidote!" Well in that set of dialogs you are able to use multiple skills depending on what your character is better in (Persuasion, intimidation, deception) and there is a path that leads to her giving you the cure without having to kill her. So it's not a false choice.
Ah, so, for the record, could you tell me exactly which series of choices and in which order do succeed in convincing her to hand it over and letting you walk out? Between several chsracters I've tried most of the permutations, with significant reloading to check the successes on the string of requested checks...
This is, also, an unfortunately repeated issue and another piece of terrible, unsatisfying design.
If I were a player, and asked my dungeon master to attempt something a reasonable player might attempt to do, and they nodded and asked me to make a skill check, that's fine. If I succeed their check, and their response is to narrate for one line and then ask for another check... and when I succeed that one, to narrate for another line and ask for another check... that's utterly shitty dm behaviour, and the worst kind of outcome railroading. It's the kind of behaviour that makes players pack up their dice, because what's the point of them? Progressive checks are a valid tool, but there's a key difference between progressive checks and what Larian are using here and in other places:
A single failure at any point, leads to the fail state, identical in every way no matter how far along the situation went before hand, as though the player had just selected the other option from the outside. That's terrible design. It's not satisfying for the player; rather the player is left feeling like their choice is more of a false one, because the dm super-really-actually needs you to choose the thing they want you to choose, and will keep making you check against it until you fail and they can feel justified in giving you what they wanted to happen. Why is the player even given a choice in that situation?
If it's feasible, let it be feasible with a check, and if they pass, they pass - make it a very hard check if it's supposed to be very hard. Don't just make them check again and again until they fail something and give you the *excuse* to return them to the desired course of action.
If you're aiming for a progressive check, make it a progressive check; the first check changes the situation, meaning that a failure at the second check either has a different outcome than not trying at all, or it degrades the situation but allows further attempts. Each check in a progressive check must actually tangibly change the situation. The string checks we have right now in several places do not do this.
