Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#768492 06/04/21 04:36 AM
Joined: Mar 2021
B
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Mar 2021
I find myself reloading If I get a bad dice roll. So for me It just feels. Well abit pointless. mostly because Im more interessted in the story itself then these extra RNG checks.

Guess I can add that I do see that this could be a fun thing, still alot more interessting to boardgame D&D players.

There Is also the thing that you need to use the partymember with the best stat for the checks (For whatever check). When In a Party It should just select the one having the highest chance In a party any thing other then that feels just stupid.

**Might add some extra things to this Thread**

Feel free to agree or disagree and also add what you think about this and that. List Is rather short right now. But might add few thoughts on this and that.

Last edited by Björn Persson; 06/04/21 05:33 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Mar 2020
I think i remember swen said in some interviews they plan to implement that other party members can assist with skill-checks, its just not ready yet.

Im not against RNG, on the contrary, I feel with clever design it can be a really interesting experience. Im playing Disco Elysium and i really like how they connect gameplay and story events with dice rolls: the game lets you know from the start that you have to explore things around you to increase your chances for certain checks and that encourages you from the get-go to explore more ways to abuse the dice system. Its how the game communicates these checks and with some ways it can reduce the frustration around the outcome of some bad rolls a little bit, the game can let you know or give hints for example that you got a unique outcome with failing or maybe that you can retry the check at a later time etc.

But beyond the above yeah, its part of dnd, failing is part of the fun, its just not for everybody.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
D&D is designed with the idea the the whole party can go through the checks multiple times. As Mat22 has said if Larian implements the whole party being available for conversations (which some UI elements are present, without having looking at any code I don't know about back-end elements for this) the issue goes away.

We currently do have Larian's homebrewed inspiration. Which works very well. If the player selects dialogue options that are "in-character" they get to re-roll future social skill checks.

So long-term I think this won't be an issue. The player can use the optimum character for the dialogue and will have a bank of inspiration re-rolls.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Well, I'm not sure it will solve all issues.

You won't be able to roll again to save Arabella for exemple, or to avoid fighting, or...

I'm 100% fine with RNG in dialogs but now that we have talked about this is another thread, I realized that yes : I don't find missing is always fun and some important things only rely on dices.

If everyone is involved in a conversation I'll use the best but it still doesn't mean I won't save scum to save the child. For this particular situation it would probably be better if it was a bit more complex and if after the roll, we have new options of dialogs (without dice) to save her/let her die... But ofc with important consequences.

Hard to say if all those quests/dialogs are work in progress or not...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 06/04/21 09:08 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
I'm hopeful we'll be able to have each character try once (for four attempts total + any inspiration dice). For Example, Tav didn't persuade to save Arabella, Gale tried and got a stern look, and then Wyll speaks up and saves Arabella. IRL some of the excitement at the table is seeing which characters succeed/fail in the skill check and how the DM can use that for future conversation between the NPC and party.

Larian can have some situations be "one-mistake-fail" (for NPCs that are stubborn) but every dialogue option being "one-mistake-fail" feels very un-D&D.

Last edited by DragonSnooz; 06/04/21 03:49 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I'm hopeful we'll be able to have each character try once (for four attempts total + any inspiration dice). For Example, Tav didn't persuade to save Arabella, Gale tried and got a stern look, and then Wyll speaks up and saves Arabella. IRL some of the excitement at the table is seeing which characters succeed/fail in the skill check and how the DM can use that for future conversation between the NPC and party.

Larian can have some situations be "one-mistake-fail" (for NPCs that are stubborn) but every dialogue option being "one-mistake-fail" feels very un-D&D.
4 tries is a bit much imo. Typically I run/play games where players, in dialogue, effectively use the "Help" action to grant advantage to a single character.
If each of the 4 party members can make the same check, then statistically every check will be passed. The expected result for 4-d20-rolls-take-highest is like 16+.

I'd be in more favor of this if the DC went up after every failure. e.g.:
first character gets a DC 15 check
second character gets a DC 17
third DC 19
fourth DC 21
It makes sense that a failed check would make subsequent checks more difficult. Similarly, this would open up systems where successive checks could be made easier through each character passing a check and really provide a sense of teamwork in convincing an NPC. However, this would require Larian to write and voice ~4x the amount of check-dependent dialogue, as I'd want the NPC to respond after each failed check.

Failing ^, I vote for max 2 tries or one at advantage, assuming another character speaks up to help. And of course we should be able to choose which character(s) respond.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Yeah, the Help action is great. The games I run I'll usually treat two players working together as using the Help action for the player with the better skill.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I'd be in more favor of this if the DC went up after every failure. e.g.:
first character gets a DC 15 check
second character gets a DC 17
third DC 19
fourth DC 21
It makes sense that a failed check would make subsequent checks more difficult. Similarly, this would open up systems where successive checks could be made easier through each character passing a check and really provide a sense of teamwork in convincing an NPC. However, this would require Larian to write and voice ~4x the amount of check-dependent dialogue, as I'd want the NPC to respond after each failed check.

Failing ^, I vote for max 2 tries or one at advantage, assuming another character speaks up to help. And of course we should be able to choose which character(s) respond.
+1 for a scaling DC

It totally makes sense for the amount of attempts to vary from NPC to NPC. (Some are resolute in their actions, others are on the fence, etc.).
I think that might be difficult to implement in the game though (As it would need to be set for each NPC). So, a scaling DC each attempt probably would be easier to code.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Failing ^, I vote for max 2 tries or one at advantage, assuming another character speaks up to help. And of course we should be able to choose which character(s) respond.
If this is how Larian implements multiple characters working together in the dialogue, I'd be happy with it.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It totally makes sense for the amount of attempts to vary from NPC to NPC. (Some are resolute in their actions, others are on the fence, etc.).
I think that might be difficult to implement in the game though (As it would need to be set for each NPC). So, a scaling DC each attempt probably would be easier to code.
I mean, they have to manually set the dialogue for each NPC, so it shouldn't require that much extra work to set a "num_attemps" flag for how many checks are allowed.

Larian also could just reserve this for the important checks. Kagha, Nettie, Hag, Minthara, etc. Nettie seems more gullible, so 4 checks could be allowed (which is basically already what happens, just with only one character making the checks). Whereas Minthara and Kagha are more stubborn/suspicious, so you'd only get one or two attempts.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
What posters here fail to consider is that Expertise for Rogues, the Bard class and the Lucky feat are yet to be implemented. Additionally, difficulty levels aren't added to the game. All of these would alleviate the pain for those whom imperfections become intolerable.

Personally, instead of advocating for evermore fanciful and cumbersome ways to negate any negative RNG, I would argue the game NEEDS an ironman mode, not tied to general difficulty, but which rewards the player with better loot/more power. I would much rather see players incentivized to properly roleplay the game, accepting they aren't infallible gods and following Larian's considerable efforts of making the story interesting even when with less ideal solutions to any dilemma.

Last edited by Seraphael; 06/04/21 06:02 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It totally makes sense for the amount of attempts to vary from NPC to NPC. (Some are resolute in their actions, others are on the fence, etc.).
I think that might be difficult to implement in the game though (As it would need to be set for each NPC). So, a scaling DC each attempt probably would be easier to code.
I mean, they have to manually set the dialogue for each NPC, so it shouldn't require that much extra work to set a "num_attemps" flag for how many checks are allowed.

Larian also could just reserve this for the important checks. Kagha, Nettie, Hag, Minthara, etc. Nettie seems more gullible, so 4 checks could be allowed (which is basically already what happens, just with only one character making the checks). Whereas Minthara and Kagha are more stubborn/suspicious, so you'd only get one or two attempts.
I'm mostly speaking relatively, setting universal conditions on dialogue checks can be easier to implement and test. If Larian does want to go the route of setting an attempt number for each NPC I'd be happy with it as well.

It's up to Larian for how much scope they want the project to have.

Joined: Mar 2021
B
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Mar 2021
NO. Poster have not ignored any class when making the initial post... Stop making baseless asumptions

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Honnestly it would be so immersion breaking if every characters could try...

I would be fine if before any roll we could wisely choose who's talking (and rolling)... that's necessary.

But trying with one... Fail... Another one... Fail... Another one... Success... Ok you finally save the girl/Free Kagha from dark influences/get the ring on his feet/have the information you were asking for/...

This would require a HUGE job for every dialogs but also for every cinematics to look a bit consistent... And that wouldn't really be.
Our party is here during dialogs. It's not like if someone the NPCs never saw before was trying the exact same thing that this guy named Tav already tried 3 days before.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 06/04/21 08:40 PM.
Joined: Mar 2021
B
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Mar 2021
First statement on 1 thing stands. If your a party the rolls should never have to be made from other party members. Because the 1 member best suited for any occassion should be the one you get a dice roll from always.
If you want to intimidate the one being mostly so should be the one doing that. If for charisma. The most charismatic one should be taking the lead just because he/she Is. There should not have to be any swoppping to other members for anything. It should be done as a Party.
If this Is not to be true. Then there Is no party as I see It and we can aswell go our seperate ways.
I absolutely should not have to play all the members of the party to take advantage of all things... Thats just stupid imo. Because then there Is no point of haveing a party and the entire things should have been made differently.

Last edited by Björn Persson; 06/04/21 06:34 PM.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5