🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

What 'roles' do you want to play in an rpg?

Started by
40 comments, last by Silvermyst 23 years, 8 months ago
Realistic conversation is of course just beautifying the game, but would you rather see replies like "Orcs, forest, 10 squares north" or "The Orc eh... well you''ll find them in the forest to the north of here, but if you ask me you''d be mighty foolish to go after them" (or better.. as I''m not a writer)

The problem with the handling conversation like a programming language approach is that it means there is more for the user to learn, and will probbaly discourage players from taking the conversation option (which isnt what we want), because they''re going to have to learn it to some degree... and it brings bask some of the frustration of "what is it the designer wants me to type to get this information"...

I still think something like a text adventure parser (which is what I was thinking about when I wrote my last post) would be best for a conversation/dialog/whatever you want to call it engine, because it is natural language so the user doesnt have to learn ANYTHING like language structure, etc. before being able to use it, all it needs to do is pick up on key words (so its like the programming/scripting language you were thinking of MadKeith, just with a load of [from the engines point of view] needless waffle, which is filterd out anyway)

It does mean more work for the designer to do, granted, as they have to anticipate all the ways of saying something, but it would make for a more user friendly game in some respects.

Of course the user may get a bit fed up of typing what he wants to say all the time, and so the user could have the choice of selecting from a set of pre-written responses or entering thier own response/question.

Of course this method is complicated and its very much upto the people making the game how they implement conversation.. but which ever approach they choose it should be done well, and encourage the player to use the conversational option sometimes rather than the killing option (unless the RPG is all about killing things, in which case make it first-person and call it Hexen III or whatever)
NightWraith
Advertisement
quote: Original post by NightWraith
Realistic conversation is of course just beautifying the game, but would you rather see replies like "Orcs, forest, 10 squares north" or "The Orc eh... well you''ll find them in the forest to the north of here, but if you ask me you''d be mighty foolish to go after them" (or better.. as I''m not a writer)



I''d actually rather see the first kind of reply, if I knew that the AI was actually UNDERSTANDING the question I just asked it, instead of regurgitating a prewritten sequence because I triggered it through the use of the keyword "orc".
And anyway, "beautifying" the result isn''t all that hard, it might just cloud the use of the language, which is not a good thing. Giving the player long strings of well-written text wrongly creates the illusion that the AI actually understands input as complicated as that, which, IMO, is not a good thing.



quote: Original post by NightWraith
The problem with the handling conversation like a programming language approach is that it means there is more for the user to learn, and will probbaly discourage players from taking the conversation option (which isnt what we want), because they''re going to have to learn it to some degree...


The player also has to become familiar with all of the other controls of the game, which isn''t too big an effort. I''m not talking about a C++ish programming language here, I''m talking about a few words and a simple grammar, one that should make sense in the context of the game. One that is EXPLAINED so that you know what you can try out. So, the learning aspect should not be a problem if it is designed right.

quote: Original post by NightWraith
and it brings bask some of the frustration of "what is it the designer wants me to type to get this information"...


No it doesn''t... that''s the whole thing I''m trying to AVOID! If you have a defined language, a well-written question will always solicit an answer, because it''s a mathematical system. If you have NLP ( Natural Language Processing ), chances are that you''ll have to try numerous times before the parser finally understands what you''re trying to say, or perhaps it will keep misinterpreting your question.


quote: Original post by NightWraith
...so the user doesnt have to learn ANYTHING like language structure, etc. before being able to use it, all it needs to do is pick up on key words ...


Just "key words" is nowhere near expressive enough to understand what kind of question you''re asking, if you''re asking a question at all. Show me ONE Natural Language Parser that actually does a good job of knowing what you are talking about, and I might reconsider, but a natural language text parsing system just does not work...
Not with current technology.

quote: Original post by NightWraith
(so its like the programming/scripting language you were thinking of MadKeith, just with a load of [from the engines point of view] needless waffle, which is filterd out anyway)


**needless waffle** - what do you mean? Small words like "the", "an", perhaps punctuation... I may agree with that. But what about qualifiers? "Ugly elf" isn''t the same as "elf". "Fleeing away screaming" isn''t the same as "fleeing". Using that "needless waffle" will confuse the player, and he will not know what the AI understands, and what it doesn''t. If it''s not clear, it will not work.


quote: Original post by NightWraith
It does mean more work for the designer to do, granted, as they have to anticipate all the ways of saying something, but it would make for a more user friendly game in some respects.


It''s exponentially more work for the designer, if it is upto HIM to predict all the possible things a human can say. It''s just impossible.




People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
It's only funny 'till someone gets hurt.And then it's just hilarious.Unless it's you.
OK, firstly, standing back from the discussion.. the 2nd response gives the NPC some personality, instead of making it dull and lifeless.. maybe its just me, but I dont want to feel like I''m ''talking'' to the same NPC all the time.. (ok that was a bit nasty, sorry.. but you get the gist that its nice to feel each NPC has some kind of personality of its own)
Secondly.. it would be a VERY poor conversation/dialog engine that gave that (either one of the above) reply everytime the word ORC was mentioned in the conversation

Waffle and Keywords... Keywords as I was thinking of them (probably bad choice of name) are anything the engine understands, waffle is anything it doesnt (I''m not going to argue about what words should/shouldn''t go into each of those catagories, because its the overall system ideas we''re discussing here not whether it should recoginse the word "the" or not)

Maybe its just me, but I cant see how you can make any kind of command type language easy to use without the user doing some reading beforehand, at least to learn a few basic commands...

Lets say you had a ''command'' called info that you would use to ask info on a specified subject, and you told the user this.. so the user types "info on the orcs" surely your parser needs to be intellegent enough to realise that that command is the same as "info orcs" (unless you inists the player types ''on the'' as part of the command.. but then what if the player types "info about the orcs") You would need to actually TELL the player type info then type one word about what u want info on....

I''m not sure if this is how you envisenged your idea working exactly, but thats how I think of it...


I do agree that producing a wonderfull 100% all the time accurate NLP is impossible (so''s probably a 50% one) but I think somewhere between the two, something thats going to get it right most of the time even if the player adds extra words in like "on" "about"... Remeber although I''ve been banging on about Text adventures, what we''re really concerned with is simple conversation..
If the player wants to "run away screaming" then though this isnt the way he does it.. of course another interesting question is what if he wants to tell the NPC to "run away screaming"...

NightWraith
quote: Original post by NightWraith

OK, firstly, standing back from the discussion.. the 2nd response gives the NPC some personality, instead of making it dull and lifeless..



Again, I''d say - only do this if there is REALLY some personality there, because otherwise you may be giving the illusion of there being more to explore than you really implemented in the game - leading to frustration.




People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
It's only funny 'till someone gets hurt.And then it's just hilarious.Unless it's you.
Humm.. i think i''d have to agree with Keith here, for the most part. It''s really downright hard to make two computers talk to eachother, and anticipate all the things you''ll need to make them work together.. try a computer and a human! Man, that''s near impossible.

The problem is.. people don''t always spell correctly. I mean, lookin over your posts there, NightWraith, i see several misspelled, commonly-used words. I know, you''re no english major.. neither am i. but, the computer will expect a strict english input. Subject first, then verb, then predicate. And no one talks like that in real life. So until we have the ability to make something as infinately diverse as humanity itself, then it''s pointless to make an attempt, because it''ll always fail.

So what do you do? You make the communication more INTELLIGENT. i mean, baldur''s gate had a few choices of text. "Give me that!" "give me that now?" "could i please have it" "if you do not hand that over to me this instant, i shall strike you down and take it from your cold, lifeless hand while my god smiles down upon me for killing a villianous scum such as yourself!".

yeah.. right. But did you ever play through as a theif? Same exact choices for talking. As a mage.. same thing!!! As a good character, same.. as a bad.. SAME! no variation at ALL. Do you think a good character talking to an evil one would say the same things as an evil talking to another evil? I highly doubt that.

So what does this teach us? perhaps having more than one character in a party will make a difference! You can have bob the fighter talk to and even bully around the gnome who''s got the key you need. Or you can send James the theif in to threaten the gnome, and say a few wily comments to get the key. Or perhaps tim, your trusted sorcerer will go forth, bedazzle the create with some simplistic magical effect, levitate the creature, and turn him upside down and around a few times, to get the key. Or perhaps you''ll send yourself, the ranger in.. and tell him about your mission and how important that key it, and how you''re really against shooting people in the back, but you''ll give him 5 seconds head start to run before you kill him if he doesn''t hand over the key.

And perhaps bullying a character senselessly have consequences. Perhaps they give you the key, reluctantly. So you walk off thinking job well done. However, they run around you, and go tell the big boss man you''re coming, and that they took the key from him.. and the bossman sends out some of his finest warriors to eat your brains from your skulls!
This would give good characters a reason for playing good, and getting the key in a GOOD way. And it would give evil characters a real chance to roleplay EVIL. threaten the gnome with a poisoned dagger to the back should he tell the bossman you''re coming for him. Let him know you have people watching him at all times, set to report back to you via a magic crystal network, and showing him a gem you found earlier that day I mean, evils need to be able to lie, cheat, and steal their way into things.. as well as charm their way out of them So come on.. let''s have some communication more to that effect! that way, while the game may still be the same, the characters at least act differently to different people!

J
I know I cant spell at all.. (but remeber I speak English English and not the American version, so some of my spellings are going to be different, if still wrong... colour colour colour... see... anyway thats all besides the point.. )

I like you ideas.. to add to them,

If you''re bullying the poor little gnome in plain sight then thats going to have an adverse effect on your popularity (going down with the good guys and may be up with the bad guys.. or vice versa if they know the gnomes evil, Important word KNOW.. )

Of course this is in general probably going to halm your reputation with the Gnomes, meaning you have to do more begging/nice things to them (or just threaten them some more if you''re evil) in order to get something else you may need from them....

Your reputation may come into it, if you good/evil enough then a simple request may get the gnome to co-operate.. of course if he thinks him and his buddies are more than a match for your evil army, then he probbaly wont co-operate... etc. etc.
NightWraith
This is just an appology for the fact I appear to have replied twice.. this was not intentional.. sorry
NightWraith
Actually I''d like to play an assassin in present day. Starting out with small town hits and working up to global. Collecting stuff along the way. I have no idea if I''m off subject or not cause I''m just responding to the subject title. But that''s just my opinion.
Proverbs 26:12------------------------------There is more hope for fools than people who think they are wise.
I've got to agree with MadKeithV on this about NLP and languages. You want defined structure with real understanding.

These type of things are achievable:

Where is/are |physical thing|?
When is/are |event|?
Follow me.

This kind of stuff is garbage and will produce garbage:

Do you know if I should go east or west at the crossroads to get to the town?

Keywords is old simplistic cheesy technology. True NLP has a long way to go and requires FULL contextual knowledge of how the world works. This is an unbelievable amount of information that you take for granted every waking moment of your life.




Edited by - bishop_pass on October 26, 2000 7:22:16 PM
_______________________________
"To understand the horse you'll find that you're going to be working on yourself. The horse will give you the answers and he will question you to see if you are sure or not."
- Ray Hunt, in Think Harmony With Horses
ALU - SHRDLU - WORDNET - CYC - SWALE - AM - CD - J.M. - K.S. | CAA - BCHA - AQHA - APHA - R.H. - T.D. | 395 - SPS - GORDIE - SCMA - R.M. - G.R. - V.C. - C.F.
I suppose the answer to the original question (what do you want to roleplay) belongs in the writing forum as much as here, but here''s my 2+ bits:

This month I''m tired of epics. You know, where the player is the chosen one and has to save the world from a generic evil overlord. Epics are fun, but the market (or at least my hard drive) is saturated.

Recently browsing the web in search of ideas I came across two games that I thought were interesting and hadn''t been done as a CRPG (to my knowledge). In both cases the interestng things are not the game mechanics as much as the settings and typical stories.

One is Paranoia. I understand there is some sort of multiplayer text version being built. I like it because it''s silly and fun. I also like how it has multiple layers of motives for the characters. A CRPG with a similar format wouldn''t need to be the sci-fi Logan''s Run setting, any setting would do so long as the player had multiple conflicting goals, party members that couldn''t be trusted, and temporary death.

The other is Kult, which seems to vary from gross-out horror to religious/philosophical existentialism, depending on how it''s used. It''s different. I was reading some items from a mailing list by some GMs and they were expressing how fun it was to take a group of players that knew nothing about the game. It starts out like normal life and then the GM starts mucking with their heads by twisting ''reality''. And I think that would make an excellent horror crpg. Let the player think he''s making up some normal RPG type characters and then start mucking with things in ways hinted but not mentioned in the rulebook - keep it subtle and slow, and it could make a great game.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement