[tcaudilllg]

At least I think it's new... I've not been playing the latest AD&D-style RPGs so I don't know for sure that it is. However, I can't recall seeing it as an explicit focus as in this particular design.

My new design paradigm is centered around the element of attitude. Thanks to my research, I have created formula for the calculation of opinion. I know all the elements of opinion and how to determine it given an existing context. I literally know how people will (initially) respond to any event, based on their opinion, which itself has a rigorously defined, calculable structure. Therefore, it would seem to me that the old storyline plots can be discarded in favor of "player moved" plots which require that the player orchestrate the forward movement of the story by manipulating the opinions of the game's cast. The basic idea is that the forces which the player philosophically opposes have become dominant and only by confronting the figure-heads of these forces directly can the player turn the tide of an otherwise nasty and inevitable course. This is the meat of the game itself: the player must bargain, persuade, and cajole his way into the inner sanctums of enemy bosses and defeat them in battle. No miraculous invasions of massive dungeons by a small band of unlikely heros: just actual browbeating, arm-twisting, and exploitation of expectations.

I've never understood how to create a meta-narrative storyline in the JRPG mode, but 1-on-1 interlocutions like this I can do.

[Hajo]

[tcaudilllg]

There wouldn't be a conflict if there were not intransigent individuals to perpetuate it... there's a reason the villian always dies in JRPGs, and that's because they won't get out of the hero's way no matter what. The price of realizing an ideal is the obliteration of the intransigent segments of the opposition.

On the other hand, the formal defeat of extremists is rather unrealistic, you are right about that. In our culture in particular, electoral defeats, heart attacks, and even suicides do much more for the cause of societal sanity than does the assasination of controversial figures. Thing is, I can see the persuasion thing as getting definitely boring after a while. Battle makes for a pleasant change of pace.

[tcaudilllg]

I went with your idea Hajo. The object of the game is now to persuade all enemy characters of the truth of the protagonist's ideas.

Thing is, I'm trying to think of ways to make it not boring. I may come back to the violence thing later, but for right now I'm trying to get the fundamentals of the persuasion system lined out. What I've got so far is a cross between Clue and a "choose your own adventure" type system where you have to figure out who is on your side; who you can persuade; and who your allies can persuade. Failing at persuasion means the elimination of the character who is trying to persuade, so it pays to "do your homework" before trying to get people to go along with you. The system is very abstract: persuasion depends on use of effective arguments in one of 16 different issue categories. It's like SRPG "rock-paper-scissors" format, but more complicated. The idea is that everyone has skill arguing certain categories, but not others. So to persuade someone of a view you hold, you need to present them with someone who knows the issue and can debate it down to the last point. Some enemies refuse to be persuaded by either yourself or your allies, and will respond only to the arguments of already-persuaded enemy characters. Persuading these figures is key to winning the game.

[Hajo]

Many games live from a power spiral. You need to achieve a certain power level to advance further in the game.

If you let the amount of followers strengthen the players negotiation skill, he can start with easy targets, and despite not being more powerful by himself, his words are now backed by a number of followers, and other people might be more likely to agree to his points.

Such power spirals are usually good motivation for players.

Edit: Forgot to say, it's cool that you try. Dialogue and particularly arguments are very difficult to program. I never got very far with that, so thumbs up for trying and succeeding!

[tcaudilllg]

I've been thinking of ways to apply this as a game element. One method would be to make a hybrid strategy/persuasion title where you have an "infiltration phase" followed by a "battle phase". It would be a revolution title where the idea would be to make the strategy phase easier by persuading potential enemies to quit the field before the fight begins. Then when the battle actually commences, enemies are missing from the map. The fewer enemies you destroy in a battle, the bigger your bonus. Boredom would be an important factor: although you can choose to fight every potential enemy, their actual numbers would be set high enough to make beating them all a major chore. By getting a high conversion score, you can reduce the enemy numbers to a reasonable level, and, might I add, increase the size of your army. To make the infiltration phase more enjoyable, it could be integrated with the town exploration sequences which are commonplace in RPGs.

My method of presenting arguments is very abstract.

Dialogue example:

[tcaudilllg]

I've got an idea: reward the player with bonus items for an effective persuasion. The more difficult the persuasion, the better the bonus.

Also, take out the instant death rule in the player's case. Instead, just commit the enemy to the battlefield in the case of a failed persuasion, without giving the player a second chance to persuade them.

You could also commit persuaded enemies to the player's team.