The What
In CoC2, conversation battles are another way of resolving conflicts between the PC and other characters (or even potentially between NPCs temporarily under the player's control). At its very base, the player is required to navigate a dialogue tree to its conclusion while attempting to keep their resolve intact. If the player successfully does so, they win and get what they want; if their resolve drops to zero through repeatedly picking bad options, they lose and their intent is not achieved. The obstacles thrown at the player in the course of this endeavour will vary from writer to writer and the nature of the conversation battle in question, but the concept at its very base is as such.
Why Conversation Battles?
CoC2 is a game of filled with smut, yes. We also hope to make it a game filled with as much story. Conversation battles allow for another way to bring out tense, dramatic storytelling - a heated, pivotal argument between two people can be just as nail-biting and emotional as a pitched battle. It allows for players who wish to be more pacifistic to talk things out with their adversaries instead of coming to blows, and allows for situations to play out where violence would be counterproductive or impossible.
In similar games, such success or failure might have been decided by a simple stat check or roll, but such things feel rather anticlimactic when compared to combat. No matter how well you persuade, how glib your tongue, how convincing your speech, it all boils down to a roll, maybe with a modifier. That's not fun. Conversation battles hope to bring out meaningful player interaction with the ongoing debate, not make everything hinge on a single roll, while still letting the mechanical aspects of the player character play a part in the resolution of the argument.
Potential situations which could call for a conversation battle include:
This is a situation which really shouldn't be resolved with a social skill roll, and could be fun for those who enjoy social interactions, so yes, a conversation battle could be held here!
My Character is Smooth, but I'm not!
As many who have played tabletops can attest, roleplaying someone who is physically more apt than you are in real life is a lot easier than roleplaying someone who is more mentally or socially apt. Playing out your barbarian lifting a heavy rock is an easy thing; playing out your wizard solving the cube root of X in your head is significantly more difficult. You want the player to interact meaningfully with the narrative, which means that a simple roll is not going to cut it.
The conversation battle system hopes to alleviate this problem by letting the player's mechanical attributes play a part in helping the player choose the right answer at each fork of the conversation tree, but leave the ultimate decision in the player's hands.
Conversation Battle Structure
As mentioned above, the ultimate goal of a conversation battle is to reach the end without letting your resolve drop to zero. The player is presented with different choices at each fork in the dialogue tree, some of which are more suited to the situation at hand. Wrong choices usually penalise the player in some form, usually by directly subtracting resolve; -10 perhaps for a small mistake, but perhaps -40 for a really egregious blunder.
Stats And Speaking
The two main stats involved in conversation battles are willpower (as resolve) and cunning. The more willpower you have, the more resolutely you are able to hold out on your body of argument. The more cunning you are, you better you are able to identify openings to strike and deflect your opponent's verbal and rhetorical attacks. How resolve factors into the debate is quite standard (as a health bar of sorts), but how cunning works is dependent on the writer. A check can be made versus the player's current maximum (I.E, cunning >= 60%), and some suggested things that writers can do are listed below:
When it comes to resolve, it's generally polite to give the player a full refill to their resolve before starting a conversation battle. Exceptions could be made when the player is thrust into a sudden situation, but that's not really fun, is it? Additionally, resolve could be restored during the battle if the player manages to make a particularly devastating blow to their opponent's argument, a particularly flashy rebuttal, or the like. This is helpful if longer conversation battles take place, and the player is given a chance to recoup their mistakes.
Telegraph Enemy Attacks
Even without the help of cunning, the player should have a reasonable chance at making the correct decision; blind guessing should never have to come into the picture. If the player is gearing up for the big fora with the minotaur senator, that they should have the opportunity to learn about his temperament, his proclivities, his policies. Maybe the player will notice that the frostmander queen unconsciously wrings her hands while discussing worrisome matters, and does so when the subject of her daughter comes up. Companions, if present and in a position to comment, may chip in with help and observations of their own. One way or the other, the writer should endeavour to prevent their conversation battle from turning into a trial-and-error event.
Knowing When To Shut Up
Conversations need not always be about speaking - shutting up at the right times can be just as valuable. interrupting the orc warlord in the middle of his raging tirade is likely to be counterproductive, and letting an overly chatty fairy let slip something she didn't mean to can prove useful. Of course, such opportunities should be appropriately telegraphed, and choosing to stay silent when an answer is expected might be taken as conceding defeat!
Mapping It Out
While not strictly necessary, making a map of your dialogue tree will be of great help, not just in your own planning, but in helping the poor people who have to review and code your conversation battle. If the player makes a mistake here, what happens? Do they proceed anyway, albeit with some resolve loss? Do they go off on another branch where their opponent peppers them with loaded questions? Do they retreat to a checkpoint and have to repeat the same line of questioning? Being able to visualise the entire conversation battle is a huge help to everyone, so I strongly encourage you to do it.
Winning and Losing
If the player reaches the (or one of multiple) ends of a conversation battle, they are considered to have emerged victorious, and achieve their intent. The public agrees with the player over the senator, the goddess agrees to release the mage's soul. How well they win or lose, though... that depends. If the player has made a bunch of mistakes, maybe the goddess agrees to let the mage's soul go, but asks for something of equal value in return. Win by but a sliver of resolve, and she'll heartily agree to release him into oblivion... so long as you give your up your own soul to take his place. What compromises can a defeated foe demand, even when vanquished?
Similarly, losing doesn't necessarily mean complete defeat, but it does denote that the time for talk is over. If you can't talk down the warlord's plans for conquest and pillage, then it's time to draw arms. If you can't dissuade the public from supporting the senator's policy, perhaps it's time for some sabotage or appealing to the minotaur king directly for a veto. Who knows?
Button Texts:
"Inquire" "Interrogate" "Criticize" "Sympathize" "Disrespect" "Agree" "Disagree" "Question" "Keep Silent". Most interactions should fall within these boundaries.
Conclusion
Writing an entire conversation battle can be daunting - making sure the line of logic on both ends holds up, making plausible responses for each selection, very possibly making branches that divert the battle in different directions while keeping the flow of the conversation natural. It's a new thing that we're trying to attempt here, and it's admittedly quite ambitious, but if it can be pulled off I think that it could really add a lot more to the nature of the text-based game we're trying to pull off here.
In CoC2, conversation battles are another way of resolving conflicts between the PC and other characters (or even potentially between NPCs temporarily under the player's control). At its very base, the player is required to navigate a dialogue tree to its conclusion while attempting to keep their resolve intact. If the player successfully does so, they win and get what they want; if their resolve drops to zero through repeatedly picking bad options, they lose and their intent is not achieved. The obstacles thrown at the player in the course of this endeavour will vary from writer to writer and the nature of the conversation battle in question, but the concept at its very base is as such.
Why Conversation Battles?
CoC2 is a game of filled with smut, yes. We also hope to make it a game filled with as much story. Conversation battles allow for another way to bring out tense, dramatic storytelling - a heated, pivotal argument between two people can be just as nail-biting and emotional as a pitched battle. It allows for players who wish to be more pacifistic to talk things out with their adversaries instead of coming to blows, and allows for situations to play out where violence would be counterproductive or impossible.
In similar games, such success or failure might have been decided by a simple stat check or roll, but such things feel rather anticlimactic when compared to combat. No matter how well you persuade, how glib your tongue, how convincing your speech, it all boils down to a roll, maybe with a modifier. That's not fun. Conversation battles hope to bring out meaningful player interaction with the ongoing debate, not make everything hinge on a single roll, while still letting the mechanical aspects of the player character play a part in the resolution of the argument.
Potential situations which could call for a conversation battle include:
- -Persuading a goddess to release the soul of a mage from her collection.
- -Convincing the frostmander queen you can help with her daughter's curse.
- -Talking down a druidess who has taken some lumberjacks hostage.
- -Convincing an orc warlord that raiding the locale would be a really bad idea, given the power of Khor'minos.
- -Debating a minotaur senator in a public forum.
- -Smooth-talking a temple whore into giving you a freebie.
This is a situation which really shouldn't be resolved with a social skill roll, and could be fun for those who enjoy social interactions, so yes, a conversation battle could be held here!
My Character is Smooth, but I'm not!
As many who have played tabletops can attest, roleplaying someone who is physically more apt than you are in real life is a lot easier than roleplaying someone who is more mentally or socially apt. Playing out your barbarian lifting a heavy rock is an easy thing; playing out your wizard solving the cube root of X in your head is significantly more difficult. You want the player to interact meaningfully with the narrative, which means that a simple roll is not going to cut it.
The conversation battle system hopes to alleviate this problem by letting the player's mechanical attributes play a part in helping the player choose the right answer at each fork of the conversation tree, but leave the ultimate decision in the player's hands.
Conversation Battle Structure
As mentioned above, the ultimate goal of a conversation battle is to reach the end without letting your resolve drop to zero. The player is presented with different choices at each fork in the dialogue tree, some of which are more suited to the situation at hand. Wrong choices usually penalise the player in some form, usually by directly subtracting resolve; -10 perhaps for a small mistake, but perhaps -40 for a really egregious blunder.
Stats And Speaking
The two main stats involved in conversation battles are willpower (as resolve) and cunning. The more willpower you have, the more resolutely you are able to hold out on your body of argument. The more cunning you are, you better you are able to identify openings to strike and deflect your opponent's verbal and rhetorical attacks. How resolve factors into the debate is quite standard (as a health bar of sorts), but how cunning works is dependent on the writer. A check can be made versus the player's current maximum (I.E, cunning >= 60%), and some suggested things that writers can do are listed below:
- Remove incorrect options from the current choices.
- Add options which take the conversation in an easier direction.
- Provide clues as to which is the correct current response.
- Provide clues as to the opponent's tells (see below).
When it comes to resolve, it's generally polite to give the player a full refill to their resolve before starting a conversation battle. Exceptions could be made when the player is thrust into a sudden situation, but that's not really fun, is it? Additionally, resolve could be restored during the battle if the player manages to make a particularly devastating blow to their opponent's argument, a particularly flashy rebuttal, or the like. This is helpful if longer conversation battles take place, and the player is given a chance to recoup their mistakes.
Telegraph Enemy Attacks
Even without the help of cunning, the player should have a reasonable chance at making the correct decision; blind guessing should never have to come into the picture. If the player is gearing up for the big fora with the minotaur senator, that they should have the opportunity to learn about his temperament, his proclivities, his policies. Maybe the player will notice that the frostmander queen unconsciously wrings her hands while discussing worrisome matters, and does so when the subject of her daughter comes up. Companions, if present and in a position to comment, may chip in with help and observations of their own. One way or the other, the writer should endeavour to prevent their conversation battle from turning into a trial-and-error event.
Knowing When To Shut Up
Conversations need not always be about speaking - shutting up at the right times can be just as valuable. interrupting the orc warlord in the middle of his raging tirade is likely to be counterproductive, and letting an overly chatty fairy let slip something she didn't mean to can prove useful. Of course, such opportunities should be appropriately telegraphed, and choosing to stay silent when an answer is expected might be taken as conceding defeat!
Mapping It Out
While not strictly necessary, making a map of your dialogue tree will be of great help, not just in your own planning, but in helping the poor people who have to review and code your conversation battle. If the player makes a mistake here, what happens? Do they proceed anyway, albeit with some resolve loss? Do they go off on another branch where their opponent peppers them with loaded questions? Do they retreat to a checkpoint and have to repeat the same line of questioning? Being able to visualise the entire conversation battle is a huge help to everyone, so I strongly encourage you to do it.
Winning and Losing
If the player reaches the (or one of multiple) ends of a conversation battle, they are considered to have emerged victorious, and achieve their intent. The public agrees with the player over the senator, the goddess agrees to release the mage's soul. How well they win or lose, though... that depends. If the player has made a bunch of mistakes, maybe the goddess agrees to let the mage's soul go, but asks for something of equal value in return. Win by but a sliver of resolve, and she'll heartily agree to release him into oblivion... so long as you give your up your own soul to take his place. What compromises can a defeated foe demand, even when vanquished?
Similarly, losing doesn't necessarily mean complete defeat, but it does denote that the time for talk is over. If you can't talk down the warlord's plans for conquest and pillage, then it's time to draw arms. If you can't dissuade the public from supporting the senator's policy, perhaps it's time for some sabotage or appealing to the minotaur king directly for a veto. Who knows?
Button Texts:
"Inquire" "Interrogate" "Criticize" "Sympathize" "Disrespect" "Agree" "Disagree" "Question" "Keep Silent". Most interactions should fall within these boundaries.
Conclusion
Writing an entire conversation battle can be daunting - making sure the line of logic on both ends holds up, making plausible responses for each selection, very possibly making branches that divert the battle in different directions while keeping the flow of the conversation natural. It's a new thing that we're trying to attempt here, and it's admittedly quite ambitious, but if it can be pulled off I think that it could really add a lot more to the nature of the text-based game we're trying to pull off here.
Last edited:
