Of party leaders and NPCs starting conversations automatically

[Tuco]

Ok, we all know what this is about, right?

You finish a battle and the NPC immediately starts a dialogue automatically with the companion who's the closest to his current position.
You reach a hotspot with an automatic trigger and the same happens. A compaion is prompted to handle the dialogue rather than you.
Same when you are druid in beast form and everyone talks over you as if you weren't even there.
I hate it, you hate it, chances are pretty much everyone hates it.

It's something that was pointed as an annoyance since the very first days of EA, but we all had more urgent things to debate/complain about and this minor issue was always sidelined. "You have to pick your battles at some point" etc, etc.

Still, this is something that needs to be addressed and doesn't even take much work to correct.

Keep in mind that if you are willing to redo the entire dialogue system from zero you can go in a million ways about it, all very expensive and time-consuming.

I personally dislike to fantasize about unrealistic or overdesigned systems that aren't practically viable on a reasonable budget, so I always try to:

1) keep things simple.
2) recycling as much as I can of what's already there.
Especially this late in development.

Anyway, I'll break this suggestion down it two parts.

ADDRESSING THE CORRECT CHARACTER

- Especially in single player ALL NPCs, in any circumstance, should ALWAYS start the dialogue with the Main Character as a priority over anyone else.
- As second best alternative (and maybe the "problem solver" in multiplayer, too) the player(s) should be able to *mark* one character in the party as the "Face/Party leader".

Only exceptions when dialogue can start with other characters:
1- The player prompts the dialogue with the companion on purpose.
2- the trigger for the dialogue happens with the MC hidden/dead/significantly out of range.

This should be the baseline of the system. Not a new thing, just a refinement of what we have now mechanically.
_________________________

MAKING ALL PARTY MEMBERS FEEL PART OF THE CONVERSATION TO A DEGREE

Then, on top of it, it would be IDEAL if the rest of the party could be involved at will when there are skill checks to make during dialogue.

- In a "money-saving" form this companion would just handle the roll with his bonus (make it that your MC will turn to watch in his direction for bonus involvement) and then pass the dialogue back to you. Pretty much how it goes in Pathfinder. Very basic. More functional than flavorful.
- The "luxurious" one that may be more up to Larian's taste, could go the extra mile and have every companion offering a voiced line with a comment about how they "got this" for us ("Let me handle this" and so on).
Bonus points (and extra budget spent) if the comment could occasionally contextual to the specific situation rather than generic and used all over the game.

In this "We spared no expense" form, it would be similar to the occasional "quips" companions can already have during dialogue right now (i.e. when Lae' Zel complains we are being too soft with someone), except they would address "handling the matter for you".

In the eventuality Origin characters in the final game are going to be fully voiced (which I doubt, but you never know and Larian has been extremely ambiguous about this point in the past) you wouldn't even need to record new dedicated lines tied to these skill checks.
You could just make the companion read the basic line recycling from their voice files. i.e. You select the line, the companion who's good at it (let's say Gale for Arcana, for instance) steps forward to interrupt you and talks in your place, I guess.

The way I envision it would be more or less like this:

- You pick the Intimidation option.
- Wyll is the best at intimidating in your party.
- Your character glances at his side (you can make few variations of this and make it mostly a systemic thing, rather than handcrafting each individual animation)...
- Wyll nods, makes a half step forward and does his intimidation attempt, saying whatever he has to say to the interlocutor.
- Regardless of how it goes, the dialogue goes back to you (assuming there's still a dialogue going on after).

Any particular objection?

[Freak4Leeks]

1st part i believe has already been acknowledged by larian that is something they are working on along with the ability to switch between characters when you come to a check that is better suited for someone else (but that is from my memory so take with salt)

2nd part.... sounds good to me.

[Aldain]

Honestly the only issue I can see cropping up with all this is how it works in multiplayer.

Some conversations force everyone into them if they're in range of when it starts, others require party members to manually click to view the conversation iirc, I don't know how this will account for one of your party members running around halfway across the map for some reason.

[Tuco]

Originally posted by Aldain:

Some conversations force everyone into them if they're in range of when it starts, others require party members to manually click to view the conversation iirc, I don't know how this will account for one of your party members running around halfway across the map for some reason.

Well, any other consideration aside, I'd say it should be a given that characters that aren't in range for the conversation can't be accounted as part of it.

[SnarkOne]

The mechanical part from this was solved in DOS2 by a mod that is essential to a mod list: LeaderLib
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1499447796&searchtext=

The problem arises with semantics because there is more than just a persuasion check like in DoS 2 & there are different checks after you succeed some other check. Like... a conversation could require you to roll a Persuasion, then an insight, then a slight of hand & all other kinds in-between that were overlooked because we chose to make those checks. There's also unique dialogue from each origin/custom race & gender character that will be missed if everything is directed to the MC. Would it be a matter of prioritization of the MC, or opening the options to explore the choices with every character?
There's also the underlying issue of not getting approval when a companion makes a decision/choice; is that supposed to be opened up & we get approval no matter who makes the decision?
Definitely +1 on the changing on characters for "assisting" in the dialogue with voice lines, via the character select feature; but I'd also appreciate it if the option to join a dialogue with a character that was out of range for the conversation initiation so that he/she can take part it in. Of course this can make a plethora of problems in Multiplayer that I won't even get into.

I would be satisfied if the functionality of that mod was integrated into the base BG3.

[Tuco]

Originally posted by SnarkOne:

The mechanical part from this was solved in DOS2 by a mod that is essential to a mod list: LeaderLib
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1499447796&searchtext=

Well, I surely bloody hope we won't have to rely on a mod to solve the problem of dialogue redirect in BG3.

The problem arises with semantics because there is more than just a persuasion check like in DoS 2 & there are different checks after you succeed some other check. Like... a conversation could require you to roll a Persuasion, then an insight, then a slight of hand & all other kinds in-between that were overlooked because we chose to make those checks.

Well, I'll have to admit I'm a bit confused here. What part of this do you think goes unaddressed by my suggestion (the second part of it)?

I mean, for how the system would work, no matter how many different consecutive skill checks the game could throw at you, as far as someone in your party could handle it they would be picked to do it.

There's also unique dialogue from each origin/custom race & gender character that will be missed if everything is directed to the MC. Would it be a matter of prioritization of the MC, or opening the options to explore the choices with every character?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, here.
IF you are playing as an Origin character, that character would also be the "MC".

If he's just a companion in your party crossing some part of the story where he has a "vignette" where he says something, it would work exactly as it does now: the dialogue would start with whoever is there (once again, ideally the MC) and then the companion would have his story-driven vignette.

There's also the underlying issue of not getting approval when a companion makes a decision/choice; is that supposed to be opened up & we get approval no matter who makes the decision?

Hard to say what's even the intent on Larian's part here, but once again that's something that applies to the game "as it is" and not strictly related to any change that is being suggested here.

[SnarkOne]

Originally posted by Tuco:

Originally posted by SnarkOne:

The mechanical part from this was solved in DOS2 by a mod that is essential to a mod list: LeaderLib
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1499447796&searchtext=

Well, I surely bloody hope we won't have to rely on a mod to solve the problem of dialogue redirect in BG3.

I don't either

The problem arises with semantics because there is more than just a persuasion check like in DoS 2 & there are different checks after you succeed some other check. Like... a conversation could require you to roll a Persuasion, then an insight, then a slight of hand & all other kinds in-between that were overlooked because we chose to make those checks.

Well, I'll have to admit I'm a bit confused here. What part of this do you think goes unaddressed by my suggestion (the second part of it)?

I mean, for how the system would work, no matter how many different consecutive skill checks the game could throw at you, as far as someone in your party could handle it they would be picked to do it.

I was referring to the mod & how it redirects to highest persuasion character or the MC in DoS 2. What you proposed, addresses these things, but with what I say next, about the start of the conversation, could change how some events work & make them make less sense... Which will open a boatload of new dialogue or erase some.

There's also unique dialogue from each origin/custom race & gender character that will be missed if everything is directed to the MC. Would it be a matter of prioritization of the MC, or opening the options to explore the choices with every character?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, here.
IF you are playing as an Origin character, that character would also be the "MC".

If he's just a companion in your party crossing some part of the story where he has a "vignette" where he says something, it would work exactly as it does now: the dialogue would start with whoever is there (once again, ideally the MC) and then the companion would have his story-driven vignette.

Three instances came to mind when writing this, and how events would play out under them.
1. When your MC is anything other than a Drow & try to walk trough the goblin ambush, but you have a Drow in your party... Your conversation got redirected to the MC (a non-drow) & you change your character to respond with the Drow, what would the conversation tree look like? The goblin was clearly addressing the non-drow in the cutscene. Does it warrant new voice dialogue or would the Drow respond with the lines of whatever race your MC is?

2. The same dialogue dilemma at Waukeen's rest with the Flaming fist; but now you have a human with you (let's say he's Wyll), and your MC is a drow. When you change the dialogue character to him, does Wyll get a new dialogue tree to calm down the Flaming fist. How would the dialogue trees look like?

3. In the event of engaging with your MC(custom character) during an Origin character(let's say Wyll) cutscene & you switch to the Origin character to respond to the scene; would the cutscene continue playing as if the Origin character is alone, or would it play as if both parties are there & Wyll is the MC... and how would the dialogue tree look like?
I suppose you've partially answered the last one, but I think the dialogue tree is more convoluted with variables than just who says what.

I don't have the best answers for these scenarios, but limiting the dialogue tree of companion responses to what the MC can say, seems immersion breaking. I would rather my MC do all the talking & all dialogue be directed to him/her.

There's also the underlying issue of not getting approval when a companion makes a decision/choice; is that supposed to be opened up & we get approval no matter who makes the decision?

Hard to say what's even the intent on Larian's part here, but once again that's something that applies to the game "as it is" and not strictly related to any change that is being suggested here.

I don't like it, but I think it's relevant because of the suggestion of companions responding & how the game handles the responses for the MC. If the suggested changes are made, then I think the MC should gain approval from companion responses. Otherwise there's a cut in incentive to use the proposed feature.

[Tuco]

Originally posted by SnarkOne:

1. When your MC is anything other than a Drow & try to walk trough the goblin ambush, but you have a Drow in your party... Your conversation got redirected to the MC (a non-drow) & you change your character to respond with the Drow, what would the conversation tree look like? The goblin was clearly addressing the non-drow in the cutscene. Does it warrant new voice dialogue or would the Drow respond with the lines of whatever race your MC is?

This has been already addressed.
Last time I went through this gate in Patch 8 I started the dialogue with my MC (human barbarian) and the game automatically had a scene about Shadowheart (that was disguised as a drow in this case) stepped forward and got us free passage.

2. The same dialogue dilemma at Waukeen's rest with the Flaming fist; but now you have a human with you (let's say he's Wyll), and your MC is a drow. When you change the dialogue character to him, does Wyll get a new dialogue tree to calm down the Flaming fist. How would the dialogue trees look like?

I... don't understand the question because I never experienced this part as a Drow and I'm not sure how that sequence goes.
But generally speaking if your MC was a drow I'll stress that you would STILL have the option to FORCE-START the dialogue with someone else.
And if the scene is an auto-trigger and some companion is supposed to intercede in your favor and save your ass there... That can still happen in the same way, I guess? At worst it would require some minor tweak to address it.

3. In the event of engaging with your MC(custom character) during an Origin character(let's say Wyll) cutscene & you switch to the Origin character to respond to the scene; would the cutscene continue playing as if the Origin character is alone, or would it play as if both parties are there & Wyll is the MC... and how would the dialogue tree look like?

My idea, the one I already described but maybe I didn't make clear enough, is that the dialogue would hardly ever move away from being managed from your perspective, and Origin companions would just have their occasional chance to intervene and say their lines/do their skill checks.

Like it already goes currently when you, for instance, approach one of the goblin tortures with Wyll at your side.

What's important to stress to me, in any case, is that I don't make this strictly a matter of maximizing results.

Maybe I'm weird but it doesn't really matter to me to get the best result every time. I don't want to pick the Face as matter of min-maxing. I just want my character to be the "protagonist" even when there are better diplomats in my party.
Last thing I want is having to handle every dialogue with a bard, paladin or warlock companion only because I'm playing a Barbarian, for instance.

I'll deal with the consequences and occasional shortcomings of being a barbarian if I have to. Thank you.

But then again if they can help when it makes sense for story-related reasons or because they have the adequate skillset, all the better.
And there's of course the other side of the coin: when having a certain companion could turn in a mandatory fight a scenario that otherwise could have solved with diplomacy.
I'm perfectly fine with dealing with the consequences of that, too.

[SnarkOne]

Originally posted by Tuco:

Maybe I'm weird but it doesn't really matter to me to get the best result every time. I don't want to pick the Face as matter of min-maxing. I just want my character to be the "protagonist" even when there are better diplomats in my party.
Last thing I want is having to handle every dialogue with a bard, paladin or warlock companion only because I'm playing a Barbarian, for instance.

I'll deal with the consequences and occasional shortcomings of being a barbarian if I have to. Thank you.

But then again if they can help when it makes sense for story-related reasons or because they have the adequate skillset, all the better.
And there's of course the other side of the coin: when having a certain companion could turn in a mandatory fight a scenario that otherwise could have solved with diplomacy.
I'm perfectly fine with dealing with the consequences of that, too.

I think I have a clearer idea of the concept now.

+1 for the direction of the ideas.
Now it's up to Larian to keep us in the dark on how they look at this system and if they plan on any improvements for it... lmao

I'm a min-maxer most of the time, but I can sacrifice a few lost stats, feats or items if it means a better story experience

[God King 069]

Amen brotha. This annoys me to no end.

[brynjar]

My objection is

Its good you don't see everything the first play through. Makes you more curious for another play through

[Tuco]

Originally posted by brynjar:

My objection is

Its good you don't see everything the first play through. Makes you more curious for another play through

Well, my counterpoint is: nothing of this has anything to with "seeing everything in the first playthrough".
Every decision you wouldn't make, every companion you wouldn't bring with you, every place you don't visit or quest you don't complete (or complete in a way rather than another) remains part of that WHOLE LOT you wouldn't see in the first playthrough,

Hell, I played this EA 7 or 8 times already from start to finish and I keep crossing Youtube clips about scenes I've never seen,

Which makes your concern... Odd, to put it mildly?

Not to mention that even speaking more in general I don't find the "You should be gated out of stuff to encourage more playthroughs" a particularly compelling argument.

[brendan_in_china]

This is a funny one.

On the one hand, I've had strange glitches where I've moved the talking character forward and another character triggered the dialogue. Somehow the NPC saw them first but it comes across as an immersion-breaking glitch.

Otoh, these origin characters have got strong personalities and I'd imagine they would respond immediately - without asking permission from MC, if interacted with by common NPCs.

There is the obvious counter-argument that MC is the key personality binding the group, so with big decisions they'd wait for you to step up and have your say. In D&D every group does have a face character - and a leader.

I'm kind of okay with things as is, except for strange LoS triggers. I've got no problem with Astarion getting caught and having to talk his way out (with a -1 Cha ring). Unexpected but fair failures add to the replay-ability.

[Brady4444]

I agree with the OP. What I find more annoying that anything is that a dialogue is triggered with my characters at all. If combat is on, then there should be no dialogue in my opinion. And I would prefer to be the one to initiate dialogue, and thus have control over which character is the speaker in those dialogues.

[Alex_x86]

Originally posted by Brady4444:

I agree with the OP. What I find more annoying that anything is that a dialogue is triggered with my characters at all. If combat is on, then there should be no dialogue in my opinion. And I would prefer to be the one to initiate dialogue, and thus have control over which character is the speaker in those dialogues.

I am not sure what is your particular case but I really liked how you can force Gnoll leader to eat herself during the combat. However right after the combat some NPC runs toward closest the team member which has really bad stats and my character cannot get information from them without lot of save scumming...

[Tuco]

Originally posted by brendan_in_china:

I'm kind of okay with things as is, except for strange LoS triggers. I've got no problem with Astarion getting caught and having to talk his way out (with a -1 Cha ring). Unexpected but fair failures add to the replay-ability.

Well, clearly getting caught stealing and/or completely separate from the rest of the party is a different thing.
In that case it would be only be weird to have your MC instantly teleported in the area to deal with a sudden dialogue.