J.E. Sawyer on key dialogue writing concepts

Sander

This ghoul has seen it all
Staff member
Admin
Orderite
J.E. Sawyer of Obsidian has written a blog post about some important writing rules Obsidian dialogues are supposed to conform with.<blockquote>* Dialogue should inform and entertain players -- inform them about the world and quests, entertain them with interesting characters and prose. If you aren't informing or entertaining, think hard about what you're trying to accomplish.
* Write an outline. Really. Just do it. You should have an idea of where you are going before you set out. If you don't know where you're going when you write your conversation, chances are the player is going to get lost at some point.
* Always give at least two options. At a bare minimum, you should always have an option that says, "Let's talk about something else," that leads back to a node where you can say, "Goodbye." You may think that your dialogue is riveting and no one could possibly want to stop reading/hearing it, but believe me -- someone out there does.
* Never give false options. Do not create multiple options that lead to the same result. It insults players' intelligence and does not reward them for the choices they make.
* Don't put words in the player's mouth. With the exception of conditional replies (gender, skills, stats, etc.), phrase things in a straightforward manner that does not mix a request for information with an emotionally loaded bias ("I'd like to know what's going on here, jackass.").
* Keep skills, stats, gender, and previous story resolutions in mind and reward the player's choices. If it doesn't feel like a reward, it isn't; it's just a false option with a tag in front of it. Note: entertainment value can be a valid reward.
* The writing style and structure are the project's; the character belongs to you and the world. As long as the dialogue follows project standards and feels like it is grounded in the world, it is your challenge and responsibility to make the character enjoyable and distinct.</blockquote>
Thanks, Ausir.
 
I wonder what the BioWare writers are thinking when they read this...

I have a feeling that this dude is subtly putting BioWare and Bethesda down lol..
 
UnidentifiedFlyingTard said:
* Never give false options. Do not create multiple options that lead to the same result. It insults players' intelligence and does not reward them for the choices they make.

THANK FUCKING GOD.

Yeah. The best negative case for this is probably in Mass Effect.

Dialog Wheel Option 1 : "Please, now would you stay quiet?
Option 2: "I don't have time to listen to you"
Option 3: "Shut the fuck up you bastard!"

And what you get with all the options is "Leave me alone".
This is real shit, imo. Glad that this doesn't make it to FO:NV.
 
The funny thing is, all the named points should already come into your mind by plain logic. Still, many people are doing it the wrong way.
 
I take personal interest in these matters, as an aspiring game designer and dialog writer and whatnot...

Sander said:
* Write an outline. Really. Just do it. You should have an idea of where you are going before you set out. If you don't know where you're going when you write your conversation, chances are the player is going to get lost at some point.
This is the most basic rule. I have only dealt with two other dialog writers, but both of them had this problem: no method whatsoever. It's like they throw themselves at the job hoping that their bare talent will solve everything.

In essence, you should write dialog with a purpose, always. And it's not only relevant in terms of dialog flow and stuff, but also in terms of what choices you'll want to present to the player and how the dialog will flow around those choices. And even then, you'll end up going back and forth in the tree, rewriting and adjusting all the way through the process. Unless you're a Bethesda employee, where it's forbidden.

Sander said:
* Always give at least two options. At a bare minimum, you should always have an option that says, "Let's talk about something else," that leads back to a node where you can say, "Goodbye." You may think that your dialogue is riveting and no one could possibly want to stop reading/hearing it, but believe me -- someone out there does.
I disagree. Dialog flow is something very important for me, and it rarely exists in RPGs. It's the old paradigm of making NPCs act like information stands or whatever. I think that's not interesting, not challenging for the writer, and doesn't allow for as much choices and consequences.

Sander said:
* Never give false options. Do not create multiple options that lead to the same result. It insults players' intelligence and does not reward them for the choices they make.
Again, I disagree. Not everything, not every choices has to have a consequence. I think you should be able to react to an NPC's line in the way you want, even if the said NPC won't give a damn about your reaction. And this is the only situation where I disagree with this point, to be honest. As a general rule, it's best to write dialog choices around the possibilities of actions, rather than the other way around.

Sander said:
* Don't put words in the player's mouth. With the exception of conditional replies (gender, skills, stats, etc.), phrase things in a straightforward manner that does not mix a request for information with an emotionally loaded bias ("I'd like to know what's going on here, jackass.").
Well, if your dialog system integrates dialog stances and stuff like that, you'll want to include that kind of vocabulary. Even more so if you're not going for the NPC-a-la-info-stash design.
 
el_jefe_of_ny said:
and talk to Harold.

Please god, no. Leave his rotten corpse where it is, let him rest in peace. They fucked him in FO3 and it was so sad to see him there what they made with him etc....
 
Surf Solar said:
el_jefe_of_ny said:
and talk to Harold.

Please god, no. Leave his rotten corpse where it is, let him rest in peace. They fucked him in FO3 and it was so sad to see him there what they made with him etc....

I saw it more as a joke, because - in fact - it's true you could "talk" with Harold, but the dialog was so bad and short, that it really produced rage in me. You don't really talk with him, you just click through five sentences and then you can kill him.

I call this the "Harold-Situation". A prime example for shitty dialogues, in which a great character has been killed by shitty writing.
 
* Never give false options. Do not create multiple options that lead to the same result. It insults players' intelligence and does not reward them for the choices they make.

* Don't put words in the player's mouth. With the exception of conditional replies (gender, skills, stats, etc.), phrase things in a straightforward manner that does not mix a request for information with an emotionally loaded bias ("I'd like to know what's going on here, jackass.").

Bioware does both of these things with remarkable consistency.
 
I have to disagree a little with the Bioware comments...

While in mass effect you might have several options that lead towards the same result, there are 2 designed rewards in there. 1. Their "karma" points, and entertainment, because it is the tone for your characters dialog.

So I see two rewards there. Not saying that they couldn't do it better.
 
But for "RPG"ing, the Karma Points aren't that important to actual consequences or different sentences in dialog...
 
Yeah, as much as I love KOTOR and ME1&2, BioWare could be a fair deal better with those specific bits.

Anyway, I'm confident that the writing/dialogue will at least be good, and I'm hoping it'll really put Bethesda's to shame.
 
Never give false options. Do not create multiple options that lead to the same result. It insults players' intelligence and does not reward them for the choices they make.

As mentioned, Bioware could really do with doing this. Upon multiple play-throughs of both ME's 1 and 2, it's clear that a lot of the dialogue options given are exactly the same, irrespective of which option you choose. Hell, some of the options you choose and what comes out of your character's mouth don't sync up in any material way at all.
 
Hooray for good dialogue options! :)

EDIT:
* Don't put words in the player's mouth. With the exception of conditional replies (gender, skills, stats, etc.), phrase things in a straightforward manner that does not mix a request for information with an emotionally loaded bias ("I'd like to know what's going on here, jackass.").
People are complaining about this one already, claiming that "non-robotic" replies gave Fallout 3 character.
Bahahahahahah...

And people crying about graphics too, brilliant.
 
Morbus said:
Sander said:
* Write an outline. Really. Just do it. You should have an idea of where you are going before you set out. If you don't know where you're going when you write your conversation, chances are the player is going to get lost at some point.
This is the most basic rule. I have only dealt with two other dialog writers, but both of them had this problem: no method whatsoever. It's like they throw themselves at the job hoping that their bare talent will solve everything.

In essence, you should write dialog with a purpose, always. And it's not only relevant in terms of dialog flow and stuff, but also in terms of what choices you'll want to present to the player and how the dialog will flow around those choices. And even then, you'll end up going back and forth in the tree, rewriting and adjusting all the way through the process. Unless you're a Bethesda employee, where it's forbidden.
well thats directly opposed to how Bethesda is approaching its dialogues ...

That can only be a good thing for a RPG.
 
* Never give false options. Do not create multiple options that lead to the same result. It insults players' intelligence and does not reward them for the choices they make.

Actually, the good example of this shit is not even Mass Effect, but Dragon Age. I saved-loaded different situations and tried all the dialogue options (e.g. [spoiler:e2186951af]meeting werewolves for the first time in the elven forest[/spoiler:e2186951af]). All the options that seem different (kind-angry-reasonable-smth else) lead to the only outcome. The stupidiest thing is that they always have 2 or 3 different options, but mostly they're illusional. That's what pisses me off really.
 
thats the design of the quest. Though I think you have 3 possible options there either side with the wolfes and kill the elves. Help the Elves and kill the wolfes. Or help them both.

The dialogues for itself though havnt really impresed me in Dragon age. But some things you could do did matter in the end. Though if you ask me in Dragonage you had to many times situations where you got a "here, take this route to please everyone" choise ...

Only the situation with Morrigan and Allistair surprised me in the end as you realy could not keep them AND refuse their offers.
 
Back
Top