Dialogue tree

Another very common form that combines an actively nodal form with a high effectiveness for conveying narrative information are the dialogues that the player character can hold with non-player characters he meets in the gameworld . These dialogues as part of the gameplay process that are not completely pre-scripted in a cut scene , are especially common in CRPGs. Incorporating dialogue into the gameplay de-emphasises other aspects like combat. In a first-person shooter , what moves can  – and probably should  – be shot, whereas a game like Plan-escape: Torment strongly encourages its players to use conversations to achieve their goals, to the extent that its script is said to contain 80000 words. ⁴⁷

One main criterion that distinguishes what is most commonly meant by the term non-player character from other figures that function merely as a structurally indifferent visual backdrop or an enemy to be opposed is the fact that the player character can usually talk to them. This means that, upon approaching such a non-player character, the game will offer the option to engage in a conversation or the proximity will automatically trigger the beginning of such a conversation.

Conversation situations will usually limit the player’s range of options (combat options and other interactions with the gameworld are usually disabled, and spatial movement is limited or disabled), ⁴⁸ but the player can still influence the course of the conversation. If it is not presented as part of a cut scene , it usually makes more than one dialogue option available for the player to choose from, thus creating what is commonly referred to as a dialogue tree . The choice is generally restricted to the dialogue options of the player, and the non-player character will in turn react differently to different statements or questions. The dialogue choices are presented in written form and are arranged simultaneously on the screen, ⁴⁹ with the action pausing until one option has been chosen. Some games, like Heavy Rain , try to increase realism by sometimes giving the player only a limited amount of time to choose, and even further complicate the choice in situations of stress by making the on-screen script unstable, blurry, and hard to read. ⁵⁰

There are different structural types of dialogue trees that are influential for the (non)-linearity of the gameplay and its narrative: arborescent, cyclical, and

47 Cf. “Planescape: Torment”.

48 For the different degrees, one might compare Two Worlds II , where the player character can move in a prescribed area close to the conversational partner and look around, Skyrim , where the player character is fixed in position but is able to look around to a certain degree, and Fallout 3 , where both the spatial position and the perspective are automatically fixed.

49 A minority of (mostly newer) games does not display the exact wording of the dialogue choic-es anymore but rather providchoic-es paraphraschoic-es (e.g. Mass Effect ) or information as to the type of reply one wants to give (aggressive, helpful, inquisitive etc.).

50 Another example of timed dialogue trees are the games in the Sakura Wars series.

dynamic. In a purely arborescent type, every dialogue option chosen will disable all other options, while potentially opening up a new set of options. It is seldom used in its strictest form, as non-player character conversations often need to convey important gameplay information, and this form would strongly increase the danger for the player to miss it. Most dialogue trees do not even automatically disable dialogue options once they have been used. This is especially true in those cases where non-player characters provide important information. The questions that trigger the information can usually be repeated endlessly. Still, some options will typically be available once, while others can be repeated. For example, if the player meets a quest-giving non-player character for the first time, there will be a conversation that starts the quest , with a dialogue option that either accepts or declines the non-player characters request. This option will only be available once, while the player can usually return to the non-player character to talk about the task, in order to receive information about it. Purely cyclical forms can be found with non-player characters that do not provide (one time) quests, but some services, such as commerce. Encountering such a non-player character, there will usually be a short (and always identical) dialogue, where the player can choose whether she wants to buy, sell or repair something or not.

Many non-player characters can be engaged in conversation several times throughout the game. Depending on events that happen between the encoun-ters, the dialogue can change, though some options still remain the same. For example, the player character talks to a non-player character, and as a result gets a request from the non-player character to fulfil a specific task. With this, the con-versation comes to an end. If the player engages the non-player character again in a conversation, without having completed the task, the non-player character will open the conversation with the question whether the task has been com-pleted or not. In most cases, the player can only answer in the negative, which will again end the conversation; alternatively, she can ask for the specific instruc-tions again, in case she has forgotten them. After the completion of the task, the options for conversation will change again. The player is now able to answer in the affirmative, which will result in new options.

But even the most dynamic of dialogue trees must still be considered rather passive in narrative terms, since the non-player characters will usually not be influenced by other events than those that are concerned directly with their inter-action with the player character. Thus, the passing of intradiegetic time will often see no change in their attitude; neither will the number of times that the player begins the same conversation. The Fallout games are among those that go furthest in dynamizing the conversational behaviour of non-player characters, making their responses dependent on a number of variables, such as faction affiliation,

or the outcome of certain other missions that the player has completed (or failed to complete) earlier, or sometimes even the time of day within the gameworld .

The options available to the player when talking to a non-player character can also differ depending on factors that are related to the character’s attributes.

CRPGs like Fallout 3 often contain attributes such as a value for the player char-acter’s rhetoric capabilities. Depending on this value, some dialogue options will be available to the player or not. This can vastly influence gameplay, since a char-acter with high rhetoric skills might be able to convince a non-player charchar-acter to give him a thought for object or access to a closed off area, while a character that does not have the same skills will need to fulfil extra tasks, or find alternative routes to reach the same results. Other games like Mass Effect 2 make dialogue options dependent on the character’s ‘ethical affiliation’. Depending on the char-acter’s previous actions, she will have gained higher values for ‘paragon’ or ‘ren-egade’, and some dialogue options will only be available to either.

Dialogue trees imply consequence for what the character says, though this frequently is not really the case. Especially in the case of cyclical dialogue trees, they are often little more than a way to provide information to the player, some of which she might need for later decisions, and some not. The Mass Effect games are rather singular in that they give (gameplay) consequence to dialogue options in themselves (rather than through the action they provoke), strengthening the idea that the way someone leads a conversation is actually an integral part of how they (role)play a game. On the other hand, the games also have a tendency for railroading the player in her dialogue decisions. ⁵¹ This is possible because the player does not decide (as in most other games) on the exact words that her char-acter will use as a response, but rather on the meaning and tone of the answer. In some cases, the answer actually made by the player character will stray rather far from the significance offered as a choice to the player.

Often, dialogue choices will have less of a direct consequence on the events that result from the conversation, than on the player’s (also narratively relevant) perception on the character she is playing. A dialogue tree might offer different answers leading to the same narrative result, but differing in tone and therefore characterizing the player character in different ways. In these cases, it is up to the player to decide what type of person she is playing (always friendly and cheerful, or rather cynical, gruff, etc.) independently of the decision she makes with regard to her actions.

51 The term ‘railroading’ is common in descriptions of the gamemaster’s activity in a role-play-ing game. In this context, railroadrole-play-ing means that the gamemaster gives his players less agency to develop the story they are role-playing and forces them (e.g., by adjusting the rules) to accept the sequence of events he has determined before the game started.