Soltown Arson Quest pre-mature ending

1. Title: Soltown Arson Quest pre-mature ending
2. Reproduction Rate: 100% for me
3. Blocker? Sort of, prevents the player decision and once done you can't go back
4. Details:
   Spoiler: WARNING SPOILERS

   I discovered who set the fire in Soltown at the refugee camp. After discovering this, I was told I had a choice. I was on my way to the river near the north entrance to find Stanley when I ran across an NPC at the refugee camp with no name over their head. As an aside I also realized I never ran into an NPC named Raymond who is named in the quest. So I started talking to him figuring I'd get his name at least and see if THIS was Raymond. It asked me to blame either Harry or Martin. I did neither, instead I simply typed name and based on that it concluded the quest. So it seems the quest pre-maturely completed simply by me typing "name". Not to mention I was planning on telling Stanley anyway and now I'm unable to do so.
   
5. Steps to Reproduce: See the Details section. Do that
6. User Specs: Windows 10 64-bit R33

 

This is as designed. You picked up the quest elsewhere and then talked to Raymond, who originally gave it out. You have to give him an answer at that point - since you didn't tell him anything he recognized you effectively told him nothing.

You did not lose anything from this; this was for him actually the most virtuous choice.

 

It didn't seem obvious to me that I couldn't type anything except one of the choices or else forfeit the choice and tell him nothing. I see what you're saying though the dialog system views it as something you must respond to then and there and typing anything other than those choices counts a neither. I didn't realize that. Its also a bit odd because somehow I had never met him before. So it seems like it may make more sense to allow me to do the standard introductory stuff if that hasn't yet happened which is what I thought I could do. But I see what you're saying.

Thanks for the reply and clarification

 

Since the game identified the NPC as "Raymond" to you automatically, the conversation text should reveal his name and not leave it as "Traveller". This would avoid situations exactly as described above.

 

In thinking about this, the convo text could probably also tell you that if you say ANYTHING else to the NPC it will be counted as a choice. I also wonder (though didn't get to test this) what would happen if you just hit escape and exited the convo. Would that count as a choice there? Just seems a little brittle and open to confusion and taking the choice away from players.

 

Generally when an NPC asks you a direct question your answer will be taken as an answer to that question and you cannot change the subject. (This is not the case always for older NPCs but we are retrofiting the dialog to work this way as we move through editing them.) Most of the time an answer outside what they are looking for will be ignored/rejected but in this case with three possible answers, one answer is defined as "you said anything else".

 

Sure, but I think this can be presented in a more usable manner. So how goes the NPC conversation UI revamp that everyone's eager to see! Do we need to post some #SaveTheGame threads to get Starr to let you work on it for R34?

Also, what do you think about the suggestion such that his name is displayed rather than "Traveller" since the game just told you his name without you asking?

 

What about just having a third option in a convo like that? So if you're required to choose option A, B, or neither then make "neither" one of the options. That way if you engage in "normal" dialog with the NPC, like asking their name or job, you won't unintentionally trigger something which wasn't obvious. If there was the third option presented directly as opposed to just "if you say anything else" it would make it clearer.

I don't think there's any way a new player would know that saying anything else, even standard stuff like name and job would be counted as an intentional "no answer" response to that. And I think it'll result in people losing a decision they may have wanted to make.

But simply having it be a third option would make it much clearer I think.