I like the experiments you’ve done with conversation systems, including Pytho’s Mask, and I’ll try to go into them in more detail.

I liked Planescape Torment, and I didn’t lawnmower the conversations because there was just so much content there that I couldn’t see spending that much time on it. (Then again, I didn’t actually finish the game — but that’s mostly because I got my character stuck in a maze I found too irritating to complete, and didn’t want to start over either.)

I will say, though, that I haven’t played many games where the multiple-choice type conversation system has significant consequences that are only brought about many hours of play later. My experiences have been mostly the opposite, where one branch of a conversation, if it does have some gameplay significance at all, reveals its effects immediately or soon thereafter.

The most immediate example that comes to mind, in terms of mainstream graphical games, is the Baldur’s Gate/Neverwinter Nights series. Most of the NPC conversations are of the multiple-choice variety, and my recollection is that most of the impact of the choices that are made (if any) occurs during or right upon completion of the conversation.

I agree that, in games where a multiple-choice conversation leads to choices with consequences much further down the line, the lawnmower approach (via save/restore) is not very realistic. But I think this speaks to the many roles of conversation in games, and when it exists for the player to choose a particular major path for gameplay, it’s a different situation than when it exists for the purpose of discourse (like for characterization, story backdrop or progression, or information seeking). It’s the latter instance that I think is more relevant here.

In a game like Neverwinter Nights, or for that matter Pytho’s Mask (which I had planned on discussing in more depth later), players are often presented with a series of options for questions or responses to NPCs. But the mere presence of those options is a clue to the player that the author created content specifically for that option, and for many people like myself it’s difficult to play through a conversation like that without feeling the need to try each of those options to reveal the content that is there.

It’s similar to what Shamus said recently in his review of Guild Wars, when he was discussing the many sidequests in the game: “The other thing interfering with my enjoyment of the game is…that you’re not supposed to do every sidequest in the dang game. The completionist in me wouldn’t let me pass on all those sidequests because I felt like I’d be missing something.”

In Pytho’s Mask, for instance, when you bring up a topic for discussion, you’re presented with multiple questions you could ask the NPC. Asking one question might lead to a series of others, with some information to gain. But in the end I’m just going to try every option, running through each choice lawnmower style until there’s nothing left to ask. That’s what much of the gameplay was like for me, at least at first; finding all of the topics to discuss with each NPC and mowing through each one. Mostly that’s because there are rarely consequences to choosing one question over another, but even if there was some consequence (typically immediate, not sometime in the future) — such as angering the NPC, or somehow cutting off some conversation branches — the urge is always there to UNDO and go back to find out what information or outcome I may have missed because of that original choice.

It was often the same in Neverwinter Nights, especially in those conversations where the responses were given certain characteristics — like if one response had some random chance of charming or tricking the NPC into revealing something. If it didn’t work, the system usually gave you the chance to do it again, whether through alternative conversation branches or by saving and restoring.

I believe that the multiple choice dialog trees has been used quite effectively in several mainstream games, without being hampered by the “lawnmower” effect. Examples are Planescape: Torment and The Witcher.

Though I must admit at this point that I’ve never really understood what the lawnmower effect is supposed to be. Why do multiple choice conversation systems encourage an “approach of trying all options, even if it requires re-initiating the conversation or using the save/restore approaches”? That approach seems to me plain boring. Just imagine saving and loading every time Torment gives you a conversation choice! That would cost an insane amount of time, and you would still need to choose with which choice you’d like to go on to the rest of the game. Or take The Witcher: sure you can save before you make an interesting conversation choice, but since the effects of that choice may only be happening 10 hours of play later, how are you going to “lawnmower” your way through it? You’ll still have to choose a specific path, invest those 10 hours, and then see the results of your choice.