AI Roguelite

AI Roguelite

评价数不足
Character Autonomy 2.0 (Self-driven NPC Behaviour and Dialogue)
   
奖励
收藏
已收藏
取消收藏
文件大小
发表于
更新日期
194.382 KB
4 月 12 日 上午 1:17
9 月 9 日 下午 4:01
8 项改动说明 ( 查看 )

订阅以下载
Character Autonomy 2.0 (Self-driven NPC Behaviour and Dialogue)

描述
Here we encourage NPCs to act as thinking agents with their own intent and momentum, just as we tell them. The AI is encouraged to think more socially and plot-driven, to focus less on vague ambient cues or introspection.

2.0 is finally here. What began as my desire to make NPCs more authentic and active has now evolved with the capabilities of recent model updates (speaking for the free base model, primarily). The project now aims for a more comprehensive adjustment of the whole narration, since - honestly - NPCs have already become more lively in the base game compared to many months ago. Below are some bullet points - all my prompts summarized by AI - which hopefully can tell you what to expect for the general narration:

Respect for player agency — no assumed thoughts, motives, background, or unprompted actions.

Grounded storytelling — details are concrete and specific, avoiding vague mood, symbolism, or filler.

No cheap tricks — no jump scares, surprise twists, or forced subversions.

Clarity and resolution — interactions drive the scene forward with meaningful outcomes, never stalled or muddled.

No static background presence — every described detail has impact or consequence (no endless bystander commentary anymore!)

Natural dialogue — NPCs speak plainly, with personality and intent, never cryptic or allegorical.

Balanced tone — tension and calm coexist; threats are tangible and justified, peace is allowed to breathe.

The world is neutral in morality — outcomes are handled realistically, without poetic justice or moral bias.

This should address some of the common complaints about the AI narration I have gathered in the past, together with the general instructions that encourage NPC autonomy, which I still hold dear.

As always, instructing an AI is like herding cats; results are never guaranteed, and strangeness may always occur. While the narration is more weighted toward these bullet points, the end effect might sometimes not live up to expectation (especially cryptic NPCs will likely still talk cryptic stuff - I only hope my Butler now stops talking about “flowers which are keys and prisons” all the time.)
热门讨论 查看全部(1)
3
9 月 17 日 上午 6:11
Reactive Realms compatibility
DrKoks
29 条留言
Nathan Pascal  [作者] 11 月 5 日 下午 12:09 
Mm, which model are you using?
I just tested with base Free and Silver, and the dialogue looks like expected, I ask an open question and about half of the generated response is filled with verbatim NPC dialogue (in quotes), as talkative and focused on the conversation as I would want it to be.
jazzroutine 11 月 5 日 上午 3:17 
After latest game updates, this mod cause NPCs to stop talking. All other things and game aspects are working, but the direct speech is almost gone. If I disable this mod, everything goes back to normal :(
LeakyCranium 9 月 12 日 上午 1:06 
I would *love* the modified sentiment check.
Nathan Pascal  [作者] 9 月 10 日 下午 3:56 
Oh, another topic.
For personal use I run a modified sentiment check which is much more restrictive, so you get relationship changes less often (almost never). A weary glance does not turn someone into your enemy, a nice word does not turn someone into a devoted friend, relationships remain neutral much longer and only develop over the duration of a campaign, normal business and everyday interactions will usually produce no changes at all.

Is that something people would want me to include here? Or do you like the current system, which is more... responsive/volatile?
Nathan Pascal  [作者] 9 月 9 日 下午 4:04 
Alright, combat changes are out for now, until I have (way) more time to test and investigate. Sorry for the... inconvenience? I guess, it was too easy, so... sorry for the convencience? No, that does not sound right either.

At least the main part seems to work fine and as expected for everyone, that is good to hear.
LeakyCranium 9 月 9 日 下午 1:34 
I've done most of my testing for this at level 1 as a gladiator. I tend to use tier 3 opponents, but have had the same results against tier 4. The character class I'm using describes character as experienced, but only have one skill and a weapon to assist my roles and my opponents are usually also lore wise experienced combatants, so I should at best be equal in strength to the opponents yes. I've also had problems though with clearly superior opponents, such as larger foes or enhanced creatures, getting wildly outperformed as well.
Nathan Pascal  [作者] 9 月 9 日 下午 1:12 
Would you say, you and your opponents are equal in strength lore-wise (what the descriptions imply), or are you playing a character that is implied to be masterful against more regular enemies?

Trying to figure out what might happen there, because in my own testing as a generic young adventurer I was hit pretty hard by enemies, but the new prompts might be biased to favor your narrative role over game mechanics a bit more.

But when this happens as a regular fighter against (lore-wise) stronger opponents, I have little idea what might cause it. Maybe I need to remove the combar instructions after all, if they behave so strangely for some.
LeakyCranium 9 月 9 日 下午 1:03 
Oh I'll note that things are a good bit more appropriate on Insane difficulty, though even then enemies tend to take fat damage nearly every turn, though at least with that setting ticked on I have enough critical failures where it evens out a bit more (though ideally i would like to avoid leaving it on for non combat reasons).
LeakyCranium 9 月 9 日 下午 1:01 
Its an interesting thing: what often happens is my failures are "half" failures. I will graze an opponent or fail to dodge, but somehow still get a traded blow in or something. With the mod active, the ai essentially always wants me to be putting out some damage, and occasionally npc's wounds will also just cleave huge amounts of hp off. This is on immersive for the record.
Nathan Pascal  [作者] 9 月 9 日 上午 11:05 
Mm, alright, I need to look into that more, it seems. Thanks for the feedback. (Although every combat maneuver succeeding sounds unusual, those would be governed by the player roll checks mostly.)