Seems like everyone is on the same track here, headed back to the gone gone days of leisure suit larry and heirs, wherein finding a clever way to reward odd little phraseology was the job of the game designer.

I''m going to step away and repeat what''s already been pointed out: one reaches the point of information saturation long before the character''s portrayal becomes reasonably realistic.
- What''s the difference between 37 and 36 on the friendly scale while approaching orc chieftain #7? Oh, yeah, if you use 36 he gives you the wand of mistaken identities whereas on 37 he only gives you the spectacles of mistaken identities...

Why not try for a coarser representation? Sum up as much information as possible in a single aspect of the character! Use the walk to communicate intent in situ: in the presence of a physically attractive character, a slow approach becomes a saunter, whereas just outside of an enemy encampment it becomes a stealthy approach. That''s what context sensitivity is all about, of course.

Also, though it''s completely hypocritical on my part to say this, the player isn''t going to be a programmer and he or she isn''t going to want to manage a large number of variables. More importantly, it must be fun to manage those variables. MUD players notwithstanding, the more immediate the stimulus-action-response chain is to the player, the better off you can be. Of course, the aforementioned lounge lizard series did indeed incorporate fun into the discovery of the interesting bits, and so it remained fun pretty much all the way through. Strive for that. One of the reasons why a-life is so interesting and motivating is the emergence of its behaviour is, and the ease with which it steps outside of the bounds of its initial capabilities. Strive for that same idea in an interface. Give the player very simple sets of actions - walk, communicate intent, utilize object - and try to create a world that responds immediately and clearly to those stimuli. Look at roller coaster tycoon: it''s immediately apparent when things are going wrong, and it''s often apparent exactly what''s going wrong, though not always. The game is simple, fun, and, in the right hands, quite deep.

Why can''t another genre utilize the same ideas? I know that there are rpgs that use an attitude system on initial approaches, although some are clunky. But great long conversations can be pretty annoying if they get you nowhere. In order to crack a larger audience, if one is so inclined, the interface must struggle to streamline and polish itself. Sports games and RTS games both share powerful, streamlined interfaces and large audiences. Why? To some extent content itself is a factor. But the knowledge that the moves remain recognizable time after time must factor in somewhere.

Start small. Use just the essentials and provide good context sensitivity. So your ugly-as-sin character is trying to get the barmaid on the go, hey? well, saunter (walk slowly) up to her and pull out (ie utilize) a few coins before she turns away in disgust. Once you''re close enough, communicate a compliment (click-on-eye) and perhaps a word of thanks (suggestions?). Perhaps even an interest in her (box around her??) or a desire::meeting. The words matter in the real world, but in the virtual world it is up to the designer to decide whether they should matter. Maybe the character that is being played may even begin to surprise the player. Maybe that could become annoying, but maybe it could be fun. One never knows with such matters until the writing is already on the wall.

Use a moment-to-moment philosophy in the design and maybe things can begin to fall into place. Context sensitivity: crucial. Simplicity: crucial. Immediacy: crucial. Power: relative and inherent. Chatter: a matter of taste.

I hope this brings something new to the table.

mikey