Jump to content

wanderon

Members
  • Content Count

    1,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wanderon

  1. I know a guy who once made 9 other guys back down from him using an all-out bluff. It's all about passion and delivery. The "circumstances" necessary to get the result you want MAY exist, or they could be part of the bluff, a complete fabrication that only exists in the minds of those you intend to manipulate. Smoke and mirrors, my friends. Here's a good example of intimidation in film. http://www.youtube.c...ed/co5xVHsMRV0 Now watch it again, and make the assumption he's out of bullets. Still damn convincing, huh? You guys know you are arguing something totally off topic now right ;p? That being said, I don't agree but nice post. Here is the ultimate difference between intimidate and bluff for in game purposes - Bluff is just a really big lie. You either won't do, or are not capable of doing what you say. Intimidate is not a lie. You will do what you say, and you ARE capable of doing it. Example: Bluff - "Hrmmm, what a bore. You know I am mates with your captain right? Unless you want latrine duty for a week step aside!" Bluff Check fails and NPC responds "Stow it you blowhard! Show me your papers or you aren't crossing the border!" Conversation ends. Example: Intimidate - "I have had about enough of you Guard, unless you move out of my way I will move you myself!" Intimidate Check fails and NPC responds "Stow it you blowhard! Show me your papers or you aren't crossing the border!" Player responds "Wrong choice." Game pauses as combat begins. Do you see the difference now? I can see either line using the bluff option (if it was offered) - the premise that started this debate is that a bluff option should NEVER be applied to an intimidating statement - in fact both of those lines are intimidating so where would you draw that invisible line that one is never supposed to cross? Is a character skilled in deception somehow unable to carry out any deception that infers he might cause someone pain just becuase it might be more common for some burly warrior type to intimidate in this manner? Edit: as for straying off topic I agree - the only saving grace for this tangent is that it supports the premise of using tags when skills are attached to a dialoge so the player knows which options use which skills in order to make his roleplaying decision
  2. Hm, I see it like this: A bluff is something you say you'll do but you don't actually follow through with it when called on it. In order to have the bluff work at all, in this case "intimidation", you need to have the stature, menacing aura, etc. to be able to pull it off. You can't bluff if it isn't at least somehow backed up by some supporting circumstances. Of course, then you cold just replace "bluff" with "lie" and have something like: [Truth] I am gonna kill you and [Lie] I am gonna kill you. Not sure which game used this, but that's how it was done already. Worked fine imo although I would have preferred [Truth] [bluff]. For me it's all very simple I just don't have any issue with a line of intimidating dialoge having an option for a character to use a bluff skill - one would hope the mechanics of the skill are sufficiently designed to be a viable gameplay mechanic and that the target of the conversation would have the sort of stats and build to provide an appropriate amount of difficulty for the bluff to succeed or fail depending on the gameplay situation. To me the concept that an intimidating line should NEVER offer a character the opportunity to bluff becuase that somehow degrades the intimidation skill or is (gasp) ambiguos is just silly.
  3. That you're using two things (bluff and intimidate) to express intimidation. Having one thing represented by two things is pretty much a textbook example of ambiguity. Lets look a little closer at what is happening with a typical example "give me that necklace or I'll gut you like a fish". Clearly the intent is to [intimidate] the NPC into giving the necklace over. Clear and straightforward use of the skill. Now lets look at the example as used as a [bluff]. A [bluff] is a deception; a way for the PC to make the NPC believe something that the PC wants the NPC to believe. A typical bluff might be pretending you're royalty to some rabble as a way to get them to go along with your plan ([bluff]"Hello, I am a Nigerian Prince...") Unless you're stating something outside of the realm of believability - [bluff]"I am secretly a blue-bottomed hummingbird transformed into a human form - lead me to your nectar!" which should just make you look Tiax-like crazy - the bluff should have a chance to succeed. In essence the NPCs can believe the PCs story. So why would a [bluff] of an [intimidation] work? The only reason it can work is that the NPCs can reasonably believe in, and be intimidated by, the PC's ability to back up an intimidation. So really what the NPCs have to do is pass an [intimidation] check so that the [bluff] is believable - except if the [intimidation] is passed there's no need for the [bluff]. Ergo [intimidation] is the correct skill to use, as I see it. I don't know how else to explain it to you - the first definition I came across with a google search ironically defines a bluff with the phrase " to intimidate with false pretenses " (as opposed to actually intimidating) but you want to justy dismiss that out of hand Furthermore it's not a matter of which skill is correct to use it's a matter of which skills the game offers you to use - if it offers both and you don't agree that a bluff is possible then don't choose it but just becuase you can't understand the concept of why a bluff would/should be offered as an option doesn't make it wrong for the developer to do so. How about this - if its intimidate it's like having Arnold Shwartznegger right in your face saying I'll just kill you - if it's a bluff it's Johhny Depp. And by the way there is no guarantee either one will give you the result you hope for - it all depends on how the mechanics and the target are set up vs your own stats/skill levels - thats why they build dialoge type mechanics in the first place to give you tools to use to effect the outcome in other ways other than a simple multiple choice with completely static responses. I doubt that works for you either so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
  4. Put me down in the "when it ends it ends" camp - if I want to explore some little portion I missed I can load a save game (unless it was an iron man run) but chances are pretty good I will already have a dozen or more characters scattered through partial play throughs by the first time I finish anyway and will just have to figure out which one of them to pick up and take them to another ending. Unless of course the ending has provided me with a notion for another new character to start... I got NWN2 the first day it released and typically played 20+ hours a week yet it was well over a year later when I finished it for the first time (with untold number of partial playthroughs clogging up my hard drive)
  5. Are we talking about ramping up a clickfest here? Party and enemies run around doing more attacks per second and the goal is to figure out which character of yours needs guidance andor which boss needs killing and giving it to them with faster clickety clicks of the mouse and keyboard with all keys except pause? Or are we talking about something else?
  6. And 99% of the time you WILL have different statements - this debate was sparked when someone declared there is no way anyone should ever ever ever under any circumstances use a bluff to intimidate. (which I found ludicrous)
  7. I think we're somewhat talking at cross-purposes; I'm not talking about the utilitarian nature of skills nor am I talking about the definition of words. What I'm talking about is eliminating ambiguity. If you're going to have [bluff] and [intimidate] in a game (a game mind you, where the definition of such skills can be made so as to eliminate ambiguity) they should be distinct (therefor the use of each shouldn't be ambiguous). Ambiguity in games shouldn't be considered to be a good thing. Therefore if you can [bluff] an [intimidate] situation, then there are indications your game hasn't defined [bluff] and [intimidate] in ways that aren't ambiguous. Note while DMs can be fairly liberal in interpretations it is, IMO, bad for computer games to have areas on ambiguity because they lead to areas of inconsistency. If you understand both the definition of the word AND the mechanics of the skill there is no ambiguity - there is a dialoge statement and there is an option to choose one of two different mechanics to utilize when choosing to use the statement - either one will work as it is intended - you get to choose which one - what is ambiguos about that?
  8. Perhaps this will help you to understand: Dictionary definition of bluff: 1. To mislead or deceive. 2. To impress, deter, or intimidate by a false display of confidence. 3. Games To try to mislead (opponents) in a card game by heavy betting on a poor hand or by little or no betting on a good one. v.intr. To engage in a false display of strength or confidence. Dictionary definition of intimidate 1. To make timid; fill with fear. 2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats. When you use the bluff skill you mislead or decieve people into doing or not doing something - when you use the intimidation skill you scare people into doing so. This is why bluff is most often a skill used by rogues and tied to cerebral attributtes and intimidation is most often used by warriors and is tied to strength. This is also why it's possible to use the same line of text in two different ways - the bluffer uses the line to fool or trick the subject into thinking he can do something and the warrior uses it with his strong presence to scare them into doing what he wants. As for your orc fighter thats correct he is not going to have the bluff skill - the line would either have two tags - allowing the player to use either bluff or intimidate or more likely would use seperate lines if they wanted to offer both options in that dialoge. (Because so far it has not been shown that games typically use the same text for both bluff and intimidate this is just an exercise in debating whether there would be anything wrong if they did.) Another thing to remember about this is the two skills should probably not be balanced with each having the same number of opportunities to effect conversations. This is why the rogue using bluff can affect more dialoges in many different ways (including those that could also use the intimidate skill) while the warrior is limited to fewer dialoges where the party can be intimidated becuase the cerebral rogue is going to be better equiped in a battle of wits. Of course you could play a fighter/thief type in some games and have access to both options and choose which ever one you wished - provided of course they placed tags so you could see what your options actually were...
  9. If the dialogue/statement isn't important only the skill usage, why would you not just put up the [bluff] or [intimidate] tag? By attaching a dialogue option to it, the developers are supporting the use of the indicated skill with that particular dialogue which, if not distinct (ie using [bluff] with intimidating dialogue) makes the use of the skill unclear. As far as the game is concerned the dialoge is not important - the game doesn't care if it says frogs are fun instead of I will rip your face off as long as it gets to run the mechanic and move on to it's next chore. They don't just use [tag1] becuase the player wants to see actual dialoge choices regardless of whether or not there's a game mechanic associated with it or whether or not the actual words mean anything at all - and when those pesky mechanics are added to dialoges that are just a bit unclear.......wait for it..........thats why they put those little [bluff] - [intimidate] tags in to make sure the player knows which mechanic he might be choosing.... So I want to see that trend continue becuase we are NEVER going to see a game come out that does not have some dialogues that made perfect sense to the writer and no sense to the reader becuase people see things differently - just like you and I...
  10. I like to micromanage but don't mind some basic AI going on for companions and usually I just leave whatever the generic choices are on for them maybe choosing between defender/scrapper etc. but mostly letting the game set the tactics. Sometimes I do the same thing with leveling up companions - use the auto option as a way to let the companion go in the direction "they" want - or at least what the devs had in mind for them rather than forcing my own will on every party member crafting them all to the vision I have for them.
  11. Don't see how you got that from what I wrote. I'm arguing if [intimidate] and [bluff] are used interchangeably in "real games" then there is no reason to create separate [intimidate] and [bluff] skills - you'd create some combination [intimidabluff] skill and ease your workload. What you seem to be arguing - to me, and incidentally the only reason I continued posting - is that there is no problem with [bluff] being used for [intimidation]. To which I disagree. Well the big difference is apparently that you are arguing IF they are used (at some time and place yet to be determined) and I am stating premises based on WHEN they have actually been used in games I have played. The difference is WHEN they are used they are by default two seperate skills using different (if sometimes similar) mechanics and just becuase [bluff] COULD BE or HAS BEEN used with a statement that is written in an intimidating manner doesn't mean it's the same thing as using [intimidate] becuase it's not the STATEMENT (ie: the words used in the dialoge option) that defines the skill it's the SKILL choice that determines the mechanic used if you choose that option. You seem to be unable to seperate the written words of the dialoge from the mechanics of using a skill when the character chooses the manner in which to use those words and grasp the fact that you can use the same words in more than a single manner and thats why on the few occasions I may have seen this done it caused me no grief.
  12. Boy talk about needing tags for dialoge options - I never saw that one coming...
  13. Right, but why would you create ambiguous game mechanics? The whole point of creating [bluff] and [intimidate] instead of [speech] or [interpersonalcommunication] is that there should be a fundamentally different concept between [bluff] and [intimidate] or again you invalidate the rationale to not have them exist under a larger, more flexible skill. Right, you can have them overlap, but it brings in the question of "Why would you design a system where two things serve the same purpose"? The idea that [bluff] and [intimidate] have a unique purpose is inherent in the creation of them as separate skill concepts. I think this is a side topic that derived from examples in this topic that indicated ambiguity between using [bluff] vs [intimidate]. However to make it more on topic, while I'm not for using the [tag] skill system, I'd find it rather confusing to see lines of dialogue that read as intimidation labeled as bluff and vice-versa. Another blow for hiding the mechanics, IMO. I see so while I am trying to explain how/why these things actually work in real games that contain both bluff and intimidate skills and use them in dialoge options those that are arguing with me are just extrapolating what it might mean if a game somehow had these completely atrocious writers that always labeled intimidating dialoges with a bluff option as if there was no difference between the two. Gotcha... Gotta love the internet...
  14. What you are functionally doing in this case is choosing an option the DM gave you to BLUFF - the hell take that you can't understand that the game designer IS the DM and gets to make the rules EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM.
  15. Speaking of switches anyone know where I can turn on the one that filters out shallow comments like these?
  16. Right. They're seperate skills. So why were you suggesting it was okay to bluff an intimidation - "[bluff]I'll rip your head off"? This gets back to the whole original point, for the two skills to be distinct, you can't overlap their use. Overlapping their use or application means they aren't distinct, in which case there isn't an argument for the existence of both skills. Which is why evdk said that the above example shouldn't happen. If the dialoge allows a bluff option then choosing that option is a bluff regardless of how intimidating the words may appear to you - this may be lazy writing when they could have just as easily offered a different dialoge option for a bluff but it does not diminish the intimidate skill as long as that option appears as well - these are GAME MECHANICS -the actual words of the dialoge do not effect them - the devs choose which ones to offer and where and the player chooses which one to use - they are distinct and seperate becuase you aquire them in different ways and they usually work with different attributtes. YOU may claim they cannot overlap but there is no real reason they cannot - it is certainly possible to bluff in an intimidating way so if the devs want to use lazy writing to save time and assign two speech options to the same line they have the power to do so whether YOU like it or not. It's also up to them how many of each option to include so if one has more opportunities than the other so what? Life goes on... For me I have never seen much of this in the first place - games I played (all the IE games, RTK , DA series, NWN series, Fallout series,) rarely if ever assign both options to the same dialoge line so I'm not even sure where this is coming from (ME?)
  17. Because if they're not distinct, what's the purpose of having them be separate? if as you say "usually a character is only going to have one of them anyway or at least be proficient in only one" but Intimidate and Bluff can be used interchangeably...then wouldn't the character be able to get through any situation with only one of the skills? In which case why have two? The gameplay isn't treating them as unique so what purpose do two unique skills serve? You'd also end up with situations where - remember the skills are interchangeable - where you'd have "[intimidate]Why yes, I am *the* Rifrat the Writer who wrote 'All things between here and there' " and have it make sense. So what you seem to be arguing is I should be able to [bluff] an intimidation but not vice-versa...so why would anyone invest in intimidation when Bluff is more useful? Well the answer is to make them distinct and not let people make a [bluff] check for an [intimidate] check - or to make a higher level concept that combines all the speechy stuff into one skill. Or not make Intimidate a skill but on things about the character that might be intimidated - his spiky armor and not his collection of teddy bears, for example. But now we're back to conceptualizing Bluff and Intimidate in ways that make the distinct. I'm not saying that at all - I'm saying the two can both be used in the same SITUATION not necessarily interchangably with the same words of dialoge - you can bluff your way through a situation or intimidate your way through - they are both seperate skills - Now there are dialogues that COULD have either tag becuase you could bluff your way through an intimidating comment but it's two different functions in any game I have played and calls on a different mechanic. I don't see that as an issue other than lazy writing for not making the bluff option different. Edit: As for why take intimidate if bluff is better - in most games I play it's attributte based where the warrior does the intimidating and the rogue does the bluffing.
  18. It may be interesting to see what sort of day/night cyle the world has - how many suns or moons - what sort of sky coloring & clouds and general weather.
  19. The example was exaggeration for effect, not intended to be an indicator of real gameplay. The point is, ultimately, if you're going to define [intimidate] and [bluff] as distinct skills there has to be some sense in how they're applied that makes them distinct. That doesn't mean they're not closely related, only that for game purposes they still have to have a unique role, or else there's no point to separate them out as distinct concepts. You could have a [pursuade] skill, for example that covered any attempt to alter the actions of another via dialogue and it could cover bluff, intimidate, diplomacy or whatever. But if you create [bluff], [intimidate], and [Diplomacy] there needs to be a reason for them to be distinct; else you're not creating different skills but needlessly subdividing things where an all-inclusive skill would be more useful to your intent. 3.5 D&D, IIRC, makes bluff and intimidate seperate (so they have to be distinct) but allows +2 synergy checks on either with high scores in the other. Why would they have to have distinct roles (where only one or the other could be used in any given situation) - the concepts themselves are distinct and either could apply to almost anything and in most games I have played they are tied to different attributtes or at least have their own seperate point buy so usually a character is only going to have one of them anyway or at least be proficient in only one.
  20. Sigh... First of all choosing dialoge like this with a character like that for a bluff option is silly and could be considered bad design if anyone would ever actually use some thing like that - maybe you have some games where this is commonplace but I haven't personally seen that scenario. Secondly it's a mechanic - it works or doesn't work based on what the player did to give the mechanic to his character and as a result of the game function it performs when it's chosen by the player - as for why you might want to roleplay (pretend) it works for you or doesn't work - who cares? To each his own- different strokes- pick two of three...
  21. Too limiting for my liking - I tend to lean towards multiple weapons - in games where different weapons had different effects (blunt,slash, pierce) and different enemies/armor had different resistances to them I often had warriors carrying one of each and switching according to foe. Same thing with other weapon effects (fire, cold etc) vs enemies with rersistances or vulnerablity. I don't want to keep the same weapon all game even if it gets a little better I want to find better stuff as I move on.
  22. I never said it SHOULD be used in place of anything? If the game includes both skills then it's apples and oranges - some games link them to totally different attributtes - they are what they are - use them as you see fit within the rules of the game - don't like it? Make your own game and leave it out...
  23. Dear Jesus, don't make me quote myself: Sorry thats just silly... intimidate is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not. bluff is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not. The fact that you don't think a threat should be bluffed in this context is irrelevant to all but you...
  24. Your example have nothing to do with skills, it's just a shorter way of explaining player's motivation. All three out of four might as well check Charisma. Maybe you need to consider that we are talking about a non- D&D computer game with no live DM to augment and change dialoge choices on the fly here. Before dismissing my examples as not related to skills you might also think about the fact that all we know about skills thus far is there will be seperate combat and non-combat skills including traveling skills, learning skills and companion related skills. Nor do we know what the attributtes are going to be yet so there may in fact be no charisma to check. I know this may come as a surprise but some people might actually want deeper more complex dialoges with numerous opportunities to use multiple facets of gameplay to determine the outcome. We do however know this is going to be a game that doesn't count on combat alone to progress through the story so skills, attributtes, knowledge already gained by the character in the game, factions and your relationships with them, places and people you may know about, and of course perhaps a large selection of soul related things may all be available to utilize in one way or another in dialoges so the idea that the text of the dialoge alone is plenty of information to make a decision on might be a bit flawed.
×
×
  • Create New...