OliverUv

I get the same bug, on Linux Mint 13.10, Steam release. Using dual monitors.

A good point. Lying should be there when it is sensible. I think the game should make you emotionally invested enough in the stuff that goes on that anything worth lying about isn't going to make you just skip lying about it just to skip a bluff check. If it can't manage to do that, well, I don't expect it to have a particularly interesting story anyway.

I agree that the distinction between lies and bluffs is important. Bluffs should obviously be marked (if an identical non-bluff answer exists.) However, I still support the ability to [lie] because, as I explained in the middle of page 3 of this thread, it could be used as a mechanism for letting you choose part of your character's history. Are you pro/against this mode of storytelling, and a follow-up question: do you have this opinion in general or just for this game?

I wish there was a way to 'Like' entire threads, to signify that this is something I think the devs should look at. I'd like the hell out of this thread.

There is nothing preventing them from omitting the [lie] marker when it doesn't make sense, i.e. in the case you just mentioned. This was never a problem in PS:T. You do have intelligent humans designing the dialogues, and they'll all have discussed guidelines for these things before they start writing dialogues.

Amentep: I agree with your point with regard to veracity vs intent. When possible, intent should be tested rather than specified by the player. I still believe the [lie] tag can serve as a useful story telling mechanism, especially when talking about the past, but possibly also in other scenarios. Perhaps a more fitting example: - [lie] I served with the Rogue Banale in Dustham, your guild could use me. - I served with the Rogue Banale in Dustham, your guild could use me. Reiterating what I think is most important wrt lying: This type of dialogue can let the player dictate part of the PC's history from before the game started. This way players will be building their character's history and personality throughout the game, not just in the character creation screen. They have a more detailed say in it, instead of perhaps having the class and alignment (blech) determine the background completely. Perhaps in this way we can avoid the now quite tired dichotomy of either 'player character entirely determined' or 'player character wakes up without memory.' It'd give the game some extra replayability, and a sense of the story (both its future and past) being dynamic. This at the expense of having to carefully design dialogues and gameplay to ensure consistency.

(sorry for double post) Oh, also note that the example above does many things: - Use [lie] to tell the PC's history. - Use [lie] to effect change in the world. - Does not lock us into a moral choice yet, we might actually try to take good care of the temple with the help of knowledgeable scribes, much to the chagrin of the rouges in our party, who'd rather just loot the place.

I hope to one day see a single conversation option that includes all of those :D (sometimes an option can both be a bluff and an intimidation, or a bluff and a seduction, though, this is harder to represent with colouring than tags!) Oh, sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Offending is the least of my concerns (the game must contain mature content with grey area morality to be interesting to an adult, imo.) What I'm saying is that while you may think red colour is obviously the violent intimidation option, that might not be so obvious to others. This can cause confusion if there are many options, but I guess that could easily be solved by showing what rolls/options are intended on mouse-over. Frankly, I'd also be satisfied with subdued colours.

My excuses for not reading 21 pages of 4 reasonable guys and one stubborn guy arguing the same points over and over. I bet there was some good stuff in there, but it will have been lost to the noise. I would like to remind you all that fighting the trolls isn't useful. Their arguments fall on themselves, and if Obsidian are reading they will see this just as well as you. Let their flawed arguments speak for themselves and concern yourself with making valid arguments for your cause rather than demonstrating the faults in their cause. Otherwise we end up with too much noise for anyone from Obsidian to reasonably spend time going over our discussions. Make your points and move along. That said: While the game might (for some players) be combat oriented, characters shouldn't be seeking unnecessary combat. Characters should want to spend their energy where it matters, getting 'waylaid by enemies and must defend yourself' should evoke a reaction of 'oh no'. Because it should mostly be an exertion of energy that your party wanted to use for something useful. Also: Such encounters should only occur when they are genuinely dangerous encounters. Otherwise, whoever wants to rob you would see they are no match, and simply wouldn't engage. These things should never become rote grind, because no thief or brigand would reasonably make the decision to die at the hands of an experienced adventuring party. Perhaps some chaos mages would. Grinding for XP should be impossible. When you've already killed 10 bears, killing another won't teach you much. To get Experience, one must challenge oneself. One learns mostly through failing at doing new things, and learning how to avoid failure in the future. One learns very little by succeeding. An exciting XP system would reflect this. Back on topic of sneak: Don't forget that sneaking isn't mutually exclusive to combat. Yes, a failed sneak should often put one in a tactically disadvantageous situation. However, a successful sneak can either help you avoid combat, or help you win combat by putting you in a tactically extra advantageous situation!

I love that this is being discussed with such fervor. Back when I DMed D&D, the first thing I did was reform the monetary system. If a peasant makes approx 1 silver/day, does it make sense that adventurers can slay some level 1 thing and get 100 gold (or whatever it was a simple sword cost - 1000 days of work for a normal person)? Only if all adventurers refuse to spend their money. If, say, 5% of adventurers gave up after their 2nd looting round, to live life happily forever after (not at all unfeasible) gold would quickly lose its scarcity and become unusable as a monetary token. Only rare things can be money. When deciding if the monetary system should more closely resemble a real system or D&D, the developers should be aware that they are choosing between an RPG and an arcade hack'n'slash.

And for the love of god, if my unlock spell isn't working that should only be because "A wizard much greater than you has enhanced this lock" - and make damn sure there's such a wizard! There was a huge thread a week back where people raged over having their prepared spells / powers / ideas arbitrarily made irrelevant because a level designer didn't want to bother with that being possible.

Wow, checking back after the next Update and y'all have had this great (and civil!) discussion! Certainly most important points of consideration have been covered, so this can hopefully be a good resource for Obsidian. There are a few more points waiting to be made: Having many colour codes is not just gaudy, it can also clash with cultures that ascribe different values to colours than our western culture (many asians connecting white and death, for example.) This could create confusion in some players. In the dialogue editor, there'll probably just be a checkbox for the designer/writer to specify that a dialogue option is a lie/persuasion/etc - how this is displayed will not be difficult to let players configure (though it of course adds complexity both to UI and backend.) Colour blind people are not a minority to ignore - red/green colour blinds comprise some 10% of the male population. If this happens, then someone didn't do his job communicating the necessary knowledge to the player, who is supposed to know anything relevant their player character knows. I agree that we should, during the course of the game, get to know the PC, his back story, motivation and personality. However, I don't think a game will be especially engaging if we first have to read loads of back story and then go out and act based on that story. Because the story for any sufficiently developed character should be hundreds of pages long! Indeed, most good novels reveal the back story not just by explicitly telling it, but also by revealing it gradually by how the present unfolds. Don't discount the [lying] mechanism as a medium for telling story! It isn't wrong for that to be the way you are made aware of this detail in the PC's back story - it is in fact a great way of both telling you the back story and furthering the story line at the same time. It could also be a great way to let you choose parts of the back story, for example: - [Lie] I spent a year in pilgrimage and worked for two years in the Proclaimer chapel in Dustham, I'll take proper care of the temple while you're gone. (only visible if int > - [Lie] Of course father, I shall be The Proclaimer's dutiful servant. - I spent a year in pilgrimage and worked for two years in the Proclaimer chapel in Dustham, I'll take proper care of the temple while you're gone. (only visible if character is Cleric and hasn't already _truthfully_ claimed to be of another faith) - I'm sorry, I don't think I'm the right person for that. Perhaps you can wait a while; I am travelling to Inletsburg and might find an aspiring practitioner there who wishes to help. With this example I've also tried to illustrate something else. Often, yes, it is important to let a character say something (truthfully or not) and then change his mind. This often makes it unimportant whether one is lying (e.g. "Yes, I will go do that quest.") However, other scenarios exist where nothing immediate happens but it is important to know whether you lied or not, because you decide some part of your character's story. The third conversation option makes use of a previously known true conversation statement. So: it was important to mark that previous conversation's statements as lie/truth, because they influenced the story you created for your character. Now, having such dependencies between previous thuthhoods and falsehoods will make for a complex dialogue (and game) mechanics system indeed. Probably more complex than there has ever been in a cRPG before? (please right me if I'm wrong, because I'd really want to play those games) I think that is what PE should aspire to. Nothing less.

Lying is important. In Planescape, it was common that two or three of the dialogue options one had was marked with [Lie]. You could lie about many things, not simply quest things like "Did Leandro steal my things?" but lying about personal beliefs, intentions, etc. I've seen other RPGs incorporate lying, but only P:T would have the same identical lines available, one marked with [Lie] and the other without. I also understand it would be hard work to incorporate it into the game world, but the ability to spread false rumours, create arbitrary conflicts, and in general get factions, organizations and people into hostilities with each other would simply be... terrific. I don't think I've seen this in any game before, but it was an immensely important tool in the noble's power struggles, historically. To depict a power struggle without giving room to lies is a mistake. When is it appropriate for lying to require a successful die roll? Discussion and answers to poll appreciated. Does anybody have examples of when lies have been overused, or badly used, in game before? I'm sure there must be some examples to heed.

Excellent update, made me subscribe to the forums! Always happy to receive the weekly updates, but this one is really starting to get into the meat of the game. Woedica has a wonderful concept, and I'm certain your imagination will create a wonderful world for us to explore. Other forumers talked about polytheistic pantheons and how their worship differs from worshippers of monotheistic worship. It's an important distinction, and polytheists shouldn't be belittled. A large part of today's religions is polytheistic (hinduism, the amalgam of buddhism and traditional Taiwanese deities, etc). The world is composed of interacting parts, and is also one whole. Neither is false nor true. Now, on to more interesting stuff: Please please make sure that the standing of gods is integrated into the game dynamics in some way. I remember the incredible feeling of 'making a difference' in Planescape by simply believing a different thing, though the effects of this was rarely seen in the game world - something I'm sure you can rectify. Also: Why have only polytheistic pantheons? The Romans had many polytheistic believers as well as monotheistic ones clashing and co-existing with each other. Along with soul dynamics, this could give rise to a MOST interesting conflict. One worthy of mainquest In PE, souls give the populace even stronger reason to take belief seriously than in our world. Can a polytheist faith accept the existence of a monotheistic faith that claims ownership of all souls? A monotheist faith could either include or exclude the existence of a polytheistic pantheon (Brahman contra Yahweh). What if believers supplied part of their soul to the gods they worship, what if worship gives power? Can a polytheist accept the existence of those who threaten that their all-powerful god casts non believers into eternal damnation, slavery, etc?