Amentep

I don't think you really need hard numbers to look at a project with a finite budget and a finite production time to realize that ANY element included will alter the focus on other elements. I think the debate devolved into how "trivial" or not this alteration would be but I'm not convinced that complex dialogue trees and world reactivity would be able to be trivial (unless the dialogue itself was rendered trivial which seems counter to romance inclusion). But that's not the only anti-argument; there has also been a lot discussed about whether its possible for even a game with plenty of time / resources to create a romance that has depth, that doesn't defy logic to some sense and that has loads of reactivity from the world as it develops to manage a successful romance. I think the most firmly anti-romance just don't believe it can be done (either now or ever) right, so don't want time spent trying for something that can't be achieved. And that's a valid argument as well, just not one that I'd agree with (I think it can be done).

But why focus on that? Or any joke, for that matter. All jokes, no matter how light hearted or not, make them go ballistic. They call ad hominems and strawmen on us, while they are the ones doing them. Unless someone is actually insecure, and for some the "wanting sexual gratification" thing, there is no reason to get offended by stupid things like that and on top of that reply to posts that have other/actual arguments in the same way. They didn't get offended for mischaracterization, they never said anything like that. The just thought we were hitting "below the belt". And even an argument of it being against forum regulations!"Below the belt" is a weak spot. That shows insecurity, not trying to remove a wrong accusation. Perhaps this is just not interpreting intent properly with regard to what each other are saying; I've never really seen these type of comments as a joke myself but as something that posters were really advocating as the "position" of pro-romancers. So I can understand people being confused and regarding it as a straw-man ("we never argued for romances to wank to") or as an attack on the poster ("You can't refute my points so insteaed you're calling me a creepy guy who gets off on pixels") as opposed to taking it as a joke. Again I can't speak to the specifics of the early discussions since I didn't follow all of it closely (and apparently may have interpreted part of it wrong re: how I read it vs authorial intent).

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.

The only reason why the topic went that way recently is because pro-romance guy said that people who are against romances are lonely and insecure, so this point is invalid. I'm not so sure that's the only reason. That said, I don't believe the anti-romance crowd are lonely and insecure for not wanting romance anymore than I believe the pro-romance crowd is lonely and insecure for wanting romance in games. (Really? Is this what its come to - people on either side of a position calling each other THE SAME THING AS AN INSULT?) Actually I've found some good discussion going on with the anti-romance crowd. Even if I disagree with them (considering myself pro-romance in games), I like to try to understand their position. Most of the arguments about resource allocations, for example, are fair - and even I've said that PE's limited resources could easily mean that development resources could be used elsewhere. This part of the topic tends to devolve into debates over how "trivial" implementing romances are, but long dialog trees, reactivity for the world and other party members - there's a lot going on there that really needs to be taken into account. The arguments about poor implementation in the past is certainly subjective but subjectivity doesn't mean invalidity. For a group of anti-Romances the past implementations of romances have been such that they'd rather not see developers try (either because they don't think the resources are there (see pt 1 of this paragraph) or because they don't believe games (either as they exist currently or period) can't really deal with in a credible way the complexities of a romantic relationship (some people think it can but think the game basically has to be about that). So again there have been a number of good arguments. And in the end if they honestly believe that adding "Romance as a feature" will detrimentally impact the game (by taking development time and effort away from other parts of the game) then ignoring it really wouldn't be an option for them *now* when development is going on (only really an option after development time and effort was spent and they had the game in their hands). tl;dr - there's value in discussion, not in arguing past one another. To be honest, though, I've seen the ***ping to pixels argument made in other earlier threads (as well as references to romance being "creepy" in RPG games); I can understand trying to head that argument off or feeling it mischaracterizes the pro-romance crowd. Can't really speak to the specific back and forth between you and the other users because I've found some of the arguments and dialogues a bit hard to follow.

Care to elaborate? Because I view my 'problem' (not needing bogus emotional and / or sexual validation and / or gratification via a virtual digital relationship) as being a pretty healthy one TBH. Why do you think people who want romance are needing emotional or sexual validation / gratification? I mean we keep circling the drain on this - Anti-Romance: "Romances are stupid" Pro-Romance: "I like romances as a character option." Anti-Romance: "OMG, you **** to pixels!" The logic doesn't seem to follow, IMO, and seems to have no connection to what the pro-romance crowd are generally speaking about. There have been plenty of good points raised by the anti-romance crowd - resource cost of implementing a romance dialogue option with real depth; previous romances showing weakness in current implementation models, just plain focus issues with limited time to develop the game. But the "ooo, people who want romances are looking to make games their stroke material! Ick! Horror!" shtick doesn't make sense. I'm not sure what anything in the pro-romance suggestions would alter this. I don't think anyone has said that your barbarian HAS to romance an NPC...or even that you'd have to take NPCs along. I didn't realize Obsidian had licensed F.A.T.A.L.... EDIT: Horrible grammar (may still be but I fixed the one that glared back at me).

Isn't your example really two checks, though? The [bluff] to believe I'm the Great Zappo and then the [intimidate] of arm ripping? Isn't the point of differentiation when you choose to kill (or not kill) the character? But why would a dev choose to use a [bluff] tag (and thus mechanics) for an intimidation attempt? Just bad design? Accident? Stuff happens, sure, but I think what we're arguing is that this should be relatively easy to avoid provided you make sure you conceptualize skills as separate and not overlapping or instead of creating two skills that overlap create one skill that encompasses both concepts. Seems like either way is less than optimal, though. If I have [tags] and the tags are unclear ("Why is my orc fighter bluffing when saying "I'll rip your arms off!" instead of intimidating? I have no points in bluff!") it doesn't seem to actually help clarify which dialogue is supposed to fit what the player is attempting, just adds another level of frustration.

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.

The only problem I have with "riddles" being solved by typing in answers is that often they're solveable regardless of character intelligence. I'd think riddles would be better suited to int checks. Low int doesn't get the answer, average int gets the answer in a group of answers, high Int gets the answer by itself. If you're talking game lore or passwords to be found and entered...then again it comes to it, if I have a slip of paper in the possession of the my PC, why do I as the player need to enter the password...?

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.

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 like ammo to be finite. I also like you to be able to recover arrows from the bodies later.

I always thought it weird to see a flail used the same way as a sword. And didn't the IE games have spears with a chopping motion?

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.

Maybe the curse was placed after it was created? Guy makes Stabby +12 stabbing sword and his Arch-Evil foe sneaks in, steals the weapon, curses it, sneaks it back and now its Stabby +12 stabbing sword cursed with Beserker rage that causes guy to go all stabby on his family. Or maybe the +5 Holy Sword picked up a taint (in the form of the curse) when heroic long dead guy defeated some ginormous demon ages past? Or maybe there was magical interference? God interference? A minor miscalculation? A person with a really bad sense for practical magical jokes?

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.

I'd like to think that there's no "one" way for a curse to be applied. It'd probably also be needed to define what the curse is in PE before deciding mechanics to enforce it. But one example, lets say you pick up a sword and equip it. Its a longsword 1-8 damage. It has a penalty to hit %. Because I equipped it, I'm cursed. The point is that I have to do something to remedy the curse so they could very easily devise the "nature" of curses to be such that a cursed item "bestows" a curse on the equipper(s) as opposed to being unremovable (in this case to penalty to hit would remain regardless of what sword I used).

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 you insist on keeping a party of incompatible characters forcing one to run off? What a bad party-leader you are. I kid, I kid. But it seems to me enforcing some logic with your NPCs would be a good thing (and more particular would need a system that doesn't devolve party reputation into "donate to a church / whack a villager to keep neutral alignment and most everyone happy") Particularly given that PE isn't going to have an alignment system so there can be a lot more freedom of character opinion.

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... A threat shouldn't be bluffed, that's his point. Lets say you're charismatic and have a high bluff skill. Lets say you're also 100 lbs when soaking wet and have arms that look weaker then cooked pasta noodles. You have low [intimidate] [bluff]Do this or I rip your arms off! Why would it ever succeed? You're asking the person to believe something that their vision tells them otherwise. In essence, your desire to [bluff] is overridden by the fact you can't [intimidate] indicating intimidate was the correct skill all along.

I actually thought that - first time I played DAO - that there was going to be risk involved in getting the Circle's help to save the kid (instead of the options available when you first get to that point). In fact, since I hadn't cleared the wizard tower I was sure it was going to fail because of the time it'd take to clear. While I'm not crazy about timed main quest objectives, this would have been a situation where I'd have really appreciated a timer on it. What's not to stop the player from saving before every dialogue, before every choice, before doing anything. I think you can't prevent this kind of thing. I'm not sure applying a certain degree of consequences would naturally lead people to gambling on reloads (ie I'm not sure it encourages the behavior anymore than any other choice/consequence in the game). *ring ring* "Hello?" ... "Hey its Backgammon, Dungeons and Dragons and Craps calling, they want to have a word."

Trading was a pain in any of the games from what little I MPed the IE games. It seemed to take a long, long time to do.

There's nothing wrong with stating that you're using a skill in P&P games. The problem, I think isn't in the theoretical, but in the practical. Lets use your example. You burst into a pirate's den who have stolen the mystic whozits from some random dude the next town over who promised you GOLD if you got his whozits back for him. [intimidate]I'll rip your arms off if you don't tell me what I want to know! Tell me what I want to know and I won't be forced to kill the remaining 100 people in this building. Hi there, I'm wondering if you've heard the Good News? I have a pamphlet here... Alms? Oh sorry, I seem to have broken down the wrong door. [bluff]I'm Bob, your new Pirate Apprentice from Pirate-Temps. Now lets say that you use Intimidate what are the options - Special dialogue (success or failure) Same dialogue as primary non-intimidate skill response If it is the second option, what's the point of creating a separate special [intimidate] option? If its the first lets look closely at that - First, for it to work almost every social situation should have a stat skill attached to it. But here's the thing you can't do that from a practical perspective (unless you're doing a generic [speech] skill where you don't have to worry about intent as much, only whether success chances are raised). You also can't really describe all of the possible imitation options that a P&P character would have. Typically you're going to look like a brutish thug; but intimidation can be more than that, a person could be intimidated by fear (arm ripping) or a sense of awe (OMG you're that adventurer who just killed Krogrok the Deadly. I'm you're biggest fan!) or just plain surprise (I didn't realize there was a door there!). So that means you're now at three intimidate possibilities to each dialogue (probably more). Otherwise you're just scripting special results for special situations - which is where we are now. But is this the best use of these skills? Then, because the skills are utilitarian they now have to give some positive effect to the user. So the solution is to make the [intimidate] tag something that for the player will always be successful. And thus the PC knows that whenever their [skill tag] comes up - it is the superior dialogue to take. One way to get around this is to apply skills to any dialogue where it might possibly make sense, thus allowing the scripter to only worry about skill successes and not skill use. But you couldn't do that and have the [intimidate] tag.

I'm looking forward to Obsidian's information on this race. But I don't have any strong particulars for what I want other than for them to be interesting to play.

Faerun was always a mishmash of places, AFAIK because it was created from...a bunch of different places. But frankly I can say I've never cared much about practical geography. So there's a rain forest on both sides of the mountain...can't say it ever bothered me much.

I think IWD probably made the most sense, but the BG games were horrible (IMO) multiplayer because of the heavy PC centric story. I tried playing it with a friend and it took us multiple sessions to get through the opening of the game. Anyhow out of the scope of what they're looking for in this game.