[Wisdom]Using this dialogue option is a better choice.

[JFSOCC]

These are present in many RPG's, even KOTOR2

 

Even when they aren't a better option, I find it rather immersion breaking to see it in front of a dialogue option.

 

So please no [intimidate][bluff][intelligence][spot] markers

I'm not saying you should not have these options

 

But it shouldn't be apparent that these are linked to the attributes or skills. That way, while I may have extra options, I will still roleplay based one which dialogue I feel is best, without meta-game information.

[Aoyagi]

Agreed. But I think it's been discussed somewhere already. If I recall correctly, there will be option to turn it off and Expert mode will have it off by default.

[Heresiarch]

But it shouldn't be apparent that these are linked to the attributes or skills. That way, while I may have extra options, I will still roleplay based one which dialogue I feel is best, without meta-game information.

 

Except then you will have no idea whether it is utter stupidity or an extreme insight on the character's part. So they should indicated that some answer is due to high intelligence or wisdom or spot skill or what have you either by markers or by additional narrative in the dialogue box.

 

Same goes for bluff. You can be sincere about your threat to rip off someone's face and eat it for breakfast or you can just say it for scaring them away. PST had lots of dialogue where you could be truthful or lying/bluffing and it seemed very fitting.

[teknoman2]

well i prefer not to have an indicator that says [click to win]. i want it to be a test of my own intelligence to understand what responce is based on my character's intelligence.

[Glabrezu]

I think indicating stuff like bluff and intimidate makes sense, cosidering you actively choose to use them. In the beginning of NWN's first expansion, I remember there was an extra option if you had high wisdom, but it wasn't indicated in front of it (then again, the NPC you were talking to would go "Oh, you shame me with your wisdom" so it felt kinda artificial).

[JFSOCC]

But it shouldn't be apparent that these are linked to the attributes or skills. That way, while I may have extra options, I will still roleplay based one which dialogue I feel is best, without meta-game information.

 

Except then you will have no idea whether it is utter stupidity or an extreme insight on the character's part. So they should indicated that some answer is due to high intelligence or wisdom or spot skill or what have you either by markers or by additional narrative in the dialogue box.

 

Same goes for bluff. You can be sincere about your threat to rip off someone's face and eat it for breakfast or you can just say it for scaring them away. PST had lots of dialogue where you could be truthful or lying/bluffing and it seemed very fitting.

No, I disagree. I don;t need that hand holding. I'm pretty sure that I can come to the conclusion myself that one dialogue option seems a smarter one than the other. and if I don't, why should the game be so unchallenging that I shouldn't think about what I choose to say?

[Atreides]

How would a player know if they just threatening or really going to carry something out?

[JFSOCC]

As long as it's not a [tag] telling us I'm ok with it.

[evdk]

I think indicating stuff like bluff and intimidate makes sense, cosidering you actively choose to use them. In the beginning of NWN's first expansion, I remember there was an extra option if you had high wisdom, but it wasn't indicated in front of it (then again, the NPC you were talking to would go "Oh, you shame me with your wisdom" so it felt kinda artificial).

Why? I am pretty sure that you can infer the use of skills yourself from the wording - "What a nice little hamlet you have, it would be a shame if random wandering band of adventurers set fire to the place", "No officer, I have never been even near the place tonight", "I believe the ring is worth more than the meager sum that you are offering, my good friend" do speak for themselves.

[wanderon]

I think indicating stuff like bluff and intimidate makes sense, cosidering you actively choose to use them. In the beginning of NWN's first expansion, I remember there was an extra option if you had high wisdom, but it wasn't indicated in front of it (then again, the NPC you were talking to would go "Oh, you shame me with your wisdom" so it felt kinda artificial).

Why? I am pretty sure that you can infer the use of skills yourself from the wording - "What a nice little hamlet you have, it would be a shame if random wandering band of adventurers set fire to the place", "No officer, I have never been even near the place tonight", "I believe the ring is worth more than the meager sum that you are offering, my good friend" do speak for themselves.

 

While that may sometimes be true it is also true that just as frequently what the writer may see as a response relating to X skill the reader may be unable to discern if it's X, Y, Z, or none of the above.

 

Having the skill posted with the lines is not going be a "win button" anyway since it only relates what skill pertains to that response not how the target is going to react to that statement so the only advantage it may give you is when multiple skills are offered you can gamble on the one you have the most points invested in.

 

Personally I would not want to see it go away unless it's optional.

[Heresiarch]

But it shouldn't be apparent that these are linked to the attributes or skills. That way, while I may have extra options, I will still roleplay based one which dialogue I feel is best, without meta-game information.

 

Except then you will have no idea whether it is utter stupidity or an extreme insight on the character's part. So they should indicated that some answer is due to high intelligence or wisdom or spot skill or what have you either by markers or by additional narrative in the dialogue box.

 

Same goes for bluff. You can be sincere about your threat to rip off someone's face and eat it for breakfast or you can just say it for scaring them away. PST had lots of dialogue where you could be truthful or lying/bluffing and it seemed very fitting.

No, I disagree. I don;t need that hand holding. I'm pretty sure that I can come to the conclusion myself that one dialogue option seems a smarter one than the other. and if I don't, why should the game be so unchallenging that I shouldn't think about what I choose to say?

 

You still have your choice. Nothing is forcing you to select [intelligence/Spot/Bluff/Some-other-stuff] choice from the dialogue options. If I can intimidate my way out of a confrontation, but I know my character is up to some serious arse kicking, I would go with another answer. That's why I want to know precisely which version of the answer will scare enemies away and which one will provoke them and there is no other way to be sure about it without tags. Maybe in PST you could pull it off, but dialogues in NWN2, for instance, were so inadequate that [tags] were absolutely unnecessary to add at least some sense to it.

[Skapanza]

The thing I really liked about dialogue options in BG2 was that there were lots to choose from. Even when they all said more or less the same thing, you got to feel like you were saying it in your characters way, and sometimes that came with consequences. My primary love for the BGs was the depth of NPC interaction that went beyond the Dragon Age (especially DA2) "Talk to me that one time to reveal my quest and then we'll go avenge my family" and expanded to Minsc and Aerie's friendship, Korgan ripping on everyone, Jaheira and Viconia arguing, etc.

 

Having the option to use a dialogue choice with [bluff] is OK, but like previous posters have said, these should be optional, since gamers like me will want to spend time carefully choosing the option that best fits the character they are trying to RP through this experience.

[evdk]

While that may sometimes be true it is also true that just as frequently what the writer may see as a response relating to X skill the reader may be unable to discern if it's X, Y, Z, or none of the above.

 

Having the skill posted with the lines is not going be a "win button" anyway since it only relates what skill pertains to that response not how the target is going to react to that statement so the only advantage it may give you is when multiple skills are offered you can gamble on the one you have the most points invested in.

 

Personally I would not want to see it go away unless it's optional.

The way RPG dialogues tend to be structured skill usage usually is a win button, if you can pass the check. If your two opinions are "Maybe you should reconsider" and "(Persuade) It is in both our best interests that you change your mind" which of them do you think will be more optimal for you to choose, supposing the PC has the skill adequately trained?

Personally I would at the very least like to see an option to turn it off. Oh well, honorable compromise.

[wanderon]

While that may sometimes be true it is also true that just as frequently what the writer may see as a response relating to X skill the reader may be unable to discern if it's X, Y, Z, or none of the above.

 

Having the skill posted with the lines is not going be a "win button" anyway since it only relates what skill pertains to that response not how the target is going to react to that statement so the only advantage it may give you is when multiple skills are offered you can gamble on the one you have the most points invested in.

 

Personally I would not want to see it go away unless it's optional.

The way RPG dialogues tend to be structured skill usage usually is a win button, if you can pass the check. If your two opinions are "Maybe you should reconsider" and "(Persuade) It is in both our best interests that you change your mind" which of them do you think will be more optimal for you to choose, supposing the PC has the skill adequately trained?

Personally I would at the very least like to see an option to turn it off. Oh well, honorable compromise.

 

I think what you are more likely to see in PE is larger dialoge trees with multiple uses of different skills - altho some of those possible choices may only be available if you have the skills to see them - (PS:T like) - so you may have an answer that uses persuade and one that uses wisdom and one that uses intimidate all in the same choice field.

 

If that does turn out to be the case then the tags become even more important just to discern what sort of come back your character wants to use regardless of whether that choice is related to an RP standpoint you are trying to play out with the character or just a "winning" the dialoge standpoint.

[JFSOCC]

look, even if it's not auto-win, which I have no problem with accepting, knowing that you have this dialogue option as a result of a skill or ability means you get extra information, meta-game information.

When you start meta-gaming, you're no longer busy playing the game within the framework of the game. You're not making character decisions, you're making player decisions.

[Grand_Commander13]

With the example of "Maybe you should reconsider" and "(Persuade) It is in both our best interests that you change your mind" I'd really hope both of those referenced my character's Persuade skill to see whether they worked. If the engine can't handle that then you need to either remove the options that don't work or mark the ones that do, plain and simple. I mean, you either make it glaringly obvious this option will not work in which case you need to write the player character as a buffoon, or you mark it.

[evdk]

I think what you are more likely to see in PE is larger dialoge trees with multiple uses of different skills - altho some of those possible choices may only be available if you have the skills to see them - (PS:T like) - so you may have an answer that uses persuade and one that uses wisdom and one that uses intimidate all in the same choice field.

 

If that does turn out to be the case then the tags become even more important just to discern what sort of come back your character wants to use regardless of whether that choice is related to an RP standpoint you are trying to play out with the character or just a "winning" the dialoge standpoint.

That tags are stupid in either case, because it's an unnecessary player knowledge. You should be able to reasonably extrapolate what sort of reaction your answer will get - this is after all not ME and you should be seeing what exactly your character will say.

 

I believe there is a Josh's quote where he shares my opinion, but I can't find it We can at least agree that a menu option to turn the tags on and off would be acceptable for both of us or are we arguing on a dogmatic level?

 

 

With the example of "Maybe you should reconsider" and "(Persuade) It is in both our best interests that you change your mind" I'd really hope both of those referenced my character's Persuade skill to see whether they worked. If the engine can't handle that then you need to either remove the options that don't work or mark the ones that do, plain and simple. I mean, you either make it glaringly obvious this option will not work in which case you need to write the player character as a buffoon, or you mark it.

Yeah, it wasn't the best example, but then I am not a writer and I believe it got my message across, more or less.

Edited October 28, 2012 by evdk

[Hertzila]

One thing that I always wondered about Planescape: Torment was why would I need to specify if I'm bluffing or lying when I'm saying something. Why not just have that option, and then leave it up to the NPC to either buy it or call my bluff and I'd work with that. It always striked me as somewhat artificial.

 

I can't remember if it was Project Eternity's or Wasteland 2's update but I remember one of them saying that while skills would show up like that, you still need to watch what you say or you'll talk yourself into a corner. So, why not a simple system like that: if you just click on the [Wisdom] or [speech] option all the time, you'd usually end up contradicting yourself and failing to convince the other guy otherwise.

[Skapanza]

I think evdk has the right idea. It's clear some people want the tags so that they know which they want to pick. People like evdk and myself would prefer to infer the reaction we will get based on what we are saying. An option to turn those tags off (unrelated to the difficulty at which we are playing the game) should make everyone happy.

 

I also hope there will be multiple ways to say the same thing. I did not like in Mass Effect or Dragon Age being forced to choose between a "good" option or "bad" option, but neither was a statement I felt like the character I was trying to roleplay would say. That breaks the 4th wall for me too severely, and diminishes my enjoyment. BG1+2 did a really good job of provding four or five ways to say essentially the same thing, with appropriate responses from the NPC if you were kind, mean, etc.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Skapanza

[harhar!]

I think it's imporant, that there is no [intelligence], because it makes the answer too easy to guess. The option should only be available if the char is smart enough but there should never be an Int-check, because if the char has come up with the argument he should obviously be intelligent enough to formulate it.

[Jaesun]

I think indicating stuff like bluff and intimidate makes sense, cosidering you actively choose to use them. In the beginning of NWN's first expansion, I remember there was an extra option if you had high wisdom, but it wasn't indicated in front of it (then again, the NPC you were talking to would go "Oh, you shame me with your wisdom" so it felt kinda artificial).

Why? I am pretty sure that you can infer the use of skills yourself from the wording - "What a nice little hamlet you have, it would be a shame if random wandering band of adventurers set fire to the place", "No officer, I have never been even near the place tonight", "I believe the ring is worth more than the meager sum that you are offering, my good friend" do speak for themselves.

 

Thinking. In a cRPG? What madness is this?

[Hormalakh]

The discussion is about two very different kinds of [tags], and it should be clarified which ones we are talking about.

 

There is the [skill] tag, which tells you that a certain dialogue option exists solely because you have sufficient skill in a certain area (intelligence, wisdom, persuasion). There is also the [narrative] tag, that tells you either the intention of the character's words.

 

These two are very different. One, often-times, stands in as a "insta-win" button, while the other might not necessarily be the best choice in a dialogue tree. An example might help elucidate this.

 

Guard: Did you see who killed this peasant?

 

You:

Option 1) [Persuasion] Why worry yourself about a simple peasant? You are more important than this, etc.

Option 2) No officer. I'm just travelling through.

Option 3) [Lie] Yes officer. It was that evil adventuring party that I really hate over there.

 

While option 1 is blatantly the best option since you have a good chance of knowing that it is effective in getting the guard off your back, it isn't clear which is the better option between 2 and 3. Maybe with option 2, the guard pulls you in for further questioning and option 3 saves you from having to kill the city guards. Or maybe option 2 saves you from a battle with the adventuring party who clear themselves.

 

The point is that a [narrative] tag doesn't appear as an "insta-win" option. It merely guides the player toward understanding the PC's internal reasoning for a certain dialogue. Of course, there are other narrative tags except for [lie]. There might be [threaten], [coax], [tell truth], etc.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't think that they should show a [x] unless the PC is actively doing it. For example, if the PC is using the intimidate skill, the player should know that they are using it. I agree with OP in the cases of [attribute/certain other skills] where x amount of the said attribute or skill are required to even allow the option.

[Hertzila]

Guard: Did you see who killed this peasant?

 

You:

Option 1) [Persuasion] Why worry yourself about a simple peasant? You are more important than this, etc.

Option 2) No officer. I'm just travelling through.

Option 3) [Lie] Yes officer. It was that evil adventuring party that I really hate over there.

 

While option 1 is blatantly the best option since you have a good chance of knowing that it is effective in getting the guard off your back, it isn't clear which is the better option between 2 and 3. Maybe with option 2, the guard pulls you in for further questioning and option 3 saves you from having to kill the city guards. Or maybe option 2 saves you from a battle with the adventuring party who clear themselves.

 

However, since option 1 stops the guards from actually investigating, it could have some unforeseen consequences. Imagine the victims family and friends becoming bitter and begin organizing their own vigilante systems in place of the guards, since to them, they're obviously either corrupted or lazy. Or they'll figure out that it was you who got the guards stop investigating and suddenly the public opinion on you plummets. Or it'll actually just be more suspicious since you're clearly trying to get them to stop investigating, even if you are successful (there are other guards and they all probably have superiors that are none too happy about guards abandoning their posts and risking public outcry).

Edited October 28, 2012 by Hertzila

[evdk]

I don't think that they should show a [x] unless the PC is actively doing it. For example, if the PC is using the intimidate skill, the player should know that they are using it.

Not even then. It should be pretty much the opposite - every even remotely threatening response should check the characters intimidation skill without displaying any tags.