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

[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.

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.

 

How does the game know that the PC is trying to intimidate someone? The only one who should decide if a response is a threat is the player.

[evdk]

How does the game know that the PC is trying to intimidate someone? The only one who should decide if a response is a threat is the player.

And all threats should use the intimidate skill yes. I do not see how there could be any confusion unless the threatening is done using some horrible eufemisms (I could maybe take you out for dinner [dramatic score]).

[Churchwarden]

What if, rather than specific tags popping up, you could select a social skill (e.g. bluff, diplo, intimidate), then select the line of dialogue you wanted to use that skill with? That way there would not be tags, but you could choose to use your skills as much or as little as you like, giving more control to your character's personality and relationships with different individuals. Furthermore, the game could keep track of the number of times you choose to be intimidating, lie, diplomatic, etc., and you could get a reputation in different towns/regions (for lying, you would get a reputation as a lier if you were CAUGHT lying a lot).

 

Thoughts?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How does the game know that the PC is trying to intimidate someone? The only one who should decide if a response is a threat is the player.

And all threats should use the intimidate skill yes. I do not see how there could be any confusion unless the threatening is done using some horrible eufemisms (I could maybe take you out for dinner [dramatic score]).

 

The Player is the one ho puts the "motive" behind the line spoken. So if the Player selects a line that they do not intend as a threat, but the intimidate skill is used, then that is a problem. [intimidate] should appear , so the Player doesn't unwillingly and/or unknowingly intimidate someone.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What if, rather than specific tags popping up, you could select a social skill (e.g. bluff, diplo, intimidate), then select the line of dialogue you wanted to use that skill with? That way there would not be tags, but you could choose to use your skills as much or as little as you like, giving more control to your character's personality and relationships with different individuals. Furthermore, the game could keep track of the number of times you choose to be intimidating, lie, diplomatic, etc., and you could get a reputation in different towns/regions (for lying, you would get a reputation as a lier if you were CAUGHT lying a lot).

 

Thoughts?

 

I could see something like this working.

[evdk]

How does the game know that the PC is trying to intimidate someone? The only one who should decide if a response is a threat is the player.

And all threats should use the intimidate skill yes. I do not see how there could be any confusion unless the threatening is done using some horrible eufemisms (I could maybe take you out for dinner [dramatic score]).

 

The Player is the one ho puts the "motive" behind the line spoken. So if the Player selects a line that they do not intend as a threat, but the intimidate skill is used, then that is a problem. [intimidate] should appear , so the Player doesn't unwillingly and/or unknowingly intimidate someone.

Player should not be saying things like "Tell me or I'll hurt you" when he does not mean them as a threat then.

[eselle28]

It seems like this one's easy enough to resolve - include tags and give players an option to turn them off. Personally, I prefer not playing with tags. If someone misunderstands me occasionally, I think that makes the world seem more realistic. It's not quite the same thing as a dialogue wheel where I selected a few words that sounded very neutral and ended up saying something cruel or threatening. If I've seen every word my character is going to say and people still take it the wrong way, I'm fine with playing it off as a social blunder.

 

And stat-based conversation buttons definitely shouldn't be the easy win option. There should be cases where picking one of the other options could lead the guards to clear out some annoying enemies, or where another option might open up some additional and useful dialogue. I would also say that there should be at least one case where using the wrong kind of high stat dialogue fails. If you keep responding to a highly emotional, illogical person with rational, high intelligence dialogue, that shouldn't be as effective as using charm-based dialogue or even saying non-stat based but comforting things.

[AGX-17]

So, what, it should be color coded? Or should each choice be written so obstructively obvious that it ruins the dialogue altogether?

 

"HEY, [NPC name] I am incredibly CHARISMATIC and would like to take advantage of you for personal gain with my CHARMING nature."

 

Getting rid of those prompts will just lead to save scumming because players couldn't tell which option was the one that suited the gameplay style they're pursuing for that character.

 

It seems like this one's easy enough to resolve - include tags and give players an option to turn them off. Personally, I prefer not playing with tags. If someone misunderstands me occasionally, I think that makes the world seem more realistic. It's not quite the same thing as a dialogue wheel where I selected a few words that sounded very neutral and ended up saying something cruel or threatening. If I've seen every word my character is going to say and people still take it the wrong way, I'm fine with playing it off as a social blunder.

 

And stat-based conversation buttons definitely shouldn't be the easy win option. There should be cases where picking one of the other options could lead the guards to clear out some annoying enemies, or where another option might open up some additional and useful dialogue. I would also say that there should be at least one case where using the wrong kind of high stat dialogue fails. If you keep responding to a highly emotional, illogical person with rational, high intelligence dialogue, that shouldn't be as effective as using charm-based dialogue or even saying non-stat based but comforting things.

 

The problem isn't NPCs misunderstanding, because unless the scenario in question was designed so that a certain skill-based line was going to be misinterpreted, it's a case of just confusing players who thought they were taking one angle but it was actually a different one. This whole thing is proposing PE to have a dialogue system of misleading options like Mass Effect. One of the most common gripes about that series was that you were given sentences in the dialogue wheel that were WILDLY different from what Shepard actually said, and often gave different results from what was the implied intent of the initially presented dialogue options.

 

i.e. You get a renegade choice that looks like you're just going to threaten or punch a guy, but instead you shoot him in the nuts and then stomp on his neck.

Edited October 28, 2012 by AGX-17

[teknoman2]

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.

while what you say is true and i agree with this method, the check decides not if you say it right, but if the other guy is willing to listen to reason or buy your bluff. in that case the best thing is to have, besides the skill itself, circumstantial modifiers. if you speak to someone who trusts you, and you need 8 intelligence to use a certain response, he listens to what you say. if he does not trust you, you can use the responce at 8int but it may not work, but it always will at 10int. if you have lower than 8 int, you simply are not smart enough to say that thing

[evdk]

So, what, it should be color coded? Or should each choice be written so obstructively obvious that it ruins the dialogue altogether?

 

"HEY, [NPC name] I am incredibly CHARISMATIC and would like to take advantage of you for personal gain with my CHARMING nature."

 

Getting rid of those prompts will just lead to save scumming because players couldn't tell which option was the one that suited the gameplay style they're pursuing for that character.

Was this directed at me? Getting rid of tags will lead to absolutely no confusion, if the dialogues are properly written. When you come onto someone do you need a prompt you are using some kind of seduction skill? When you are shaking up shopkeepers for protection money does it have to be tagged as an intimidating action? Why?

 

EDIT: So my opinion on this is, again: write the dialogues properly and put a toggle in settings for turning the tags on and off.

Edited October 28, 2012 by evdk

[Shadenuat]

Getting rid of those prompts will just lead to save scumming because players couldn't tell which option was the one that suited the gameplay style they're pursuing for that character.

 

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. When you see "Diplomacy" or, worse, "Diplomacy 44/50", the game itself pushes you to metagaming. If you know there is a chance of failure, you will try to get the best result - either by saving a few skill points, or carrying items which raise them, like that. It's meta information. When there's little to no meta information, you make choices on your roleplaying basis.

 

That's why I like Fallout, Arcanum and Planescape's dialogues so much. They are pleasantly surprising when you beat the game with one character, then make another one and see new dialogue lines coming up.

[wanderon]

It's not about having the tags in order to KNOW what to pick from a meta-gaming situation it's having the tags to know whether or not it's a skill check or just a dialoge option - it's about understanding how the devs imagined the tone of what they were writing and whether or not there are game mechanics involved or just some writers imagination of how a dialoge choice is going to be responded to by the target.

 

I don't know about anyone else but believe it or not sometimes I am stunned at how far off a response is from what I was expecting and I can respect that if it's just the way the devs chose to respond but if it's going to be the result of one of my skills sets then I want to make the choice whether I want my charatcer to use or not use it in that situation.

[Tsuga C]

Give me the dialogue markers, please. If dialogue choice #2 is labeled as [wisdom], I consider that a very good thing. The more information I have as a player regarding dialogue, the better.

[evdk]

I don't know about anyone else but believe it or not sometimes I am stunned at how far off a response is from what I was expecting

That only ever happened to me in ME thanks to its dreadful dialogue wheel (brought to you by Satan).

[Heresiarch]

Tags are nothing even remotely resembling meta gaming. They only give the necessary non-verbal details. You can say "Hello, how are you?" in a way that will make the person you're talking to want to run away as fast as possible. To say nothing of ambiguous lines which can be interpreted in many ways. Since you cannot reliably guess the intention of your character (or rather the person who was writing the line), the result often comes out as a big surprise.

[evdk]

Have you ever seen a game use "Hello, how are you" as an intimidation option? Tell me more.

[Orogun01]

Have you ever seen a game use "Hello, how are you" as an intimidation option? Tell me more.

Not a game, but when I walk up to strangers and say "Hi" with a grave afflicted tone they usually run away.

[evdk]

Thanks for not answering my question. (My point is that using hypothetical situations that have never come up in an RPG before as an argument against lack of tags is full of straw).

[wanderon]

Have you ever seen a game use "Hello, how are you" as an intimidation option? Tell me more.

Not a game, but when I walk up to strangers and say "Hi" with a grave afflicted tone they usually run away.

 

I'm thinking it's the shades...

[JFSOCC]

So, what, it should be color coded? Or should each choice be written so obstructively obvious that it ruins the dialogue altogether?

 

"HEY, [NPC name] I am incredibly CHARISMATIC and would like to take advantage of you for personal gain with my CHARMING nature."

 

Getting rid of those prompts will just lead to save scumming because players couldn't tell which option was the one that suited the gameplay style they're pursuing for that character.

 

 

I just don't think people who are interested in this type of an RPG are that stupid.

[JFSOCC]

I don't know about anyone else but believe it or not sometimes I am stunned at how far off a response is from what I was expecting

That only ever happened to me in ME thanks to its dreadful dialogue wheel (brought to you by Satan).

the irony will have it that while I am absolutely sure this was a real issue, I had a blessed experience where most of the time it would say exactly what I thought. I guess I think similarly to whomever wrote the dialogue or something. Yet I could once or twice still see it go wrong.

[eselle28]

It seems like this one's easy enough to resolve - include tags and give players an option to turn them off. Personally, I prefer not playing with tags. If someone misunderstands me occasionally, I think that makes the world seem more realistic. It's not quite the same thing as a dialogue wheel where I selected a few words that sounded very neutral and ended up saying something cruel or threatening. If I've seen every word my character is going to say and people still take it the wrong way, I'm fine with playing it off as a social blunder.

 

And stat-based conversation buttons definitely shouldn't be the easy win option. There should be cases where picking one of the other options could lead the guards to clear out some annoying enemies, or where another option might open up some additional and useful dialogue. I would also say that there should be at least one case where using the wrong kind of high stat dialogue fails. If you keep responding to a highly emotional, illogical person with rational, high intelligence dialogue, that shouldn't be as effective as using charm-based dialogue or even saying non-stat based but comforting things.

 

The problem isn't NPCs misunderstanding, because unless the scenario in question was designed so that a certain skill-based line was going to be misinterpreted, it's a case of just confusing players who thought they were taking one angle but it was actually a different one. This whole thing is proposing PE to have a dialogue system of misleading options like Mass Effect. One of the most common gripes about that series was that you were given sentences in the dialogue wheel that were WILDLY different from what Shepard actually said, and often gave different results from what was the implied intent of the initially presented dialogue options.

 

i.e. You get a renegade choice that looks like you're just going to threaten or punch a guy, but instead you shoot him in the nuts and then stomp on his neck.

 

That was the worst part of the Mass Effect games, but I think the situation's a bit different if you know what words will be said and the only possible difference is tone. People make mistakes based on tone and context all the time, and for some people, it livens things up to have a little bit of unpredictability.

 

In my personal playthroughs, I might choose a dialogue option like this, thinking it's a calm, rational argument in favor of doing one's share: "Come on, Reluctant Villager, chip in your share to the local militia and let me move on. It's in your best interest, really. If everyone made excuses about paying their taxes, the village would be overrun by bandits by nightfall!" I'd normally expect Reluctant Villager to either sigh and agree or continue to refuse. However, if unknown to me that was an Intimidate option and the villager reacts by paying his taxes, slipping me an extra bribe, and begging me not to rob his home, I'm fine with not having seen the label. Maybe my tone was just fine, but the last couple of tax collectors the local lord sent through used those sorts of tactics, making the villagers easily intimidated.

 

That being said, I understand that not everyone enjoys this. I'm fine with there being tags, as long as I have an option to turn them off.

Edited October 28, 2012 by eselle28

[evdk]

I just don't think people who are interested in this type of an RPG are that stupid.

I want to believe.

 

 

That being said, I understand that not everyone enjoys this. I'm fine with there being tags, as long as I have an option to turn them off.

The game would have to be designed around there being no tags though, otherwise it will end up like Skyrim when you turn off the quest compass.

Edited October 28, 2012 by evdk

[Orogun01]

I just don't think people who are interested in this type of an RPG are that stupid.

I want to believe.

The truth is out there

 

:whistles X-files theme song:

[eselle28]

That being said, I understand that not everyone enjoys this. I'm fine with there being tags, as long as I have an option to turn them off.

The game would have to be designed around there being no tags though, otherwise it will end up like Skyrim when you turn off the quest compass.

 

Yes, the dialogue would need to be written so that mistakes like the one I described are fairly rare, with the optional tags being a secondary source of information rather than the only way of telling which response was which. I don't think that's a bad thing. If something is really so profound that only a wise person could think of it or so amusing that only someone very charismatic could pull it off, it should seem a little out of the ordinary and shouldn't be easily mixed up with the mundane responses.