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

[Osvir]

12 pages TL;DR

 

I could see colors, italics, bold, different fonts, appearing in the game if used as a tool to enhance the story even further (moderately). Same thing with "[Wisdom]" options, moderately. Baldur's Gate with Banter Mods gives you the option to immerse yourself even further by the way of "*you decide to roll out your world map on your knees*" and other options where the "dialogue" choices are a chunk of text explaining what you can do to interact with your companions, apart from the standard... you know.. talking (and even if he stands there still in position, I experience much vivid imagination by the powerful use of words).

[Continuum]

I'm fine with player skills unlocking additional dialogue options. It's nice to see them incorporated in the conversation part of the game and they can be used to expand conversation.

 

What I want P:E to avoid is the following:

 

* Persuade/Intimidate skills that have no purpose in the game other than "winning" at conversation. Having character traits like wisdom, intelligence, charisma that open up certain conversation options at certain levels is fine, as long as that isn't the only function of that skill and the only way to "win" the conversation. I don't like putting points in to "conversation win" skills, and it becomes especially stupid in a party-based game because then it's simply a must-have skill for at least one character.

 

* "Rolls" to "win" conversation. Good lord, I hate every time a game does this. Your persuade/intimidate skill gives you a % chance to "win" the conversation. One of two things happens here... either I just reload a save if I "lose," or I just get pissed off.

 

* Bizzare conversation minigames - I'm looking at you, Oblivion.

 

* Switch to conversation character for every conversation - If my entire six-person party is standing next to the NPC I'm talking to, then I don't want to have to flip party lead to the character with the best conversation skills every time I talk to somebody. They all get to use their skills in a fight if they are present, I should be able to benefit from every character's skills in non-combat situations as well.

[Karkarov]

If thats all you've got then I'll just agree to disagree thank you very much...

 

What about this is so hard for you to comprehend? A bluff is a LIE. You "say" you are going to attack the guard if he doesn't move aside but you fail your bluff check so he doesn't believe you. It was a LIE, so you don't actually attack. Assuming you pass the bluff check then obviously the guard is conned and steps aside. I can't see how you are failing to get this, it is really really simple.

 

A Bluff is a lie, all the stuff you just said is total BS and if you threatened someone with something it was fake, you either can't or won't follow through with your threat. You "bluffed". An intimidate is a legitimate threat you are giving with 100% honesty and absolutely WILL carry out if the check fails. Lie VS truth, That is the difference.

 

To use your own movie as an example. "Back off Ike or I will turn your head into a Canoe!" except this time you fail the bluff check and you really are out of bullets, hence the bluff. Ike says, "He's bluffin! Take him!" And it is you versus the clanton gang with an empty pistol. I sure hope Doc picks up the pace and shows up sooner rather than later.

 

Now it is an intimidate check "Back off Ike or I will turn your head into a Canoe!" you fail the check Ike says "He's bluffin! Ta...." and doesn't get to finish his sentence cause your gun was loaded and you just turned his head into a canoe.

 

Obviously passing either check results in the scene you get in the actual movie.

 

I'll give you two options, you can decide which is bluff and which is intimidate.

Get back on topic or I swear I will have this thread locked!

By all means, continue derailing this thread, when it is locked, it's not going to be me who is banned.

 

Anyway, I think it is obvious enough to recognise which is which without needing tags, don't you?

 

Apparently we are the only two that can tell. The first is a bluff, you aren't a mod you literally can't lock the thread. The second is an intimidate because you are using something that is "possibly" true to convince people to stop going off topic. In reality both are basically bluffs because you can't really deliver on either.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Karkarov

[wanderon]

@ FlintlockJazz

 

Josh has talked about dialoges someplace but I can't find it - As I recall he talked kind of specificly about no "win buttons" in the dialoge and I believe he mentioned it would probably be similar to New Vegas (which I have not played).

 

My hope is it also incorporates some of the verbosity from PS:T as well with lots of choices and lots of options for skills, things you have already learned, maybe some soul options etc etc... the more the better.

 

One thing I don't think we will need to worry about is seeing the same old 3 options many RPGs seem to get stuck on - one goody two shoes, one uncommitted, and one kick the puppy. wash rinse and repeat ad naseum...

Edited November 1, 2012 by wanderon

[wanderon]

If thats all you've got then I'll just agree to disagree thank you very much...

 

What about this is so hard for you to comprehend? .

 

Nothing - I DO understand exactly how bluff and intimidate work and what the differences between them are.

 

FYI - the argument I have been having here is whether or not a bluff option could be paired with an intimidating statement - just like the one you just described - my answer is of course it can - it appears yours is too - in your other post however you appeared to be saying that there was no way for a bluff to work.

[alanschu]

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.

 

Because you have characters that can straight up detect if you are lying, and it also plays into the alignment system.

[BetrayTheWorld]

If thats all you've got then I'll just agree to disagree thank you very much...

 

...To use your own movie as an example....

 

Hey now, that was MY movie. Make the right arguments for the right people.

[JFSOCC]

I don't even need to know if a dialogue option I use is a bluff or an intimidate. I will pick the option that I think is best, I don't need the knowledge of what attribute or skill it is linked to.

[Karkarov]

If thats all you've got then I'll just agree to disagree thank you very much...

 

...To use your own movie as an example....

 

Hey now, that was MY movie. Make the right arguments for the right people.

 

Sorry

 

My point is no, a bluff and an intimidate are totally different things. They are different because one is a very literal threat you are capable of carrying out and will follow through with if you don't get what you want. The other is just a lie. To borrow poker terms... If I call your bluff you are screwed unless I am bluffing too. But if you aren't bluffing and you were simply intimidating me and really did have a powerful hand it is probably me that is about to lose.

 

The problem is previous games handle it wrong when things like intimidates result in you doing nothing. For there to be a need for both bluff and intimidate then intimidate has to be a real threat. Which is exactly how I use it when I play RPGs, much to the dismay of many many npc's.

[BetrayTheWorld]

Technically, you can intimidate someone without intending to follow through with any percieved "threat". I know some people would say that's now considered a "bluff", and would fall under that skill, but it's not.

 

To demonstrate what I mean, here's an example:

 

Intimidate Dude has 30 ranks of intimidate, and 0 Bluff.

 

Intimidate dude can say:

 

[intimidate] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse.

[bluff] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse.

 

Both are legitimate, even if Intimidate dude has no intention of following through with his threat. Just because you don't -really- plan on killing a guy over a kitten doesn't mean you're any less scary, or that you couldn't apply your skill in intimidation to trying to manipulate your target. Ultimately, that's what this entire thread comes down to. The tags are there so that you can apply your skills to your conversations, and know which skill you're using. It's not an "I win" button. It's an "I'm using my skills that I've worked for now" button.

[wanderon]

Technically, you can intimidate someone without intending to follow through with any percieved "threat". I know some people would say that's now considered a "bluff", and would fall under that skill, but it's not.

 

To demonstrate what I mean, here's an example:

 

Intimidate Dude has 30 ranks of intimidate, and 0 Bluff.

 

Intimidate dude can say:

 

[intimidate] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse.

[bluff] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse.

 

Both are legitimate, even if Intimidate dude has no intention of following through with his threat. Just because you don't -really- plan on killing a guy over a kitten doesn't mean you're any less scary, or that you couldn't apply your skill in intimidation to trying to manipulate your target. Ultimately, that's what this entire thread comes down to. The tags are there so that you can apply your skills to your conversations, and know which skill you're using. It's not an "I win" button. It's an "I'm using my skills that I've worked for now" button.

 

Indeed the whole "I win" has to do with what the devs choose to use as responses not due to the use of tags to let gamers know what dialoge options have skills or other things involved in their use and I suspect we will find a large number of tag-able options in PE - or at least I hope so.

Edited November 1, 2012 by wanderon

[Amentep]

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

 

Its not that I want to dismiss it so much as that game definitions due to mechanics don't always line up with the definitions of words used. In other words, the scope of a skill is defined by the creators of the game, not by the English dictionary.

 

Lets say a game defines a combat skill called Assault which is used when any PC attacks a foe first. However the "Avenger" class gets a combat skill called Avenge which is used when an Avenger attacks a foe first who has unjustly committed a crime.

 

So an Avenger dumps points in Avenge and a Bard dumps them into Assault. They go to face a foe who has unjustly committed a crime. The Avenger can use his Avenge Skill and the Bard Assault. And they roughly get the same effect.

 

Now later they meet a guy who hasn't unjustly committed a crime. The Bard can still use Assault for a sudden attack, whereas the Avenger cannot use Avenge.

 

2 questions are raised - why would an Avenger choose to dump points in "Avenge" rather than "Assault" and why would the game divide out what is in essence a specific case of Assault as a separate combat skill rather than have one skill that covered both situations.

 

This is, in essence, what you're doing when you say a Bard should be able to bluff an intimidation. Not only can the Bard intimidate as well (or better) than the half-orc Barbarian, but his skill is more useful in other situations. And to me this is just wrong. If the idea is to have [intimidate] be a special subset of [bluff] then you don't need both skills. You just need bluff.

 

ObTopic: To me this is further reason why skill tags are unnecessary (because they could confuse the player); I'd also argue that for these kind of skill checks can't ever happen like they would in P&P, so hiding the mechanics makes you less angry when a situation doesn't offer you your skill choice and you think it should (because you're not thinking about having a [skill] tag in front of your dialogue).

[Osvir]

Copy-pasted from this thread:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62093-walking-n-talking/

 

Technically, you can intimidate someone without intending to follow through with any percieved "threat". I know some people would say that's now considered a "bluff", and would fall under that skill, but it's not.

 

To demonstrate what I mean, here's an example:

 

Intimidate Dude has 30 ranks of intimidate, and 0 Bluff.

 

Intimidate dude can say:

 

[intimidate] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse.

[bluff] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse.

 

Both are legitimate, even if Intimidate dude has no intention of following through with his threat. Just because you don't -really- plan on killing a guy over a kitten doesn't mean you're any less scary, or that you couldn't apply your skill in intimidation to trying to manipulate your target. Ultimately, that's what this entire thread comes down to. The tags are there so that you can apply your skills to your conversations, and know which skill you're using. It's not an "I win" button. It's an "I'm using my skills that I've worked for now" button.

 

Indeed the whole "I win" has to do with what the devs choose to use as responses not due to the use of tags to let gamers know what dialoge options have skills or other things involved in their use and I suspect we will find a large number of tag-able options in PE - or at least I hope so.

 

Could, examples, "Bluff" and "Intimidate" ("Speech Skill" could suffice) be Active Abiltiies used in the game interface (and not in a Dialogue interface)? E.g., Right-Click on target, choose Bluff/Speech Skill when you can respond (could give you 1 to 2 more options/choices in the dialogue log, depending on what your prime speech skill is: Humble? Intimidating? Persuasive? Bluffer?)

[Churchwarden]

Copy-pasted from this thread:

http://forums.obsidi...king-n-talking/

 

And earlier in this same thread.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Churchwarden

[Amentep]

Could, examples, "Bluff" and "Intimidate" ("Speech Skill" could suffice) be Active Abiltiies used in the game interface (and not in a Dialogue interface)? E.g., Right-Click on target, choose Bluff/Speech Skill when you can respond (could give you 1 to 2 more options/choices in the dialogue log, depending on what your prime speech skill is: Humble? Intimidating? Persuasive? Bluffer?)

 

To me this would make the skill useage mirror how it tends to work in P&P (ie you declare you're going to use a skill). I think the issue would be what happens if the need to use the speech skill comes up in the middle of speech (this could be dealt with mechanically by having the ability to toggle on/off speech skill usage, but I'm not sure that would be a prudent course).

[Osvir]

Could, examples, "Bluff" and "Intimidate" ("Speech Skill" could suffice) be Active Abiltiies used in the game interface (and not in a Dialogue interface)? E.g., Right-Click on target, choose Bluff/Speech Skill when you can respond (could give you 1 to 2 more options/choices in the dialogue log, depending on what your prime speech skill is: Humble? Intimidating? Persuasive? Bluffer?)

 

To me this would make the skill useage mirror how it tends to work in P&P (ie you declare you're going to use a skill). I think the issue would be what happens if the need to use the speech skill comes up in the middle of speech (this could be dealt with mechanically by having the ability to toggle on/off speech skill usage, but I'm not sure that would be a prudent course).

 

Yes. But what if there is a system where it works, without getting a "Dialogue Interface"? In Baldur's Gate the Dialogue Interface is more or less the combat log expanding and you get a chunk of text. In the Fallout games you generally get a Facial Dialogue Interface.

 

In Baldur's Gate with mods, lots of NPC's you can talk with have a small face icon, indicating what they look like/who they are (which I enjoy a lot too). But what if Dialogue could be more dynamic?

 

Suggestion/Thought/Idea:

You walk up to someone and talk to him/click on him, but it doesn't pause the game (like it so often does). Instead the game pacing continues (Allowing you to be able to cast a "declare" mid-speech), and you get the Dialogue in the Log which you can interact with. Issues with this, though, is that enemies in the area would have to be taken into consideration (if they attack you while you are in dialogue, if they are in "vision" or you are in "Battle Mode". NPC reacting to monsters midst in his/her dialogue, your choices gets effected, you walk up and talk to someone, and someone else who has been following you to initiate a conversation with you mid-dialogue etc. etc). Pausing the game would pause the dialogue too.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Osvir

[Orogun01]

Could, examples, "Bluff" and "Intimidate" ("Speech Skill" could suffice) be Active Abiltiies used in the game interface (and not in a Dialogue interface)? E.g., Right-Click on target, choose Bluff/Speech Skill when you can respond (could give you 1 to 2 more options/choices in the dialogue log, depending on what your prime speech skill is: Humble? Intimidating? Persuasive? Bluffer?)

 

To me this would make the skill useage mirror how it tends to work in P&P (ie you declare you're going to use a skill). I think the issue would be what happens if the need to use the speech skill comes up in the middle of speech (this could be dealt with mechanically by having the ability to toggle on/off speech skill usage, but I'm not sure that would be a prudent course).

The difference between Intimidate and Bluff seems to be just for roleplaying purposes. In PS:T there was no intimidate rather it was supplanted for a Truth tag, whereas Bluff pushed your alignment towards Chaotic, the Truth made you lawful or evil/good depending on the situation.

 

Since there is no alignment system in PE I think your take on combining both into a single skill would be rather good.

[Karkarov]

Both are legitimate, even if Intimidate dude has no intention of following through with his threat. Just because you don't -really- plan on killing a guy over a kitten doesn't mean you're any less scary, or that you couldn't apply your skill in intimidation to trying to manipulate your target. Ultimately, that's what this entire thread comes down to. The tags are there so that you can apply your skills to your conversations, and know which skill you're using. It's not an "I win" button. It's an "I'm using my skills that I've worked for now" button.

Wrong. Just because you are super scary and ultra mean looking doesn't mean you are a good liar. You are lying when you tell them you will attack or else, because you don't actually intend to. So even though you may legitimately be terrifying they may realize under that you are actually a softy and say "Uhhh .... come on now... you wouldn't really kill me over a kitten would you?!".

 

Insert Captain Shakespeare from Stardust. Very intimidating appearance and behavior, but his primary skill was theatrics and bluffing. In a fight he would go down like a house of cards no matter how tough he "looked".

 

In the end maybe intimidate should just be renamed "Threaten".

Edited November 1, 2012 by Karkarov

[BetrayTheWorld]

Not only can the Bard intimidate as well (or better) than the half-orc Barbarian, but his skill is more useful in other situations. And to me this is just wrong. If the idea is to have [intimidate] be a special subset of [bluff] then you don't need both skills. You just need bluff.

 

Not all skills are built equally. i.e. survival in the majority of the NWN games/expansions. Sometimes there are skills you invest points into, then rarely have a chance to use them at all. It just works out that way. Yes, bluffing has far more diverse usage than intimidation. It's the nature of the beast. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the intimidation skill attached to a stat other than charisma to add more appeal to it, or have it be a skill that will use your highest stat between STR and CHA.

 

Both are legitimate, even if Intimidate dude has no intention of following through with his threat. Just because you don't -really- plan on killing a guy over a kitten doesn't mean you're any less scary, or that you couldn't apply your skill in intimidation to trying to manipulate your target. Ultimately, that's what this entire thread comes down to. The tags are there so that you can apply your skills to your conversations, and know which skill you're using. It's not an "I win" button. It's an "I'm using my skills that I've worked for now" button.

Wrong. Just because you are super scary and ultra mean looking doesn't mean you are a good liar. You are lying when you tell them you will attack or else, because you don't actually intend to.

 

Actually, if you have high intimidation skill, that means you're good at making people afraid, whether you do so through truth, lies, flexing your muscles, or smiling to show off your filed to a point teeth. So yes, it DOES mean you're a good liar, when those lies are specifically constructed to instill fear.

Edited November 2, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Amentep]

Not only can the Bard intimidate as well (or better) than the half-orc Barbarian, but his skill is more useful in other situations. And to me this is just wrong. If the idea is to have [intimidate] be a special subset of [bluff] then you don't need both skills. You just need bluff.

 

Not all skills are built equally. i.e. survival in the majority of the NWN games/expansions. Sometimes there are skills you invest points into, then rarely have a chance to use them at all. It just works out that way. Yes, bluffing has far more diverse usage than intimidation. It's the nature of the beast. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the intimidation skill attached to a stat other than charisma to add more appeal to it, or have it be a skill that will use your highest stat between STR and CHA.

 

I wasn't asking for utility of skill, but a lack of duplicity of skill. Survival does not have another skill that encompasses what it does in NWN; whether it is useful in NWN or not, its use is not ambiguous.

 

To my mind either you have distinct [bluff] and [intimidate] mechanics (ie situations that are distinct in how/when you use them), so that they are unambiguous in use, or you've got a very good argument that you don't need two separate skills.

 

The way most people are suggesting [bluff] be used on this thread is that its basically a [speech] skill. In which case I would argue, instead of having [bluff] and [intimidate] as individual and indistinct skills, you'd want to have a [speech] skill and allow situational modifiers (ie STR might apply a modifier to [speech] for intimidate checks and charisma for [speech] bluff checks or beauty for [speech] charm checks) because that's how people seem to be using it.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Amentep

[BetrayTheWorld]

To my mind either you have distinct [bluff] and [intimidate] mechanics (ie situations that are distinct in how/when you use them), so that they are unambiguous in use, or you've got a very good argument that you don't need two separate skills.

 

I'll concede that you'd have an argument, but not a very good one. They can't be combined for this reason...Being good at making people afraid doesn't necessarily make you good at all of the other things that bluff entails. Why have LESS options?

 

I agree that intimidate isn't as useful as bluff because it has far more narrow usage, and could generally be replaced completely by someone who is good at bluffing. That doesn't mean it has no place in an RPG, where character concept and vision rule the day. NOT which power is leetest.

 

As a roleplayer, I may envision my character being a gruff, anti-social dude who is good at frightening people, but otherwise has very few social graces. For this character, it would make no sense for me to take the bluff(or "speech") skill, but taking the intimidation skill would fit nicely. There is not really any reason to eliminate it as a skill, even if the number crunchers among us consider it inferior to bluff if used in this way. Those who have no interest in the roleplaying value of the skill, and who would rather just use the best skill available can do so, and those who craft their characters based on a real character concept can do so without having their options limited by the number crunchers. Everyone wins.

Edited November 2, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Amentep]

To my mind either you have distinct [bluff] and [intimidate] mechanics (ie situations that are distinct in how/when you use them), so that they are unambiguous in use, or you've got a very good argument that you don't need two separate skills.

 

I'll concede that you'd have an argument, but not a very good one. They can't be combined for this reason...Being good at making people afraid doesn't necessarily make you good at all of the other things that bluff entails. Why have LESS options?

 

Why have more options when their use overlaps to the point of rendering one pointless?

[BetrayTheWorld]

Why have more options when their use overlaps to the point of rendering one pointless?

 

Because you either can't, or refuse to read. As a roleplaying tool/element does not = pointless.

[Amentep]

Why have more options when their use overlaps to the point of rendering one pointless?

 

Because you either can't, or refuse to read. As a roleplaying tool/element does not = pointless.

 

if you need to have bluff and intimidate options for your characters for role-playing purposes (some games don't have these skills and would base these decisions on raw stat rolls or other kinds of resolutions than skills) a single skill like SPEECH with situational/goal modifiers would work just as well as two poorly defined skills.

 

My big problem, ultimately, with this line of debate is that you're saying it is okay for the scrawniest, most non-magical person in the world to intimidate a person or group just because they have a high enough charisma and bluff skill. Somehow this will make people intimidated despite the fact that person visibly before the eyes of those being bluffed can't even hold themselves up straight or pick up their own cane, much less a weapon. I'm sorry this does not make sense to me at all - not from a game perspective, not from a logic perspective and not from a role-play perspective.

 

EDIT: The purpose of "Intimidate" in - for example - D&D 3.5 IIRC is to force a NPC to be non-hostile while the PC is in view. This could be handled with a bluff by having the player bluff that they're on the same side as the NPC for example. So you can still end up with the same result from a bluff and intimidate (NPC doesn't go hostile) but its through actually convincing the NPC to believe something that isn't true not through taking the place of an intimidate check.

 

Let me put this another way, if bluff works the way suggested, then bluff should actually be able to supplant every other communication skill. You don't need diplomacy, you just bluff everyone. You don't need disguise because you can bluff people to believe you are whoever. You don't need perform because you can bluff a crowd into believing you've just performed a wonderful act for them.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Amentep

[Solanum]

In my honest opinion, most of the time most of you are dancing around the same subject, even at times disagreeing on things and still explaining your point of view with basically the same arguments. I might be getting this wrong due to my limited proficiency in english language, but that's how I perceive things.

 

Anyhow moving on to how I see it and probably failing miserably to explain my point after reading through 13 pages of discussion and trying to consider everything but here goes nothing:

 

Let me first recap what I've gathered so far:

(disclaimer: this might get too generalized as I'm trying to recap 13 pages of arguments into few sentences to minimize this wall of text)

 

Argument 1: Skills like bluff and intimidate should be melted into a single skills because their use may overlap (?)

Argument 2: Person who can intimidate can't necessarily bluff. (RP)

Argument 3: Intimidation is always followed through.

 

I have to say most, if not all, of you have made arguments I wholeheartedly agree upon, but have some... flaws(?) in the bigger picture, those points I took are generalized views of the probably most conflicting things I picked up from the thread. Now, I don't consider myself a witty person, or good with words, especially on a foreign language but let's try to mix things up a bit.

 

OK let's start of by saying I don't think skills should be melted into a generalized speech skill just because their usage may overlap at certain points. Just like BetrayTheWorld argues that for example intimidation skill shouldn't be removed even if it is used less often than a bluff and bluff can at times (rarely, usually, always, it's all up to developers to balance this) used in place of intimidation. Because if that was the case then this generalized speech skill would effectively grant you proficiency in all aspects (bluff, intimidate, seduce, whatever). Sure you could still ROLEPLAY just intimidating person by only choosing the intimidate options, but even then there would have to be very clear indication which option is the intimidate one. In some cases if there's only speech, it doesn't matter whether the dialogue option is bluff or intimidation because the intent is in the players head, and it can be solved in the following dialogue whichever was the case. The other end of the conversation can't be sure whether it's intended as a bluff or an intimidation anyways, but if the game wants to have different options for both failed bluff and failed intimidation then they'll have to include both dialogue options. And for clarifying that to the level of no possibility for misinterpretation, tags are the simplest way. You have to remember not everyone speaks english as fluently as native speakers, so some nuances which to a native speaker would differentiate for example bluffing or intimidation might be lost (and as some argue in the end in case of. Also you have to account for cultural differences which nobody seems to consider. I'm not an expert on foreign cultures and I'm no betting man, but I'd be willing to argue there are cultural differences as to what people might consider intimidating and to what extent.

 

BUT if the skills are separate it HAS TO BE very very clearly specified which skill will the dialogue option use. While it's argued that bluff can be intimidating (intimidating dialogue, bluff roll) and essentially intimidation can be used as a bluff (intimidating dialogue, intimidation roll, not necessarily the intent to cause bodily harm) and while I agree to both (which I don't wholly understand why you think it's mutually exclusive) there are uses for bluff that can't be intimidated and if developers so choose there could be uses for intimidation that can't be bluffed, but for the sake of the mechanics it has to be explicitly indicated which skill would be rolled.

 

Trying to clear the mess of my attempt at explaining things:

 

- A fat nerd kid can try to bluff intimidation but more likely he would bluff something more believable, perhaps robbing you blind by hacking your bank account. (separate uses for bluff and intimidation)

 

- Some cases you can't bluff something else so you'll have to rely on bluff for intimidation but even then your chance of success (in my opinion) should be significantly lower than an actual intimidation (i.e high intimidation skill).

 

- You can use intimidation as a bluff but not even a big-ass warrior type can't intimidate everything you could bluff, you likely couldn't intimidate someone to believe you're the famous bard from the east, but you might be able to bluff that.

 

- Some instances of intimidation you just can't bluff, you could for instance emphasize your threats by already causing bodily harm to the subject, which effectively can't be bluffed as in bluff there's generally no intent. (i.e. rival group of adventurers attack you and you emphasize your warning to back off or face the consequences by burning one of them to cinders)

 

Essentially what I'm desperately trying to say is both have different uses, and how those present themselves are up to the developers. In my opinion, however, since bluff can be in a way used to substitute a wider variety of skills, it's rate of success should be lower in any given situation than the skill it substitutes. For example bluffing intimidation could work but not as likely as an actual intimidation, bluffing you're a bard might work, but rolling perform and singing a song or playing a lute or whatnot would of course be more effective in that situation and so on. Of course some might still argue that even if it's lower chance, some people would just pick bluff and save & load & repeat until they succeed, fine. If they want to do that they can do that for all I care, but I don't see it taking anything away from anyone if they are implemented as separate skills for different situations. Either way whether it works or not depends completely on the way it's implemented.

 

I knew it would become a wall of text, it might be due to my inability to express myself clearly enough with foreign language or something completely different but hey, this was me trying to express my opinion and if you actually manage to read this through feel free to point out flaws in my logic and I'll make another wall of text trying to explain myself.

 

Oh to summarize this in a way that it mostly stays on topic:

- In my opinion both intimidation and bluff have their uses even if they may at times overlap

- While tags (or similar clear indicators) might not be necessary for native english speakers and people of the same culture as the developers, in many cases they are necessary for others outside those parameters (I guess you may count this as a vote for toggleable tags).