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

[Wombat]

Personally, I'd like to have an option of turning off/on the game-system related info. For, no matter how convinced the designers are that they made everything clear in the manual, players still need to see how the system play in the actual game-play. After I learnt how each skill/ability score work, I can turn it off (So, I guess my case is about "designer-player communication"). Different from EXP or some other cases which can ruin balances, I don't care if other people go for meta-gaming since it won't affect on my game-play at all.

[Tamerlane]

Personally, I'd like to have an option of turning off/on the game-system related info. For, no matter how convinced the designers are that they made everything clear in the manual, players still need to see how the system play in the actual game-play. After I learnt how each skill/ability score work, I can turn it off (So, I guess my case is about "designer-player communication"). Different from EXP or some other cases which can ruin balances, I don't care if other people go for meta-gaming since it won't affect on my game-play at all.

And you will be able to. One of the stretch goals from way-back-when included various difficulty-related toggles, one of which turns off tags like [intimidate] and what-not.

[Wombat]

And you will be able to. One of the stretch goals from way-back-when included various difficulty-related toggles, one of which turns off tags like [intimidate] and what-not.

Yeah, that's my understanding, too, at least on normal mode. I wonder if I can toggle it on/off once I started the game with expert mode, though. Then again, if it's just a name, I can start normal mode with options which resemble expert mode with the tags on and some conveniences which can ease my pain in cooping the game with my life. After all, who cares about what mode with which I play the game.

[Renrik]

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.

 

I believe that had to do with alignment. A "yes, I love you" is fine, a "(lie/bluff) yes, I love you" is self interested, controlling and will lead you towards a darker alignment

[Shadenuat]

Every game I played from Fallout and BG to NWN and Dragon Age had plenty of situations where my expectations of the effect of numerous lines of dialogue were pretty far from the actual result. And that was nothing, but frustrating and annoying.

So what? Your expectations for those characters you've spoken were wrong, what's so alien about that? Was your heart broken by every "Morrigan dissaproves" line?

 

How do you do that with no tags when not every line is going to be keyed to a skill and there may be enitre conversations that never use them at all?

Easy. You pick the line which you feel your character had the highest probability to say at that moment and stick with it. You either roleplay, or use your own morality, whichever you prefer.

[BetrayTheWorld]

I've been following this project for a bit now, and have been routinely browsing the forums here to see what suggestions the community has had. Up to this point, I hadn't seen much from the community that would solicit a response from me. For the most part, I feel like the community as a whole is making good suggestions, and polls are leaning in the direction that I agree with. However, on this particular issue, I simply -have- to respond.

 

Let me start off by saying, if it's an option to turn off these tags, that are on by default, then fine. But they most definitely -should- be there.

 

People play RPGs for different reasons, and different types of people play RPGs. Some people play RPGs to act out the role of someone smarter, stronger, faster, or simply more interesting than they are as a person. Leaving these tags out calls for the -player- to have the high wisdom, charisma, etc, when their entire point in playing was to step outside themselves and into a role in which they weren't completely depending on the blessings they were born with.

 

Unlike extremely competitive games like FPS's and DOTA/LoL clones, RPGs appeal to people who aren't just seeking the most challenging personal experience available. I, personally, don't like my games super-challenging these days. I don't want to fight the same battle more than 2/3 times. If I have to, I will become frustrated with the game fairly quickly. If I wanted an enormous challenge that I'd most likely fail at, I wouldn't play RPGs. I'd make an OS and try to directly compete with microsoft.

 

P.S. I only read the first page of responses to this thread. And for the record: I play all of my games on default difficulty settings. I don't set them to easy, but I don't increase the difficulty either.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[wanderon]

How do you do that with no tags when not every line is going to be keyed to a skill and there may be enitre conversations that never use them at all?

Easy. You pick the line which you feel your character had the highest probability to say at that moment and stick with it. You either roleplay, or use your own morality, whichever you prefer.

 

The point you seem to be missing it that when a line is going to use (or not use) a skill my character may posess or not posess that as a player I should be notified of that in order to choose which option is most appropriate for my character.

 

Choosing to use or not use a skill during dialoge is no different than choosing which weapon or spell to use in combat and whether or not you wish to make that choice in order to roleplay the character or ROLLplay the character is immaterial - you still need to know if you are just making a dialoge choice that will bring the same scripted response regardless of who makes it or making a choice to use a skill to determine the result -

 

if my wisdom or lockpicking or healing knowledge abilities are going to be used to determine the end result of some of the choices in a particular dialoge but not other choices then I want to be aware of that.

 

Yes you can make them hidden and just have the effects be random and some people might find it fun to play that way but I have graduated from blind mans bluff and pin the tail on the donkey and prefer a little more cerebral approach to my gaming choices today.

[evdk]

I've been following this project for a bit now, and have been routinely browsing the forums here to see what suggestions the community has had. Up to this point, I hadn't seen much from the community that would solicit a response from me. For the most part, I feel like the community as a whole is making good suggestions, and polls are leaning in the direction that I agree with. However, on this particular issue, I simply -have- to respond.

 

Let me start off by saying, if it's an option to turn off these tags, that are on by default, then fine. But they most definitely -should- be there.

The tags can't be ON be default because the dialogue has to written as though they weren't there. If the tags being present is the default state then their removal might truly make the dialogue unusable.

 

People play RPGs for different reasons, and different types of people play RPGs. Some people play RPGs to act out the role of someone smarter, stronger, faster, or simply more interesting than they are as a person. Leaving these tags out calls for the -player- to have the high wisdom, charisma, etc, when their entire point in playing was to step outside themselves and into a role in which they weren't completely depending on the blessings they were born with.

 

Unlike extremely competitive games like FPS's and DOTA/LoL clones, RPGs appeal to people who aren't just seeking the most challenging personal experience available. I, personally, don't like my games super-challenging these days. I don't want to fight the same battle more than 2/3 times. If I have to, I will become frustrated with the game fairly quickly. If I wanted an enormous challenge that I'd most likely fail at, I wouldn't play RPGs. I'd make an OS and try to directly compete with microsoft.

 

P.S. I only read the first page of responses to this thread. And for the record: I play all of my games on default difficulty settings. I don't set them to easy, but I don't increase the difficulty either.

No offense, but this game might not be for you then. Although this whole discussion is academical, since toggle for tags was confirmed by Josh, so unless he changes his mind...

[evdk]

How do you do that with no tags when not every line is going to be keyed to a skill and there may be enitre conversations that never use them at all?

Easy. You pick the line which you feel your character had the highest probability to say at that moment and stick with it. You either roleplay, or use your own morality, whichever you prefer.

 

The point you seem to be missing it that when a line is going to use (or not use) a skill my character may posess or not posess that as a player I should be notified of that in order to choose which option is most appropriate for my character.

 

Choosing to use or not use a skill during dialoge is no different than choosing which weapon or spell to use in combat and whether or not you wish to make that choice in order to roleplay the character or ROLLplay the character is immaterial - you still need to know if you are just making a dialoge choice that will bring the same scripted response regardless of who makes it or making a choice to use a skill to determine the result -

 

if my wisdom or lockpicking or healing knowledge abilities are going to be used to determine the end result of some of the choices in a particular dialoge but not other choices then I want to be aware of that.

 

Yes you can make them hidden and just have the effects be random and some people might find it fun to play that way but I have graduated from blind mans bluff and pin the tail on the donkey and prefer a little more cerebral approach to my gaming choices today.

What so there should be options like "Tell me or I'll break you ****ing legs, you miserable whoreson" and "(Intimidate)Tell me or I'll break you ****ing legs, you miserable whoreson"" side by side, both with different outcomes? Because I still do not see why would you need the bloody tags otherwise.

[Shadenuat]

The point you seem to be missing it that when a line is going to use (or not use) a skill my character may posess or not posess that as a player I should be notified of that

You have your character sheet for that.

 

if my wisdom or lockpicking or healing knowledge abilities are going to be used to determine the end result of some of the choices in a particular dialoge but not other choices then I want to be aware of that

There is a general rule in roleplaying which people around me tend to follow as a sign of good taste and which I follow myself - roleplay what you can, leave mechanical stuff to dice.

If you're going to pick a lock, I'd ask you to roll your Lockpick skill, and success or failure would be transparent as lock can be either locked or not.

However, if I'd try and bluff you and you'll ask to roll a Wisdom check to determine lies, I'll throw my box of dice at you. Well, at maximum. At minimum, I won't tell you if your check was actually successful or not.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Shadenuat

[wanderon]

How do you do that with no tags when not every line is going to be keyed to a skill and there may be enitre conversations that never use them at all?

Easy. You pick the line which you feel your character had the highest probability to say at that moment and stick with it. You either roleplay, or use your own morality, whichever you prefer.

 

The point you seem to be missing it that when a line is going to use (or not use) a skill my character may posess or not posess that as a player I should be notified of that in order to choose which option is most appropriate for my character.

 

Choosing to use or not use a skill during dialoge is no different than choosing which weapon or spell to use in combat and whether or not you wish to make that choice in order to roleplay the character or ROLLplay the character is immaterial - you still need to know if you are just making a dialoge choice that will bring the same scripted response regardless of who makes it or making a choice to use a skill to determine the result -

 

if my wisdom or lockpicking or healing knowledge abilities are going to be used to determine the end result of some of the choices in a particular dialoge but not other choices then I want to be aware of that.

 

Yes you can make them hidden and just have the effects be random and some people might find it fun to play that way but I have graduated from blind mans bluff and pin the tail on the donkey and prefer a little more cerebral approach to my gaming choices today.

What so there should be options like "Tell me or I'll break you ****ing legs, you miserable whoreson" and "(Intimidate)Tell me or I'll break you ****ing legs, you miserable whoreson"" side by side, both with different outcomes? Because I still do not see why would you need the bloody tags otherwise.

 

Yeah well I'm hoping the writers at Obsidian are going to be just a hair more subtle than you are and I'm also hoping that the skills they offer us that might be used in dialoges will be too.

 

Just for the record there is indeed the possibiltiy that two identical lines could have different results with different tags -

 

I will kill the bastard (lie)

I will kill the bastard (truth)

 

I'll kill you (bluff)

I'll kill you (intimidate)

[Droogle]

currently playing planescape: torment. It has this. I agree with op.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Droogle

[Shadenuat]

Just for the record there is indeed the possibiltiy that two identical lines could have different results with different tags -

 

Your example have nothing to do with skills, it's just a shorter way of explaining player's motivation.

All three out of four might as well check Charisma.

[evdk]

I'll kill you (bluff)

I'll kill you (intimidate)

NEVER EVER EVER use bluff like this. EVER. Because this way you can try to justify using bluff for anything and this way lies madness. I don't care If you truly mean to feed your target feet first to a crocodile or if you've never intended to go through with your threat, it is still a threat and as such a use of the Intimidate skill. NEVER.

[BetrayTheWorld]

No offense, but this game might not be for you then.

 

Why? Do you think that every person who likes these styles of RPGs is exactly like you, or fits into a nice, neat little package that you can point at and say "Yep, that's a roleplayer." ???

 

I'm a former college athlete, and also a certified genius. I don't look like what you'd expect the stereotypical roleplayer to look like, nor do I act like it. However, I've played RPGs for about 20 years. I enjoy them. And earlier in life, I enjoyed more difficult games. But I have a job, a house, car payments, etc. I don't have as much time to dedicate to gaming as I used to. I don't mind more challenging aspects being available, but gaming isn't just something children with no responsibilities do these days. There are plenty of people with more demands on their time who enjoy playing games. Options. Options is where it's at. Let players customize their experience to the difficulty level they feel is appropriate.

 

And for the record, adding "No offense" to the beginning of a sentence does nothing to mitigate an offensive comment. For example: "No offense, but you're a moron. No offense, but you're a fat, ugly slob who lives in his mother's basement." You see? It makes no difference. If anything, it makes it worse.

 

Your comment leads me to believe that you think you know what people should play what games, and that certain people simply -shouldn't- play them. But the fact is, companies make games because they want people to play them. They want a LOT of people to play them. And while the jumpstarter project has allowed them to create a game that is not wholly constricted by the projected financial earnings of the evil empire's accountants, I assure you that they still want to make money. So telling people, or insinuating to people that they -should not- play this game because they don't share the same opinions as you is not only short-sighted, but likely unwelcome by the devs themselves.

[evdk]

No offense, but this game might not be for you then.

 

Why? Do you think that every person who likes these styles of RPGs is exactly like you, or fits into a nice, neat little package that you can point at and say "Yep, that's a roleplayer." ???

 

I'm a former college athlete, and also a certified genius. I don't look like what you'd expect the stereotypical roleplayer to look like, nor do I act like it. However, I've played RPGs for about 20 years. I enjoy them. And earlier in life, I enjoyed more difficult games. But I have a job, a house, car payments, etc. I don't have as much time to dedicate to gaming as I used to. I don't mind more challenging aspects being available, but gaming isn't just something children with no responsibilities do these days. There are plenty of people with more demands on their time who enjoy playing games. Options. Options is where it's at. Let players customize their experience to the difficulty level they feel is appropriate.

 

And for the record, adding "No offense" to the beginning of a sentence does nothing to mitigate an offensive comment. For example: "No offense, but you're a moron. No offense, but you're a fat, ugly slob who lives in his mother's basement." You see? It makes no difference. If anything, it makes it worse.

 

Your comment leads me to believe that you think you know what people should play what games, and that certain people simply -shouldn't- play them. But the fact is, companies make games because they want people to play them. They want a LOT of people to play them. And while the jumpstarter project has allowed them to create a game that is not wholly constricted by the projected financial earnings of the evil empire's accountants, I assure you that they still want to make money. So telling people, or insinuating to people that they -should not- play this game because they don't share the same opinions as you is not only short-sighted, but likely unwelcome by the devs themselves.

Best rant I've read in a while. Bonus points for using the phrase "certified genius". Do send my regards to Mensa.

All in all 7.5/10

[Jajo]

Unlike extremely competitive games like FPS's and DOTA/LoL clones, RPGs appeal to people who aren't just seeking the most challenging personal experience available. I, personally, don't like my games super-challenging these days. I don't want to fight the same battle more than 2/3 times. If I have to, I will become frustrated with the game fairly quickly. If I wanted an enormous challenge that I'd most likely fail at, I wouldn't play RPGs. I'd make an OS and try to directly compete with microsoft.

 

Because it's either RPGs or the OS, right?

And by PRGs you mean RPGs of these days. Fortunately, P:E is not trying to capture the feeling of RPGs of these days. Because, I want RPGs to be more challenging. I want intelligent battles, not awesomebutton or duck shoot cover mechanics. I don't want hand holding or safety nets against failures; If you go to a bad place inexperienced or unprepared, you should die. Every time.

 

 

On topic;

Toggleable sounds good to me. I just hope the writers will make sure, that we'll be able to discern the intent from the text and context.

[BetrayTheWorld]

Best rant I've read in a while. Bonus points for using the phrase "certified genius". Do send my regards to Mensa.

All in all 7.5/10

 

7.5? I'll try harder next time.

 

 

And by PRGs you mean RPGs of these days. Fortunately, P:E is not trying to capture the feeling of RPGs of these days.

 

No. I meant what I said. Been playing RPGs for over 20 years. This isn't new to me.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[evdk]

Best rant I've read in a while. Bonus points for using the phrase "certified genius". Do send my regards to Mensa.

All in all 7.5/10

 

7.5? I'll try harder next time.

Hey, this is not IGN, 7.5 is pretty good. You do not have to score 9+ all the time, that's reserved for the true masters.

Edited October 29, 2012 by evdk

[Jajo]

Best rant I've read in a while. Bonus points for using the phrase "certified genius". Do send my regards to Mensa.

All in all 7.5/10

 

7.5? I'll try harder next time.

 

Please, don't.

[BetrayTheWorld]

Hey, this is not IGN, 7.5 is pretty good. You do not have to score 9+ all the time, that's reserved for the true masters.

 

That's true. To score higher than 7.5 I'd probably have to adjust my difficulty settings, which I don't do.

[JFSOCC]

You could also replace 'poor' persuade options with 'better' or 'optimal' ones seamlessly, though that is heading a bit down the railroad route.

Great idea, instead of getting more options for ever higher/lower stats, you get different ones.

People play RPGs for different reasons, and different types of people play RPGs. Some people play RPGs to act out the role of someone smarter, stronger, faster, or simply more interesting than they are as a person. Leaving these tags out calls for the -player- to have the high wisdom, charisma, etc, when their entire point in playing was to step outside themselves and into a role in which they weren't completely depending on the blessings they were born with.

Glad to see you join the discussion.

I think that choices can be made distinct enough that most people will be able to tell them apart, without the dialogue option to be a caricature of a response

The point you seem to be missing it that when a line is going to use (or not use) a skill my character may posess or not posess that as a player I should be notified of that

You have your character sheet for that.

I reckon we'll also have a log in the game "Intimidate 14 +1d20=25 pass" that you could look at after the conversation to see how it went gameplay mechanics wise.

Best rant I've read in a while. Bonus points for using the phrase "certified genius". Do send my regards to Mensa.

All in all 7.5/10

Be nice. That goes to everyone.

[BetrayTheWorld]

Best rant I've read in a while. Bonus points for using the phrase "certified genius". Do send my regards to Mensa.

All in all 7.5/10

Be nice. That goes to everyone.

 

No offense taken here. I knew what bag of worms I was opening when I made the comment. I'm just happy he knows what Mensa is. Makes me feel better about continuing the conversation. :D

 

Either way, I suppose if the entire system was more fluid than has been seen in any game ever, and responses were -very- well written, behind-the-scenes skill-checks wouldn't be attrocious. However, it would need to be done in such a manner that things like "tone" were noted.

 

Example:

 

[growling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off.

[chuckling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off.

 

The above sentence, without any emotion behind it appears to be malicious in nature, but it -could- be seen as joking, playful, or even flirtatious coming from the right person in the right circumstances. These are the concerns that many here have brought up. Basically, context and tone can widely vary the meaning of a single sentence in several directions. Ease or challenge aside, the issue of tone would still need to be addressed. And if it isn't, then I doubt the conversations will be very fulfilling anyhow. Who wants to live in a world where no one uses sarcasm?

 

P.S. One further example. Without contextual coding, I would have found myself unwittingly initiating gay relationships several times in dragon age. Seemingly innocent lines of text with a little romantic heart next to them were nice in leading me away from directions I didn't intend to go.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[mstark]

[growling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off.

[chuckling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off.

This is okay, but it has nothing to do with the OP. These tags aren't hand-holding, or stats related. Obviously it has to be indicated if a response is sarcastic (or any other emotion), since there's neither facial expressions nor tone of voice available in the game. I love the idea that, if the NPC you're talking to doesn't understand sarcasm, he will take your chuckled comment seriously and charge you. I just really don't want the result of my dialogue to be entirely predictable, they should also depend on the personality of the person I am talking to. If I'm nice to them, it shouldn't mean I will necessarily get exactly what I want. If I joke with the wrong person, I want to be misunderstood and attacked. No. Hand. Holding. Ever. No right or wrong options. They've said this will be the case, so I trust they will manage to pull it off.

 

I love that the game will have dialogue tied to stats, just don't tell me what stat each option is for (so that I start calculating which option I have the best chance of pulling off a successful roll for), just give me my available dialogue options and let me figure out, based on role playing or my own morals, what I really want to say. I don't want my intelligence insulted, nor do I want to lean towards particular choices just because I have a certain stat level. I'm happy for ambiguous dialogue options to point out how they will be delivered, in cases where the dialogue option can't be written clearly enough to indicate this.

Edited October 29, 2012 by mstark

[HansKrSG]

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?

 

Not everyone is as smart as their character. And I am not jesting when I am saying that. Playing as more stupid than yourself is challenging, playing as smarter than yourself is impossible without some help.

Edited October 29, 2012 by HansKrSG