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

[JFSOCC]

If I joke with the wrong person, I want to be misunderstood and attacked. No. Hand. Holding. Ever.

 

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.

I also think it's OK to make mistakes. hand-holding relegates the player to an observer position. it's not engaging. If I have to pay attention to what I say, I'm playing the game. If the game tells me what is best, practically does it for me, then I'm merely observing it. I liked hearing the devs say "You got to be OK with people not seeing everything you've written" (paraphrasing) because it speaks of an understanding that a game like this is ultimately interactive, you decide on your experience and it should never be spoon-fed to you. If the interactivity is superficial I'd prefer to watch a movie.

[Skapanza]

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.

 

I've said it before higher up in this thread, but I'd really like the toggle on/off tags to be an option independent of the difficulty level at which i'm playing. I'd prefer to play, whether at expert or easy, without the dialogue [tags].

[BetrayTheWorld]

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.

 

This was my entire point of registering to post in this thread. Thank you for speaking up as well. I am personally not threatened by having to "figure out" conversation options. I might even play with tags off if things are written well. But I'd like the option to be there, if for no other reason than to appeal to a broader audience who might not be capable of coping with such a system. I want this game to be great, yes. But I also want it to appeal to enough people so that it proves to companies that games like this can be successful, and -should- still be made.

 

I've said it before higher up in this thread, but I'd really like the toggle on/off tags to be an option independent of the difficulty level at which i'm playing. I'd prefer to play, whether at expert or easy, without the dialogue [tags].

 

I am all for this.

[evdk]

I am all for this.

Then rejoice, for so is Sawyer.

[Amentep]

Can't say I've really understood the point of the tags in most games since they do tend to work as optimal dialogue options. I suppose the theory is to give the player an understanding that their investment in "speech" skills carry some investment.

 

Problem with replicating P&P skills is that so much of the P&P context just can't be replicated, so its harder to make their success realized by the player.

 

At first, I had a Crazy alternate idea - dialogue choices also come up with a check box to apply skills to chosen line? Often would not lead to anything, but skill successes might be necessary to get optimal dialogue response; use of wrong skills might lead to dialogue failure or at least confusion (Intimidation + "Hi, how are you?).

 

Benefit: player gets choice in skill use without being able to assume success or benefit of skill dialogue. Can "see" skill choices at work.

Downside: extra work on dialogue system probably time/resource intensive. Player may be encourage to always check some skill even in innocuous dialogue and expect special reactions.

 

In that sense, I think something like this may be impractical (even if its a good idea - of which I'm not certain!).

 

After thinking about it further - dialogue is fixed, usually the context is fixed as well. Perhaps just have the game apply skills given the context and only provide feedback when the skill success leads to alternate dialogue paths?

[Shadenuat]

Not everyone is as smart as their character.

We're still talking about basic reading comprehension here, right?

Also, who said dialogue is't part of the gameplay, and should't have challenge?

 

This was my entire point of registering to post in this thread. Thank you for speaking up as well.

 

I don't think you'll secure the future of RPG gaming by supporting feature that takes away literature part of it (with tags, you don't really have to write long, bookish sentences like Planescape had).

 

than to appeal to a broader audience

Seriously, that's your argument?

 

Lol.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Umberlin]

I think it's important to note that your statistics; Wisdom, Charisma, Intelligence and so in a D&D setting are not simply meant to create a line of dialogue that's better. I've talked about it before, but these things effect how you interact in the first place. In a well made game, arguably, every line of dialogue would be different based on how high or low your statistics were. And your low, low intelligence guy would sound like it in every line of dialogue. This isn't a bad thing. It's making sure you play the character you've created. No wrong option persay, jjust the limitation that forces you to actually play out a situation as that character would.

 

I like using the Green Mile example of John Coffey as a low intelligence, high wisdom, character who may come off as simple but has great wisdom to offer. If thought of as a D&D character his dialogue options would all reflect a low intelligence but high wisdom. Not just one random dialogue option that was supposedly better than the others. Those low statistical numbers on intelligence aren't necessarily a bad thing, they're a part of the character. Dialogue, in my mind, should be a reflection of the character. In V:tM - Bloodlines the Malkavian was a great example of their dialogue options reflecting the character as hand. Now instead of one clan, apply that to low, average and high statistical values instead. Possibly very low and very high as well, but, obviously, you have to stop somewhere.

[evdk]

I think it's important to note that your statistics; Wisdom, Charisma, Intelligence and so in a D&D setting are not simply meant to create a line of dialogue that's better. I've talked about it before, but these things effect how you interact in the first place. In a well made game, arguably, every line of dialogue would be different based on how high or low your statistics were. And your low, low intelligence guy would sound like it in every line of dialogue. This isn't a bad thing. It's making sure you play the character you've created. No wrong option persay, jjust the limitation that forces you to actually play out a situation as that character would.

 

I like using the Green Mile example of John Coffey as a low intelligence, high wisdom, character who may come off as simple but has great wisdom to offer. If thought of as a D&D character his dialogue options would all reflect a low intelligence but high wisdom. Not just one random dialogue option that was supposedly better than the others. Those low statistical numbers on intelligence aren't necessarily a bad thing, they're a part of the character. Dialogue, in my mind, should be a reflection of the character. In V:tM - Bloodlines the Malkavian was a great example of their dialogue options reflecting the character as hand. Now instead of one clan, apply that to low, average and high statistical values instead. Possibly very low and very high as well, but, obviously, you have to stop somewhere.

Unfortunately the only way for this to work would be to clone MCA.

[PsychoBlonde]

Ambitious to do everywhere though. But I think you demonstrate quite clearly how these dialogue options would be distinct enough without a tag.

 

Ambitious, yes, but still doable because you wouldn't necessarily always need to write different responses for the NPC's. It'd be a lot easier if you get your programmers on board and have them create the conversation form with the different major PC voices embedded so all you need to worry about doing is adding the occasional oddball option. It's actually pretty easy to write many permutations when you have a nice form telling you exactly what you need 90% of the time. Once you get in the groove it isn't much more time-consuming than anything else.

[-Zin-]

I say have i.e. [Wisdom] in front of your arguement to indicate the tone when your character is speaking from experience. Sometimes in RPG dialouges, I read them, and then I think: "Oh. This is the most logical one. I will say this." and then I get a response that goes something along the line of: "Don'tchu take that tone with me, mistah." And then I'm like: "Uh, that was a sarcastic thing?" Also, in Fallout New Vegas, you can chime in about something scientific, medical, or share a fact about explosives in conversations. But without proper indicatication of where my character is getting his knowledge from or what check I have to roll, it will kill the spontanuity of the gameplay. And sometimes, a high intelligence alone can compensate for a lack of medical/science roll too. It's sort of confusing to know intuitively a lot of times, and I would constantly wonder where the hell my character's confidence stems from. But if I see: "Oh, this is a test about intelligence, and my character has 3 in intelligence, I might just make my character come clean in admitting that he doesn't understand this problem. He might not be very bright, but he's an honest good guy." From a personal perspective, I will never know with certainty what will be too smart for my 3 int-character, so it's nice to have an indicator.

 

I think not having that [indicator] is just pretentious, and it's not being considerate to the majority of gamers who is going to play that game. Now if there's a switch to turn it on/off, fine, but for me to not have an indication of where my character get his confidence/knowledge from, is just an utter retarded big bang kamehameha x100.

Edited October 29, 2012 by -Zin-

[Kane_Severance]

As people have pointed out, there are times when the same line can be said two completely different ways.

 

In PS:T many times you could say the same thing, but sometimes you were lying. If you were lying it was a chaotic act and if you told the truth you would follow through on it. If you told someone you were going to rip their arm off and you were bluffing, they may be intimidated or they may not. If you chose the lie option and they called your bluff that was the end to it, but if you told the truth then you'd rip their arm off and deal with the consequences.

 

There's nothing wrong with using tags to distinguish a character's tone or intention.

[Hormalakh]

Well, if they internalize the skill check before giving you dialogue options, then you shouldn't have a case where your low intelligence character gets a high-intelligence dialogue option. But it should also work the same way the other way: a high intelligence option should only be available if your character is high intelligence.

 

Since you don't need [dumb] as a tag for low intelligence, you shouldn't need [smart] as a tag for high intelligence.

 

 

What I don't understand is, is why it's OK for combat to be a difficult tactical, strategy based issue, but dialogue and other aspects of the game have to be as easy as possible? If you're not willing to sit and read through the dialogue options and think about it, then just play a fighter. Always answer with "argggg you die now" and take it to combat, and leave the diplomacy to those of us who actually want to enjoy thinking about what is the best thing to say. Tags ruin this sort of thinking for me.

 

------

 

for those of you who didn't understand what I wrote up there:

[intimidate] If you don't let me play this game without tags, I'll be angry.

[intelligence] Something about dialogue being a tactical choice just like combat is.

[wisdom] this joke tl'dr for those of you who really don't like reading and understanding but want to play an old-school RPG.

[Hertzila]

As people have pointed out, there are times when the same line can be said two completely different ways.

 

In PS:T many times you could say the same thing, but sometimes you were lying. If you were lying it was a chaotic act and if you told the truth you would follow through on it. If you told someone you were going to rip their arm off and you were bluffing, they may be intimidated or they may not. If you chose the lie option and they called your bluff that was the end to it, but if you told the truth then you'd rip their arm off and deal with the consequences.

 

There's nothing wrong with using tags to distinguish a character's tone or intention.

 

However, how would the other guy know if the PC is bluffing? How would it make a difference in the resulting conversation? You could as well have one option that states that you are going to rip their arm off if they're not going to tell the truth. If they call your bluff, you then are presented with the ability to either suck it up or start combat. IMO, that's a better way to do bluffing and lying rather than seperate options.

 

Tagging a dialogue's tone is more logical, though having clearly different lines might work better. Still, having [sarcastic] or [chuckling] in front of a line is understandable and it could work well.

[Kane_Severance]

It's not about what the other guy knows, it's about what your intention is. If your intention is to bluff about killing your hostage or setting off a bomb then you won't do it if your bluff is called. If your intention is a geniune threat then you will follow through.

 

The dialog options contain things other than dialog to convey information that cannot be given easily in any other manner. In PS:T using this method allowed you to take many actions through dialog. Things that couldn't be animated properly were displayed in dialog text. You could rip out your own eye and replace it through dialog. You could dig through the internal organs of a body being autopsied through dialog. Your intentions and how your character thought about a situation were conveyed through the dialog box. It is a very useful storytelling tool and one I'd prefer the developers to have access to.

[wanderon]

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.

 

Maybe you need to consider that we are talking about a non- D&D computer game with no live DM to augment and change dialoge choices on the fly here.

 

Before dismissing my examples as not related to skills you might also think about the fact that all we know about skills thus far is there will be seperate combat and non-combat skills including traveling skills, learning skills and companion related skills.

 

Nor do we know what the attributtes are going to be yet so there may in fact be no charisma to check. I know this may come as a surprise but some people might actually want deeper more complex dialoges with numerous opportunities to use multiple facets of gameplay to determine the outcome.

 

We do however know this is going to be a game that doesn't count on combat alone to progress through the story so skills, attributtes, knowledge already gained by the character in the game, factions and your relationships with them, places and people you may know about, and of course perhaps a large selection of soul related things may all be available to utilize in one way or another in dialoges so the idea that the text of the dialoge alone is plenty of information to make a decision on might be a bit flawed.

[Amentep]

There's nothing wrong with using tags to distinguish a character's tone or intention.

 

There's nothing wrong with stating that you're using a skill in P&P games. The problem, I think isn't in the theoretical, but in the practical.

 

Lets use your example. You burst into a pirate's den who have stolen the mystic whozits from some random dude the next town over who promised you GOLD if you got his whozits back for him.

• [intimidate]I'll rip your arms off if you don't tell me what I want to know!
  
• Tell me what I want to know and I won't be forced to kill the remaining 100 people in this building.
  
• Hi there, I'm wondering if you've heard the Good News? I have a pamphlet here...
  
• Alms?
  
• Oh sorry, I seem to have broken down the wrong door.
  
• [bluff]I'm Bob, your new Pirate Apprentice from Pirate-Temps.
  

Now lets say that you use Intimidate what are the options -

1. Special dialogue (success or failure)
   
2. Same dialogue as primary non-intimidate skill response
   

 

If it is the second option, what's the point of creating a separate special [intimidate] option? If its the first lets look closely at that -

 

First, for it to work almost every social situation should have a stat skill attached to it. But here's the thing you can't do that from a practical perspective (unless you're doing a generic [speech] skill where you don't have to worry about intent as much, only whether success chances are raised). You also can't really describe all of the possible imitation options that a P&P character would have. Typically you're going to look like a brutish thug; but intimidation can be more than that, a person could be intimidated by fear (arm ripping) or a sense of awe (OMG you're that adventurer who just killed Krogrok the Deadly. I'm you're biggest fan!) or just plain surprise (I didn't realize there was a door there!). So that means you're now at three intimidate possibilities to each dialogue (probably more). Otherwise you're just scripting special results for special situations - which is where we are now.

 

But is this the best use of these skills? Then, because the skills are utilitarian they now have to give some positive effect to the user. So the solution is to make the [intimidate] tag something that for the player will always be successful. And thus the PC knows that whenever their [skill tag] comes up - it is the superior dialogue to take.

 

One way to get around this is to apply skills to any dialogue where it might possibly make sense, thus allowing the scripter to only worry about skill successes and not skill use. But you couldn't do that and have the [intimidate] tag.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Amentep

[evdk]

It's not about what the other guy knows, it's about what your intention is. If your intention is to bluff about killing your hostage or setting off a bomb then you won't do it if your bluff is called. If your intention is a geniune threat then you will follow through.

Dear Jesus, don't make me quote myself:

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.

[wanderon]

It's not about what the other guy knows, it's about what your intention is. If your intention is to bluff about killing your hostage or setting off a bomb then you won't do it if your bluff is called. If your intention is a geniune threat then you will follow through.

Dear Jesus, don't make me quote myself:

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.

 

Sorry thats just silly...

 

intimidate is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

bluff is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

The fact that you don't think a threat should be bluffed in this context is irrelevant to all but you...

[-Zin-]

I hope to Christ Obsidian just ignores this thread entirely and just has a toggle switch as mentioned before ^^

Edited October 29, 2012 by -Zin-

[evdk]

It's not about what the other guy knows, it's about what your intention is. If your intention is to bluff about killing your hostage or setting off a bomb then you won't do it if your bluff is called. If your intention is a geniune threat then you will follow through.

Dear Jesus, don't make me quote myself:

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.

 

Sorry thats just silly...

 

intimidate is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

bluff is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

The fact that you don't think a threat should be bluffed in this context is irrelevant to all but you...

Bluff is a bloody superfluous skill that should be burned, banned and forgotten. Exactly because of stuff like this, when people try to argue that it should be used instead of pretty much any other skill.

[Amentep]

It's not about what the other guy knows, it's about what your intention is. If your intention is to bluff about killing your hostage or setting off a bomb then you won't do it if your bluff is called. If your intention is a geniune threat then you will follow through.

Dear Jesus, don't make me quote myself:

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.

 

Sorry thats just silly...

 

intimidate is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

bluff is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

The fact that you don't think a threat should be bluffed in this context is irrelevant to all but you...

 

A threat shouldn't be bluffed, that's his point.

 

Lets say you're charismatic and have a high bluff skill. Lets say you're also 100 lbs when soaking wet and have arms that look weaker then cooked pasta noodles. You have low [intimidate]

 

[bluff]Do this or I rip your arms off!

 

Why would it ever succeed? You're asking the person to believe something that their vision tells them otherwise. In essence, your desire to [bluff] is overridden by the fact you can't [intimidate] indicating intimidate was the correct skill all along.

[Juneau]

The reason people like Bioware/Bethesda/MS etc.. Brought in the whole "Angry/Nice" markers for the chat is because when you read something you do not automatically apply the correct pretense to the conversation.

 

There are huge huge huge amounts of studies that have been carried out on the "misinterpretation of written communication" more formally known as "lost in translation" (hint: Google the air quotes") that prove it is a very VERY common thing to do.

 

Now throw in a game where your decision matters. You just finished a 8 hour mega quest chasing down the evil villain. You finally confront him face to face and he says something to you and you're given three chat options A) B) and C) now because you have invested time and effort and the story is fantastic. You are ANGRY, you're not just angry your livid so you sit there reading options A B and C and you apply Angry intentions to the writing and click on what you think is something clever and SARCASTIC but will result in you chopping his head off.... BUT it wasn't clever and certainly wasn't sarcastic... You were being honest and nice. So you spare the guy and he runs off.........

 

You are now insanely pissed off - and most likely vent at the makers for making a flawed chat system. How we're you suppose to know it wasn't a sarcastic response.... after all " it read like one ".

 

I'm all for the option to turn off the chat hints but I for one will never be doing that again. Too many times have I miss read a response and ruined a part of the game

 

- EDIT.

 

Now throw in the fact you want to RP with your character. Your character is some gigantic beast of a man who is a well known killer.... Why shouldn't he be able to intimidate someone?

 

Or if you're a genius/charmer you should be able to tell if someone is lying or work out how to best butter someone up.

 

Afterall in real life a good salesman is just that a salesmen. Just like we have people who can lead, or teach.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Juneau

[Kane_Severance]

It's not about what the other guy knows, it's about what your intention is. If your intention is to bluff about killing your hostage or setting off a bomb then you won't do it if your bluff is called. If your intention is a geniune threat then you will follow through.

Dear Jesus, don't make me quote myself:

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.

 

Sorry thats just silly...

 

intimidate is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

bluff is a skill - a skill is a game mechanic - when it's used the game performs some function with it - the game doesn't know it's a threat it just knows it's a skill that requires some function to determine if it is successful or not.

 

The fact that you don't think a threat should be bluffed in this context is irrelevant to all but you...

Bluff is a bloody superfluous skill that should be burned, banned and forgotten. Exactly because of stuff like this, when people try to argue that it should be used instead of pretty much any other skill.

 

Your opinion is noted. You didn't need to repeat yourself I just disagree with you. I think it adds variety in how you roleplay your character. I like lots of roleplaying options, coming from a PnP background.

 

Stamp your feet and say it's wrong all you want. I enjoy using bluff in games.

[wanderon]

 

Bluff is a bloody superfluous skill that should be burned, banned and forgotten. Exactly because of stuff like this, when people try to argue that it should be used instead of pretty much any other skill.

 

I never said it SHOULD be used in place of anything?

 

If the game includes both skills then it's apples and oranges - some games link them to totally different attributtes - they are what they are - use them as you see fit within the rules of the game - don't like it? Make your own game and leave it out...

[Shadenuat]

Too many times have I miss read a response and ruined a part of the game

 

Name three.