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

[evdk]

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...

I don't think it will be in this one, so I save myself the wasted effort. And I understand they are two different skills, I just do not believe they overlap, precisely because they are two different skills tied to two different attributes. They definitely do not overlap in case of intimidation.

[JFSOCC]

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

 

Name three.

ooh! can I do one!?

In Dragon Age origins I hadn't really gotten into a quest where I had to kill some guild leader. I went to my target and he convinced me that my quest giver (his son) was in fact the one to defeat. I went to him and got a story that was different from what his father told me. his words made a little sense, not much, but some. I was still planning to kill him, but he did have a point. so that's what I said "You have a point"

Quest ended. no-no! I didn't want that, I was going to attack him, having a point didn't mean I agreed with him! darn it!

 

But I blame that on bad writing, not the absence of a "This will end the quest with no outcome" marker next to it. Mind you this dialogue didn't allow for any stat-linked resolution. so maybe it's not applicable.

 

---

As for the difference between bluff and intimidate; One is a plausible lie which should be apparent by what is in the dialogue ("We got this place surrounded" when you know it's just you and your party) Or "you stand no chance against us"when you're clearly outmatched. "Are you sure you want to do that" bluff is ambiguous. you're never voicing a direct threat, always something over the horizon. it works with suggestion.

You stand no chance against us would be a stronger bluff than "are you sure"

Intimidate I think is more along the lines of "If you walk away now you won't get hurt." the threat is direct. *I* *Will* do this unless you do what I say. I'm not talking about fairy tale help I could summon, I'm not politely suggesting it, I'm making clear that if you stand in my way there will be consequences and you'd best be ready to face them or leave. NOW.

Intimidate is more imperative. Bluff is more about convincing.

Edited October 29, 2012 by JFSOCC

[mstark]

But I blame that on bad writing, not the absence of a "This will end the quest with no outcome" marker next to it. Mind you this dialogue didn't allow for any stat-linked resolution. so maybe it's not applicable.

That's inexcusably bad dialogue writing. And a horrendous quest mechanic. Edited October 29, 2012 by mstark

[evdk]

But I blame that on bad writing, not the absence of a "This will end the quest with no outcome" marker next to it. Mind you this dialogue didn't allow for any stat-linked resolution. so maybe it's not applicable.

That's inexcusably bad dialogue writing. And a horrendous quest mechanic.

All I'm hearing is "That's Bioware".

[-Zin-]

[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.

 

Too bad. You're playing a number's game.

 

The dialouge in the game is written by MULTIPLE people. Each of them do quests/dialouge options differently and have a different perception of checks/difficulty rating. Needing clarification from the dialouge option is not a sign of weakness, or means you're stupid, because you can never understand a person completely, much less everyone else. The best the game can do is tell the player what his/her character is thinking as obvious as possible. Having clarity and avoiding confusion is really important in terms of story-telling. The most well told stories are things most people understand.

 

Again. It can be turned on and off, so I'm not really sure what the problem here is anyway, but obviously, for a game to be successful as possible is having as many people as possible understanding what's going on. I'm not really sure what more there is to be discussed. :/

[wanderon]

 

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.

 

Sigh... First of all choosing dialoge like this with a character like that for a bluff option is silly and could be considered bad design if anyone would ever actually use some thing like that - maybe you have some games where this is commonplace but I haven't personally seen that scenario.

 

Secondly it's a mechanic - it works or doesn't work based on what the player did to give the mechanic to his character and as a result of the game function it performs when it's chosen by the player - as for why you might want to roleplay (pretend) it works for you or doesn't work - who cares? To each his own- different strokes- pick two of three...

[Amentep]

Sigh... First of all choosing dialoge like this with a character like that for a bluff option is silly and could be considered bad design if anyone would ever actually use some thing like that - maybe you have some games where this is commonplace but I haven't personally seen that scenario.

 

Secondly it's a mechanic - it works or doesn't work based on what the player did to give the mechanic to his character and as a result of the game function it performs when it's chosen by the player - as for why you might want to roleplay (pretend) it works for you or doesn't work - who cares? To each his own- different strokes- pick two of three...

 

The example was exaggeration for effect, not intended to be an indicator of real gameplay. The point is, ultimately, if you're going to define [intimidate] and [bluff] as distinct skills there has to be some sense in how they're applied that makes them distinct. That doesn't mean they're not closely related, only that for game purposes they still have to have a unique role, or else there's no point to separate them out as distinct concepts.

 

You could have a [pursuade] skill, for example that covered any attempt to alter the actions of another via dialogue and it could cover bluff, intimidate, diplomacy or whatever. But if you create [bluff], [intimidate], and [Diplomacy] there needs to be a reason for them to be distinct; else you're not creating different skills but needlessly subdividing things where an all-inclusive skill would be more useful to your intent.

 

3.5 D&D, IIRC, makes bluff and intimidate seperate (so they have to be distinct) but allows +2 synergy checks on either with high scores in the other.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Amentep

[Mils]

I personally like the stat/skill indicators in front of dialogue. I wouldn't miss them too much if they weren't included, but it is handy to know which skill will be used to carry out a certain dialogue. For example if [bluff] is indicated and you pick the dialogue but fail at bluffing then they just dont believe you. Or with intimidate, they are not threatened at all by you.

[wanderon]

Sigh... First of all choosing dialoge like this with a character like that for a bluff option is silly and could be considered bad design if anyone would ever actually use some thing like that - maybe you have some games where this is commonplace but I haven't personally seen that scenario.

 

Secondly it's a mechanic - it works or doesn't work based on what the player did to give the mechanic to his character and as a result of the game function it performs when it's chosen by the player - as for why you might want to roleplay (pretend) it works for you or doesn't work - who cares? To each his own- different strokes- pick two of three...

 

The example was exaggeration for effect, not intended to be an indicator of real gameplay. The point is, ultimately, if you're going to define [intimidate] and [bluff] as distinct skills there has to be some sense in how they're applied that makes them distinct. That doesn't mean they're not closely related, only that for game purposes they still have to have a unique role, or else there's no point to separate them out as distinct concepts.

 

You could have a [pursuade] skill, for example that covered any attempt to alter the actions of another via dialogue and it could cover bluff, intimidate, diplomacy or whatever. But if you create [bluff], [intimidate], and [Diplomacy] there needs to be a reason for them to be distinct; else you're not creating different skills but needlessly subdividing things where an all-inclusive skill would be more useful to your intent.

 

3.5 D&D, IIRC, makes bluff and intimidate seperate (so they have to be distinct) but allows +2 synergy checks on either with high scores in the other.

 

Why would they have to have distinct roles (where only one or the other could be used in any given situation) - the concepts themselves are distinct and either could apply to almost anything and in most games I have played they are tied to different attributtes or at least have their own seperate point buy so usually a character is only going to have one of them anyway or at least be proficient in only one.

[-Zin-]

The hell you guys...?

 

A bluff is saying you're a High King from the foreign continent of Nerverheardia and the nearby guards should bow to you before letting you pass. A bluff is indirect, and not physically threatening. A successful bluff will just result to a bunch of orcs welcoming a halfling into their village and believe that the halfling is a cursed orc, or a distant cousin Grush'norc the Blacksmith.

 

An intimidation isn't a bluff. Intimidation is believing that your enemy will physically harm you/your loved ones and you really should reconsider making this person displeased. An intimidation doesn't lie in just the words alone. Intimidation lies in the stare of your eyes, the strong biceps on your body, your height, the weapon you carry, or in the tone you use. When Duke Nukem said "I'll rip your head off and **** down your neck," it doesn't really matter if he's telling the truth or not, but I believed that Duke Nukem would do an over-kill on that alien he threatened. I know Duke Nukem would from experience. He has killed every alien up to that point. His chances of walking out of that fight alive and well was very high. That's a successful intimidation. Believing that your enemy will physically harm you without having to. Incidentally, Duke Nukem did rip off his head and **** down his neck after the fight. That was awesome, but he didn't have to.

[Amentep]

Why would they have to have distinct roles (where only one or the other could be used in any given situation) - the concepts themselves are distinct and either could apply to almost anything and in most games I have played they are tied to different attributtes or at least have their own seperate point buy so usually a character is only going to have one of them anyway or at least be proficient in only one.

 

Because if they're not distinct, what's the purpose of having them be separate?

 

if as you say "usually a character is only going to have one of them anyway or at least be proficient in only one" but Intimidate and Bluff can be used interchangeably...then wouldn't the character be able to get through any situation with only one of the skills? In which case why have two? The gameplay isn't treating them as unique so what purpose do two unique skills serve?

 

You'd also end up with situations where - remember the skills are interchangeable - where you'd have "[intimidate]Why yes, I am *the* Rifrat the Writer who wrote 'All things between here and there' " and have it make sense.

 

So what you seem to be arguing is I should be able to [bluff] an intimidation but not vice-versa...so why would anyone invest in intimidation when Bluff is more useful? Well the answer is to make them distinct and not let people make a [bluff] check for an [intimidate] check - or to make a higher level concept that combines all the speechy stuff into one skill.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Amentep

[Blaine]

I'm a former college athlete, and also a certified genius.

 

This is some of the best Internet braggadocio I've seen in a while. Did you frame the certificate? I really need to know.

 

As a certified genius, perhaps you should apply the force of that intellect to winning this argument properly rather than with logical fallacies, personal opinions, poorly concealed self-aggrandizement and desperate equivocation.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Blaine

[wanderon]

Why would they have to have distinct roles (where only one or the other could be used in any given situation) - the concepts themselves are distinct and either could apply to almost anything and in most games I have played they are tied to different attributtes or at least have their own seperate point buy so usually a character is only going to have one of them anyway or at least be proficient in only one.

 

Because if they're not distinct, what's the purpose of having them be separate?

 

if as you say "usually a character is only going to have one of them anyway or at least be proficient in only one" but Intimidate and Bluff can be used interchangeably...then wouldn't the character be able to get through any situation with only one of the skills? In which case why have two? The gameplay isn't treating them as unique so what purpose do two unique skills serve?

 

You'd also end up with situations where - remember the skills are interchangeable - where you'd have "[intimidate]Why yes, I am *the* Rifrat the Writer who wrote 'All things between here and there' " and have it make sense.

 

So what you seem to be arguing is I should be able to [bluff] an intimidation but not vice-versa...so why would anyone invest in intimidation when Bluff is more useful? Well the answer is to make them distinct and not let people make a [bluff] check for an [intimidate] check - or to make a higher level concept that combines all the speechy stuff into one skill. Or not make Intimidate a skill but on things about the character that might be intimidated - his spiky armor and not his collection of teddy bears, for example. But now we're back to conceptualizing Bluff and Intimidate in ways that make the distinct.

 

I'm not saying that at all - I'm saying the two can both be used in the same SITUATION not necessarily interchangably with the same words of dialoge -

 

you can bluff your way through a situation or intimidate your way through - they are both seperate skills -

 

Now there are dialogues that COULD have either tag becuase you could bluff your way through an intimidating comment but it's two different functions in any game I have played and calls on a different mechanic. I don't see that as an issue other than lazy writing for not making the bluff option different.

 

Edit: As for why take intimidate if bluff is better - in most games I play it's attributte based where the warrior does the intimidating and the rogue does the bluffing.

Edited October 29, 2012 by wanderon

[TwinkieGorilla]

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.

 

Oh?

 

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.

 

So what you're saying is: "In my very limited time away from my very busy life I want my entertainment to be unchallenging." In that case, have you considered purchasing an xbox?

 

And for the record, adding "No offense" to the beginning of a sentence does nothing to mitigate an offensive comment.

 

No offense but I think your request for the watering-down of challenging gaming for your own casual interest to be a selfish and shallow one.

 

Your comment leads me to believe that you think you know what people should play what games

 

Smart people should play challenging games. Exercising your brain should be rewarding.

 

and that certain people simply -shouldn't- play them.

 

Stupid or perhaps busy people should maybe stray from challenging games.

 

But the fact is, companies make games because they want people to play them.

 

Now wait just a second here...

 

They want a LOT of people to play them.

 

Hmmmm...

 

jumpstarter

 

 

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.

 

My guess is that the devs are going to attempt to make this game interesting for people who enjoy challenging games.

Edited October 29, 2012 by TwinkieGorilla

[Amentep]

I'm not saying that at all - I'm saying the two can both be used in the same SITUATION not necessarily interchangably with the same words of dialoge -

 

you can bluff your way through a situation or intimidate your way through - they are both seperate skills -

 

Right. They're seperate skills. So why were you suggesting it was okay to bluff an intimidation - "[bluff]I'll rip your head off"?

 

This gets back to the whole original point, for the two skills to be distinct, you can't overlap their use. Overlapping their use or application means they aren't distinct, in which case there isn't an argument for the existence of both skills. Which is why evdk said that the above example shouldn't happen.

[Jasede]

As a certified genius I hereby declare this thread open season!

 

Games that aren't challenging are for casuals. Casuals ruined video games. In PE I expect the opposite of the casual Bioware experience and I'm confident that - at least in the writing department - they'll deliver.

 

Tags don't bother me but if you're going to say that without them you wouldn't be able to infer what skills are being checked then I have to honestly doubt why you are playing this kind of game in the first place. There's already a billion games to satisfy shallow tastes and hopelessly low skill levels, no need to water this one down one iota.

[wanderon]

I'm not saying that at all - I'm saying the two can both be used in the same SITUATION not necessarily interchangably with the same words of dialoge -

 

you can bluff your way through a situation or intimidate your way through - they are both seperate skills -

 

Right. They're seperate skills. So why were you suggesting it was okay to bluff an intimidation - "[bluff]I'll rip your head off"?

 

This gets back to the whole original point, for the two skills to be distinct, you can't overlap their use. Overlapping their use or application means they aren't distinct, in which case there isn't an argument for the existence of both skills. Which is why evdk said that the above example shouldn't happen.

 

 

If the dialoge allows a bluff option then choosing that option is a bluff regardless of how intimidating the words may appear to you - this may be lazy writing when they could have just as easily offered a different dialoge option for a bluff but it does not diminish the intimidate skill as long as that option appears as well -

 

these are GAME MECHANICS -the actual words of the dialoge do not effect them - the devs choose which ones to offer and where and the player chooses which one to use - they are distinct and seperate becuase you aquire them in different ways and they usually work with different attributtes.

 

YOU may claim they cannot overlap but there is no real reason they cannot - it is certainly possible to bluff in an intimidating way so if the devs want to use lazy writing to save time and assign two speech options to the same line they have the power to do so whether YOU like it or not. It's also up to them how many of each option to include so if one has more opportunities than the other so what? Life goes on...

 

For me I have never seen much of this in the first place - games I played (all the IE games, RTK , DA series, NWN series, Fallout series,) rarely if ever assign both options to the same dialoge line so I'm not even sure where this is coming from (ME?)

[evdk]

But if what you are functionally doing is being Intimidating then you are using Intimidation. The hell take the intent, it just is not the correct use of the bluff skill. If I was your DM I would let whoever you were trying this on eat you and use your bones as fertilizer. Even if it was just a little old lady. Especially if it was just a little old lady.

Edited October 29, 2012 by evdk

[wanderon]

As a certified genius I hereby declare this thread open season!

 

Games that aren't challenging are for casuals. Casuals ruined video games. In PE I expect the opposite of the casual Bioware experience and I'm confident that - at least in the writing department - they'll deliver.

 

Tags don't bother me but if you're going to say that without them you wouldn't be able to infer what skills are being checked then I have to honestly doubt why you are playing this kind of game in the first place. There's already a billion games to satisfy shallow tastes and hopelessly low skill levels, no need to water this one down one iota.

 

Speaking of switches anyone know where I can turn on the one that filters out shallow comments like these?

[Jasede]

It's right next to the "deactivate passive-aggressive moaning" button.

[wanderon]

But if what you are functionally doing is being Intimidating then you are using Intimidation. The hell take the intent, it just is not the correct use of the bluff skill. If I was your DM I would let whoever you were trying this on eat you and use your bones as fertilizer.

 

What you are functionally doing in this case is choosing an option the DM gave you to BLUFF -

 

the hell take that you can't understand that the game designer IS the DM and gets to make the rules EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM.

[evdk]

Call me when they actually use such interpretation.

[JFSOCC]

I can see this going the wrong way. some of the people in this thread are getting carried away.

Argue the point, not the person. We don't need this to devolve into taking sides and spitting vitriol. If you can't do that get the hell out of my thread.

Edited October 29, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Amentep]

these are GAME MECHANICS -the actual words of the dialoge do not effect them - the devs choose which ones to offer and where and the player chooses which one to use - they are distinct and seperate becuase you aquire them in different ways and they usually work with different attributtes.

 

Right, but why would you create ambiguous game mechanics? The whole point of creating [bluff] and [intimidate] instead of [speech] or [interpersonalcommunication] is that there should be a fundamentally different concept between [bluff] and [intimidate] or again you invalidate the rationale to not have them exist under a larger, more flexible skill.

 

YOU may claim they cannot overlap but there is no real reason they cannot - it is certainly possible to bluff in an intimidating way so if the devs want to use lazy writing to save time and assign two speech options to the same line they have the power to do so whether YOU like it or not. It's also up to them how many of each option to include so if one has more opportunities than the other so what? Life goes on...

 

Right, you can have them overlap, but it brings in the question of "Why would you design a system where two things serve the same purpose"? The idea that [bluff] and [intimidate] have a unique purpose is inherent in the creation of them as separate skill concepts.

 

For me I have never seen much of this in the first place - games I played (all the IE games, RTK , DA series, NWN series, Fallout series,) rarely if ever assign both options to the same dialoge line so I'm not even sure where this is coming from (ME?)

 

I think this is a side topic that derived from examples in this topic that indicated ambiguity between using [bluff] vs [intimidate]. However to make it more on topic, while I'm not for using the [tag] skill system, I'd find it rather confusing to see lines of dialogue that read as intimidation labeled as bluff and vice-versa. Another blow for hiding the mechanics, IMO.

[evdk]

I think this is a side topic that derived from examples in this topic that indicated ambiguity between using [bluff] vs [intimidate]. However to make it more on topic, while I'm not for using the [tag] skill system, I'd find it rather confusing to see lines of dialogue that read as intimidation labeled as bluff and vice-versa. Another blow for hiding the mechanics, IMO.

Worst case scenario: Use the good old (Lie) tag.