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

[Tsuga C]

Although this whole discussion is academical, since toggle for tags was confirmed by Josh, so unless he changes his mind...

 

Best news of the day so far! Gimme, gimme, gimme tags, baby! I'm not my character, hence I'm not present in the game world. Unless told via copious amounts of writing, I'm not going to be able to use the body language, speach patterns, and other physical queues to ferret out possible clues regarding the disposition of those with whom I'm conversing. The same applies to my character. Without tags I very well might imagine a line being delivered as a sneer when it was thought by the writers as being something entirely different.

 

Tags: love 'em for conveying accurate intent vis a vis the set of possible responses by the NPC in question and minimizing confusion and frustration.

[PsychoBlonde]

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.

 

Well--sort of. What it should be is a reactive skill. Instead of using it to lie, you should use it reactively to avoid people using sense motive on you to detect some character trait. It shouldn't matter whether you're lying or not, it should work more like this:

 

PC: I am not a crook!

NPC: *uses sense motive*

PC: *bluff fail*

NPC: You're full of ****. I'm not giving you my stuff to deliver.

 

vs.

 

PC: I am not a crook!

NPC: *sense motive*

PC: *bluff success*

NPC: Here you go!

 

What they should do is tie bluff to reputation, so what bluff does is let you pretend that your rep is much better (or much worse) than it actually is in the situations where rep should matter. Detecting reputation should be an active thing that NPC's do at certain points during conversations which is resisted by bluff.

 

This would allow discrete uses for the trio of Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy which had mechanically different functions. It can be done mechanically without trying to somehow mechanically represent player INTENTIONS. GAWD.

[wanderon]

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.

 

I see so while I am trying to explain how/why these things actually work in real games that contain both bluff and intimidate skills and use them in dialoge options those that are arguing with me are just extrapolating what it might mean if a game somehow had these completely atrocious writers that always labeled intimidating dialoges with a bluff option as if there was no difference between the two. Gotcha...

 

Gotta love the internet...

[evdk]

I stand by my claim that if you use bluff this way in your D&D game I would like to have a few words with your DM, using a chair leg for punctuation.

[Heresiarch]

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.

Actually, I don't see how the points contradict each other.

One side (and you, presumably) is saying that tagged lines should not be the one and only "correct" choice in a conversation, while all others lead to bad results.

Another (that would be me, for instance) says that coding should stay, because it makes sense, brings flavor, and facilitates roleplaying. We are not arguing that it should always be the best result. Different to be sure, maybe, unlocking additional content like Wisdom did for memories in PST, but not the best.

 

So the argument doesn't really exist.

[Gfted1]

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

 

My settings --> Ignore Preferences --> Add a new user name.

[wanderon]

I stand by my claim that if you use bluff this way in your D&D game I would like to have a few words with your DM, using a chair leg for punctuation.

 

Boy talk about needing tags for dialoge options - I never saw that one coming...

[Amentep]

I see so while I am trying to explain how/why these things actually work in real games that contain both bluff and intimidate skills and use them in dialoge options those that are arguing with me are just extrapolating what it might mean if a game somehow had these completely atrocious writers that always labeled intimidating dialoges with a bluff option as if there was no difference between the two. Gotcha...

 

Gotta love the internet...

 

Don't see how you got that from what I wrote. I'm arguing if [intimidate] and [bluff] are used interchangeably in "real games" then there is no reason to create separate [intimidate] and [bluff] skills - you'd create some combination [intimidabluff] skill and ease your workload. What you seem to be arguing - to me, and incidentally the only reason I continued posting - is that there is no problem with [bluff] being used for [intimidation]. To which I disagree.

[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.

Actually, I don't see how the points contradict each other.

One side (and you, presumably) is saying that tagged lines should not be the one and only "correct" choice in a conversation, while all others lead to bad results.

Another (that would be me, for instance) says that coding should stay, because it makes sense, brings flavor, and facilitates roleplaying. We are not arguing that it should always be the best result. Different to be sure, maybe, unlocking additional content like Wisdom did for memories in PST, but not the best.

 

So the argument doesn't really exist.

The argument doesn't exist, at least not for that. My argument was against the tone some had taken in the topic. I'm quite happy with how this thread has turned out, with good arguments and suggestions everywhere.But a post mocking someone who (perhaps foolishly) posted his credentials as a way to lend weight to his argument is not very conducive to a good discussion, especially since aside from that comment the post is well thought out and while I disagree with in part, contributes to the discussion.

[evdk]

I stand by my claim that if you use bluff this way in your D&D game I would like to have a few words with your DM, using a chair leg for punctuation.

 

Boy talk about needing tags for dialoge options - I never saw that one coming...

I on the other hand have been fairly certain of the intent of my sentence and hold it as a triumph of tag-less design :D

[Metabot]

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.

 

I doubt you're a genius, just some kind of narcissist.

[wanderon]

I see so while I am trying to explain how/why these things actually work in real games that contain both bluff and intimidate skills and use them in dialoge options those that are arguing with me are just extrapolating what it might mean if a game somehow had these completely atrocious writers that always labeled intimidating dialoges with a bluff option as if there was no difference between the two. Gotcha...

 

Gotta love the internet...

 

Don't see how you got that from what I wrote. I'm arguing if [intimidate] and [bluff] are used interchangeably in "real games" then there is no reason to create separate [intimidate] and [bluff] skills - you'd create some combination [intimidabluff] skill and ease your workload. What you seem to be arguing - to me, and incidentally the only reason I continued posting - is that there is no problem with [bluff] being used for [intimidation]. To which I disagree.

 

Well the big difference is apparently that you are arguing IF they are used (at some time and place yet to be determined) and I am stating premises based on WHEN they have actually been used in games I have played.

 

The difference is WHEN they are used they are by default two seperate skills using different (if sometimes similar) mechanics and just becuase [bluff] COULD BE or HAS BEEN used with a statement that is written in an intimidating manner doesn't mean it's the same thing as using [intimidate] becuase it's not the STATEMENT (ie: the words used in the dialoge option) that defines the skill it's the SKILL choice that determines the mechanic used if you choose that option.

 

You seem to be unable to seperate the written words of the dialoge from the mechanics of using a skill when the character chooses the manner in which to use those words and grasp the fact that you can use the same words in more than a single manner and thats why on the few occasions I may have seen this done it caused me no grief.

[Frisk]

Markers like [intimidate] make sense when the meaning is not clear just from the words.

 

Consider for example

 

[intimidate] Your offer is not acceptable.

[polite] Your offer is not acceptable.

 

If you saw just the text string, it would not be obvious in what tone this was being said.

 

Now, I can easily imagine scenarios where one NPC might react "better" to the first option, but another NPC would react "better" to the second one. However, the tags can be avoided altogether by proper rephrasing, so there is no doubt what is really meant:

 

Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Make me a better offer, or else...

I am very much afraid that your offer is not quite high enough.

 

Regarding tags like [lie], the game might offer something like:

 

[lie] Yes, I have delivered the package.

[truth] Yes, I have delivered the package.

 

However, offering two options like that does not make sense in a case like that - if the player has not delivered the package, the second option simply should not be available. You should not be able to select [truth] when actually lying, or vice versa.

 

Sometimes, however [lie] and [truth] make sense....

 

[lie] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

[truth] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

 

In this case, the game cannot determine the truth - it only exists in the mind of the character, or the player.

[Amentep]

The difference is WHEN they are used they are by default two seperate skills using different (if sometimes similar) mechanics and just becuase [bluff] COULD BE or HAS BEEN used with a statement that is written in an intimidating manner doesn't mean it's the same thing as using [intimidate] becuase it's not the STATEMENT (ie: the words used in the dialoge option) that defines the skill it's the SKILL choice that determines the mechanic used if you choose that option.

 

If the dialogue/statement isn't important only the skill usage, why would you not just put up the [bluff] or [intimidate] tag? By attaching a dialogue option to it, the developers are supporting the use of the indicated skill with that particular dialogue which, if not distinct (ie using [bluff] with intimidating dialogue) makes the use of the skill unclear.

[Zoraptor]

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

I generally agree but it is context dependent, for example...

 

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.

is not a good example. In the real world, sure, a 100lb kid ain't going to frighten anyone, but in a world with magic that 100lb kid may actually be able to rip your arms off- and being a wizard capable of doing that is potentially something you could bluff. If I claim to be The Great Zappo who will rip your arms off (with the power of my mind) then the 'intimidation' aspect is dependent on bluffing the identity.

 

In any case there still needs to be some way to differentiate "I'll kill you" (genuine intention) from "I'll kill you" (threat, but not intended to be carried out whether bluff or intimidation) as for all the talk of bad design there will be inevitable situations where designer intent and player intent clash.

[wanderon]

The difference is WHEN they are used they are by default two seperate skills using different (if sometimes similar) mechanics and just becuase [bluff] COULD BE or HAS BEEN used with a statement that is written in an intimidating manner doesn't mean it's the same thing as using [intimidate] becuase it's not the STATEMENT (ie: the words used in the dialoge option) that defines the skill it's the SKILL choice that determines the mechanic used if you choose that option.

 

If the dialogue/statement isn't important only the skill usage, why would you not just put up the [bluff] or [intimidate] tag? By attaching a dialogue option to it, the developers are supporting the use of the indicated skill with that particular dialogue which, if not distinct (ie using [bluff] with intimidating dialogue) makes the use of the skill unclear.

 

As far as the game is concerned the dialoge is not important - the game doesn't care if it says frogs are fun instead of I will rip your face off as long as it gets to run the mechanic and move on to it's next chore. They don't just use [tag1] becuase the player wants to see actual dialoge choices regardless of whether or not there's a game mechanic associated with it or whether or not the actual words mean anything at all -

 

and when those pesky mechanics are added to dialoges that are just a bit unclear.......wait for it..........thats why they put those little [bluff] - [intimidate] tags in to make sure the player knows which mechanic he might be choosing....

 

So I want to see that trend continue becuase we are NEVER going to see a game come out that does not have some dialogues that made perfect sense to the writer and no sense to the reader becuase people see things differently - just like you and I...

[HereticSaint]

Next up: Pushing a boulder around in real life to facilitate the in-game Strength check required for something.

 

Doing double backflips to facilitate agility/dexterity checks.

 

Just saying, that's exactly what you are asking for. It should be shown by default on ALL difficulties, that, or dialogue should never, ever, ever be the least bit vague, at all. Which directly impacts the writing, which is bad.

[Mnemon]

Markers like [intimidate] make sense when the meaning is not clear just from the words.

 

Consider for example

 

[intimidate] Your offer is not acceptable.

[polite] Your offer is not acceptable.

 

If you saw just the text string, it would not be obvious in what tone this was being said.

 

[...] However, the tags can be avoided altogether by proper rephrasing, so there is no doubt what is really meant:

 

Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Make me a better offer, or else...

I am very much afraid that your offer is not quite high enough.

 

I both agree and disagree with your post throughout. I don't think displaying [skill] checks is a good thing, but I DO think tags that highlight intended tone of answers are useful. The latter are not the game providing information to the player (warning skill check) but the player providing information to the game (out of all these options, some of which are similar, I intend the one that has a specific intent). Planescape got that right often. That's a part I agree on.

 

What I don't agree on is that rewording all dialogue in an attempt to make it as "clear" as possible is a good idea. Looking away a bit from computer game dialogue: Ambiguity in dialogue in literature (given PE will focus on simply displaying text, rather then full VO, that makes the most sense to look at) is resolved by the author through showing the impact of what has been said. Good writing does that - and does that subtle. Ambiguity is important - it gives the writing tension and realism; opens up chance for conflict and surprising insights into a character's thought processes. Rewording everything to be unambiguous is limiting and flattening the dialogue and would risk, a lot, that everyone sounds alike. Plus, I think, trying to be completely unambiguous is, ultimately, impossible, anyway. Words are ambiguous. A lot of good writing is good because it allows for that.

 

Unlike books games can't resolve ambiguity in dialogue choices by showing reaction of the other person. When the player makes a choice it has to be clear how the dialogue choice is intended as the reaction is only illustrated after. If the expectation of the person making a choice doesn't match the outcome it creates frustration. We do agree on that. But as above - I'd much rather have strong dialogue that's in character. Notice how your unambiguous examples are a lot more wordy? That the original "Your offer is not acceptable." is so much more snappy? That there is a clear difference in characterisation between the two i.e. someone that says "Your offer is not acceptable." and indicates with tone of voice that that is an attempt to be polite is a very different person from someone that hedges: "I am very much afraid that your offer is not quite high enough." You change the character, how he/she presents her/himself to the world, a lot.

 

Indicating intended meaning is so much more elegant. It makes sure that in writing the dialogue natural flow is more important. I'd want that. I'd love to see misunderstandings, even if the player chooses the tone of an ambiguous statement: A "[polite] Your offer is not acceptable." can still be taken as aggression by an NPC. The difference is that there's much more of a chance to clear that up in the next few dialogue steps when the implied tone was [polite] compared to the player choosing the [impolite] tone for the same statement - doing a u-turn on that one should be hard (and that is, really, where your character's abilities should come into play!). I'd love that level of reactivity from the dialogue system - where your choices have consequences that you have to react to, within the limits set by your characters abilities.

 

I agree with the rest of your post, again, after that

Edited October 30, 2012 by Mnemon

[Gorth]

Markers like [intimidate] make sense when the meaning is not clear just from the words.

 

Consider for example

 

[intimidate] Your offer is not acceptable.

[polite] Your offer is not acceptable.

 

If you saw just the text string, it would not be obvious in what tone this was being said.

 

Just to continue my thought experiment from a previous post in this thread, if you turn all dialogues into encounters, you could do away with the skills and make it attribute based. Sometimes people don't interpret what you are saying things the way you meant them. Even if you try the polite version of "Your offer is not acceptable", a weak individual may perceive it as intimidating or think you are bluffing (to use some D&D skill examples). If you are big and strong, most of your lines are probably going to come across as something backed by force. If you are the smart or wise type, most of your lines may be suave etc.

 

It may end up as too simplified for some peoples taste and I haven't bothered to take some old IE games conversations and tried to "convert" them, but the idea is basically to use a few of your primary stats versus the other guys primary stats. You may look like Conan the Barbarian and may generally succeed in the bullying of npcs until you meet somebody bigger and badder than yourself. A lot of people may not respond well at all to intimidating behaviour and just withdraw without giving you any information. You would never have a [skillcheck] tag though, as it is part of your "nature" and how other critters respond to said nature.

 

Sometimes, however [lie] and [truth] make sense....

 

[lie] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

[truth] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

 

In this case, the game cannot determine the truth - it only exists in the mind of the character, or the player.

 

Not sure if I follow... if it has no consequence should the game care if you are truthful or not?

[Karkarov]

[lie] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

[truth] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

 

I disagree, you can still pull this off. For example

 

"Oh yes, your daughter is very ... lovely."

VS

"Your daughter is quite the radiant beauty!"

VS

"Sir, I have never seen a woman half so beautiful as your fair daughter. She is like a star shining though the dark of night!"

 

So of those three lines, which is honest, which is a lie, and which is a bluff check?

[Frisk]

 

Sometimes, however [lie] and [truth] make sense....

 

[lie] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

[truth] Yes, I think your daughter is very beautiful

 

In this case, the game cannot determine the truth - it only exists in the mind of the character, or the player.

 

Not sure if I follow... if it has no consequence should the game care if you are truthful or not?

 

Well, in this particular case it would have consequences if the other party can (magically or otherwise) know if the character is lying.

[BetrayTheWorld]

I doubt you're a genius, just some kind of narcissist.

 

The term narcissist has wide and varied meanings depending on whether you're talking about the clinical term or the pop culture usage. Without narrowing it down a bit, I would posit that the majority of people with genius-level IQs probably display a touch of narcissism as well.

 

In either case, I only posted that in response to a post questioning my personal intelligence/ability to cope with the game, should it be designed on one side of the perverbial fence. I should know better than to reveal my credentials to the drooling masses on an internet forum. For that, I appologize to the OP. My original argument wasn't solely posted for my benefit, but as someone looking at the bigger picture. Basically, I was playing devil's advocate, and I still feel that an RPG shouldn't force the player to be as smart as their character is supposed to be. RPGs are about fantasy, about playing someone other than yourself.

 

I'm in it for the long game, and many here think that the money from kickstarter is it. They seem to think Obsidian doesn't need more or expect more earnings out of the game than what their goals were in the kickstarter project. That money was just to get the project started. That wasn't all they needed/wanted out of this in the end. And if the only people who get this game are people who participated in the Project Eternity kickstarter, there probably won't be a PE:2.

 

I don't think they should dumb down the game to appeal to a wider audience. I think they should create their vision, but still make the game accessible to a wider audience by including these "hand-holding" options as just that, options.

[sorophx]

just posting in a soon-to-be epic thread

[evdk]

@BetrayTheWorld

 

Listen, if they do all these little streamlining changes so that the wider gaming audience might find their game more palatable, then there need not be no PE2 as far as I am concerned, because it would mirror the Standard AAA Franchise Ruination Process . In fact, I possibly wouldn't even care if PE itself sees the light of the day in that case and they can keep my money - it would be a well taught lesson for me.

[Orogun01]

I disagree, you can still pull this off. For example

 

"Oh yes, your daughter is very ... lovely."

VS

"Your daughter is quite the radiant beauty!"

VS

"Sir, I have never seen a woman half so beautiful as your fair daughter. She is like a star shining though the dark of night!"

 

So of those three lines, which is honest, which is a lie, and which is a bluff check?

Is this a trick question?