Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Lies, lying in conversation

conversation morality lying game mechanics

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

Poll: LIES DAMN LIES (130 member(s) have cast votes)

When do you think lying should be possible?

  1. Always! All obey the Trickster! False rumours are his gospel :D (90 votes [41.10%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 41.10%

  2. When asked about facts (44 votes [20.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.09%

  3. When related to personal beliefs (39 votes [17.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 17.81%

  4. When related to quests (43 votes [19.63%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.63%

  5. Very seldom (3 votes [1.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.37%

  6. Never (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Should lies be explicitly marked in dialogue, or be implicit?

  1. Always explicit (84 votes [64.62%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 64.62%

  2. Explicit when quest-related (19 votes [14.62%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.62%

  3. Always implicit (27 votes [20.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.77%

Should lying require a successful skill/ability roll

  1. Yes, always (66 votes [50.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.77%

  2. Only when quest-related (13 votes [10.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  3. Only when concerning facts, not personal beliefs (35 votes [26.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.92%

  4. No, never (16 votes [12.31%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.31%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21
Tsuga C

Tsuga C

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 646 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Because I believe a [tag] is immersion breaking, and I think a colour might not be. it's true, I'm not sure.

1. Anna died sorry mate
2. Anna is alive she is waitin for you

I couldn't disagree more.  Gimme tags, Obsidian.



#22
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

The problem isn't how well or poorly written the dialogue options were in other games that happened to use visual indicators to make the tone of those dialogue options distinct...

 

The problem is that, sometimes, with purely written language, the player has NO idea how the line is being delivered by the character.

 

This isn't quite the same thing, but is a good example along the lines of how many different ways text can be misconstrued:

 

The sentence "I never said she stole my money" can have up to 7 different specific meanings (when only emphasizing a single word), depending on which word is emphasized.

 

"never said she stole my money."

"I never said she stole my money."

"I never said she stole my money."

"I never said she stole my money."

"I never said she stole my money."

"I never said she stole my money."

"I never said she stole my money."

 

So, if we left off the italics (the visual indicator, in this case), you wouldn't know what specific meaning was being stressed, if any.

 

See, the example further above was about a fact. Either Anna was dead, or she wasn't. So, if you know whether or not Anna was dead (you're paying attention to information available to you, the player), you know which is a lie. However, let's try a subjective statement:

 

"I think that's a fantastic idea!"

 

Is that a lie, or is it the truth? If you pick that, are you telling the game that your character REALLY does support the idea, or does he simply wish for someone to BELIEVE he supports the idea when he really doesn't?

 

Why leave it up to guessing, when it takes about another calorie's worth of effort to add in a visual indicator? *shrug*

 

(This response was solely to inform the "I don't even see the problem" posters.)


  • Oner, maggotheart, Pipyui and 1 other like this

#23
Frenetic Pony

Frenetic Pony

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 233 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I utterly despise the explicit "(lie)" next to dialogue options, why is it there?

 

What possible scenario would it be useful? I remember such a dialogue from KOTOR

 

"Are you prepared to accept the Jedi code?"

 

2 options were

"Yes"

"Yes (Lie)"

 

There's no difference in gameplay impact. It could have just been "Yes" and then I decided whether it was a lie. Somehow the other option, to lie explicitly, bothered me. Maybe because it didn't actually feel like lying. It was, ironically perhaps, telling the truth  in its own way.



#24
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

What possible scenario would it be useful?

Easy. When you're claiming to know about something that no one else present does, in order to impact another's decision. Example:

"Don't worry. I can create amulets that will protect us from the beast's poison." Now everyone present is reassured and maybe more people come with you to track down some poisonous beast, when they wouldn't have before. Only, until that point, it's not as if the game told you "Oh, hey, btw, just so you know, for some upcoming dialogue, there's no such thing as an enchantment that will protect you from this thing's poison." So, without an indicator, you, the player, will most likely assume that THAT choice means that you actually are making everyone amulets of poison-protection, when really you're just making glowy amulets to make everyone feel better.

The game either has to tell you you're lying, or arbitrarily make sure the player is ALWAYS informed about anything they might need to lie about, ahead of time (which seems like a lot more work, if you ask me). Or, the 3rd option: Let you guess, and potentially piss you off for no reason.

"Don't worry. I can create amulets that will protect us from the beast's poison. (Lie)" tells the player that his character KNOWS he cannot (or at least isn't really going to) create amulets to protect against the beast's poison, AND that any options without (lie) on them are true as far as your character knows. All with 1 simple indicator.
  • Jarmo, Frenetic Pony, Pipyui and 1 other like this

#25
Frenetic Pony

Frenetic Pony

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 233 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

What possible scenario would it be useful?

Easy. When you're claiming to know about something that no one else present does, in order to impact another's decision. Example:

"Don't worry. I can create amulets that will protect us from the beast's poison." Now everyone present is reassured and maybe more people come with you to track down some poisonous beast, when they wouldn't have before. Only, until that point, it's not as if the game told you "Oh, hey, btw, just so you know, for some upcoming dialogue, there's no such thing as an enchantment that will protect you from this thing's poison." So, without an indicator, you, the player, will most likely assume that THAT choice means that you actually are making everyone amulets of poison-protection, when really you're just making glowy amulets to make everyone feel better.

The game either has to tell you you're lying, or arbitrarily make sure the player is ALWAYS informed about anything they might need to lie about, ahead of time (which seems like a lot more work, if you ask me). Or, the 3rd option: Let you guess, and potentially piss you off for no reason.

"Don't worry. I can create amulets that will protect us from the beast's poison. (Lie)" tells the player that his character KNOWS he cannot (or at least isn't really going to) create amulets to protect against the beast's poison, AND that any options without (lie) on them are true as far as your character knows. All with 1 simple indicator.

 

I suppose that makes sense, and I bow to you. Assumed character knowledge, that the PC doesn't have, is always something weird.

 

As long as there's not a dialogue option that's the same thing, but ones the truth and ones a lie, I suppose I can see the above occurring and being rather cool.


  • OliverUv likes this

#26
jivex5k

jivex5k

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

No color coding!

It's distracting and not helpful.



#27
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

What possible scenario would it be useful?

Easy. When you're claiming to know about something that no one else present does, in order to impact another's decision. Example:

"Don't worry. I can create amulets that will protect us from the beast's poison." Now everyone present is reassured and maybe more people come with you to track down some poisonous beast, when they wouldn't have before. Only, until that point, it's not as if the game told you "Oh, hey, btw, just so you know, for some upcoming dialogue, there's no such thing as an enchantment that will protect you from this thing's poison." So, without an indicator, you, the player, will most likely assume that THAT choice means that you actually are making everyone amulets of poison-protection, when really you're just making glowy amulets to make everyone feel better.

The game either has to tell you you're lying, or arbitrarily make sure the player is ALWAYS informed about anything they might need to lie about, ahead of time (which seems like a lot more work, if you ask me). Or, the 3rd option: Let you guess, and potentially piss you off for no reason.

"Don't worry. I can create amulets that will protect us from the beast's poison. (Lie)" tells the player that his character KNOWS he cannot (or at least isn't really going to) create amulets to protect against the beast's poison, AND that any options without (lie) on them are true as far as your character knows. All with 1 simple indicator.

 

I suppose that makes sense, and I bow to you. Assumed character knowledge, that the PC doesn't have, is always something weird.

 

As long as there's not a dialogue option that's the same thing, but ones the truth and ones a lie, I suppose I can see the above occurring and being rather cool.

 

Yes! I KNEW I could win! 8).

 

I joke, I joke. Nah, I just try to find the potential problems with things. It's obviously not the end of the world if they don't indicate stuff. It simply might lead to unnecessary annoyances. And it would be more complex to only try to change it for a select few lies (basically have the team comb all the lie options in the game for exactly which ones to flag to avoid confusion and which ones were okay without a flag) than it would to simply always indicate. That's all.

 

I admit it's a rather minor issue, in the grand scheme of things, but I don't think it's one of things that would save that much time and effort, really, by NOT doing it.

 

Also, the method to use (color coding, "(Lie)" text tag, something we haven't even thought of or mentioned yet, etc.) is totally still up for evaluation, regardless. Still pretty minor compared to lots of other stuff, but, again... we've got nothing but time whilst we wait for P:E's development to complete. Might as well hash out what we can when an issue (even a minor one) pops up, eh? ^_^

 

I wonder if maybe something as simple as a font change would work, as long as it were noted in some minimal tutorial/getting-started tips at the beginning of the game, when you first encounter dialogue or something, that deception options will be displayed thusly *show example on-screen of font difference.* That way, you don't have a big "(Lie)" tacked on. You still ONLY have the text that's actually being spoken in that dialogue choice, but you can still distinguish it from non-deceptive lines, and you won't have any issues with any form of color-blindness. *shrug*



#28
AGX-17

AGX-17

    (11) Wizard

  • Members
  • 1735 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Why should the player ever be put in a situation where they may not know if they're lying or not? It's plausible that some players could miss or forget some narrative detail and choose the dialogue option they thought was best only to fail a random skill check (pretty sure those aren't going to be in P:E though,) and find themselves in a situation they had no intention of entering.

Edited by AGX-17, 01 February 2013 - 08:24 PM.

  • Lephys likes this

#29
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
*Deleted*

I TOTALLY misread your post, AGX... haha. It's been a long day. -_-

Edited by Lephys, 01 February 2013 - 08:47 PM.


#30
Greydragon

Greydragon

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 114 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Why should the player ever be put in a situation where they may not know if they're lying or not? It's plausible that some players could miss or forget some narrative detail and choose the dialogue option they thought was best only to fail a random skill check (pretty sure those aren't going to be in P:E though,) and find themselves in a situation they had no intention of entering.

This sounds more like a plot event rather than deliberate lying. 

I suppose glossing over important details might cause this kind of situation, stumbling into a conspiracy without realizing it or something similar.

As a dialogue option it would have to be unobtrusive. Alternately a bluff that reveals more than you knew from the npc.

 

Bluffs and scams should also be marked in dialogue just like lies. Just to ensure it is obvious. I suppose a surprise skill check in dialogue would be interesting every so often, but intentional skill/spell/ability uses should always be marked in the dialogue choices.

 

I'd dearly like for spells and talents to be used in dialogue choices for more exotic solutions to quests. Psychic brainwashing or magical charm for example during interrogations, disabling and disrupting spells/talents to weaken enemy groups, etc.



#31
PoisonWar

PoisonWar

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 98 posts

Yep lying in Planescape was actually interesting, sure it may not affect the game in a mechanical way, but you're developing your own character here, does he or she

embrace lies to get the upper hand? It's more interesting when your character has a character arc of his or her own, evolves over time and so on.. plus it may net you some

extra experience or help you avoid danger.

 

As for colour coding or [this], i have to say, just have the intent written beside the line in brackets, fill in the blanks yourself, such as the tone, emphasis on a specific word

or whatever it is. As long as the intention of the action or words are clear to the player. With colours though you may forget which is which and colours all lined up like that just screw with

the eyes, an offender of this was Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines where you had like 4 or 5 multicoloured options at the same time and it was quick the mess up.


  • OliverUv likes this

#32
AGX-17

AGX-17

    (11) Wizard

  • Members
  • 1735 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer


Why should the player ever be put in a situation where they may not know if they're lying or not? It's plausible that some players could miss or forget some narrative detail and choose the dialogue option they thought was best only to fail a random skill check (pretty sure those aren't going to be in P:E though,) and find themselves in a situation they had no intention of entering.

This sounds more like a plot event rather than deliberate lying. 
I suppose glossing over important details might cause this kind of situation, stumbling into a conspiracy without realizing it or something similar.
As a dialogue option it would have to be unobtrusive. Alternately a bluff that reveals more than you knew from the npc.
 
Bluffs and scams should also be marked in dialogue just like lies. Just to ensure it is obvious. I suppose a surprise skill check in dialogue would be interesting every so often, but intentional skill/spell/ability uses should always be marked in the dialogue choices.
 
I'd dearly like for spells and talents to be used in dialogue choices for more exotic solutions to quests. Psychic brainwashing or magical charm for example during interrogations, disabling and disrupting spells/talents to weaken enemy groups, etc.


No, you're missing my point. My point is that the player should always be aware of what dialogue options are lies. It's not a lie if the player or the player character ignorantly/falsely believes something to be true but the dialogue is written as though the player/PC does know it's true.

Here's another example: the player has completed a quest in a way that was not recognized/accepted as "success" by the game, by design or by bug or by unanticipated possibilities the quest designer had not thought of, and the player had the option to lie about completing it without doing so in the first place. If it wasn't marked as a lie, and the quest's basic conditions had been met, to the best knowledge of the player, that player might choose to say they had completed the quest only to have the quest giver shout "YOU LIE!" and become hostile without it being marked as a lie.

Edited by AGX-17, 02 February 2013 - 06:43 PM.

  • JFSOCC likes this

#33
Greydragon

Greydragon

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 114 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Did I dispute that assertion? Quote: " ... marked in dialogue just like lies."

Rather I don't see a bug/cheat scenario as relevant in a discussion about lies.

I tried to put it in a way that could occur in game without bugs i.e. as a part of a lying scenario.

Lies however should only be marked as such if the MC is aware that the words are false. If the words are believed to be true by the MC they should be plain dialogue. That is what I tried to explain with  Quote:  "I suppose glossing over important details might cause this kind of situation, stumbling into a conspiracy without realizing it or something similar. As a dialogue option it would have to be unobtrusive." I apologise if this was unclear, I was quite tired when I wrote this. 


  • JFSOCC likes this

#34
moridin84

moridin84

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • Location:Ireland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Hmm, I'd prefer tags to colour coding options. Colour coding seems... gaudy. 

 

One thing I don't get with the [Lie] tag is where you have two options which are exactly the same but one of them has [Lie] in front of it. I've seen it done but I never understood what actually difference there was in choosing one instead of the other. 



#35
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Lies however should only be marked as such if the MC is aware that the words are false. If the words are believed to be true by the MC they should be plain dialogue.

 

I see what you mean, but that's not actually a lie. If I built a building for someone, and designed it and everything... knew all the blueprints, the works, and that person later had a secret tunnel added in, then you could ask me "Hey, how do we get into this building?". I would probably say "Through here, here, or here. Those are the only ways in." Since I don't know about the secret tunnel, I'm actually not lying. I'm simply mistaken. But I'm telling you what I know.

Some might call it technicality, but it's simply a detail that does effect things. A lie is an INENTIONAL, voluntary deception. Being wrong is just being wrong. So, if my character were to say "There are no dragons left. They were killed off ages ago. Everyone knows that.", I wouldn't expect a "(lie)" tag or any indicator UNLESS he knew of a still-living dragon and was intentionally stating otherwise.

So, all lies (and not simple falsehoods) should be marked as lies, lest certain lines be unclear as to whether or not my character is simply mistaken or KNOWS that what he's saying is false.

 

One thing I don't get with the [Lie] tag is where you have two options which are exactly the same but one of them has [Lie] in front of it. I've seen it done but I never understood what actually difference there was in choosing one instead of the other.

 

Those are usually used when conveying intent. It's really only for the player, I suppose. You know, "I'll make sure nothing happens to the chest." vs "I'll make sure nothing happens to the chest (lie)." Whether or not it has any necessity really depends on how the game is coded, I suppose. If the lie locks you into a certain subset of decisions (deception/backstabbing/robbery) down the line, then I suppose that's the function it serves in terms of game programming. Is it necessary to code a game like that? Maybe not.

I can't say off the top of my head that there's absolutely NO reason for the intent to ever matter in your actual dialogue choice. I'd have to think about it a while.

*Scratches head*... Maybe they're trying to represent the fact that, if you're sincere, you don't have to worry about a bluff check (you're not faking facial expressions and all the nuance that comes with actual sincerity), and if you're lying then you do? Because, in the PnP games, there generally wasn't any kind of skill check unless you were lying. *Le shrugs*


Edited by Lephys, 03 February 2013 - 04:14 PM.


#36
moridin84

moridin84

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • Location:Ireland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I see what you mean, but that's not actually a lie. If I built a building for someone, and designed it and everything... knew all the blueprints, the works, and that person later had a secret tunnel added in, then you could ask me "Hey, how do we get into this building?". I would probably say "Through here, here, or here. Those are the only ways in." Since I don't know about the secret tunnel, I'm actually not lying. I'm simply mistaken. But I'm telling you what I know.

 

 

Hmm, I think you are missing the point. 

 

It's not about "character" or "in game" knowledge but "player" or "meta" knowledge. The secret tunnel is a "character" knowledge thing.

 

Say that in the P.E world raising someone from the dead is impossible. You might say tell someone that you'll "definitely bring back their dead brother" if they help you. As a "character" this would be a lie because raising someone from the dead is definitely impossible, as a "player" you might not actually realise this was the case. 

 

 

 
Those are usually used when conveying intent. It's really only for the player, I suppose. You know, "I'll make sure nothing happens to the chest." vs "I'll make sure nothing happens to the chest (lie)." Whether or not it has any necessity really depends on how the game is coded, I suppose. If the lie locks you into a certain subset of decisions (deception/backstabbing/robbery) down the line, then I suppose that's the function it serves in terms of game programming. Is it necessary to code a game like that? Maybe not.

As a player, I'll pick whatever dialogue choices I want. The game has no way of knowing if I mean them or not so I don't think the [Lie] tag makes sense. 

 

As for locking you into a set of decisions... I think there is a better way to do that. 


Edited by moridin84, 03 February 2013 - 04:53 PM.


#37
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Hmm, I think you are missing the point. 
 
It's not about "character" or "in game" knowledge but "player" or "meta" knowledge. The secret tunnel is a "character" knowledge thing.
 
Say that in the P.E world raising someone from the dead is impossible. You might say tell someone that you'll "definitely bring back their dead brother" if they help you. As a "character" this would be a lie because raising someone from the dead is definitely impossible, as a "player" you might not actually realise this was the case.

 

I must respectfully suggest that I am not missing the point. In that exact scenario, I, the player, need to know where or not my character really thinks there is a way to raise the dead (and some goal of his is attempting to find/use it) or if he knows there isn't and is purely trying to lead someone on.

Whether or not it's a lie has almost nothing to do with whether or not raising the dead is possible or isn't, and everything to do with whether or not my character knows that.

We make choices with our characters (at least our main character) based upon their knowledge and skills. I wouldn't want to assume he knows or doesn't know, without any absolute indicators, any more than I'd want to assume he can use an ability that's available as a combat command.

Are there oodles of scenarios in which the player already has enough info to determine on his own whether or not a dialogue choice is a lie? Sure. Are there some scenarios in which it would be really confusing without some form of indication (unless you arbitrarily remove the option to lie in a given scenario, solving the problem while pointlessly shallowing the game content)? You betcha. There are plenty of points, but that's every bit the point in this whole "should there be an indicator or not?" discussion.
 

As a player, I'll pick whatever dialogue choices I want. The game has no way of knowing if I mean them or not so I don't think the [Lie] tag makes sense. 
 
As for locking you into a set of decisions... I think there is a better way to do that.

 

Yeah, I feel ya on that. But, like I said, there might be a reason to do it that way, depending on how you're representing the bluff check. If you've got a bluff check in at all, then it wouldn't make sense not to use it any time you're lying (despite however high or low the difficulty of getting away with the lie is). So, that would mean you were the PERFECT liar, OR you were getting bluff checks on things you didn't know you there was a check for. Either way, a pointless hurdle for the player.

But, that's pretty much the only thing I can think of that in any way justifies the hardcoding/indication of intent between two otherwise-identical dialogue choices. UNLESS they're doing it like that, they should just let those particular choices be regular choices, and let us decide with our actions what our intent is (we either end up sticking to our word, or we do something that goes against it.)


Edited by Lephys, 03 February 2013 - 05:42 PM.


#38
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Say that in the P.E world raising someone from the dead is impossible. You might say tell someone that you'll "definitely bring back their dead brother" if they help you. As a "character" this would be a lie because raising someone from the dead is definitely impossible, as a "player" you might not actually realise this was the case.

If this happens, then someone didn't do his job communicating the necessary knowledge to the player, who is supposed to know anything relevant their player character knows.

#39
moridin84

moridin84

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • Location:Ireland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Say that in the P.E world raising someone from the dead is impossible. You might say tell someone that you'll "definitely bring back their dead brother" if they help you. As a "character" this would be a lie because raising someone from the dead is definitely impossible, as a "player" you might not actually realise this was the case.

If this happens, then someone didn't do his job communicating the necessary knowledge to the player, who is supposed to know anything relevant their player character knows.

 

Well possibly. If that is the case then there should be no need for this [Lie] tag at all. 



#40
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer



Say that in the P.E world raising someone from the dead is impossible. You might say tell someone that you'll "definitely bring back their dead brother" if they help you. As a "character" this would be a lie because raising someone from the dead is definitely impossible, as a "player" you might not actually realise this was the case.

If this happens, then someone didn't do his job communicating the necessary knowledge to the player, who is supposed to know anything relevant their player character knows.


 
Well possibly. If that is the case then there should be no need for this [Lie] tag at all.


only if intent is unclear
"I will do this for you"
"I will do this for you"





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: conversation, morality, lying, game mechanics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users