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

#41
Ieo

Ieo

    White Gazebo of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1410 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I liked how [Lie] was presented in PS:T, very intriguing stuff. And yes, let's not forget "white" lies--lying in itself isn't a strict good/evil presentation either. Parents lie to their children all the time to avoid messy situations, to family members to avoid worrying them, so on and so forth. I think there was a quest in DA:O where you had the opportunity to lie or tell the truth about whether a woman's son was still alive, and lying that he was dead was actually the "better" way to go in terms of appeasing both parties and laying their worries to rest, or something.

 

I hope PE's dialogue, perhaps with certain stats or skills or whatever, will allow [Lie] across the spectrum of provocation, self-interest, and protecting others/something (like the peace, etc.).



#42
Heresiarch

Heresiarch

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 205 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

As I've mentioned before I strongly believe that all lies/bluffs and such should be either tagged or colour-coded. Not because it's an aid for a dumb player, but because it makes easier to get the intent of the author who wrote the dialogue correctly. This eliminates the annoying situations when lines mean not what you think they mean and saying seemingly harmless things results in a disaster. The problem is all the more prevalent with the recent approach of summarizing the lines (like in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and The Old Republic, in which it largely ruined the one and only decent experience the game had to offer), but it happened sometimes in BG as well.

 

Colour coding has already been done decently in Bloodlines. I see no reason why it can't be improved upon and used in PE.

image025.jpg


Edited by Heresiarch, 05 February 2013 - 09:46 AM.

  • JFSOCC, .Leif. and Greydragon like this

#43
Tale

Tale

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10993 posts
  • Location:Home is where the heart is, mine is in my chest.
  • Steam:Tale
  • PSN Portable ID:Taleroth
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Marking dialogue options only makes sense to me if you're making some sort of check. If there's a bluff skill, sure, mark it bluff.

But if there isn't, why bother? All dialogues should assume the player is telling the truth. Lies should be conclusions drawn by comparing the dialogue with the actions of the player. Lies should never be wholly determined by the one dialogue alone.

Whenever the player states something, assume he is being honest until contrary evidence exists. And then the player can be given a possible chance to explain.

As for disseminating information, I don't see the point there. Lying serves a purpose and there should be greater focus on why the player wants to lie than on whether or not they are lying. If the player wants to protect someone, it should be clear in the dialogue that's what's going on. If they're wanting to distract someone, that too should be clear. Those are far more important.

#44
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

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

But if there isn't, why bother? All dialogues should assume the player is telling the truth. Lies should be conclusions drawn by comparing the dialogue with the actions of the player. Lies should never be wholly determined by the one dialogue alone.

That only works with lies that are based on action. If they're strictly misinformation, then the game either has to arbitrarily provide ALL information to the player (even about things the characters may not even know about), OR prevent characters from lying by simply falsifying information.

If all lies were "I'm totally not going to kill you ever," then yes, I would agree. Until you kill that person, you're telling the truth. If you're intending to lie, you'll simply kill them. But it doesn't work for "I once led a team of miners out of a collapsed mine. I think I can get us through this forest." The game either has to say "Pssst! Your character never actually did that!", OR you have to play through every single detail of the character's past, beforehand, so that you know anything that wasn't in there is a lie, OR it could simply say "This line is your character lying" with some simple, efficient form of indicator (I'm still vying for font changes, especially after seeing that Bloodlines screenshot that used color-coding AND fonts.)

The game gains nothing by having the character know he's lying, and having the player guess, or trying to make sure you always relay all the necessary info to the player, beforehand, so he can perform solve the mini-mystery of what his character knows. It would be similar to not-knowing what our characters' abilities do, in combat, but being able to read about those abilities in the manual and in-game books (Mastering the Sword, The Fund-Ele-mentals of Magic, etc.). Then, saying "Well, the player should know what those abilities do, but we shouldn't hold the player's hand and TELL them in combat what an ability's range is, or how long it takes to cast/use..."

Granted, I'm only talking about choosable dialogue options, here. I don't think everything said should be marked with "Lie." But, if you have the power to pick it, then you should know what you're picking. Otherwise, we might as well have a little roulette wheel that we spin, then our character says something at random.

Edited by Lephys, 05 February 2013 - 01:43 PM.


#45
AGX-17

AGX-17

    (11) Wizard

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

Marking dialogue options only makes sense to me if you're making some sort of check. If there's a bluff skill, sure, mark it bluff.

But if there isn't, why bother? All dialogues should assume the player is telling the truth. Lies should be conclusions drawn by comparing the dialogue with the actions of the player. Lies should never be wholly determined by the one dialogue alone.

Whenever the player states something, assume he is being honest until contrary evidence exists. And then the player can be given a possible chance to explain.

Where'd you get the idea that the possibility exists that there would be no persuasion-type skills present in P:E?

It's practically a given that lying will be an option provided in dialogues, how is a rogue supposed to be a rogue without the ability to lie to people?

#46
Tale

Tale

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10993 posts
  • Location:Home is where the heart is, mine is in my chest.
  • Steam:Tale
  • PSN Portable ID:Taleroth
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Where'd you get the idea that the possibility exists that there would be no persuasion-type skills present in P:E?

Pass/fail systems like those are problematic. There's no problem with a rogues lying, but I definitely have a problem with only rogues, or those who have dedicated to increasing those particular skills, being the only ones able to lie successfully. One can use a system like 4E's where the unskilled lag behind a set value so all players can make reasonable attempts, but that doesn't resolve the save/reload problem.

It's practically a given that lying will be an option provided in dialogues, how is a rogue supposed to be a rogue without the ability to lie to people?

The ability to lie is not dependent upon a tag or skill check.

But it doesn't work for "I once led a team of miners out of a collapsed mine. I think I can get us through this forest."

I think it's just a silly scenario that has no reason to ever come up except to justify a lie tag. It could just as easily be "I can get us through this forest," no mention of the past. That line still does everything it needs to do. KIS. Keep It Simple.

All statements the player makes should serve a purpose. And the statements should be designed to fill that purpose. Is the player trying to get another character's trust? Is the character trying to get a character to do something? What do you see being fulfilled by the lie that isn't equally fulfilled by just leaving it open?

Let's look at the scenario. Characters are stuck in the woods. You want to let the player characterize themselves before leading people out. What kind of characterizations are good? Confident? "Let's get out of here!" Experienced? "I know how to get us out." Uncertain? "I don't know, but let us try." Reluctant "Maybe we should wait? What does the group think?" What does the lie about mine collapses serve? To boost morale? "I know how to get us out" does the same thing, true or not. And it doesn't matter if it's true if you never try to call in the lie. The player gets to formulate his own justification behind the statement that may differ from the author's intent.

Maybe you're thinking you'd like to call the lie out. To which I have to ask, why? The vast majority of lies should let the player get away with because it makes them feel they are successful at what they want their character to do, lying. And thus you can treat the lies and truth with the same outcome.
  • JFSOCC likes this

#47
OliverUv

OliverUv

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Wow, checking back after the next Update and y'all have had this great (and civil!) discussion! :) Certainly most important points of consideration have been covered, so this can hopefully be a good resource for Obsidian.

There are a few more points waiting to be made:

Having many colour codes is not just gaudy, it can also clash with cultures that ascribe different values to colours than our western culture (many asians connecting white and death, for example.) This could create confusion in some players.

In the dialogue editor, there'll probably just be a checkbox for the designer/writer to specify that a dialogue option is a lie/persuasion/etc - how this is displayed will not be difficult to let players configure (though it of course adds complexity both to UI and backend.)

Colour blind people are not a minority to ignore - red/green colour blinds comprise some 10% of the male population.

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.

I agree that we should, during the course of the game, get to know the PC, his back story, motivation and personality. However, I don't think a game will be especially engaging if we first have to read loads of back story and then go out and act based on that story. Because the story for any sufficiently developed character should be hundreds of pages long! Indeed, most good novels reveal the back story not just by explicitly telling it, but also by revealing it gradually by how the present unfolds.

Don't discount the [lying] mechanism as a medium for telling story! It isn't wrong for that to be the way you are made aware of this detail in the PC's back story - it is in fact a great way of both telling you the back story and furthering the story line at the same time. It could also be a great way to let you choose parts of the back story, for example:

- [Lie] I spent a year in pilgrimage and worked for two years in the Proclaimer chapel in Dustham, I'll take proper care of the temple while you're gone. (only visible if int > 8)
- [Lie] Of course father, I shall be The Proclaimer's dutiful servant.
- I spent a year in pilgrimage and worked for two years in the Proclaimer chapel in Dustham, I'll take proper care of the temple while you're gone. (only visible if character is Cleric and hasn't already _truthfully_ claimed to be of another faith)
- I'm sorry, I don't think I'm the right person for that. Perhaps you can wait a while; I am travelling to Inletsburg and might find an aspiring practitioner there who wishes to help.

With this example I've also tried to illustrate something else. Often, yes, it is important to let a character say something (truthfully or not) and then change his mind. This often makes it unimportant whether one is lying (e.g. "Yes, I will go do that quest.") However, other scenarios exist where nothing immediate happens but it is important to know whether you lied or not, because you decide some part of your character's story. The third conversation option makes use of a previously known true conversation statement. So: it was important to mark that previous conversation's statements as lie/truth, because they influenced the story you created for your character.

Now, having such dependencies between previous thuthhoods and falsehoods will make for a complex dialogue (and game) mechanics system indeed. Probably more complex than there has ever been in a cRPG before? (please right me if I'm wrong, because I'd really want to play those games)

I think that is what PE should aspire to. Nothing less.

#48
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I will put up one final defence for the colour coding and then leave it lying (pun not intended)
Colour-blindness, while a fair argument, does not apply to every colour. in fact the army used false colour-blindness tiles to pick out those who would cheat on the test in order to get discharged. (or some such)
Second, while it may be "gaudy" to have a gazillion different colours next to each other, when will that ever happen? How many "special" options do you expect to see next to eachother in any given conversation. Do you believe every conversation will immediately allow you to both seduce AND convince, AND intimidate AND lie AND bluff? Most of the time, I reckon you'd have one special option, maybe sometimes two, but only ever rarely three or more.
Finally, offending cultures? really. I don't think you can have artistic integrity and not offend at least someone in some way. You can't make everyone happy.
I'm perfectly ok with subdued colours.
  • Lephys likes this

#49
OliverUv

OliverUv

    (1) Prestidigitator

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

Do you believe every conversation will immediately allow you to both seduce AND convince, AND intimidate AND lie AND bluff?

I hope to one day see a single conversation option that includes all of those :D (sometimes an option can both be a bluff and an intimidation, or a bluff and a seduction, though, this is harder to represent with colouring than tags!)

Finally, offending cultures? really. I don't think you can have artistic integrity and not offend at least someone in some way. You can't make everyone happy.I'm perfectly ok with subdued colours.


Oh, sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Offending is the least of my concerns (the game must contain mature content with grey area morality to be interesting to an adult, imo.) What I'm saying is that while you may think red colour is obviously the violent intimidation option, that might not be so obvious to others. This can cause confusion if there are many options, but I guess that could easily be solved by showing what rolls/options are intended on mouse-over.

Frankly, I'd also be satisfied with subdued colours.
  • JFSOCC likes this

#50
OliverUv

OliverUv

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
(sorry for double post) Oh, also note that the example above does many things:
- Use [lie] to tell the PC's history.
- Use [lie] to effect change in the world.
- Does not lock us into a moral choice yet, we might actually try to take good care of the temple with the help of knowledgeable scribes, much to the chagrin of the rouges in our party, who'd rather just loot the place.

#51
Amentep

Amentep

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5210 posts
  • Location:Fawcett City
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Don't discount the [lying] mechanism as a medium for telling story! It isn't wrong for that to be the way you are made aware of this detail in the PC's back story - it is in fact a great way of both telling you the back story and furthering the story line at the same time. It could also be a great way to let you choose parts of the back story, for example:

- [Lie] I spent a year in pilgrimage and worked for two years in the Proclaimer chapel in Dustham, I'll take proper care of the temple while you're gone. (only visible if int > 8)
- [Lie] Of course father, I shall be The Proclaimer's dutiful servant.
- I spent a year in pilgrimage and worked for two years in the Proclaimer chapel in Dustham, I'll take proper care of the temple while you're gone. (only visible if character is Cleric and hasn't already _truthfully_ claimed to be of another faith)
- I'm sorry, I don't think I'm the right person for that. Perhaps you can wait a while; I am travelling to Inletsburg and might find an aspiring practitioner there who wishes to help.

 

The problem with this scenario - IMO - is that the player actually shouldn't have a choice in this; either the statement that the character is a Cleric with the appropriate background is true or its not. Adding the "lie" tag serves no purpose.

Where it might be purposeful is when the dialogue is for future events ("Yes I promise to go on a pilgrimage to Dustham's Proclaimer chapel if you let me into you vault today" essentially Wimpy's "I'll gladly repay you Tuesday if you buy me a hamburger today") The problem with this is if you stated a [lie] dialogue but then actually do it (or conversely state a truthful dialogue and forget to do it) then the lie tag is meaningless.

And why its meaningless is because lying is partially your intent and partially your veracity. But a game can't really understand your intent. It can understand your veracity (Player promised to pilgrimage to Dustham; 17 weeks passed, state is now "lie" => player now in poor standing with Clergy unless they make amends or explain why pilgrimage has been delayed). So to my mind the game should be designed - in situations where bluffing or similar come into play - to test the veracity of what the player says rather than their intent.


Edited by Amentep, 06 February 2013 - 07:34 AM.


#52
TRX850

TRX850

    (6) Magician

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

What if certain cursed items only allowed you to tell the truth in conversations? Or you could *only* tell lies?

 

I like it when two or more game concepts work together.  :dancing:


  • JFSOCC and OliverUv like this

#53
OliverUv

OliverUv

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Amentep: I agree with your point with regard to veracity vs intent. When possible, intent should be tested rather than specified by the player. I still believe the [lie] tag can serve as a useful story telling mechanism, especially when talking about the past, but possibly also in other scenarios. Perhaps a more fitting example:

- [lie] I served with the Rogue Banale in Dustham, your guild could use me.
- I served with the Rogue Banale in Dustham, your guild could use me.

Reiterating what I think is most important wrt lying: This type of dialogue can let the player dictate part of the PC's history from before the game started. This way players will be building their character's history and personality throughout the game, not just in the character creation screen. They have a more detailed say in it, instead of perhaps having the class and alignment (blech) determine the background completely.

Perhaps in this way we can avoid the now quite tired dichotomy of either 'player character entirely determined' or 'player character wakes up without memory.' It'd give the game some extra replayability, and a sense of the story (both its future and past) being dynamic. This at the expense of having to carefully design dialogues and gameplay to ensure consistency.

#54
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

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

But it doesn't work for "I once led a team of miners out of a collapsed mine. I think I can get us through this forest."

I think it's just a silly scenario that has no reason to ever come up except to justify a lie tag. It could just as easily be "I can get us through this forest," no mention of the past. That line still does everything it needs to do. KIS. Keep It Simple.

All statements the player makes should serve a purpose. And the statements should be designed to fill that purpose. Is the player trying to get another character's trust? Is the character trying to get a character to do something? What do you see being fulfilled by the lie that isn't equally fulfilled by just leaving it open?

Let's look at the scenario. Characters are stuck in the woods. You want to let the player characterize themselves before leading people out. What kind of characterizations are good? Confident? "Let's get out of here!" Experienced? "I know how to get us out." Uncertain? "I don't know, but let us try." Reluctant "Maybe we should wait? What does the group think?" What does the lie about mine collapses serve? To boost morale? "I know how to get us out" does the same thing, true or not. And it doesn't matter if it's true if you never try to call in the lie. The player gets to formulate his own justification behind the statement that may differ from the author's intent.

Maybe you're thinking you'd like to call the lie out. To which I have to ask, why? The vast majority of lies should let the player get away with because it makes them feel they are successful at what they want their character to do, lying. And thus you can treat the lies and truth with the same outcome.

 

I understand what you mean. That wasn't the best specific example, as I was just trying to point out the way in which such a lie would be presented, and I failed to present a necessary lie.

The idea I'm getting at is, sometimes you need to provide details to further convince people of things. Look at people trying to find a surgeon for a risky surgery. They don't just say "You shouldn't worry, because he's really good at surgery." People often say things like "He's performed over 1,000 successful open-heart surgeries. So you see? You have no need to worry, ^_^"

Just like foreigners fearful of an attacking army might be told "These walls have held off a number of armies greater than than the years of your life thus far."

The point is, you might need to present such info to bolster someone's confidence and alleviate their extreme doubt or fear, and sometimes YOU might trust the person who's doing something, but the other person knows nothing about them, and doesn't know you, either. So, saying "Trust me (a complete stranger), this other complete stranger is totally awesome at this!" isn't gonna cut it."

So, scenario:

You're helping some person escape from some dungeon, and they're FREAKING out. They don't know if you're criminals, or what. Maybe if you say "Look, he'll get us past those locks, don't you worry!", the person calms enough to come with you, but dies along the way (because he's still scared into ineffectiveness), or he just doesn't help you nearly as much with the rest of the escape (so, if you care about saving him, you've got to put up with protecting him while he just cowers around in corners, AND the lack of his fighting strength.) So, maybe you say "This guy once singlehandedly broke into the royal palace, stole an ornament from the princess's chamber, then got back out, all in the span of a guard shift change. I've never seen anyone as skilled as him." And now he isn't worried about being trapped in there, so he regains enough composure to ask for a weapon and help you fight your way out. Maybe he lives, and you run into him again down the line (maybe he provides more quest opportunities, or affects other quest circumstances in some way, *shrug*.)

The point is, HOWEVER the speech system is handled, I'd assume that ALL options aren't available to ALL people. So,

1) How do you even know that's taking advantage of your focus on deception progression if it doesn't tell you it's a lie?  and...

 

2) How do you even know whether or not your character simply knows that guy is that good and knows that the past event described actually happened?

 

The 1st is really more important.

 

Again, I maybe can't think of the absolute greatest scenario off the top of my head, but if you NEVER have a similar scenario, then what the hell does being a skillful liar accomplish over being a non-skillful liar? No characters will EVER be better at pulling off the believable delivery of a lie than other players?

 

Do salesmen get people to buy things by saying "Oh, it's really good, and you want it, trust me... I mean, it's just... it's SOOO good. It's a wonderful product!" No, they exaggerate the crap out of everything, at the very least (which is pretty much lying... it's deception), and the less reputable ones lie about things ("Sure, that won't break for like... 5 years!"). 

 

I just don't see the benefits of making sure nothing is tagged as a lie while negating ANY even remotely similar scenario, as opposed to making sure lie options (that you're deciding to choose in dialogue in lieu of other options) are clearly marked, and being able to have SOME amount of make-stuff-up-that-the-player-probably-doesn't-know-isn't-made-up-to-affect-people scenarios in the game. *shrug*

 

I think that IS keeping it simple. "If it has '(lie)', it's a lie. If it doesn't, it's not a lie." Instead of "Wait... he said he knows how valuable that jewel is... *flips through a bunch of lore and history*... is he lying? If he is, is it possible other people KNOW he's lying? Crap, I wanted to play a character who tells the truth. I could've picked another option for that very reason, had I known this one was a lie!"


  • Jarmo and OliverUv like this

#55
Jarmo

Jarmo

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1216 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Let's look at the scenario. Characters are stuck in the woods. You want to let the player characterize themselves before leading people out. What kind of characterizations are good? Confident? "Let's get out of here!" Experienced? "I know how to get us out." Uncertain? "I don't know, but let us try." Reluctant "Maybe we should wait? What does the group think?" What does the lie about mine collapses serve? To boost morale? "I know how to get us out" does the same thing, true or not. And it doesn't matter if it's true if you never try to call in the lie. The player gets to formulate his own justification behind the statement that may differ from the author's intent.

Maybe you're thinking you'd like to call the lie out. To which I have to ask, why? The vast majority of lies should let the player get away with because it makes them feel they are successful at what they want their character to do, lying. And thus you can treat the lies and truth with the same outcome.

 

Mine-woods scenario.

I'm not sure I'd care for skill checks, though maybe skill level checks in bluffing.

But assuming you really want the folks to follow you in the dark woods, extra bluffing might be required. Especially if you look a bit shady character.

Maybe a paladin or a knight wouldn't need to bluff at all, even when totally incompetent to lead anybody through the woods.

 

Anyway, so you lie and they follow you. If you're successful, they'll probaly forgive your white lie, but not if you fail.

You might end in some deep trouble, being accused of intentionally leading everybody to the trolls.

 

Purpose of lying is to convince people of something, or getting them to do something.

There should be other ways to reach the goal, though maybe not ways open to you or your character.

And if you resort to lying, maybe there will be repercussions later on, good or bad.

 

Anyway, it's about roleplaying mostly and (over)simplifying dialogue options is no great help in that.


  • JFSOCC likes this

#56
Tychoxi

Tychoxi

    Sciscitator of the Obsidian Order

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

Lying should be up to the player (like in New Vegas). Having two options ("Of course!" and "Of course! (lie)") made sense in Dungeons&Dragons settings where you had the chaos-law gimmick.

 

Speech checks to see wether the NPC believes you should be on things you say *after* the fact. So If I'm saying "Yes, of course I will do as you ask!", no speech checks should be present, even if I won't do it. If I'm saying "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" when in fact I didn't, a skill- or attribute- or whatever-check should determine wether the NPC buys my lies.



#57
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

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

Speech checks to see wether the NPC believes you should be on things you say *after* the fact. So If I'm saying "Yes, of course I will do as you ask!", no speech checks should be present, even if I won't do it. If I'm saying "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" when in fact I didn't, a skill- or attribute- or whatever-check should determine wether the NPC buys my lies.

How, then, would you handle a character putting a sword to an NPC's throat and saying "I'll slit your throat! I SWEAR IT!"? Is there no difference between various characters' abilities to say/gesture that convincingly? Should a bluff check only occur at the moment when you don't, in fact, slit that person's throat?

The problem with the "There shouldn't be 2 identical options, one marked (lie)" thing is the skill/stat check. If you are knowingly saying something untruthful, you have the same emotional/behavioral cues present when you first lie about it as you do when you lie about it in the future. So if that "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" warrants some kind of believability check, then so should the initial "Yeah, I'll totally do this thing you're asking me to do! In fact, I LOVE coconut!" should, too, if you're lying.

Now, if there's not going to be any check-representation to see if you get away with the lie, then there's no reason to have duplicate lines with "(lie)" indicators. However, that doesn't change the necessity in other scenarios/for other reasons.

#58
TRX850

TRX850

    (6) Magician

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

Can we not combine lying in conversation with this dialogue option now?


  • JFSOCC likes this

#59
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
^ Probably, :). Good point.

#60
Amentep

Amentep

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5210 posts
  • Location:Fawcett City
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Speech checks to see wether the NPC believes you should be on things you say *after* the fact. So If I'm saying "Yes, of course I will do as you ask!", no speech checks should be present, even if I won't do it. If I'm saying "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" when in fact I didn't, a skill- or attribute- or whatever-check should determine wether the NPC buys my lies.

How, then, would you handle a character putting a sword to an NPC's throat and saying "I'll slit your throat! I SWEAR IT!"? Is there no difference between various characters' abilities to say/gesture that convincingly? Should a bluff check only occur at the moment when you don't, in fact, slit that person's throat?

The problem with the "There shouldn't be 2 identical options, one marked (lie)" thing is the skill/stat check. If you are knowingly saying something untruthful, you have the same emotional/behavioral cues present when you first lie about it as you do when you lie about it in the future. So if that "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" warrants some kind of believability check, then so should the initial "Yeah, I'll totally do this thing you're asking me to do! In fact, I LOVE coconut!" should, too, if you're lying.

Now, if there's not going to be any check-representation to see if you get away with the lie, then there's no reason to have duplicate lines with "(lie)" indicators. However, that doesn't change the necessity in other scenarios/for other reasons.

 

1) Since the game won't allow you to literally grabbing a persons throat and putting a knife to it, that action has to be part of the text for the bluff.  [put sword to throat] I'll cut your neck like a ripe mellon.  Or something.

 

2) So if that "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" warrants some kind of believability check, then so should the initial "Yeah, I'll totally do this thing you're asking me to do! In fact, I LOVE coconut!" should, too, if you're lying. - contextually, however, the game can't assume what you mean to do - even when you tell it that; for example if there is a "Yeah I'll totally do this thing [lie]" option there's nothing in the game to prevent you from then "doing that thing". 

 

Why, then, should the game work under the assumption that you lied because you initially said you were lying?  What reactivity can the game have to the concept of your lying in the conversation at that point?  You've added an unnecessary level of dialogue complication when the truth about whether you lie or not is within your actions not in what you say (later, if confronted with something you agree to do that you haven't, the player should have the ability to bluff their way out of it).

 

I think you're walking down a bad path when you start trying to have your game understand the players motivations rather than their actions.


Edited by Amentep, 12 February 2013 - 06:09 AM.






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