Lies, lying in conversation

[jivex5k]

No color coding!

It's distracting and not helpful.

[Lephys]

 

 

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! .

 

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*

[AGX-17]

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 February 2, 2013 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

*Deleted*

 

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

Edited February 2, 2013 by Lephys

[Greydragon]

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.

[PoisonWar]

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.

[AGX-17]

 

 

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 February 3, 2013 by AGX-17

[Greydragon]

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. 

[moridin84]

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. 

[Lephys]

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 February 4, 2013 by Lephys

[moridin84]

 

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 February 4, 2013 by moridin84

[Lephys]

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 February 4, 2013 by Lephys

[JFSOCC]

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.

[moridin84]

 

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. 

[JFSOCC]

 

 

 

 

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"

[Ieo]

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.).

[Heresiarch]

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.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Heresiarch

[Tale]

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.

[Lephys]

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 February 5, 2013 by Lephys

[AGX-17]

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?

[Tale]

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.

[OliverUv]

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 >

- [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.

[JFSOCC]

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.

[OliverUv]

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.

[OliverUv]

(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.