Project Eternity to use a "Dispositions" morality system similar to Torment: Tides of Numenera's Tides

[Gfted1]

Then what are you saying? Color me confused too. It seems to me that you're objecting to this system because you can't tell beforehand how the NPC's are going to react to what you're saying. If this is in fact not what you're saying, I'd very much appreciate a clarification of your position. And if it is what you're saying, I'd appreciate you explaining your reasoning because the position doesn't make a lick of sense to me. "Entirely predictable" doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me!

I usually find replying to you to be unproductive but Ill give this a go. Im not objecting to anything. Im just some dude on the internet wondering aloud about the functionality of a game Im interested in. Sawyer mentions wanting to eliminate "whoopsy-daisies", which is a good thing to remove imo, and my mind wonders about how it will work out in this system. I wonder about a hidden "interpretation" column where the NPC interprets something the opposite of what I meant, but now Im completely unaware of that fact. I wonder if its better to have the "whoopsy-daisy" frontloaded, where I can see what my character said, than back loaded, where I don't know how the NPC interpreted it. Im just asking questions out loud.

[Prometheus]

 

I usually find replying to you to be unproductive but Ill give this a go. Im not objecting to anything. Im just some dude on the internet wondering aloud about the functionality of a game Im interested in. Sawyer mentions wanting to eliminate "whoopsy-daisies", which is a good thing to remove imo, and my mind wonders about how it will work out in this system. I wonder about a hidden "interpretation" column where the NPC interprets something the opposite of what I meant, but now Im completely unaware of that fact. I wonder if its better to have the "whoopsy-daisy" frontloaded, where I can see what my character said, than back loaded, where I don't know how the NPC interpreted it. Im just asking questions out loud.

 

The npc has no hidden interpretation.

e.g. If you threaten somebody they will react as in any other game. A mafia boss would maybe just laugh or even attack you but a normal peasant would give you what you want. If you threaten enough people some people you meet in the future will react to it.

It's similiar to delayed consequences from finished quests, e.g. if you kill somebody in act one you will get the reward for this quest, but his sister you will not meet before act 3 will react to it and will try to kill you instead of giving you useful information.

[SophosTheWise]

 

 

Here's the difference between playing with the rep tags on and off.

 

[benevolent] "You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

vs.

 

"You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

As in the IE games, what you pick is exactly what your character says/does.

 

And how does it work with skill tags? 

I remember being confused by Baldur's Gate I where you want to get into the bandit camp and you can say something like "Let me join you!" So I basically thought that my character was sincere and not lying. 

 

Thus, how about:

 

"Let me join you!" [Lie]

"Let me join you!" [Truth]

 

i dont think it matters if it is a lie or not. the result will be determined by what you do after you "join".

 

Let me join you!

 

you act like a proper bandit and go along with them, you get result A

you backstab them at the most opportune time, you get result B

you fail to be convincing as a bandit, you get result C

 

no matter what the reason behind joining, you asked to join them and you did, in order to get to the result you seek

 

 

I'd say it matter skillwise. If you have to use a bluff skill, your bluff could fail. Other than that, I think your proposition is a bit too complicated. What if just joining me gives me certain reputational points that I didn't want to have in the first place? Just because the game doesn't differentiate between sincere joining and the lie?

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Here's the difference between playing with the rep tags on and off.

 

[benevolent] "You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

vs.

 

"You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

As in the IE games, what you pick is exactly what your character says/does.

 

And how does it work with skill tags? 

I remember being confused by Baldur's Gate I where you want to get into the bandit camp and you can say something like "Let me join you!" So I basically thought that my character was sincere and not lying. 

 

Thus, how about:

 

"Let me join you!" [Lie]

"Let me join you!" [Truth]

 

i dont think it matters if it is a lie or not. the result will be determined by what you do after you "join".

 

Let me join you!

 

you act like a proper bandit and go along with them, you get result A

you backstab them at the most opportune time, you get result B

you fail to be convincing as a bandit, you get result C

 

no matter what the reason behind joining, you asked to join them and you did, in order to get to the result you seek

 

 

I'd say it matter skillwise. If you have to use a bluff skill, your bluff could fail. Other than that, I think your proposition is a bit too complicated. What if just joining me gives me certain reputational points that I didn't want to have in the first place? Just because the game doesn't differentiate between sincere joining and the lie?

 

 

I have such vision in my mind that Josh or somebody else in PE team has stated that there is no diplomacy/speech skills in PE.

[Tamerlane]

 

 

 

Here's the difference between playing with the rep tags on and off.

 

[benevolent] "You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

vs.

 

"You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

As in the IE games, what you pick is exactly what your character says/does.

 

And how does it work with skill tags? 

I remember being confused by Baldur's Gate I where you want to get into the bandit camp and you can say something like "Let me join you!" So I basically thought that my character was sincere and not lying. 

 

Thus, how about:

 

"Let me join you!" [Lie]

"Let me join you!" [Truth]

 

i dont think it matters if it is a lie or not. the result will be determined by what you do after you "join".

 

Let me join you!

 

you act like a proper bandit and go along with them, you get result A

you backstab them at the most opportune time, you get result B

you fail to be convincing as a bandit, you get result C

 

no matter what the reason behind joining, you asked to join them and you did, in order to get to the result you seek

 

 

I'd say it matter skillwise. If you have to use a bluff skill, your bluff could fail. Other than that, I think your proposition is a bit too complicated. What if just joining me gives me certain reputational points that I didn't want to have in the first place? Just because the game doesn't differentiate between sincere joining and the lie?

 

As has been said, there are no conversation-specific skills (though skills and attributes can still play in to combat).

 

Besides that, if you lie to someone about joining a bloodthirsty bandit group, why wouldn't you get "is a cruel, bloodthirsty bandit" reputation? Wasn't that the whole damn point? If you don't want people to think of you as a bandit, you probably shouldn't be pretending to be a bandit.

[PrimeJunta]

 

Then what are you saying? Color me confused too. It seems to me that you're objecting to this system because you can't tell beforehand how the NPC's are going to react to what you're saying. If this is in fact not what you're saying, I'd very much appreciate a clarification of your position. And if it is what you're saying, I'd appreciate you explaining your reasoning because the position doesn't make a lick of sense to me. "Entirely predictable" doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me!

I usually find replying to you to be unproductive but Ill give this a go. Im not objecting to anything. Im just some dude on the internet wondering aloud about the functionality of a game Im interested in. Sawyer mentions wanting to eliminate "whoopsy-daisies", which is a good thing to remove imo, and my mind wonders about how it will work out in this system. I wonder about a hidden "interpretation" column where the NPC interprets something the opposite of what I meant, but now Im completely unaware of that fact. I wonder if its better to have the "whoopsy-daisy" frontloaded, where I can see what my character said, than back loaded, where I don't know how the NPC interpreted it. Im just asking questions out loud.

 

 

Fair enough. I hope you've had some of those mysteries elucidated in this thread, at least.

 

If you have any suggestions on how to converse more productively, please let me know about that too. I'm open to most suggestions, although "enthusiastically agreeing with everything" is probably off the cards.

[mcmanusaur]

 

Then what are you saying? Color me confused too. It seems to me that you're objecting to this system because you can't tell beforehand how the NPC's are going to react to what you're saying. If this is in fact not what you're saying, I'd very much appreciate a clarification of your position. And if it is what you're saying, I'd appreciate you explaining your reasoning because the position doesn't make a lick of sense to me. "Entirely predictable" doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me!

I usually find replying to you to be unproductive but Ill give this a go. Im not objecting to anything. Im just some dude on the internet wondering aloud about the functionality of a game Im interested in. Sawyer mentions wanting to eliminate "whoopsy-daisies", which is a good thing to remove imo, and my mind wonders about how it will work out in this system. I wonder about a hidden "interpretation" column where the NPC interprets something the opposite of what I meant, but now Im completely unaware of that fact. I wonder if its better to have the "whoopsy-daisy" frontloaded, where I can see what my character said, than back loaded, where I don't know how the NPC interpreted it. Im just asking questions out loud.

 

Gfted1 in Wonderland^TM

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

I'd say it matter skillwise. If you have to use a bluff skill, your bluff could fail. Other than that, I think your proposition is a bit too complicated. What if just joining me gives me certain reputational points that I didn't want to have in the first place? Just because the game doesn't differentiate between sincere joining and the lie?

 

nope! to say "i want to join you", does not require any particular skill, and wether you choose [lie] or [truth], does not change the fact that you can take either approach after you join. to bluff by saying "i have a crossbow under my cloak and im pointing it at you, so dont make any funny moves" requires skill with both words and the use of your arm under your cloak to make it look like you actually have a crossbow, so saying it without the apropriate skill will fail to convince the other guy

[Karkarov]

 

That is where human nature comes in.  If you know one dialog option is going to result in you doing some soap box moralizing and the guy you are talking to is a hard baked mercenary who has been in his line of work for over a decade.... Well just don't be stunned when he isn't impressed by your speech.  You need to consider three things in your choices (just like alpha protocol) what do I want to play my character like, do I want to piss this person off or get on their good side, and what do I want to get out of this encounter short/long term?

That's quite a leap of faith. Each "interpretation" seems to offer a good / neutral / bad option to the recipient so I wouldn't assume to know their motivations or decade long back history.

 

It isn't that complex.  Just use common sense.  If you are in a bar full of drunks in the middle of a cities slum do you think making a straight and narrow high moral ground arguement with the people around you is likely to be effective?  When you are ambushed by a bunch of hobgoblins wearing human heads on their belt do you think trying to be charismatic and suave or violent and intimidating is going to work?

[PrimeJunta]

Also, at times the uncertainty is all part of the game. It'd be boring if the "right" options were always obvious. They might as well not put in any "wrong" ones in that case.

[Fearabbit]

 

 

 

 

Here's the difference between playing with the rep tags on and off.

 

[benevolent] "You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

vs.

 

"You seem to have learned your lesson. There's need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

As in the IE games, what you pick is exactly what your character says/does.

 

And how does it work with skill tags? 

I remember being confused by Baldur's Gate I where you want to get into the bandit camp and you can say something like "Let me join you!" So I basically thought that my character was sincere and not lying. 

 

Thus, how about:

 

"Let me join you!" [Lie]

"Let me join you!" [Truth]

 

i dont think it matters if it is a lie or not. the result will be determined by what you do after you "join".

 

Let me join you!

 

you act like a proper bandit and go along with them, you get result A

you backstab them at the most opportune time, you get result B

you fail to be convincing as a bandit, you get result C

 

no matter what the reason behind joining, you asked to join them and you did, in order to get to the result you seek

 

 

I'd say it matter skillwise. If you have to use a bluff skill, your bluff could fail. Other than that, I think your proposition is a bit too complicated. What if just joining me gives me certain reputational points that I didn't want to have in the first place? Just because the game doesn't differentiate between sincere joining and the lie?

 

As has been said, there are no conversation-specific skills (though skills and attributes can still play in to combat).

 

Besides that, if you lie to someone about joining a bloodthirsty bandit group, why wouldn't you get "is a cruel, bloodthirsty bandit" reputation? Wasn't that the whole damn point? If you don't want people to think of you as a bandit, you probably shouldn't be pretending to be a bandit.

 

 

I hate these overly long quotes at the begining of a post, but I just want to add to this whole discussion:

 

First, I don't think you should get a bad reputation for pretending to be a bandit unless you actually get to rob people. This part is often screwed up when it comes to quests where you pretend to be someone you're not or where you have a secret identity - how would people come to think that you're a bandit when they've never seen you hang out with bandits or rob people? Think of Oblivion or Skyrim, where people might never see you stealing things and yet throw insults at you for being a thief of the Thieves Guild.

A bad game will tell you: "Yes you can pretend to join the bandits, but the downside is that as soon as you join, you will get a bad reputation for being a bandit. THIS GAME HAS CONSEQUENCES YOU KNOW."

A good game will not change your reputation unless you actually go so far that you get involved with the criminal activities of the bandits you're infiltrating.

 

Second, I think it's important that the player gets an indication that the game "gets" what he's trying to do. If there's only the dialogue line "Let me join you!", the player doesn't know if choosing this option means that you actually become a bandit or if it also means that you can just pretend to be one to get into their camp.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that deciding whether the things you say are lies or not is up to the player. But you have to tell the player somehow that there is such a choice to make. And you better don't design a quest and then forget that people might have these hidden motivations.

Say the player chooses "Let me join you!" and expects to be able to betray the bandits, because it makes sense for his character to do something like that. The game, however, thinks that you actually want to become a bandit, so it gives you a "Bandit" reputation. And even if you wipe out the whole bandit camp, this reputation doesn't go away. Or if you don't wipe them out, but steal some important item and then run away, but the bandits still treat you as one of their own. And even though you have crucial inside information about heists the bandits are planning, you can't tell the guards about them.

 

These situations can be very frustrating. So "Let me join you! [Lie]" as a second option that also alters your quest objectives accordingly is a good compromise. Another way to do it would be a quest entry "I've joined the bandits. They trust me now. I can either play along or betray them.", but I think that kind of ruins the immersion, because it suggest that even your character who actually really wants to be a bandit still strongly considers betraying them for no reason at all, and vice versa.

Maybe the best thing to do would be something like "Let me join you! [Lie or Truth]". I don't know.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Fearabbit

[Tamerlane]

Not a single bit of what you said actually necessitates - or is even significantly changed by - the inclusions of a [lie] tag.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Fearabbit]

Not a single bit of what you said actually necessitates - or is even significantly changed by - the inclusions of a [lie] tag.

 

Well, I presented the argument that a [Lie] tag suggests to the player that the game is considering this possibility at all. Thus the player is assured that they will see a satisfactory quest development that coincides with their motivations.

I did say that there are other options, but that the ones I can think of don't convince me... so there are two possible responses to my post: Either argue that communicating to the player that there are multiple ways to play out this quest is unnecessary, or provide a better option than the [Lie] tag. You didn't do either right now, so excuse me if your post doesn't convince me.

[Tamerlane]

At the risk of making the smuggest/ass-kissing-est post ever:

 

There's a better tag than "lie". It's called "Obsidian".

[teknoman2]

>A good game will not change your reputation unless you actually go so far that you get involved with the criminal activities of the bandits you're infiltrating.

as you said yourself.

so the game will not make you *known* as a bandit, if you just say "Let me join you". it will give the reputation, if you follow the bandits on a raid and attack a caravan. at least that's how obsidian games have been made so far

[Mor]

First, I don't think you should get a bad reputation for pretending to be a bandit unless you actually get to rob people.

If I say that "I love FPS, especially Call of Duty and hate classic RPGs", will it matter that I made it up or will I get a bad reputation around here?

 

Second, I think it's important that the player gets an indication that the game "gets" what he's trying to do. If there's only the dialogue line "Let me join you!", the player doesn't know if choosing this option means that you actually become a bandit or if it also means that you can just pretend to be one to get into their camp.

I think you'll have the option to choose if you want those Tags On or Off, but keep in mind that Dispositions are about how people perceive you, not how you want them to. so Tags On is basically a cheat to help you get your way in dialogue. Edited November 17, 2013 by Mor

[teknoman2]

i dont think your example about FPS is right

if you join some bandits for whatever weason, you will do it in an out of sight alley or in the forest, not in the middle of the town and shout it loudly for all to hear. and of course the bandits will not sent out messagers to every village to inform them of your decision to join

[PrimeJunta]

So what will you be doing when pretending to be a bandit? Toasting marshmallows around the campfire?

 

I think it's more likely that you'll be doing bandit stuff, at least being seen with the bandits. That ought to get you a rep.

[jethro]

These situations can be very frustrating. So "Let me join you! [Lie]" as a second option that also alters your quest objectives accordingly is a good compromise.

Your argument that [lie] is a hint by the game designers that they thought off everything (especially that you could be lying) is tempting. But on the other hand your insecurity comes from bad, sloppy RPGs. In a quality product (and lets assume that Obsidian is able to do that) this oversight would be a major bug. Almost impossible to overlook, this would have been eradicated in beta testing at the latest.

 

So the other solution is just to assume that "Let me join you" has the same potential truth as "I will bring back the medallion of uberpower you lost in the dungeon and give it back to you for the awesome reward of 10 gold pieces" and "Tell us about your unholy rites and we will not harm you"

Edited November 17, 2013 by jethro

[Fearabbit]

If I say that "I love FPS, especially Call of Duty and hate classic RPGs", will it matter that I made it up or will I get a bad reputation around here?

 

If an argument doesn't apply to the situation you have in mind, it's always good to consider if the other person maybe had a different scenario in mind, instead of directly jumping to the conclusion that the argument is bad.

Basically, what teknoman said - I was talking about a scene where you're in a forest, in front of a bandit camp, and you need to get access to the camp so you pretend that you want to join them. Or you can actually join them.

 

If you're running around town saying "I'm a bandit", yeah your rep would suffer for that. That seems kind of obvious.

 

PrimeJunta - I was saying that there has to be a good reason for getting bad rep. That's all. If the bandits are in town and you ask them to take you as a recruit in front of a crowd of people, you should get a reputation for that. If you do it in a secluded area, you shouldn't. But when you do quests that involve robbing people, you should. It's really simple and intuitive, and I was only pointing it out because people kept saying that of course joining the bandits should give you bad rep.

 

 

 

I think you'll have the option to choose if you want those Tags On or Off, but keep in mind that Dispositions are about how people perceive you, not how you want them to. so Tags On is basically a cheat to help you get your way in dialogue.

 

Different kind of tags. The ones I was talking about aren't cheats, they're a form of communication between the game and the player. There's no way of telling whether "I want to join" is meant as a lie or not, whereas you can guess that "I'm going to kill you slow and painfully" or something like will be a "Violent" response.

 

jethro and Tamerlane - Regarding the "Obsidian is good and this won't be a problem" thing. I've seen this happen in the best RPGs. And yes, I believe a few Obsidian RPGs suffered from it as well, I seem to remember something like that in NWN 2 for example.

But I'm actually not worried. I was responding to the discussion going on, which wasn't about P:E directly and more about RPGs in general.

[Mor]

i dont think your example about FPS is right

if you join some bandits for whatever weason, you will do it in an out of sight alley or in the forest, not in the middle of the town and shout it loudly for all to hear. and of course the bandits will not sent out messagers to every village to inform them of your decision to join

Many quest take place in secluded locations or leave no witness alive(that you can see), regardless no matter in which direction you go everyone already knows about your reputation change... My example was only intended to show that its about how people react to you, not be taken too literally. I am certain that you can come up with several scenarios, in which people would learned about your involvement even without you actually doing the deed.

 

 

Different kind of tags. The ones I was talking about aren't cheats, they're a form of communication between the game and the player. There's no way of telling whether "I want to join" is meant as a lie or not, whereas you can guess that "I'm going to kill you slow and painfully" or something like will be a "Violent" response.

If you mean tags that entone your response to differentiate between two similar lines(e.g. threatening or submissive tone) then sure, but as I understand whether you lie or not about joining is up to you to RP in your head, your disposition will be determined by how you are perceived and your actions will speak for your reputation rating. Edited November 18, 2013 by Mor

[Fearabbit]

If you mean tags that entone your response to differentiate between two similar lines(e.g. threatening or submissive tone) then sure, but as I understand whether you lie or not about joining is up to you to RP in your head, your disposition will be determined by how you are perceived and your actions will speak for your reputation rating.

 

 

Yeah, the thing about the [Lie] tag is more about quest design and communicating different possible objectives, it's not connected to the disposition and reputation system.

[Karkarov]

Lie tags have been and always will be stupid.  It is far easier to just give the option to "Let me join you on your bandit raid!" then we you actually get to the raid part let the player act as they choose.  If they go along and pillage obviously they weren't lying.  If they stop and slaughter the bandits in a surprise attack well.... they were lying.

[Wombat]

As for finding most sutiable words for the PC dialogues, the character archetypes presented here feel somehow generic.  For Alpha Protocol, the designers looked into existing popular spy genre works and narrowed down to three archetypes.  Thinking of it now, D&D alignments can be translated into representative archetypes in pop fantasy genre-hero (lawful good), antihero (chaotic good), Machiavellian (lawful evil) and psychopath (chaotic evil), even if they are often presented as simpler good vs evil options in CRPGs (Then again, which is often the main theme of pop escapist fantasy works).  Torment's tides reflect personal values for how to live, which is tightly related to the main theme.  So, although they seem to be very different, all of them are built around the themes which can be expected for possible story development of each work, which helps the player find　most suitable lines for their liking.  If the designers went for genuine social simulation without any theme, there would never be enough archetypes for such an ambitious project.

[Lephys]

So we don't need lie tags on every single thing that could potentially be intentionally false? Splendid.

 

So that means lie tags are completely and utterly pointless and never useful, because of one example? Really?

 

How's about dialogue lines associated with actions? Such as "Here, I'll totally give you this artifact."? How do you, the player (who isn't performing the action" know whether or not you're actually giving the actual artifact, or are giving a faux artifact?

 

The [lie] tag differentiates between what the character knows (that the player should) and what the character doesn't know. So, if there's ever a situation in which the player isn't in direct control of what action their character actually takes with respect to what action the character claimed he would take (or, if there's not really a distinct delay between the action and the claim, so that they make since to be chosen simultaneously... or if the "action" and claim are one -- simply the delivery of true or false information right then and there), then [lie] (or other appropriate tags) would be extremely welcome.

 

On a related note... I think those "You've just breathed your last breath (ATTACK!)" options could use an update. I think that, at least sometimes, they should provide you with some kind of initiative boost/ambush opportunity. I mean, you're talking, and then BOOM! Attacking is occurring. Sure, if it was tense already, and everyone was expecting an attack anyway, then no bonus. But, if not? Why shouldn't you get to choose a skill to use or something? Or an attack/action to take? And you get to perform that FIRST, before everyone else gets to react? Or, I mean... at least if they're not super reflexive. Maybe a skill check is involved. *shrug*. I just happened to think about that, with all this talk of specific dialogue options indicating what you're doing as opposed to what you're saying.

 

Also, the lie tag is not the only one that would be useful at times. Often, you run into one of those lines that, in text form, COULD be polite and sincere, or COULD be terribly derisive. I just think the player should never have to guess what's actually going on. If that means that sometimes the game needs to inform you, via the dialogue interface, of what exactly it is you should know about what's going on, then so be it.