30 réponses à ce sujet

[olivier leroux]

Recently, while playing an otherwise splendid SP module, I came across a slightly frustrating situation which reminded me of one of my pet peeves with NWN mechanics:

In my opinion Persuade, Bluff and Intimidate are basically the same skills in different disguises. It's a roleplay decision which method of influencing NPCs suits your character more and it's cool that you can choose between them. What I don't like about it is the combination of the following facts:

(1) You have to invest skill points in at least one of these categories in order to be able to persuade, bluff or intimitade.
(2) Just because you're good at bluffing doesn't mean you can persuade, too. You'd need to invest in both skills for that. It's questionable whether that would make a lot of sense, you're probably better off in choosing just one. That means you make the roleplay decision only once, on character creation, and not during conversations anymore.
(3) How many skill points you have to invest is dependent on the choices the mod author made. In some modules you won't need these skills at all because the author did not cater to them - all your skillpoints are wasted in this case. In other modules the Difficulty class of the checks is rather low, so that someone who has invested in one of the skills will always succeed at them; and then there are some where you need all the skillpoints you can get in order to have a chance at success. In some modules the skills are checked all the time, in others there might only be one or two situations where you actually need them. Unless the author warns you about these design decisions, you have no way of knowing whether it will be worth it to invest in these skills and how many skillpoints would be required on average.
(4) How fast you can build up your skill and how high it will get, also depends on your class choice. Some classes are supposed to be better at persuading, others at bluffing or intimidating. And some are challenged in all three categories.
(5) In most cases you don't need any of these skills to finish a module. Successful skill checks often lead to small xp, gold or item rewards you can probably live without, if need be. What I feel is often underestimated though is that from a storytelling point of view, the paths that include success at these skill checks are often a lot more rewarding than the paths where PCs fail to persuade, bluff or intimidate. That means if you care about the story and NPCs of a module and not just about material or OOC rewards, your enjoyment of parts of the game might be seriously hampered if you don't invest in these skills.
(6) From my experience, persuasion, bluffing and intimitadion are the most popular design choices to successfully deal with an encounter, apart from brute force. The other skills are very rarely used as alternatives on these occasions and seldom have such a big impact on the story; they're mostly just game mechanics that e.g. make combat more easier or other things more comfortable for you.

So I feel there's an imbalance in the relation of how accessible Persuade/Bluff/Intimitade are to all PCs on the one hand and the nearly monopolistc importance of these skills for a satisfactory storytelling and roleplay experience on the other hand.


What are your views on that? And how do you deal with it as a mod author?

Modifié par olivier leroux, 12 septembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[jmlzemaggo]

 "while playing an otherwise splendid SP module..."
First give us its name, and then only maybe I'll read the rest of your post... 

In the meantime... I rarely played a community module heavy on any of these skills. Tending myself to play mostly fragile but smart PCs, I'm very fond of the persusasion one, as I can't see my sorceress, who usually calls for a henchman to get rid of a simple fly, going for intimidation.
Beside? Persuasion is the skill generally chosen in many of the many modules I played, which suits me fine.
Beside? Bluffing is on the lying side and I've got some personal problem with lies, even within a game. Intimidating? I could kill an opponent in a game more easily than intimidate him. And it would take hours to explain why... but only a couple of seconds to simply state it. So, let's keep it simple.

I always went for "persuade" all along my NWN career, and never regretted it... so far.

Anyway, if you fail an unexpected as well as extremely rare, almost impolite, "bluff" check, just kill the guy. That's my "player only" motto, to save my soul from such a difficult decision.
Now... as the mod author I used to be... anything beautifully and strongly written, even in the wrongest direction, makes that particular "anything" more interesting... than the other way around.
Many authors give you some clues about their choice in that matter in their "Read me".
Another way to deal with it would be to "adjust" it, regarding what class you're actually playing...

Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 12 septembre 2010 - 05:37 .

[ehye_khandee]

I use each of these skills a good deal and very differently in my module / server. Pursuade is geared toward 'friendly/non-antagonistic' manipulation of interactions, it is linked to grifting (con man stuff for money or rumors). Intimidate is linked to extortion (similar to con man but antagonistic/threatening) and also is used as a gauge of if we should offer 'mean spirited' conversation options. Bluff is more about lying, we key the offering of untruthful options in convos to this skill, and also use it in many attempts to trick or deceive.



There are other uses too, but these are in the main the best I think.



Be well. Game on.

GM_ODA

[LeeMer47]

I usually don't use the three because the NPCs talking either will give the information freely, or are too powerfully minded to give up information they don't want to. I do use it though, mostly in monster conversations as you don't feel bad threatening or lying to a monster. There are rare ocassions when a human's personality allows bluffing or intimidation. I am more likely to use sleight of hand, performing and tumbling.



As a player my characters often have high enough intelligence for bonus points so I have excess points to use. So I put them in one or two helpful skills. Usually I have mages persuade, rogues bluff and fighters intimidate.

[olivier leroux]

jmlzemaggo wrote...

 "while playing an otherwise splendid SP module..."
First give us its name, and then only maybe I'll read the rest of your post... 

I'll recommend it to you in private. Check your PMs.

But the thread isn't really about discussing this particular module, it's about the system in general; about my observation that it's not fair to pit roleplay/storytelling related skills against combat/ease-of-use skills . I don't want to choose between the two categories, I want choices WITHIN these two categories. So while I like the choice between persuading, bluffing and intimidating, often the more important question is: Did you put skill points in ANY of these story-related skills at all or did you waste(?!) them on combat/ease-of-use skills?

Another point is, Persuasion, Intimidation and Bluff are roleplaying devices but the system works against this idea. Basically you just have to choose what skill you put points in, regardless of the situation at hand and no matter what the actual conversation option is, or fail and miss out on a satisfactory course of the story (depending on how the skills are integrated in the module). "Just kill that guy" if you don't manage to get an understanding (because you relied on the wrong skills and/or you got a bad dice roll) isn't my idea of satisfactory story...

Like I said, this isn't about getting the best reward out of a NPC but about serious things like finding satisfactory solutions to a problem or conclusions to a (side) story. If a module uses skill checks for these things at all, IMO it's more fun if there are alternatives to them that provide equally satisfying game experience; e.g. the use of different skills (not just different versions of the same skill choice),  puzzles, whatever. Combat, too, but it shouldn't end in tragedy. Also funny or interesting outcomes if a PC fails a check (instead of disappointing ones) etc. A gaming experience that doesn't lead to endlessly reloading and retrying because the player rightly feels there's only one good and one bad solution, success or failure.

And why does a sorcerer with heroic charisma still have to spend the double amount of skill points for these roleplaying/problem solving skills compared to other classes (and considering these skills are a must if you're in for satisfactory stories and roleplaying experiences)?

Modifié par olivier leroux, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:45 .

[ehye_khandee]

Always provide more than one way to an outcome. Always provide multiple outcomes. Rules I live by.

[jmlzemaggo]

I found those "conversation" skills very rarely used around NWN actually, so I'd rather have high tumble, hiding or move silently skill level at that point.

You should see my Rogue/Sorceress/Shadowdancer in action sometimes. The only problem is once you see her, you die most of the time. Wizard seems like a better choice at first, but I'm a big fan of that charisma idea, and I found it easier to deal with the spells, using just the one I need wathever situation comes up.

Beside, I always thought a high charisma was added to your persuasion check, doesn't it?

[Bubba McThudd]

I just use persuade and intimidate - the carrot and the stick - bluff seems redundant.

[olivier leroux]

jmlzemaggo wrote...
Beside, I always thought a high charisma was added to your persuasion check, doesn't it?

Yes, but if you rely on your charisma alone it won't get you very far with Persuasion. A character with 10 charisma and lots of skill points in Persuade is a better salesman than a character of the same level with high charisma but just average Persuade stats, I believe.

Maybe there should be a fourth variant, finally an influencing class skill for sorcerers: The Evil Eye!

Modifié par olivier leroux, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[Shadooow]

For SP I don't see any problems using all of them, now there is just question how high DC should be, if it will be low it will allow to sucess also for those who have not that skill as class skill, if high it won't allows bards/sorcerers to sucess without taking any skill ranks in those skills. Both ways have their own pros and cons however.



If we are talking about PWs... well these skills are baad.



First, the reward for success designed by module builder is in most cases not worth to putting points into those skills. Also, unlike lets say discipline these skills are used rarely (+ there are three skills so that makes it even more rare for character that can put points only into one) and they normally cannot be used in combat which makes them disadvantaging. Because everyone needs to fight, but not everyone needs to make quests etc.



Second, skills can be raised via bard song, ability boost, prayer, items... This makes these skills needless, especially if the DC is low (and it should be low), bard specifically can get what he wants just by maxing his charismy via items and spells and singing a song... Also in PW you need just one guy that have these skills to get what you want.



Third, I don't have skill points to spare at all. Now every good character needs some skills for combat use, discipline, councentration, spellcraft, tumble, taunt... If there is not true seeing then even spot and listen. Rogues needs hide move silently, open lock, disarm trap and search, now where the hell do I should get points for all of this??



Also the most stupid thing that can happen only at PW is the requirement to persuade some NPC vs DC 50+ to get key to the dungeon... Thats soo silly, especially if this is one of few usages of that skill. Now what will happen? Some player make character that can persuade that NPC, gets as many keys as possible and give them to his friends. If this is what you want, you should think again.

[ehye_khandee]

We provide many opportunities to use all available skills. Our BARDs frequently use grifting or carouse (both based on persuade skill and given bonus for cha mod) to gain info when 'new in town' and also for earning some cash when needed (some are total vagabonds). While we might allow one to obtain an important 'key' we also allow for a good pickpocket, a smart ambush, or even crafting a key by an EPIC rogue, among other methods.



While it can be very handy to have PCs with most all the skills in a party, it is not necessary that every PC have all the skills; viva la differance!



G

[Shadooow]

ehye_khandee wrote...

While we might allow one to obtain an important 'key' we also allow for a good pickpocket, a smart ambush, or even crafting a key by an EPIC rogue, among other methods.

G

Right, as long as the "social" skill is not the only option, its okay.

[FR Mulm]

There is a system on the Vault I was pointed to the other day by Kilana and her disguise system. It actually did a Synergy Bonus between the skills and something I am expanding on as well.



It kind of reminded me of the UMD Synergy bonus from Demetrious way back when I first started playing NWN.

[olivier leroux]

FR Mulm wrote...
There is a system on the Vault I was pointed to the other day by Kilana and her disguise system. It actually did a Synergy Bonus between the skills and something I am expanding on as well.

It kind of reminded me of the UMD Synergy bonus from Demetrious way back when I first started playing NWN.

Could you provide a link?

Modifié par olivier leroux, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Fester Pot]

I used these three skills in Almraiven and Shadewood but they were not the only options if one happened to miss out on the check.

Normally, the order went -

Bluff
Persuade
Intimidate

If one failed on bluff, persuade and intimidate was available, along with handing over dinars or casting a spell. If one failed on persuade, intimidate was available along with handing over dinars or casting a spell.

When all else failed, dinars was the option along with casting a spell.

For a Wizard/Sorcerer series, some did not like the fact that these skills were used because of cross class spending on points. Even so, having spells as Acid Splash, Charm Person, Electric Jolt, Fear, Ghoul Touch, Hold Person, Scare and Tasha's Hideous Laughter memorized offered a greater range of gathering information while offering dinars as payment was the quick and easy way - 5, 10 or 20 dinars.

Such a system was designed to avoid combat or gather information through conversation to move the story forward.

I personally enjoy modules that add these type of interactions for the player and a lot of that had to do with the release of Witches Wake, which really gave a little more to the player through conversation choices rather than pure hack and slash.

It's refreshing.

FP!

Modifié par Fester Pot, 13 septembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[olivier leroux]

FP, I agree if it's done the way you describe it. But with modules like yours I know beforehand that it it's very likely my PC will need these skills. Besides, the Auren trilogy is specifically created for wizards and sorcerers, so even if I'm required to spend a lot of skill points in Bluff etc., I know my sorcerer won't have any disadvantages because the game was designed with that in mind.

I think problems arise when you want to make your module enjoyable for as many different classes as possible and incorporate many different playstyles but then give only these three options to successfully master a critical situation, as if that would cater to all kinds of characters: the bluffers, the persuaders and the intimidaters. Actually it only caters to one kind of player though, the one who anticipated the need of sacrificing points to the social skills. And if you set the DC too high, some classes are at a serious disadvantage.

So it's a good idea to offer alternatives for PCs who are challenged in this regard and don't make players feel punished for choosing different skills than the ones you think they should have chosen (but never told them). Spells as alternatives for casters are pretty cool as part of that designing strategy.

And btw, Almraiven rocks! <3

[Dallo]

olivier leroux wrote...

In my opinion Persuade, Bluff and Intimidate are basically the same skills in different disguises.

Absolutely agree.  It's much better in Dragon Age, where mostly this stuff is handled by a single skill.

So I feel there's an imbalance in the relation of how accessible Persuade/Bluff/Intimitade are to all PCs on the one hand and the nearly monopolistc importance of these skills for a satisfactory storytelling and roleplay experience on the other hand.

I know that a lot of people disagree but I usually find the deployment of these skills in *traditional* roleplay in NwN to be a bit cheesy and/or plastic, and their apparent requirement by many players really cuts down a modder's options.  Story-driven modules with an emphasis on combat, for example, which seems to be most folks fave type of module, are particularly problematic for both designer and player.  A player can be provided items to help, perhaps, but that seems a bit contrived.  The higher the character level in a story-driven hack/slash, the worse the problem becomes.

I absolutely disagree that such checks should have a low DC.  Why bother having them if it's going to be so artificial?  However, you might also ask why have them at all, particularly in a combat-oriented module, if players are almost certain to have chosen combat/stealth-requisite skills at level ups for entirely pragmatic reasons (ie survival).

Btw, the module the OP is talking about is my own, Caereena - Krakona Rising... 

There's a very difficult persuade/bluff/intimidate check at a certain point in the module.  I tended not to use these checks often, at least not overtly, primarily because of the type of module it is and my general aversion to them anyway, believing that real story delivery doesn't actually require them, that they're largely artificial anyway.  However, in this particular instance, without spoilers, there is a bad guy, a particularly ruthless one, who has a confidence problem regarding something, and that the situation might be exploited if the PC is sharp-tongued enough.  Money or spell solutions simply won't cut it.  Given the nature of the bad dude the check had to be very high, and given the nature of the mod success was obviously going to be difficult for the majority of players.  I attempted to write it in that success was a very long shot, and the the scenario made that abundantly clear also, but obviously when there is a chance of success, especially when the stakes are a matter of life and death for someone, then it's reasonable for players to expect a realistic chance of siad success.

It was a very tough design scenario, precisely because of the skill mechanics in NwN/DnD... 

I think problems arise when you want to make your module enjoyable for
as many different classes as possible and incorporate many different
playstyles but then give only these three options to successfully master
a critical situation, as if that would cater to all kinds of
characters: the bluffers, the persuaders and the intimidaters. Actually
it only caters to one kind of player though, the one who anticipated the
need of sacrificing points to the social skills. And if you set the DC
too high, some classes are at a serious disadvantage.

Yep, you're right.  It was a very fair critique of the particular scenario in CKR.  To be truthful, in the end I came down on the side of general story flow ie I was happy enough for players to fail the check, and the innocent to suffer the consequences, if perhaps it steeled the players resolve against one particular side of the general conflict.

[rogueknight333]

Interesting topic, Olivier.

I think some of your problems with conversational skill checks stem from the fact that while the value of most skills and abilities are built-in to the game engine itself, that of these skills is not. Whether these skills have any value at all (and if so, how much) depends solely on the discretion of the module builder. So it is not surprising that many builders either do not bother with them at all, being focused on other things, or implement them in a perfunctory manner that does not have a lot of thought behind it.

As for problems like having two few skill points to divide among too many skills, or the conflicts between RP and "power" considerations in building a character, these come down to defects in either the D&D rules or NWN's implementation of them, which I certainly agree could have been better. If I were writing a ruleset from scratch I imagine I would do something like have a single "speechcraft" skill, have it modified by different attributes depending on the context in which it was used (e.g. strength for intimidation, charisma for persuasion), and have the same skill usable both in conversation and in combat as a version of  the "Taunt" skill...but writing a ruleset from scratch is not something most authors are going to find very practical. Even if they did I would question the desirabililty of routinely doing so in SP modules (PWs might be a different story), since I think it would be a bit much to expect players to learn a new ruleset for every module they download. And of course though other rulesets might be better in particular respects, no set of rules is going to be perfect: fixing one problem is likely to cause another. There are always trade-offs.

Speaking of trade-offs, though I also very much enjoy quests where there are multiple solutions allowing any type of character to get a satisfactory result, albeit in different ways, I am not sure all quests should be like that. If there is never any downside to not having a particular skill, than that skill is basically useless and there is really no reason for a player to bother with it at all. To me at least, it would considerably detract from the role-playing experience if playing radically different types of character made no important difference to anything that happened in a module.

Anyway, to answer your question about how I as a mod author handle this (techniques which for all I know could well use improvement):

-As much as possible, I try to create a RP-friendly environment where almost any skill or talent a player chooses to develop will at least occasionally have some use. This means that I provide numerous conversational skill checks of all three types, and in addition to any benefits specific to the particular check, I always provide some XP to the player simply for succeeding at them, to make them more rewarding and meaningful (there aren't any real alternatives to combat if combat is the only way to get XP).

-I include skill checks of varying difficulty, easy ones that anyone can succeed at with a good roll (and at which those who have made a significant investment in the skill are almost certain to succeed), medium ones where anyone who has made a significant investment has a decent chance at success, and difficult ones where only someone who has maxed out the skill, or close to that, will have a good chance at success. This I hope provides advantages both to players who make only a moderate investment in the skill (as for example when it is being developed as a cross-class one) as well as those who have made a maximal investment.

-For the most part, nothing that crucial hinges on success at these checks, just a little extra gold or whatnot. However, I do think that players who have made sacrifices to other skills in order to maximize their skill at conversation deserve an occasional reward for their dedication to role-playing their character in this way. So every now and then I will include a side-quest in which it is very difficult or even impossible to get a completely satisfactory outcome without having such skills (naturally this is only suitable, if at all, for optional sidequests, not something crucial to the main plot of the game).

[jmlzemaggo]

 @ Dallo
"Btw, the module the OP is talking about is my own, Caereena - Krakona Rising...  :)"
How in Hell did you find out about it! 

Some comments by Dallo, FP, and others here, all authors I actually played the modules from, make something quite clear: If the module is good, that means the author is not bad, and the way he is going to handle that "social" skills situation should walk along that same "smart" path than the module itself.
It's all about the way the module is written. And I'm not talking about the pen, but the brain.

Great modules tend to be great in every compartment.

[Dallo]

jmlzemaggo wrote...How in Hell did you find out about it! 

Hehe    Nothing psionic, I assure you.  Olivier posted a comment on the mod's boards.

If the module is good, that means the author is not bad, and the way he is going to handle that "social" skills situation should walk along that same "smart" path than the module itself.

Well, sometimes you can have a very good thought, and I think that the scenario in CKR which led the OP to start this thread is actually a pretty cool idea, however sometimes these good ideas can be poorly implemented, for whatever reason.  In this case, even though a skill check was necessary in my view, there hadn't been too many, if any, similar checks in the mod to that point.  Suddenly it pops up, is a very difficult one, and the vast majority of players would be absolutely unprepared for it, have no chance of success without cheating.  In a sense I broke one of my primary design philosophies ie always give the player what's required for victory, even if you hide it, disguise it somehow, make them work for it.

It's a clear point of what the OP is really on about ie the poorly designed DnD ruleset governing persuade/bluff/intimidate.  Even if I could I wouldn't change the design of the scenario in CKR because it makes perfect sense as is.  However, i could certainly wish to have been able to run an appropriate  check in a convo based on something that also aided combat.  Dragon Age uses things like coercion, a handy general skill, or checks for things like cunning modifier, where cunning is important in myriad other ways, including damage etc.

[olivier leroux]

rogueknight333 wrote...
To me at least, it would considerably detract from the role-playing experience if playing radically different types of character made no important difference to anything that happened in a module.

Well, I don't mean there shouldn't be any differences regardless of whether your checks are successful or not. It should definitely make a difference, by all means. I'm just saying both possible outcomes should be worthwhile for the player (if not always for the PC). If it's just about winning or losing, I don't see how that would make a module more interesting and replayable for different types of characters. At least not if you don't cater to other characters' fortes in the same way that you cater to socially skilled characters.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your detailed and insightful comments, Dallo and rogueknight333! And Dallo, since you called yourself out, let me stress that this was the first and only issue I ever had with "Caereena: Krakona Rising" during hours of hours of tremendously enjoying it.

Modifié par olivier leroux, 13 septembre 2010 - 01:18 .

[Dallo]

Cheers, mate!



The topic is an interesting one though and begs the question of just how a modder creating a (in particular) higher level, combat-oriented mod should address the issue. Even if the mod is designed for mid-range characters, say levels 9-15, then the issue is still pertinent. Should one use attribute checks instead ie charisma, intelligence, strength??

[olivier leroux]

I think it's okay to use these skills even in higher level combat-oriented mods but you should offer alternatives to them (see FP's example) or only use them for things of minor importance, that is slightly better rewards but not necessarily more rewarding story outcomes.

Or you could have certain conversation options only show up if a minimum of CHA, INT, STR etc. is found, so that PCs who don't meet the criteria won't even know there was a different way to solve the problem because it's never been an option to them anyway.

Or you could have social skill checks with lower or average DC but only make them available if players find the right path leading to them. So a player would only get the chance to make a (fair) dice roll after he/she roleplayed accordingly and chose convincing conversation options that are in line with the use of the following social skill. The check wouldn't be too hard but in order to get a chance at it, first the player would have to persuade, bluff or intimidate by consistent roleplay.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head...

In general, I'd have preferred a single social skill (after all they're all based on the same stat, CHA, if I'm not mistaken) and the option to use it for persuading, bluffing or intimidating dependent on the situation (a mod author could still use the labels "Persuade", "Bluff" and "Intimidate" but check for one skill only).

Another observation is that "Intimidate" is often used almost exclusively for threatening people with violence while you could also understand it differently. The choice between "Persuade" and "Intimidate" doesn't have to be a moral one, it could just lie in the tone. "Intimidate" could mean that your PC relies on his authority instead of his sympathy, e.g.

[Persuade] Come on, mate, you can tell me. Sharing it with a friend will make you feel better.
[Intimidate] I don't have time to lose! Cut the nonsense and tell me this minute! (without of the 'obligatory' "or I'll beat the *'% out of you!").

Modifié par olivier leroux, 14 septembre 2010 - 12:43 .

[jmlzemaggo]

 @ Dallo

What I meant by a "good module" isn't necessarily about the story, the thought, the idea, the technics. 
To me the rythm comes first, the music. 
Once you get yourself tuned to the author's song, but a song that belongs to your own discotheque, one that rings your very bell, you'll be playing the module like you play your own piano. But with four hands.
It's more about the way you cook than the recipe. 

Some modules talk to me as a player, some don't, and some do... but only after a good hour of suffering. We get to know each other...If the module talks about you, the author, it's gonna talk to us. If the module you're working on shows you some stuff you didn't even know about yourself, it's gonna hook us real tight... as well as telling you why you spent two years of your life making it...
If you smile while making it, so we will.
That is why I always considered moduling a very courageous act, almost fearless. Not so easy to show his ass in public... And if you're too scared too show all you've got, or even better, what just popped up in your mind, why doing it? Anyway, no one is gonna care for something we all know of already.
Personnally, making modules is one of the most interesting and personal act I ever accomplished.
Today I know why.
I still remember that very second I chose going nuts instead of making something "safe", which wasn't me.

And now I'm finally going silent... 

Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 14 septembre 2010 - 02:31 .

[Dallo]

jmlzemaggo wrote...

To me the rythm comes first, the music. 
Once you get yourself tuned to the author's song, but a song that belongs to your own discotheque, one that rings your very bell, you'll be playing the module like you play your own piano. But with four hands.

A reasonable definition of art...   I remember you leaving a very good rating on CKR too.  Glad we harmonized

I still remember that very second I chose going nuts instead of making something "safe", which wasn't me.

I hear you, mate, though sometimes the safe route is what your audience needs/wants.  It certainly is good to go nuts though 


@ Olivier

It's a pity that The Builders Project is pretty much defunct these days else I'd be leaning on you to whip up a piece for the Design Manual (ie Guide to Building - Part 2), using your own ideas plus the goodies proffered by rogueknight and Fester Pot 

Modifié par Dallo, 14 septembre 2010 - 06:56 .