330 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess my question is why isn't it enough to know the gist? If I know enough about the choices so I'm choosing the same option I'd choose if I did know the exact lines, I don't see how knowing the exact line would be helpful to me.

I don't even know what "the gist" means in this context.  So my answer is two-fold.

If "the gist" is just the general content of the spoken line, I don't think we do know that.  I typically don't know what the paraphrase and icon are trying to tell me.  That line at the start of DA2 about the dead sibling being with father now came completely out of nowhere.

But let's assume we do know that.  Let's assume BioWare somehow explains how we're supposed to interpret the icon+paraphrase to discern "the gist".  If that happens, I still don't know enough about the choices to be able to construct a coherent reason for why my character is choosing it.  If I decide to let the slavers go, why am I doing that?  I need to know that before I choose to let them go, otherwise I might not choose to let them go.

For BioWare to have so dramatically changed how we select dialogue options, they should have made some effort to teach us how to do it.  I still have no idea how to use the wheel/paraphrase system.

[Icesong]

In Exile wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Or you don't apologize, you don't have a conversation, and no one cares for long.

This is well-known from everyday life.

Or you do, and you do care. This is also well-known from everyday life. It's almost like people react differently. But that would be absurd! Obviously social interactions only work one way.

Yeah, this is weird. The point you're arguing here is exactly the one I'm using against you.

You've doomed them to being misunderstood in that situation. And if I don't want to do that? That's the problem with the gameplay system.

If you don't want to be misunderstood, then don't make the decision I did to be misunderstood. 

That was a hard one to solve.

You'll never have a conversation with Morrigain or Alistair after Flemeth's hut? 

Yeah, I will. I missed your point here if you had one.

[In Exile]

Icesong wrote...
Yeah, this is weird. The point you're arguing here is exactly the one I'm using against you.

Good job! You're almost there. Now, have you realized how your opinion on how conversations work is your opion, and not a fact?

If you don't want to be misunderstood, then don't make the decision I did to be misunderstood. 

That's not how it works. I think the intent of the line is [x]. The result is impossible based on that intent. So now there is a problem. The game won't let me correct it. Which means I have to reload.

This isn't a "decision" the player makes. The game makes it for you.

Yeah, I will. I missed your point here if you had one.

My point is that I don't have problems interacting with people, and I don't refuse to talk to other people if they've misunderstood me once because I'm not coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

Modifié par In Exile, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I don't think you can deny that "the gist of the line" and "the line" are not the same thing.

I'm not. That's obviously true. But that doesn't mean that you need "the line" to get what the line means.

I'll certainly concede that.

But I also cannot imagine a paraphrase for anything other than a very simple line that captures all of the details of that line.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If "the gist" is just the general content of the spoken line, I don't think we do know that.

We do. But you refuse to work of social context and social information.

That line at the start of DA2 about the dead sibling being with father now came completely out of nowhere.

That's one of the worst paraphrases Bioware's ever written. It's impressively bad.

If that happens, I still don't know enough about the choices to be able to construct a coherent reason for why my character is choosing it.

The "gist" is enough to know why, because if you knew how to go from gist to content, then you would know the content. Insofar as a spoken line is ever enough for you to come up with a coherent reason, you would have it.

For BioWare to have so dramatically changed how we select dialogue options, they should have made some effort to teach us how to do it.  I still have no idea how to use the wheel/paraphrase system.

Bioware isn't responsible for the atypical assumptions you make about conversations. For one, you need to appreciate that most don't treat conversations as an attempt to convey the least information possible, and Bioware games aren't designed to support that style.

[Dysjong]

I like the dialog wheel but i also believe that it could improved.

Idea: the wheel shows up, giving the player some topics he/she can choice from. To make it simple we call the topics 1, 2, 3 and 4. Next comes the second part of the wheel, the one that shows the players attitude or tone in how the player wanna ask about the topic, let us call it X, Y and Z. From there if the player wanna know about topic 2, the player then choice how to ask or react about this. The outcome depends on who you are talking with, some would respond because the player intimidated the NPC, while others might be angry, either drawing steel or make life for the player a bit more miserable.

Well, it was just my idea/brainstorm.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
The thing is, you actually can hide that information (the VS brings it up instead).

You're not hiding it, then. Let me put it another way: from the POV of the designers, there's no substantive difference in the trigger for the conversation, because the information doesn't stay hidden.

But I actually think this the key difference between our styles that leads to the discussions over the lines. To me, expression is about purpose: what do I want, and how am I going to get it. To you, expression is about content: what am I saying, and what do I think it is conveying.

To me, DA:O's dialogue is very bad: it makes it very hard for me to do things with dialogue, to use it as a tool. But you don't see conversation as a means to an end.

And you're still getting the gist of the conversation with the paraphrases (As the focus of Shepard lines is not his affiliation with Cerberus). That's why detail is important. Because otherwise, you might not even know that the option exists, and it does.

I don't think we're using gist in the same way. But that's my point about purpose: the idea is that the conversation is a tool. 

It is one thing to not be given the option to have the character express certain things. It is another entirely different thing to have the character volunteer information you didn't want him to (when the option to not do it exists) simply because "the gist of it" didn't include that bit - the casual way in which Shepard drops it is meant to imply that it's not important for the argument he's making at the point.

Right, but again, it's conversation as a tool. This is just an interesting personality differnce.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Icesong wrote...

If you don't want to be misunderstood, then don't make the decision I did to be misunderstood. 

That's not how it works.

Oh, but it is.  This is a mistake you've been making for quite some time.  Let's go through your reasoning step by step.

I think the intent of the line is [x].

Okay, that's fine.  That's a necessary step if you play like Icesong or me.

The result is impossible based on that intent.

There's your mistake.  Why is it impossible?  How could you possibly know that?

the mistake here is in assuming that any unexpected reaction is the result of a misunderstanding.  Perhaps the NPC understood you fine, but still (for some reason unknown to you, because you can't read the NPC's mind) reacted in an unexpected way.

That's the possibility you're dismissing out of hand, and that's why you don't understand the gameplay approach.

The game won't let me correct it.

That's a limitation of the medium you generally appear willing to accept.  You don't get to say all of the things you want to say.  Acceptance of this is a big part of your entire gameplay approach (where you let the game tell you what you say or mean, rather than deciding it yourself).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:39 .

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
The thing is, you actually can hide that information (the VS brings it up instead).

You're not hiding it, then. Let me put it another way: from the POV of the designers, there's no substantive difference in the trigger for the conversation, because the information doesn't stay hidden.

Here's where Death of the Author kicks in. The PoV of the designers, outside of the most basic plot hook (the two-line blurb in the back of the box) is irrelevant compared to what I can do with the game. The important part here - in my perspective - is not that the information remained hidden, but that Shepard tried to hide it. That's a revealing character point.

In Exile wrote...
But I actually think this the key difference between our styles that leads to the discussions over the lines. To me, expression is about purpose: what do I want, and how am I going to get it. To you, expression is about content: what am I saying, and what do I think it is conveying.

Well, yes. I thought we both already knew this.

In Exile wrote...
I don't think we're using gist in the same way. But that's my point about purpose: the idea is that the conversation is a tool.

I assure you this is not done in a facetious manner:
Gist (plural gists) 1.- The most essential part; the main idea or substance.
It's perfectly valid for the gist of a line to omit a detail that might be irrelevant to the end result of the conversation (as you point out earlier). However, the omission or addition of that detail can be a powerful characterization tool.

In Exile wrote...
Right, but again, it's conversation as a tool. This is just an interesting personality difference.

Yes. However, when the personality difference is between the character I wanted to play and the character that ends up in screen, it tends to be a bit bothersome.

[Icesong]

In Exile wrote...

Icesong wrote...
Yeah, this is weird. The point you're arguing here is exactly the one I'm using against you.

Good job! You're almost there. Now, have you realized how your opinion on how conversations work is your opion, and not a fact?

Do you mind telling me what my opinion is? After your past two replies to me I'm not sure what it is anymore. I know that it's a fact, though.

That's not how it works. I think the intent of the line is [x]. The result is impossible based on that intent. So now there is a problem. The game won't let me correct it. Which means I have to reload.

This isn't a "decision" the player makes. The game makes it for you.

In this scenario you pose here, the result isn't impossible based on that intent. Misunderstanding means they didn't understand you. That includes your intent. So whatever reaction they have is no longer based on your intent.

My point is that I don't have problems interacting with people, and I don't refuse to talk to other people if they've misunderstood me once because I'm not coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

So you have a point that has nothing to do with my point? I assume you just really wanted to make it. I know how that is. I once deliberately misunderstood someone just to make my point. Wait, is that happening here?

Modifié par Icesong, 11 janvier 2013 - 07:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If "the gist" is just the general content of the spoken line, I don't think we do know that.

We do. But you refuse to work of social context and social information.

I don't have any idea what those are.  And, I insist, neither do you.  First, you'd need some sort of sensical definition of the word "social", and you don't have one.

Bioware isn't responsible for the atypical assumptions you make about conversations. For one, you need to appreciate that most don't treat conversations as an attempt to convey the least information possible, and Bioware games aren't designed to support that style.

As they currently are, BioWare games seem to assume that no one ever wants to keep anything secret, and will happily tell anything at all to anyone.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's your mistake.  Why is it impossible?  How could you possibly know that?

Two reasons.

The first is because you can disagregate reactions. Misunderstandings work on a continuum. The second has to do with errors on my part, with the conversation as an iterative process.

For the first reason, let's use an absurd example:

Me: The weather is temperate.
Person X: Dear god, the Xorblaxians are invading!? We're all going to die!

This reaction is insane. Even you would agree - there is no rational way to construct my statement as meaning anything like what Person X took it to be without postulating an alternative grammar.

So far, so good. The issue is that there are social conventions and character traits that make certain rections expected. The best in-game example of this an exchange between Morrigain and the Warden.

The context is Morrigain's familiarity with social convention. She talks about touching that humans engage in, and how she finds it baffling. The Warden may say something to the effect of, "did all the bad touching bother you?" Morrigain responds, playfully, with a phrase something like "At least with that sort of touching, I could divine the intent" (that's not the correct line, because in her actual line in DA:O she makes an overt refernce to sex).

So the issue turns on "bad touching". There is a tremendous amount of social convention that governs flirting and sexual humour - so in this case, if that's what the player was going for, there would be lots of cues there. That's how information gets conveyed.

Put another way, there's a lot of information to draw a reasonable inference about whether you were being misleading (so that the error is yours) or that the other person misunderstood (so the error is theirs). These are two entirely different avenues of clarification.

But let's move to the second reason - because that address what you think your point is.

the mistake here is in assuming that any unexpected reaction is the result of a misunderstanding.  Perhaps the NPC understood you fine, but still (for some reason unknown to you, because you can't read the NPC's mind) reacted in an unexpected way.

That doesn't matter. Because I can press the point. If, to return to my example, the following happens:

Me: The weather is temperate.
Person X: Dear god, the Xorblaxians are invading!? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/surprised.png[/smilie] We're all going to die! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/crying.png[/smilie]

I can ask for clarification. I can press the point. I can repeat the social interaction until I get the outcome I desire, or the conversation breaks down entirely.

That's the possibility you're dismissing out of hand, and that's why you don't understand the gameplay approach.

What I dismiss out of hand is the passivity - that I am forced to both be misunderstood and to allow the misunderstanding to, well, stand.

I'm not dismissing the possibility that the NPC is insane; what you're dismissing is the possibility that I would not react to (what from my POV is) the entirely abnormal reaction of the NPC, since I can assume for my PC's sake that I delivered the information within the bounds of all normal social cues and conventions.

That's a limitation of the medium you generally appear willing to accept.  You don't get to say all of the things you want to say.

What makes you think I accept that? I've never given any indication I do this. I've constantly asked for the game to make it very clear, broadly speaking, what possible views are available to a character from the start of the game.

Acceptance of this is a big part of your entire gameplay approach (where you let the game tell you what you say or mean, rather than deciding it yourself).

No. My approach is about objectivity - I don't presume I dictate to the game. But the game has to provide me with information. And feedback.

[In Exile]

Icesong wrote...
Do you mind telling me what my opinion is? After your past two replies to me I'm not sure what it is anymore. I know that it's a fact, though.

Apparently, that I (or people) wouldn't correct misunderstandings. Or want to.

In this scenario you pose here, the result isn't impossible based on that intent. Misunderstanding means they didn't understand you. That includes your intent. So whatever reaction they have is no longer based on your intent. 

Yes. And I can't correct it. So now I have to re-load, because entire social interaction is broken down.

So you have a point that has nothing to do with my point?

This is what you said: "if they were misunderstood it was most likely by an NPC I'll never have a conversation with again."

And then I asked: "You'll never have a conversation with Morrigain or Alistair after Flemeth's hut?"

To which you said: "Yeah, I will."

So I'm having a problem here. Maybe by "Yeah, you will," you meant that you would talk to them. So let's go with that. Does this mean that suddenly you will have conversations with people who've misunderstood you once?

I once deliberately misunderstood someone just to make my point. Wait, is that happening here?

No. Despite how incredibly obtuse you're being.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
Here's where Death of the Author kicks in. The PoV of the designers, outside of the most basic plot hook (the two-line blurb in the back of the box) is irrelevant compared to what I can do with the game. 

As a practical matter, that's false. The designers define the exhaustive set of actions you can take. You will never, no matter how desperately you wish for it, be able to cooperate with the archdemo in DA:O. |y

The important part here - in my perspective - is not that the information remained hidden, but that Shepard tried to hide it. That's a revealing character point. Your options are given to you by the designers.

IGist (plural gists) 1.- The most essential part; the main idea or substance.

I believe you.  

It's perfectly valid for the gist of a line to omit a detail that might be irrelevant to the end result of the conversation (as you point out earlier). However, the omission or addition of that detail can be a powerful characterization tool.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. My point is, instead, that we have different styles when we approach conversations, and that's part of what leads to our disagreement here.

Yes. However, when the personality difference is between the character I wanted to play and the character that ends up in screen, it tends to be a bit bothersome.

Once again - I agree with you completely. I just find that the opposite happens with the other format of dialogue - the character I want to play is rejected by the interface, with features like the forced passivity.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't have any idea what those are.  And, I insist, neither do you.  First, you'd need some sort of sensical definition of the word "social", and you don't have one.

Of course I do. But you think you can use definitions in a way that's actually impossible - because you think you can come up with necessary and sufficient definition for terms. I can't help not being able to meet an impossible standard.

As they currently are, BioWare games seem to assume that no one ever wants to keep anything secret, and will happily tell anything at all to anyone.

As they were. Bioware has been doing this at least until KoTOR (when they force you to be identified as a Jedi).

[Icesong]

In Exile wrote...

Icesong wrote...
Do you mind telling me what my opinion is? After your past two replies to me I'm not sure what it is anymore. I know that it's a fact, though.

Apparently, that I (or people) wouldn't correct misunderstandings. Or want to.

You presented a single possible response a person would have to being misunderstood, I presented another. Didn't do so to say yours was wrong, but rather to offer up alternatives.

Yes. And I can't correct it. So now I have to re-load, because entire social interaction is broken down.

You can prevent it by reloading. But apparently you really don't like reloading.

This is what you said: "if they were misunderstood it was most likely by an NPC I'll never have a conversation with again."

And then I asked: "You'll never have a conversation with Morrigain or Alistair after Flemeth's hut?"

To which you said: "Yeah, I will."

So I'm having a problem here. Maybe by "Yeah, you will," you meant that you would talk to them. So let's go with that. Does this mean that suddenly you will have conversations with people who've misunderstood you once?

I said that in response to the idea of misunderstandings being reduced as people become more familiar with each other. What I meant was that they wouldn't get the chance as I'll have left, not that I'm so angry they didn't understand me that I won't speak to them again. I also meant that they're not "important" enough for my character to want to explain themselves to.

Modifié par Icesong, 11 janvier 2013 - 08:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Two reasons.

The first is because you can disagregate reactions. Misunderstandings work on a continuum. The second has to do with errors on my part, with the conversation as an iterative process.

For the first reason, let's use an absurd example:

Me: The weather is temperate.
Person X: Dear god, the Xorblaxians are invading!? We're all going to die!

This reaction is insane. Even you would agree - there is no rational way to construct my statement as meaning anything like what Person X took it to be without postulating an alternative grammar.

I would agree that there's no way to explain how the response followed from your line.  As such, the only reasonable conclusion is that it didn't, and the NPC is reacting to something else.

I suggest it is wrong to assume any specific relationship at all - causal or otherwise - between what you say and how the NPC responds.

But let's move to the second reason - because that address what you think your point is.

the mistake here is in assuming that any unexpected reaction is the result of a misunderstanding.  Perhaps the NPC understood you fine, but still (for some reason unknown to you, because you can't read the NPC's mind) reacted in an unexpected way.

That doesn't matter. Because I can press the point. If, to return to my example, the following happens:

Me: The weather is temperate.
Person X: Dear god, the Xorblaxians are invading!? We're all going to die!

I can ask for clarification. I can press the point. I can repeat the social interaction until I get the outcome I desire, or the conversation breaks down entirely.

In the real world, yes.  Not in games.

What I dismiss out of hand is the passivity - that I am forced to both be misunderstood and to allow the misunderstanding to, well, stand.

But you happily accept being forced to misspeak and being forced to let the misspoken line stand.

You're being forced to be equally passive in both games, and to exactly the same degree.  How is DA2's approach better?

What makes you think I accept that? I've never given any indication I do this. I've constantly asked for the game to make it very clear, broadly speaking, what possible views are available to a character from the start of the game.

Because, even without that, you play the games.

I would also like that information up front.  I would very much like that.  If we got that, I suspect we'd both be happy with the game, regardless of its dialogue system.

No. My approach is about objectivity - I don't presume I dictate to the game. But the game has to provide me with information. And feedback.

Your approach is about hierarchy.  You think the game is in charge.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Of course I do. But you think you can use definitions in a way that's actually impossible - because you think you can come up with necessary and sufficient definition for terms. I can't help not being able to meet an impossible standard.

How would you define the terms yourself, then?

My understanding of the word social is that it means "of or relating to society".  Great.  What does that mean?  What relevance does society have?

As they were. Bioware has been doing this at least until KoTOR (when they force you to be identified as a Jedi).

No, there they only prevented us from keeping some secrets, not all secrets.

[Kenny Da Finn]

I don't mind the dialogue wheel. The only thing I would like to see is another option, in DA2 you had good, neutral and angry/bad. Now I know you often got things such as bribe and ask your companion but what I would like is a fourth option depending on the way you interacted through the game.

A example being if your in a light hearted conversation you would get a extra neutral option so you could choose between sarcasm and a bad pun etc. Or if you have investigated about the situation you could open a new option that actually affected the outcome of the conversation rather than just adding more to it before going back to the original choices ( Example: When talking to Meredith and Orisimer at the start of act three and you talk about becoming viscount then you just get rerouted back to your original options of side with either one or be neutral).

I know its been said alot but if your going to have romances I would like them to be a bit more like DA:O in the way that its risky try to hard or not enough and they wont like it. It doesn't have to be super hard just not the simple this dialogue romances go for it. A wayI thought this could be done is a expandable option like investigating things that gives you more than one option to romance someone.

[Druk-Qs]

Yeah, they will, sadly.

I absolutely despise that horrible thing, the fact that I don't even have to READ any of the (Bad)paraphrases is almost insulting.

[DarthLaxian]

The Woldan wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
The problem was you couldn't tell the tone or intent of the dialouge*case in point I once had to reload a save because my male warrior accidently started a romance with Morrigan*

In this case Bioware should have added the exact meaning of the answer, DAO had quite a few lines with a small description like (intimidate) or (lie) when things weren't 100% clear to the player. Problem fixed, no dialogue wheel needed, at least I didn't need one in DAO and never ever ran into a problem.

The dialogue wheel simply ruins roleplaying for me, I never know what the character is exactly going to say which inevitably leads to dumb surprises, in the end its feels more like watching an interactive movie than a game, it simply takes away too much control. Ultimately Bioware solved one problem and created a new one.

well - in a way you are right...i just never had a problem with this in Mass Effect (it was done well there and it fit the game (it does not fit for DA IMHO) but with DA2 i often heard my character say things I firstly would not have him/her say and secondly would never say myself (I am a self-insert kind of player, can't roleplay a character for the live of me, because I can't make certain decisions (could never abandon Lothering for example, something an **** warden with priorities will do...i simply can't))

so yes, i would love them to dump this lovely lovely thing and put a proper dialogue system back into the game!

greetings LAX
ps: maybe they could give those that want to read (in FULL - not paraphrased) what their character will say a checkbox obtion that will show it at the bottom of the screen on mouse-over - that would solve the problem and then i might even like their wheel

[In Exile]

Icesong wrote...
You presented a single possible response a person would have to being misunderstood, I presented another. Didn't do so to say yours was wrong, but rather to offer up alternatives.

You should have said that was what you were doing.

You can prevent it by reloading. But apparently you really don't like reloading. 

And people who complain about the paraphrase being misleading could re-load, but that's not a satisfying response there either.

I said that in response to the idea of misunderstandings being reduced as people become more familiar with each other. What I meant was that they wouldn't get the chance as I'll have left, not that I'm so angry they didn't understand me that I won't speak to them again. I also meant that they're not "important" enough for my character to want to explain themselves to.

All of this is well and good for your personality, but if you don't want to play that personality, the game doesn't react to misunderstandings. Your whole approach only works because your actual approach is "Do Nothing." which apparently the game is okay with.

[Kabraxal]

If it's voiced... the dialogue wheel is the best option. Personally, I'd prefer a return to the DAO dialogue tree and unvoiced protagonist. I just like that style better for a character that is almost completely yours to dictate. It just works better. The dialogue wheel locks in the character a little too much for my taste.

It works for a role like Shepard, but one so customisable... not so much.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I suggest it is wrong to assume any specific relationship at all - causal or otherwise - between what you say and how the NPC responds.[/quote]

I'm aware. We disagree, and we've had the debate before. The basic answer is the same as why we ought to assume casaulity at all.

[quote]In the real world, yes.  Not in games. [/quote]

Which is why misunderstandings don't work in games. Your answer, really, is that I should just be happy to RP a different type of character (that I don't enjoy). But that's not a satisfying answer.

[quote]But you happily accept being forced to misspeak and being forced to let the misspoken line stand. [/quote]

I don't.

[quote]You're being forced to be equally passive in both games, and to exactly the same degree.  How is DA2's approach better?[/qupte]

You're not, in DA2. What makes you think so? 

[quote]Because, even without that, you play the games.[/quote]

Not at all. It would be like saying that you're playing of ME is equivalent to you agreeing that the paraphrase is not misleading.

[quote]I would also like that information up front.  I would very much like that.  If we got that, I suspect we'd both be happy with the game, regardless of its dialogue system. [/quote]

In terms of VO, I think the only difference between us is how I like the experience to be continous, and what I don't like is the cinematic NPCs and silent PC (in terms of the VO itself).

I prefer cinematics to non-cinematics, though.

[quote]Your approach is about hierarchy.  You think the game is in charge.[/quote]

The game is in charge, in the same way reality is in charge here.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How would you define the terms yourself, then?[/quote]

I think, mechanically, the best way to think about it is like a neural network. It's about protabilistic weighting and building a map of term apprehending concepts, which vary in simiarlity and which between more and more atypical as differences built up. Our categories are then, in a sense, subjective (because our maps don't have to be the same), but in practice we'd cluster the same elements so as mostly to talk about the same things.

But I don't think you can take the communication out of a theory of definitions. By that, I mean that we need definitions as a function of how we need to communicate - I have to tell you what "stone" means because you can't read my mind.

[quote]My understanding of the word social is that it means "of or relating to society".  Great.  What does that mean?  What relevance does society have?[/quote]

The idea is custom. It's the same problem as with definitions. Uncertainty is fundamental to our existence, but we need to communicate. So we create a series of customs to eliminate as much uncertainty as we can and convey meaning, but the process is imperfect.

All we can do is make it less likely we will speak at a cross-purpose.

[quote[No, there they only prevented us from keeping some secrets, not all secrets.[/quote]

What do you mean? I'll agree that if you mean you can invent backstory details which you never share, but I'll also argue those were never part of the game to start.