Jorian Drake

oh, the IE era rants about how cloaks must be visible. Good times well, not if it is a Cloak of Invisibility, there are always exceptions

In my opinion a classic religion-related D&D styled Paladin can be somewhere in between three agendas (weird example maybe, but like how a nation is in between the Axis-Allies-Soviets triangle in Paradox Hearts of Iron games) Law Good (would call it "Justice" in this case) Religion basically a paladin is in classic RPG the personification of all that is just and good in a religion, however, the person itself may be more about law enforcement and upholding/keeping itself to laws, or about being charitable and good, or about following/agreeing with the rules and teachings of its own religions. Paladins often follow good gods, but not always, and you could as example be a paladin of a god that is all about destroying all undead, so if a paladin who meets a good undead NPC the outcome of that meeting would depend on how good that paladin is, how strongly he feels about the doctrines of his diety, and if the laws of the land (or whatever faction he considers himself part of) tolerate undead. Anyway, as mentioned earlier I would prefer no true alignment system, and without that "paladin" could be just slightly more than a title or position, a paladin could be a greedy tax collector (like the Sheriff in Robin Hood misuses its rank/title) just as much a peasant could have the sould and idealism of a true paladin you would expect in a typical RPG (who would be a kind and just person)

... I want capes and cloaks, visually visible ones, belts wouldn't be too bad to have either, otherwise my Pants of Awesome Speed and Stamina +3 would fall down too often o.O (no, except the pant part I am actually serious) ...also, where is my mount? O.o

there are a few thousand Cybermen which would agree with you /nods edit: gosh, I really need moar new DocWho episodes, without some proper Warehouse 13/Primeval/Stargate/Eureka/Sanctuary treatment that is all I have left o.O Why no moar Stargate or Primeval, WHY? *sniff* O.o

hmm... I would prefer "Transform and roll out!"

LC, I am a bit like you myself, I think I remember game characters better in my fav games than actual setting/main story more often than not XD (Baldur's Gate series and Septerra Core are two exceptions on my list where I remember all main and some minor characters but also the world and main story because either it was all done damn well, or because the story and world was just too good to forget)

True, but "complete solo playthrough" is not assured to mean "perfect and 100% playthrough", as the above example situation, some things would be missed or left out in quests if not doing them with a larger group, or maybe you just can't open a wall section leading to a secret treasure if there is no second person with you to stand upon the other stone plate to triger the opening mechanism I guess something like animal companions (or undead if Necromancer, or some summon maybe) would be able to replicate some benefits of having more chars, but if someone plays such a character I don't see why they wouldn't also use the "non-summonable" ones

I don't friggin care about 300, what I talk about is the early hellenic era, or later about the poor/peasant warriors which were the majority of armies then, even in the early period of hoplite warfare shield and weapon was way more important than actual armor, and this came a bit back with the phalanx formation where the spear and shield often meant more than what you would wear on body (although by that time there always was some kind of armor used) Also, I didn't speak of the early hellenic era alone, there are for centuries/thousands of years places in America, Asia, Africa where metal armor never really got a foothold, especially in Asia and America. As "SophosTheWise" pointed out, while classic medieval can be fun, I also prefer a mix of many cultures and traditions, even more true uniqueness in my RPG-s, which got somewhat borng by most of the time building on the very same core concepts in regards of armament. Bring me vikings, aztecs and incas, camel riders or mongols, samurais and ninjas, martial artists! Throw into the pot new unique cultures and magic for the setting (not to mention non-human races), and you see what multitude and diverse weaponry and armor list you can get from it. Ironically its wanting to incorporate everything that makes settings bland. DnD basically rips from anything and everything, and everyone else rips from DnD. More =/= better, on the contrary it tends to lead to a homogenous bore imho. I say it COULD be done right, but in PC RPG gaming it wasn't done yet, I can easily imagine a setting where an asian and european theme is present as a contrast, maybe in a story where the "Europeans" go to explore and tradi in "Asia", or perhaps a version of the Mongolian invasion of Europe. (as an example from the other direction, the Journey of Hasekura Tsunenaga is also a good story for a background) If the difference in cultures is more than just a bit of flavor text and there is an actual difference in equipment/tactics, then it would be good. (imagine all the cultural/religious/warfare/trade/scheming events that could come up in such a game even if its about nothing more than a foreign merchant falling in love with a local)

Eigentlich kann ich etwas Deutsch, aber bin schon eingerostet, und benutze Englisch mehr seit mehrere Jahre. ((translation: Actually I know German somewhat, but I am a bit "rusty", and use English more since years)) I am from Hungary, I know 5-7 languages, so that is no problem (number depends on adding languages I can understand but not properly write/speak, or not) I guess the argument of yours just made it seem as if it was something different in "the light I read it". For me it looked as if you support ingame situations where true choice is taken away from the player, or the player char acts against the wishes of the player even.

this reminds me: no alignment system please! No lawful/good/chaotic/good please, and definetly no spells like "Detect Evil", that made most D&D games terrible, especially if you had a Paladin which acted as a walking alignment detector I am fine with "Detect Otherworldly" though, which could detect ghosts, demons, angels, or their presence (but not define what exactly it is among these) also with "Detect Charm" which would show if someone got influenced through magic and similar

@SophosTheWise Well, from my examples take VampireTM, it is basically a low-magic setting (event their "Mage" related works), you have no classes there, you can buy with points during char creation and later skills/abilities or even attributes, but that doesn't make your character a Superman, even if it specizes in some things, and while a Jack-of-all-trades is possible, it isn't really advisable. I just say if I want to make a sociable, charming alchemist and court mage who can wield a rapier I should be able to do that, but not that it should be better than a duelist or a master mage. It could lead to it having certain skill combos other may not have, like a spell that makes the rapier enchanted and fight on its own, or alchemist's fire to be poured on the rapier to give it a fire damage, maybe something "Bard-like" to help his Persuation checks, and enough knowledge of etiquette to fit well in with noble events and identify what knight or lady is from which family, and what relationships/agenda/resources they got.

No, definitely not. That you can't save it is exactly what you should reflect upon. That inevitable doom, it's a bit of memento mori. If done right, it really works well. I remember Mafia 2 (which I think is a masterpiece because the closedness of the world is THE main aspect of the game) when you get a non-criminal job at the beginning and you can do it for a long time but the longer you keep up doing it the more your character loses faith in that job and you're all "No, dude! Come on! You can do this!" and then it's a "NO GODDAMMIT YOU'RE NOT BECOMING A CRIMINAL, THAT'S YOUR DOOM!" - This was one of the things I really enjoyed in Mafia. There were certain plotpoints where your character decides radically different than you and that makes quite an impact on a self-reflecting player. I like that approach a lot more than the do-whatever-you-want-nobody-cares-approach in Skyrim. okay, I admit, it may be good "if done right", sadly I never seen it done right, and your Mafia example is just a bad one in my opinion, basically it is about a nonsense railroading "but thou must" situation, but that wasn't even an RPG to begin with, an RPG where "your character decides radically different -actions- than you" without the player consent is in my opinion a bad one, this is why people wanted to kill the damn Overseer at the end of Fallout 1, this is why books/movies/games/series get certain expansions, sequels, specials or alt-endings (examples mostly in anime), or even add details to and change endings (like one of the most recent games Mass Effect 3) The scene when a choice is a fake one (like in your example of in the Mafia game trying not to become a gangster) is even worse IMO, especially if it pops up in an RPG. In RPG it is especially annoying if the main character, "YOU" in other words doesn't act or speak as you want it to, the tone and speech are two of the main reasons why those who hate voiceover for the main character in RPG-s are against it. In the case of Mass Effect many just didn't like what tone their character spoke in, but there are more extreme cases in games where you can make a young or old character ("optimistic beginner adventurer" or "old grey-haired gruff veteran") and the voice wouldn't even fit the age of it, not to mention the imagined tone of speech. I don't recall what game it was, but did you ever play an asian looking young martial artist and suddenly your character spoke up in heavy irish accent? Well, I have. (even though it was a fantasy setting it was still annoying)

You mean like a brothel? No, seriously, there was a cool sidequestline in Yakuza 4 where you managed a club (a talking brothel, I don't know, one of those typical "WTF, Japan?" things). While it was quite uninteresting and a bit boring aftere a while I could see something be fun if made right. they might have watched the Eureka series, and noticed the TALKING HOUSE in it, it isn't always them who come up with ideas ya know

I would like something like a cunning(not an asshat necessarily) paladin, perhaps finding holes in his code/law when required. Generally though, paladins are played straight as Lawful foolhardy divine right warriors. I think you basically described a lawyer-paladin (grand master?) or an inquisitor

I don't friggin care about 300, what I talk about is the early hellenic era, or later about the poor/peasant warriors which were the majority of armies then, even in the early period of hoplite warfare shield and weapon was way more important than actual armor, and this came a bit back with the phalanx formation where the spear and shield often meant more than what you would wear on body (although by that time there always was some kind of armor used) Also, I didn't speak of the early hellenic era alone, there are for centuries/thousands of years places in America, Asia, Africa where metal armor never really got a foothold, especially in Asia and America. As "SophosTheWise" pointed out, while classic medieval can be fun, I also prefer a mix of many cultures and traditions, even more true uniqueness in my RPG-s, which got somewhat borng by most of the time building on the very same core concepts in regards of armament. Bring me vikings, aztecs and incas, camel riders or mongols, samurais and ninjas, martial artists! Throw into the pot new unique cultures and magic for the setting (not to mention non-human races), and you see what multitude and diverse weaponry and armor list you can get from it.

You know why? Because this concept sucks in every goddamn way. I know there are some roleplayers who want to do everything at the same time? Why? I have absolutely no idea, but in a roleplaying-way that just doesn't make any sense. Sneaky noble thief - alright I can go with that. But why should he wear a full plate? And why should he be able to shapeshift and cast spells? Is he some kind of ridiculous overcompensation superheroes? I, for one, hate those concepts and whenever players bring that into a Pen & Paper round you just know the game's gonna be bad. People should focus on a simple idea and roleplay the **** out of it. I think you missed that my suggetion was about a point-buy system, and I didn't say the same character should be able to do everything at the same time. That, and also that what I described was basically a robber baron/knight which is already an existing concept (and "profession") in history (in D&D terms you could call that a fighter/rogue, or maybe a fighter/aristocrat/rogue in certain worlds/settings), or pretty much every aristocratic rogue because the income of nobles allows all kind of training getting paid for. Not to mention some people are just naturally more adept at learning certain things, or just have photographic memory to begin with. (things like this were handled by games like Fallout or by RPGs like VampireTM with perks and merits) Also, nobles have to keep up a certain image, maybe the cultural circumstances or heritage reqires from a noble who is more a thief in character and skills than a knight to be able to fight with sword and shield in plate mail. This doesn't mean he will sneak around and break into houses with a full plate, just that if necessary or when going to a battlefield he can also wear that. Let's not even go into magic, as there could be any kind of street urchin or royalty which is already born with natural skill at sorcery and while getting trained in grammatic, laws, languages, and swordmanship as a noble he/she could at the same time as a sorcerer also use powers to be stronger, faster, summon a flaming sword, or throw fireballs. Being able to do multiple things is not against roleplaying at all, actually, the limitation to classes and what a single class can do ironically goes against roleplaying in these cases. As for the Paladin debate: While I do like holy/celestial power using warriors, there is nothing what would hint that this game will have "paladin" be anything more than some title or profession, maybe royal knights will be called paladins. Thee is nothing that would suggest they would have to have some moral code they would have to live by either, or if they do that it would be any different from what average knights have to follow.

or, the quest could be done solo too, but with companions it would be a bit shorter, easier, more fun something like how you could solo rush in and kill dozens of hard enemies and all hostages would die, you could sneak in to rescue the hostages but the leadership would flee with the money the "group event" would basically enable to meet all objectives, or have funny scenes (like what may happen if you leave the "Distraction" objective to a barbarian character or a crazed fire mage instead of to the sneaky ranger or the enchantress, or perhaps to your trusty sidekick "Dogmeat")

Wait a sec, let me go and check the clock in my DeLorean, I'll be right back with an answer.

A good concept would be to take a hint from greek mythology, and be a child of a god without knowing it at first, if the gods from this game will love ...mortal pleasures as much as Zeus and company did, then the setting would be easy to imagine and also it would be easy to throw in a thousand or more godlings/half-gods/bastard gods/juvenile gods EDIT: or consider something like the Japanese approach, let there be millions of various strong or weak gods for every tree, town, river, and whatnot

They can still write/depict a scene/event in text if nothing else

"1) Big Goals: A number of folks have suggested adding "big ass goals": Things like 3 or 4M stretch goals, but bigger in terms of scope. What kinds of things would you want to see that you think would motivate the community to invest more, and/or find more backers to get involved? (Besides mod tools or multiplayer)" my choice would be: an option to choose a location from various ones (location would influence trade income/mining options and other resources, neighbours, etc), then build a city with castle and city walls on it, picking a style from 3-6 available ones for it, be able to get NPC-s settle in it, and invite them from other locations into it, gear up and train your own troops you could send out on patrols or place them as guards at world locations or even use them to take over camps/fortresses/cities in the world, and to make diplomatic and trade deals for the city-state/lordship All these not from a trade/strategy game perspective, but from mostly an RPG one, with missions to expand influence, events like a royal ball or a diplomatic meeting, basically an aspect of powerful and noble families/characters which is barely touched by RPG-s today, and the surface of such things is barely scratched. Until now the games that came closest to something like this were made by Black Isle/Obsidian/Bioware (or maaaybe I might mention also that badly made Fable 3 which nevertheless allowed some realm RPG-like management), but there is still a lot that could be done in the area I think this would fit the idea of "big goals" as it would be a big undertaking for the first time (then, in futue games it would be easier to continue to implement similar options)

The ME3 duct-kid is an especially good example on how *not* to do emotional impact. There was zero connection to that npc. Umm... I did write just that, didn't I? o.O O.o

Actually: I demand a youtube video playthrough series about him playing Arcanum from start till end with some comments, I am damn sure many only gave money for the project to see him play it to begin with XD Without such a proof there won't be evidence he ever got forced to play it from start until end.

hm, on this topic i have to say I support diversity, and all styles of weaponry and clothing Once in a while I like to have or meet a character who just looks sexy and/or badass with a huge blade or exotic armor, but not all the time (unless it is culture related). I do however tend to point out that cultures and trends influence design in RL history as well, in a world where magic can just as well protect you from damage and cold or hot weather it is even more likely you see chainmail bikinis or near-nekkid barbarians. Proud and "noble" races may even consider a weakness to wear full plate, or anything not made by them could be considered heretical, or by other strong races people could get laughed at for not using heavy, large weapons. (as example, in an elven nation/sub-spacies culture may dictate that only elven armament should be used, and only elven crafted armor shall be worn unless you plan to be considered a traitor to your kind) In my opinion, there is an unique flavor to demonic/godly/otherwise powerful creatures and characters which can wield extremely large weapons despite their frail bodyframe due to otherworldly might, or to a "sexy goddess" who can laugh at enemies which try to strike her but never hit, due to her magical barriers and enchanced dress. Also, as mentioned earlier silly clothes and hats in RL history is also due to culture and trends, and were often impractical anyway (but this wouldn't be such great a problem in a magical world). At the same time, without any sense trying to constantly use extremes in design for a game isn't right either and I understand the side of argument which got fed up by seeing an armor on a male character being a "tin-can" hiding everything from feet to head, while the very same armor on a female character suddenly morphs into something that barely hides anything. So, whatever kind of armors and weapons there will be in the game (and once again: I am all for diversitiy and presence of all kind of extremes and desingns somewhere in the middle), I hope their appearance will not change depending on what race or gender wears it. (although in certain exceptions it would be logical, as in for a character with an exotic bodybuilt that has a tail or 4 arms as example, or if there are customization options that allow the gear to be "reforged" or repainted for certain characters or cultural design styles) Give the girls the option to also buy some sexy skimpy outfit and equip it on male characters to see them in something like "Baywatch tanga", diversity and equality for all, I say. PS: sorry if my rambling can't be understood, am writing from home with a lack of coffee and half-asleep, while still not being a native English speaker (and most likely never will be unless I suddenly wake up and find myself being one). So if there are questions about what the heck I actually wrote I will try to answer them later ^.^ EDIT: Honestly, in my opinion if we try to force realistic standards on a fantasy world I can't get rid of the idea that just as in the ancient hellenic era where warriors barely wore anything at all except a shield and a weapon, there should also be in such a world fighters who also know some spellcasting or have magical shields and thus ignore armor alltogether. For some reason if people talk about fantasy games the discusion is more often than not about the European medieval times and the weapons/clothes of that era, and other continents and eras get entirelly ignored (while in my own opinion the ancient hellenic era due to the gods and mythology are closer to the theme) and even the horse using and nomadic cultures like that of the Huns, Mongols, Hungarians are more than not forgotten/ignored. (I guess partially due to developers for some reason being allergic to horses and mounted combat, or proper ranged combat tactics)

I am all for "emotional impact" as long it is not forced and you can change and influence the event. As example the DA1 situation with saving/killing/etc Connor was well done, while I truly hated the Mass Effect 1 choice that gets forced down your throat about having to let one of your 2 companions die on a certain planet. Deus Ex 3's Missing Link standalone did this just right in my opinion, you get into a situation where you are offered the chance to either rescue dozens of innocent prisoners who got abducted to be experimented upon, or you could rescue a Doctor who is able to give you evidence of the wrongdoings of the local leadership which the average prisoners can't provide. While a third option isn't named this is not an "either - or" choice like in case of the ME1 Tuchanka event, where you are not given the option to just say "**** you" and heroically rescue everyone, no, while the option to save everyone is not mentioned in Missing Link, you can still go and find a hidden room where you can blow up something to rescue both the prisoners and the doctor. Another badly done "emotional impact" from the Mass Effect series is in ME3 where you are supposed to feel sad/guilty about seeing a kid die whom you can't save. The very lack of chance to save it is already a negative in my book, then comes the returning visions using the kid's image which just made me pissed off at the Bioware developers instead of making me feel anything remotedly similar to sadness. You don't even know the kid and didn't see him for longer than 3 minutes before he dies anyway, there is/was no attachment. So my opinion in short: Well done emotional impact is good, just don't try to force us feel sad/bad about some event where we didn't have a chance to change/avoid things, plus if possible, also consider POSITIVE emotional impact, instead of trying to make everything more "griddy/dramatic" by trying to pull the "tears/guilt card". (which sadly seems to become "the new black" in games recently)