wanderon

PS:T for me altho I doubt it will be as verbose (sadly)...

This. Character creation and toying with different builds is one of the big attractions of CRPGs for me. To replay the game with the same character all over again would be rather dull. Me too - in fact by the time I finish the game the first time I will no doubt have a dozen or mother other characters sitting at different spots in the game waiting patiently for me to return to them...

Sorry, didn't see the edited part earlier in this thread. The metaphor is you "mine" (extracting Ore/Experience/Level Up Points) with a "pickaxe" (Sword, character etc.etc.) so you can "Level Up". You mean do you grind experience to level up faster before embarking on the main quest lines as opposed to just following the game as it plays out taking your levels as they come? Or do you mean you want to see this that or the other particular thing as a part of the level up process whenever it arrives? In any event Josh has made it pretty clear we will likely level fairly slowly but gain significant growth with each level (and probably top out around level 12ish.) Personally none of that matter too much to me - I am more about playing the game as the devs design it and less about scrambling for the power build of the day - in fact more often than not these days I look for ways to play a more mediocre character in order to give the game a better chance to whup my butt - masochism I guess but then it feels even better when I am successful!

Why their conscience of course!

Because contrary to what people think, more isn't always better. Give people too many options and things can clearly become obfuscated. I hope I don't need to detail why an extreme example such as 37 different speech related skills would obfuscate many of the purposes of said skills, all the while also making the game more cumbersome to build. Absolutely correct let me say I am pretty sure I am not in favor of 37 different speech related skills for PE! However I would like to see a dozen or two ways that things can be used, drawn upon, inserted into, or otherwise merged into the conversation process including things such as: general speech skills like diplomacy, bluff, intimidate; options to choose between truth and lie, options to use skills like sleight of hand, pickpocket, stealing, bribes, or sex; options to use your freindship or rivalry with factions or individuals, options to use special related knowledge you have discovered, options to call upon companions to voice an opinion or otherwise enter the conversation, options related to characters or companions classes (bards could sing - ciphers could cipher - warriors could fart or belch perhaps simultaneously if they have been trained to do so) and any other useful things the devs can come up with without my assistance - but no more than 36 - unless they are really good...

I'll concede that you'd have an argument, but not a very good one. They can't be combined for this reason...Being good at making people afraid doesn't necessarily make you good at all of the other things that bluff entails. Why have LESS options? I agree that intimidate isn't as useful as bluff because it has far more narrow usage, and could generally be replaced completely by someone who is good at bluffing. That doesn't mean it has no place in an RPG, where character concept and vision rule the day. NOT which power is leetest. As a roleplayer, I may envision my character being a gruff, anti-social dude who is good at frightening people, but otherwise has very few social graces. For this character, it would make no sense for me to take the bluff(or "speech") skill, but taking the intimidation skill would fit nicely. There is not really any reason to eliminate it as a skill, even if the number crunchers among us consider it inferior to bluff if used in this way. Those who have no interest in the roleplaying value of the skill, and who would rather just use the best skill available can do so, and those who craft their characters based on a real character concept can do so without having their options limited by the number crunchers. Everyone wins. Yes this exactly The point of having two skills is they fit different characters and different character styles which then give more color and substance to the way speech & dialoge really play out for two different characters vs just having a generic speech skill that worked the same for everyone - the point of having more choices is to make each individual chararcer more unique and interesting vs making them all cookie cutter clones of each other with no real discernable differences.

You're right... Partialy... But, it sounds fine if I run PnP and players(gamers? I'm not very keen with english PnP RPG nomenclature) have only one fight for 10 hours of playing. They won't get xp for body count. I don't see this working in cRPG. But at least, I know only one good cRPG not made by people curently working on P:E, so I trust, that whatever they decide to implement it will be good. I'm not saying there won't fights or even that there won't be as many fights - I'm saying whatever fights are there will be a form of encounter one way or another that will generate some sort of experience and I suspect these will be broken down into fairly small segments rather than one large block of experience for an entire dungeon level for instance.

I think people are taking the concept the devs have stated about getting experience for objectives and not for body counts to be far more extreme than it's likely to be. If you are traveling and come upon an encounter of some sort your objective is to get past it through whatever means are available to you. The idea that the game is going to be full of combat opportunities that will provide no experience is pretty silly - (and typical internet over-reaction to anything) More than likely they just mean that the game is NOT likely to just have random attacks and that pretty much every encounter or possibly group of encounters (like a band of thugs or rabid racoons vs getting through a level of the mega-dungeon or a stretch of dangerous highway or forest) will have experience attached to it - It just won't be based on the body count - it will be based on completing it in whatever way you choose to do so - if you turn around and walk away and don't engage in it at all - THEN you will not get the experience but otherwise you will no doubt get anything that is coming to you - If the experience is not based on body counts - why would they have encounters that could mount up body counts with no experience attached to them - there would be no point to them being there - instead it's likely all encounters or groups of related encounters will come with experience for completion. Sounds fine to me...

Manual pause and I used it alot - sometimes round to round to position/reposition and/or give direct orders to those needing it. (hate auto-pause feature - it's a control issue - if I need to pause I can find the space bar thank you very much I want to play the game not watch the computer play the game... ) Didn't get your metaphors on level ups especially when they seemed to be mixed in with comments about finding unidentified weapons what exactly are you asking about leveling up?

Indeed the whole "I win" has to do with what the devs choose to use as responses not due to the use of tags to let gamers know what dialoge options have skills or other things involved in their use and I suspect we will find a large number of tag-able options in PE - or at least I hope so.

I chose PST becuase I couldn't choose just BG1 and the elements they are likely to use from PST are the ones I am most interested in seeing - lots of dialoge options & great companions - add in the open feel of BG1 - and the challenge of IWD plus Jan Jansen and I'm good...

Are you on drugs or just retarded? Not that I really care, just asking out of curiosity. Don't believe me, look it up. Most sites quote the foot range, where 50 feet is about 15m. However books in your library and your local gun club can verify this approximate range too. That is, if research doesn't hurt you too much. But does that research include stats on range and accuracy when you hold that handgun "gangsta style"? Wouldn't that be much more effective just due to it's badass awesome kewlness?? (snicker)

I agree that was an awesome dungeon - I had an epic battle there with the leader and his lieutenants that started to go bad early on and my party started falling like flies as we neared the end there were several lieutenants left with various degrees of health left facing only my rogue and he ran and hid and stealthed and backstabbed his way to eventually kill them all. That wasn't the most epic part tho - it was having him gather up all their gear and stash it in a chest only being able to carry a bit of basic armor and a weapon for each of his partners which he trudged back to town with and spent almost their entire hoard of gold raising them all from the dead to don their meager gear and go back and collect the rest... Some people may think that having them just pop back to life and being able to carry on in seconds is preferable but I have never forgotten that scenario and the satisfaction that came from getting through it and carrying on. Thats the kind of involvement in a story that I miss in todays games were everything has to be done for the convienience of the player.

That would be correct for a combat-focused game (i.e. ToEE); as far as we know PE won't be one - hence the poll. Not sure what you mean here - there is certainly going to be combat in PE and isn't that pretty much the only part of the game that weapons would be designed and implemented for?

What about this is so hard for you to comprehend? . Nothing - I DO understand exactly how bluff and intimidate work and what the differences between them are. FYI - the argument I have been having here is whether or not a bluff option could be paired with an intimidating statement - just like the one you just described - my answer is of course it can - it appears yours is too - in your other post however you appeared to be saying that there was no way for a bluff to work.

@ FlintlockJazz Josh has talked about dialoges someplace but I can't find it - As I recall he talked kind of specificly about no "win buttons" in the dialoge and I believe he mentioned it would probably be similar to New Vegas (which I have not played). My hope is it also incorporates some of the verbosity from PS:T as well with lots of choices and lots of options for skills, things you have already learned, maybe some soul options etc etc... the more the better. One thing I don't think we will need to worry about is seeing the same old 3 options many RPGs seem to get stuck on - one goody two shoes, one uncommitted, and one kick the puppy. wash rinse and repeat ad naseum...

I'd say it's a good update becuase this is early production and they seem to be looking for our input by telling us which way they are considering going - one might guess thats becuase they actually care about getting our input. Would you rather they not announce anything until their decisions have been made and its too late to change them? Tell us what has been decided instead of telling us what they are discussing?

Okay since you don't seem to "get it" I will put in the most blunt way I can. Example: Bluff - "Errr I have had enough of you guard.... Move aside or.... I will knock you aside myself!" Bluff fails Guard says "Sure you will." Conversation ends. Example: Intimidate - "I am going to count to 5. If I get to 3 and you are still there you will cease to be when I get to 5. Understand?" Intimidate fails Guard says "Just try it and see where it gets you." You reply "It gets me standing over your corpse." games pauses as combat begins. Do you see the difference between a bluff and an intimidate now? A bluff is a bluff, you are lying, you aren't going to do what you say you are going to do. An intimidate is not a lie. You REALLY ARE going to attack the guard if he doesn't walk away. And becuase you are lying you can't possibly be effective enough to convince some half-wit guard that he might be in real danger from you if he doesn't just let you pass?? What sort of nonsense is this? Keep in mind we are talking about a SKILL being used to accomplish this and the fact that the character has invested points in the skill means he just might be really good at decieving people through dedicated training in his craft so I'm just not seeing where the dip**** dialoge you have posted for this skilled rogue is coming from other than thin air or other nether regions. If thats all you've got then I'll just agree to disagree thank you very much...

Well according to that quote by Josh you would have to wait (or possibly go back to) one of the points in the game where respec is possible (maybe a trainer) pay some sort of significant cost - maybe a "game cost" like coin or items or maybe a character cost like giving up a character point(s) of some sort. Upon doing that you would be able to respec "advancement choices (e.g. skills, feats, spells, etc.) " but not "the base aspects of a character (e.g. class, race). " It's not clear whether or not he considers your original stats (attributtes) part of the base aspects or advancement choices but I suspect they might be base aspects. Given that he also wants this to have some sort of reasonable "cover story" making it an integral part of the game and complying with the game world in some manner - I don't have any issue with it myself.

Judging by whats been said by the devs I'd speculate we will end up with some sort of point buy - that leveling will be slow but the changes from level to level will feel like significant growth to the charatcer and that we will likely get to around level 12ish by games end... I'm good with all that...

Loved the update - the only thing I would suggest re: armor is giving them enough inherent or added attributtes and bonuses to make it a character by character decision as to what might suit you best aiming towards an armor system where there is in fact no definitive optimal armor. (which seems to be what you are shooting for) I think I would like to see companions choosing their own armor as well (by default perhaps) with a possible player over-ride option! ( altho I suspect there will be lots of opposition to this in spite of the over-ride option)

Don't know - don't care - send me the game and I will play it - almost always in the manner the devs seem to intend you to - while it annoys me sometimes when the mechanics are hidden and unspecific (adds fire damage) (may slow target) (stun possible) I usually get over it and accept that the item/skill/whatever will do whatever it will do and it's up to me to deal with whatever that is as best as they let me. In some cases it's actually a blessing in disquise allowing me to focus on playing the game and forget about the numbers in the background. This probably works for me becuase I am pretty much never the guy looking for the total build and often go the opposite way by gimping my character in some manner just to give the game a better chance to beat me.

I know a guy who once made 9 other guys back down from him using an all-out bluff. It's all about passion and delivery. The "circumstances" necessary to get the result you want MAY exist, or they could be part of the bluff, a complete fabrication that only exists in the minds of those you intend to manipulate. Smoke and mirrors, my friends. Here's a good example of intimidation in film. http://www.youtube.c...ed/co5xVHsMRV0 Now watch it again, and make the assumption he's out of bullets. Still damn convincing, huh? You guys know you are arguing something totally off topic now right ;p? That being said, I don't agree but nice post. Here is the ultimate difference between intimidate and bluff for in game purposes - Bluff is just a really big lie. You either won't do, or are not capable of doing what you say. Intimidate is not a lie. You will do what you say, and you ARE capable of doing it. Example: Bluff - "Hrmmm, what a bore. You know I am mates with your captain right? Unless you want latrine duty for a week step aside!" Bluff Check fails and NPC responds "Stow it you blowhard! Show me your papers or you aren't crossing the border!" Conversation ends. Example: Intimidate - "I have had about enough of you Guard, unless you move out of my way I will move you myself!" Intimidate Check fails and NPC responds "Stow it you blowhard! Show me your papers or you aren't crossing the border!" Player responds "Wrong choice." Game pauses as combat begins. Do you see the difference now? I can see either line using the bluff option (if it was offered) - the premise that started this debate is that a bluff option should NEVER be applied to an intimidating statement - in fact both of those lines are intimidating so where would you draw that invisible line that one is never supposed to cross? Is a character skilled in deception somehow unable to carry out any deception that infers he might cause someone pain just becuase it might be more common for some burly warrior type to intimidate in this manner? Edit: as for straying off topic I agree - the only saving grace for this tangent is that it supports the premise of using tags when skills are attached to a dialoge so the player knows which options use which skills in order to make his roleplaying decision

Ditto. Put me down for this one too.

Hm, I see it like this: A bluff is something you say you'll do but you don't actually follow through with it when called on it. In order to have the bluff work at all, in this case "intimidation", you need to have the stature, menacing aura, etc. to be able to pull it off. You can't bluff if it isn't at least somehow backed up by some supporting circumstances. Of course, then you cold just replace "bluff" with "lie" and have something like: [Truth] I am gonna kill you and [Lie] I am gonna kill you. Not sure which game used this, but that's how it was done already. Worked fine imo although I would have preferred [Truth] [bluff]. For me it's all very simple I just don't have any issue with a line of intimidating dialoge having an option for a character to use a bluff skill - one would hope the mechanics of the skill are sufficiently designed to be a viable gameplay mechanic and that the target of the conversation would have the sort of stats and build to provide an appropriate amount of difficulty for the bluff to succeed or fail depending on the gameplay situation. To me the concept that an intimidating line should NEVER offer a character the opportunity to bluff becuase that somehow degrades the intimidation skill or is (gasp) ambiguos is just silly.