trulez

It's a text heavy RPG without voice overs, which means endless possibilities how the conversation could go, so yes there should be options which are tied to your stats and not available for everyone. I very much liked how they did it in NWN2: MOTB, a very high score in WIS and LORE gave you insight and opened up bunch of things.

What if the end really is the end, either death or maybe ascension to the heavens or permanent imprisonment or anything of the sort. What if there is no "and they lived happily ever after" ?

Absolutely not.

This is kind of subjective, but I have a particular distaste this point of view. I think it's very erroneous (and potentially harmful) to look on scientific advancement as somehow "bad" and the medieval world as somehow "good." Don't get me wrong, I love swords and knights as much as the next guy and medieval history is one of my (many) academic interests. But I generally prefer fantasy that doesn't sugarcoat the old days with the idea that they were somehow better than our modern world, what with its "unromantic" advances like germ theory, democracy, or electricity. Because honestly... they weren't. You're unable to differentiate a fantasy world from our own history. This is NOT a game set in medieval history, it's HIGH FANTASY, it means completely made up world and rules. In THIS world the advancement of science could very well be evil, unlike in ours, so your stance that those who wish to delve into the known sword&board fantasy without firearms are somehow longing after our own medieval history is completely incorrect.

The poll is missing the middle of the road option, level scaling with level range limitations. Example: A rat can be of level 1-5 but cant scale past that. A peasant can be of level 5-10 but cant be lower or higher. Wolf can be of level 10-20 but cant be lower or higher. Now if you start out in an area with enemies ranging from your level of 1 to all the way up to 5, then you can have both a challenge and easy fights, but wander too far in to the woods and that Wolf will kill you because it's 10th level at minimum while you're still at 1. This way, rats will never be as mighty as wolfs, nor will wolfs ever be as meager as rats, but you can stomp both when you out level them.

No. This is not MMO, there is absolutely no need to hold any kind of public open or closed beta.

They are the sort of firearms found in 16th century Europe: uncommon and nothing more advanced than single-shot wheellocks. Then why have them at all. What do they bring to the table ? I can understand implementing useful firearms, even if I don't agree with that, but what's the point of having impractical ones ? I just rather not see gunpowder implemented in any form, because it opens a whole other can of worms besides firearms. If the firearms you're implementing are going to be cumbersome and impractical then why not just leave them out.

Absolutely no. The age old saying "never bring a knife to a gun fight" is true for a reason, once you have the firepower to stop a person from distance it kinda makes melee weapons redundant. Also, the whole notion of mixing gunpowder with fantasy setting make some things rather wonky. If you can have a stick of dynamite or a bomb, you could just blow the opponent to smithereens, or blow up buildings, or throw them as "grenades" during combat, or what ever. The possibilities of abusing gunpowder is almost endless and there's no way an RPG can accommodate all of it, which makes me always dumb founded when I realize my character is inept at using explosives even if his INT stat is maxed out, but a gun is something readily available because of course just anyone can make a gun. So in conclusion, no to gunpowder all together.

Co-operative multiplayer.

There's nothing wrong with crates, but moderation is the key.

2mil stretch goal should be Toolset released with the game.

I don't know what kind of life you live but where I come from your actions are judged by your peers, and past deeds are not forgotten. Telling someone off is likely to anger the recipient and temporarily/permanently lower my standing in his eyes, doing so repeatedly would most likely cause an altercation. That altercation would most certainly influence anyone in our presence at the time, either putting me in bad light or good light depending on if I was justified to tell him off to begin with. Actions in real life have consequences, so why would they not have that in game.

By default it does. As soon as you go from "whats possible for PC" to "whats possible for console" you've limited your choices (memory, processing power, UI, controls etc.)

I'd like multiple overlapping systems. One for companions, one for factions and one for individual quest NPCs. So one action you take might anger one of your companions, please another, lower your status with a faction and raise your status with a quest NPC, this would make the choices much more severe and harder to micromanage (you can't keep everyone happy always). In games where choosing the "best" option always keeps everyone happy the dialogue, for me personally at least, quickly turns out to be a minigame of social interactions instead of me choosing what I actually want to say to that NPC.

Hard cap at 20, expected level at the end around 15 with the extra levels available for completionists.

What about action points similar to SPECIAL, but this time it would be used for all attacks (range, melee, magic). It would limit the number of any type of attacks one can do per round, AND enable mixing of attacks (cast fireball, switch to sword, swing) without introducing cumbersome systems like fatigue/mana/rage.

Please, no healing potions, period.

No, thank you! Obsidians games are worth a little donation, or even bigger one. Which brings a question to my mind, shouldn't there be a pinned link on the forums to the Kickstarter page ?

Do away with mana, instead introduce cooldowns. The bigger the spell, the longer the cooldown. Introducing mana most often leads to either a) potion chucking b) mana depletion , and both of those are bad. Also the D&D way of having only limited number of casts available before resting is a balancing nightmare, because it doesn't differentiate a equal level nuke spell from equal level utility spell, which means if mages stack their memory with nukes they completely overpower their enemies, while those players who use buff/utility spells get shafted IF the game is balanced for pure nukers in mind.

6 seems like a crowd. 4 or 5 would be better I think. 5 is number not often seen so let's go with 5.

No, no and no. Games developed for PC and consoles simultaneously are without exception compromises, and always forced to fit the restrictions of consoles, thus they become less of a game than what they have potential for.

I will be sorely disappointed if it's WH40k.

Please dont be Cthulhu

Replaying KOTOR for the umpteenth time to get in to teh mood before I start KOTOR 2, both of which I now proudly own on Steam.

Instant purchase.