Pop

In response to Markaela, I like both linear and non-linear RPGs, so long as both can be compelling. Fallout was pretty non-linear and was very compelling, Morrowind was non-linear and was not so much so. KOTOR is linear and compelling, Icewind Dale, not so much. The problem is that when you make a non-linear RPG you need to account for many, many possible variables to make things meaningful. You'll want a human character to have a vastly different experience than a twi'lek character or a wookie character. One of the ways you can do this is through writing out different gameplay arcs and experiences for each of them. For example, in Vampire: The Masquerade, nosferatu characters had to go about the game in a different way because humans wouldn't speak to them, etc. This is time-consuming but ultimately rewarding if it's done right. Another way is to reduce character interaction to numerals so that the difference between different PCs can be easily calculated, as Oblivion does. A shopkeeper would like an orc character less than an elf character, not because the shopkeeper has any reason or pathos behind not liking orcs and liking elves, but because orcs have lower personality scores than elves do. The fact that you were an orc had no bearing on the game whatsoever other than that. And even all that didn't matter, because you could bribe any NPC into liking you. That's the antithesis of RPG character interaction. If you're going to put choice into an RPG, why make those choices arbitrary? So that's the reason why making race and other ships and such non-choices is a sound idea. OE will either have to spend months making those changes meaningful, or make them completely meaningless. personally, I'd like to just see more in-game difference between consulars and guardians and sentinels, instead of them all just being general Jedi with different abilities. Add in some class-specific quests and story arcs, like in BG2. Maybe a guardian can command a defending army. Maybe a consular can advise a king in vital decisions. Maybe a sentinel can go out and investigate a hidden threat to a town. I'd much rather have these kinds of concrete differences in a game, rather than arbitrary race. I think Gamespot and places like that have strategy guides up the day of a game's release, if not within the week. Oblivion shipped with a strategy guide. And as for Jedi and Sith within the game, I think it would be much more interesting if instead of giving the protagonist the choice not to be a jedi, you make the primary antagonist a non-force user, someone who is powerful (and threatening) for some reason other than mastery of the force.

Jimmy Gnecco - Our Final Hymn

As far as the Ebon Hawk goes, I'd prefer that it stays in, as does T3. They're both what I'd consider KOTOR touchstones. They tie the series together aesthetically. Having only the Ebon Hawk makes sense, as it's the fastest ship in the Galaxy, and that allows it to outrun interceptors, and hence eliminate the need for dogfight sequences so common to Star Wars. The space-defense minigame was akward enough as it is, I certainly don't want more instances of it, and if it wasn't absolutely necessary (there's no reason it has to be a participatory cutscene) I'd just nix it altogether. I want to play Knights of the Old Republic, not Star Wars Battlefront. As for non-vital "dungeon"-esque worlds and locations, I don't like the idea. KOTOR is about story, and sending the PC to do things that don't advance the narrative causes the game to lose momentum. Let's also remember that KOTOR doesn't have the strongest combat system, comparitively, and there isn't a big emphasis on item-hoarding. You can easily get through the game without having to put an effort into getting the best loot. As for letting PCs be something other than jedi, let's face it: Star Wars is about the Jedi. It always has been. Taking the focus off of them would most likely be a detriment to the game narrative, if not the gameplay itself. As for kicking out annoying or ill-fitting party members, I know how irritating some of the CNPCs were, but keep in mind that being able to axe characters would probably harm the role-playing aspect of the game. Most people would only take the strongest party members (some do that anyway) and never have a chance to explore characters back-story, etc. Chris Avellone talked a bit about this, you all remember.

Coil - Amethyst Decievers (Live in New York City)

I'm playing Dead Rising at the moment. It's simple but very difficult fun, and the title menu music brings back a lot of Fallout memories. Maybe it's just because I'm new to the game, but I'm only completing 1 out of every 4 or 5 missions because of the strict time restraints and the fact that there are just too many of them. The save feature is terrible, too. Tried beating ID2, but I only had 1 fighter and 2 monks in my party, when I should have had 2 fighters and 1 monk, tops. So the twins beat me to death every time. I hate it when a bad party-making decision invalidates your entire game Once I take back Dead Rising I'll probably beat Fallout 2. Again. Or mod Oblivion and play that.

I remember these rules. They took a few liberties with the canon. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They did indeed, there are some things from Tactics which generally aren't considered canon (real-world weapons, etc.) and some locations and such, which I don't use. As far as the actual game mechanics, I can work with them and they don't completely screw up Fallout for me, so in the absence of a better system I use it. I should have said "thorough" instead of "completist". I try and stick as close to 1 and 2 as I possibly can, where I can, although with my limited knowledge of 50's aesthetic, it's difficult for me to create a good retro-futuristic setting I'm actually, uh, using some Van Buren stuff to write my campaign, but I'm sure it pales in comparison to anything official that might have come out of the material. There are also some holes that I have to fill (Ft. Abandon, what the hell the PCs are supposed to be doing, etc.) but I certainly like writing, and MCA's template system for the design docs generally helps out my entire DM process. I don't presume that my stuff is all that great (at this point it's more Mad Max than Fallout, even with the various references and factions from the first two games) As for J.E. Sawyer's SIMPLE system, I really liked it, but it's incomplete and I don't know what he's up to with it. I also started the campaign before I knew about SIMPLE, and it's not feasible to switch systems at this point. I'd use it if I could, but Fallout PnP 2.0 is the best I can use.

Hello all, hello all. New kid, first post on the Obsidian forums. If I break any sacred taboos, I'd like to know about them ahead of time (I read the disclaimers and everything). So do be gentle. I am curently running a Fallout campaign pen & paper style, using the shamelessly completist 2nd edition Fallout Handbook. What motivates me to take the ever-so-bold move of creating a thread right out the gate is that I can't seem to find anybody else who does this, and I'm looking for some GM tips about running a Fallout game in general. Anybody here use this system, and have GM (or DM or whatever the hell you call it) experience in it?