Chairchucker

To be honest, I would rather Obsidian make original IPs as well. Pen and Paper games are great and all, but there's no reason to saddle yourself with the restrictions inherent in a pen and paper gaming system when you have a computer available to do all the calculations.

Oh, Jennifer Lawrence chat, huh? She's a real good actor OK that's all I got on this topic.

That's cool and all, but why have you chosen to ignore the actual point of my post and respond only to the throwaway example? The point of that post was about opportunity cost and limited resources and Obsidian having to make choices (that's my answer BTW. Obsidian should ultimately wield an iron fist and make all the choices) about where to spend their available resources, and the problem with a poll is that some people will, as demonstrated within this topic, answer the poll question as if resources are no issue, whereas some will assume that if resources are diverted to romances, they'd have to cut out an entire race or something. Like elves. On second thoughts, I'm OK with this trade off.

As someone previously mentioned, if it's a simple choice between 'have romances' and 'not have romances' without resources being an issue, sure, I'll vote for Obsidian to wave their magic wand and implement it. But resources are an issue. They are an issue for anything that can be implemented, and Obsidian have to weigh up all the different goals and the resources they'll take. I'm sure there are plenty of things that would take the same or less resources than romances that I'd ask the magic wand to give me first. Like more in depth non-romantic party interaction, for example.

My inference from the conversation that you seem to be referring to is that the things that Josh thought should be optional were things that could be said to 'break immersion', like a mode that makes everyone's heads larger than one might expect a head to be, or a mode that activates a lot of pop culture references like a corpse bearing fridge.

It's important that we make realistic goals. If one makes 'anything possible', the choices are either having the 'anything' be shallow and meaningless (an outcome that J.E. Sawyer has specifically mentioned as being unacceptable) or requiring a lot more resources. I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with the ideal of a game where you have an absurd amount of roleplaying options, it's just that logistically that would be a nightmare.

I saw GotG, I also liked it a lot, well bye.

IMO the current US rules are bad and should be changed. Then again, I live in Australia, sooooo... :/

Was pretty fun. Plot was a little better than I expected. Dragged a little bit leading up towards 'half time', but then they brought it home with a whole bunch of action in the second half. Not anything I'd get on DVD or anything, but was an entertaining and violent distraction.

Yeah, I was gonna say prohibition era gangster game.

Ah, well like Mr Mitchell says, you could just have an extra box you tick. Honestly I would've thought incest would be the biggest sticking point other than polygamy, if it was just about genetic tomfoolery, well, there's plenty of precedent for us not caring about hypothetical unborn children. If it was about power imbalance, there's a bit of precedent *cough*WoodyAllen*cough* there as well.

Don't beat around the bush Nonek, I can't figure out whether you like the romances we've seen so far or not.

Just saw Hercules and Lucy this week. Hercules was the better of the two.

Yeah that's what I figured. Did you also have to cover things like incest, age of consent, and the right of consenting adults to marry rollercoasters or horses? And of course there's this little issue:

Except actually Doppelschwart was just using the Email example as a direct comparison to the letter writing idea, and saying 'hey if it worked OK in this context when we called it an Email, maybe it wouldn't be all that terrible in a fantasy context if we called it a letter', and I'm sure you knew that, so why not address the actual point, hmmmm?

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ? Why do you presume that they are (only) wives? I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject. What is the specific opposition to polygamy? Is it because it would be a massive nuisance sorting out what rights who has in relation to who else?

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

Oh, I missed the overturning bit because I was too lazy (and pressed for time, but mostly the lazy thing) to read all 8 pages of this thread. Well, the bill's gone, cool, good chat. How about consensual polygamy, what's the legal status of that one, while we're here? EDIT: While, not which. That wouldn't even make sense. Gosh, Chairchucker, get your head in the game.

To be clear, is it illegal to be sexually intimate with someone of the same sex, or does the law actually stretch to merely being attracted to someone of the same sex, as well? Because if the latter, how the hell do you police that?

In which RPG? Any in particular, or you've liked all the romances you've seen in every RPG you've played?

Big Head Mode rules, gonna use it every time, would pick it over romance options. Well, thanks for reading, it's been swell.

You're within driving distance of Scotland. Go there, it's awesome.

Maybe his PC's broken. Maybe his internet. Maybe he got a new puppy and that's taken all his attention. I hear puppies can be time sinks.

Maybe he's gone on vacation.

I'd be OK with it to be honest, but whatevs.