Tale

OH man, Story of gaming right there. I swear in Dragon Age my character herself said, "Oh, it looks like more darkspawn." and I was all like, "YOU THINK?!". That had to have been the worst case of this problem in any game ever made. Swear it was a traumatizing effect. I don't think Dragon Age II even worked on fixing that... Hell mighta been worse... Anyone know if DA2 Had a larger or smaller beastiary of creatures then DA1? I think it was smaller. They lost genlocks, among other things. The non-monstrous enemies expanded significantly, though.

Your post about it a few days ago is what inspired me to create a thread. Then I realized we hadn't seen the group rogue yet, either.

I'm sitting around worried that I'll have to lower my pledge for the longest time. We near the deadline and I see that I'm good for it. Then they add playing cards. So I'm actually increasing... *sigh*

I don't mean something so broad as "mature themes." Let's get to specifics. Animated armors, wizards a little too obsessed with fire, and winged priestesses aren't high up on my list. Perhaps the party rogue will be a female godlike of lower ancestry. But I think there's one thing I think we'll all hope for in unison. A blind old woman with dreams and perhaps an unhealthy obsession with the PC.

I think Feargus Urquhart said the beta was likely to be more of an early-release than a genuine beta. So I doubt it will be. Edit: I can't find a quote saying anything of the sort. So let's pretend I may be pulling it from nowhere for now.

I get the idea, keeping yourself hyped around Project Eternity. Still, it's more Computer & Console content. I just finished a replay of Mask of the Betrayer. Then Neverwinter Nights 2 OC right before. And I'm half playing Icewind Dale 1 with the intent to go to 2 (Sawyer was lead), then Temple of Elemental Evil (Tim Cain was on that one).

Started up Icewind Dale, but am not feeling very compelled by it. So I'm installing Max Payne. I think I need a break from RPGs for a little while. I just ran through as much Neverwinter Nights as I could stand, then a complete run of Neverwinter Nights 2 and Mask of the Betrayer.

The poll seems to be missing a middleground option. Where's "many can be beaten either way?"

Finished Mask of the Betrayer. Good ending is nowhere near as awesome as the evil ending.

Passions seem to be getting the better of the discussion. Let's take some time to cool off.

I asked about it in Cain's first Q&A. They'll consider it, but it's not a priority. They'll see if it works with what they're going for with the classes.

Because they offend me. I think it's just good policy. You never know which characters a player might designate as their enemy. For good reasons or poor ones. Skyrim, I killed the lead of the Silverblood family. Why? Because he's a monster. So what if he gave me a quest? Then there are various thieves and thugs. Maybe they're part of sympathetic plot lines. But the player could see them as remorseless criminals. And the idea of a ruthless crimefighter is a fairly popular archetype following the 90s.

Arguing that Steam isn't DRM is a pointless argument. I know, I've been on your side. People who don't like Steam because they consider it DRM.. don't like Steam. Requiring them to use Steam will not benefit anyone.

And if the game does the same? Why would it be so different??? Arrogant players and munchkins detract from a group. Single players detract from nobody.

Is it stalling on the system question for anyone else?

The questions seem good, if already answered for those of us following so passionately. I really liked the question about monsters. Too bad it lacked information.

Yes. But the question is why do you need a [Lie] tag to do any of those things? I agree on most of what you're saying, but this is the part I find unnecessary. If I was being manipulative, that should be between me and nobody. Quite frankly, this is exactly the playstyle I've been using for years. We all have. We flatter the NPCs, we say what they want to hear, we do the quests the way they want them done. And we do it like sociopaths, we do it not because we agree, we do it because we expect to get something out of it. And that's how I've justified my Lawful Evil characters for years.

Every single final battle in a BG game is the bane of my existence. Planescape and Arcanum's were far more satisfying.

A quest isn't defined by a quest giver. A quest is defined by the challenges. So is avoiding it should it seek you out or be in your way. The flight from the ringwraiths was no small feat. The death of the Witch-King was anti-climactic by comparison.

Everything in the game world should exist to provide the players with an interesting experience. That can involve not stroking their ego and without killing. Just make sure it's not about belittling them for petty reasons. Too many DMs fall for that trap and try to hide behind higher ideals. Teaching the player is, in my opinion, an interesting thing. But the line between teaching and obnoxious preaching is hard for some to see. I think the healthy approach is to maintain a level of consistency. And focus on using rewards for appreciated behavior instead of punishment for behaviors your dislike. Give them a weapon for minding the signs, don't set them back an hour for not.

I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk? It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace.

I thought about asking people how it was. But everyone's busy with XCOM.

I hope he's a drunk.

Only if the alternative paths are not designed in accordance with their intended difficulty. Sneaking past a major boss fight should be an interesting experience on its own. Perhaps even challenging, with something more complex than pass/fail. Same goes for a dialogue encounter.

Ideally, the game should offer the followup anyway. The game shouldn't have to keep track, it should just assume it's always possible the player was. This is only interesting if there's a bluff mechanic. See my next point for the problem with it, though. If the game is going to offer the [Lie] option and the [Truth] option, but then penalize the player by making the Lie seen through, then all you're doing is punishing the player for being honest with the game. It's kicking the player for playing along. Which is just kind of a jerk move. The best method I have found is to immediately assume the player is telling the truth, but allow for the player to act or follow it up contrary. And you should never turn words into actions for the player. If a character is to assume the player is lying, they should do it according solely to their characterization or based on the facts of behavior. What about trying to save the children but failing? What exactly do you expect the endgame of that scenario to be, if not identical? If the game treats it any differently, then it threatens to invalidate the deception.