Neverwhere

That would be real nice. I accidentally overwrote my save games while in Sun in Shadow, so it looks like my old party won't be seeing the expansion. Kind of a shame. Would be fantastic if there were some kind of fix for this.

Because this is not a book. I'm sick of railroaded stories in videogames. If Project Eternity is going to be like that then the developers should warn us. At least I would stop worrying about this game and I'd look somewhere else for a real role playing experience. Since this is an RPG I want to be in charge of what my character does and feels. I want to be able to decide if a love story fits the character I'm playing or not, exactly like I want to be able to decide if I'm good or bad, chaotic or lawful, altruistic or individualist etc. Let's say that in the beginning of the story my character is happily married. The plt starts and after a painful event my wife gets killed. I want to have the chance to decide if my character finds the strength to move on (and finds another one to love) or keeps mourning his true love forever. This is roleplaying, not some ready-made experience you have to swallow as it is or screw off. No. Roleplaying is about making the best of a range of choices that is inherently limited. When playing a pen and paper game, you do not expect the GM to come up with a whole new adventure in the middle of a session, because "your character wouldn't act that way". You suck it up and make the best of it. By the same token, I'm entirely happy to be railroaded in a CRPG if the story it tells is worth it. Shame that so many are not.

If immersion is in point, then a good plot beats poorly integrated romance options any day. Companies that do include gay romance options normally don't do it out of a moral impetus, but because there is money in doing it. Which is prefectly fine and legitimate. The real issue, which is pretty evident when looking e.g. at gay romance options in Bioware games, is that these companies at the same time go to great lengths to "protect" the straight player by ringfencing the romance option from the rest of the game. After all, straight players shouldn't feel like they are missing out on something because they didn't pick the gay romance option. And vice versa. This leads to romance becoming a rather meaningless minigame which contributes nothing to immersion.

Some trolls aside, I don't think many people would make the argument that romance options should be straight-only. What people rightfully oppose is the Bioware approach of "spreading the love equally", which leads to romance becoming a minigame with very limited real implications for the game's plot. If it is included at all, romance should serve the plot and not be a game apart from the real game. This is not an issue of entitlement, but an issue of the work's integrity - just like noone's entitled to a gay version of John Milius' Conan the Barbarian, or to an alcohol- and drug-free version of TC Boyle's novels. If that means that some players' demand is not served, then so be it.

I do not quite know why PnP role playing necessarily calls for stricter game mechanics. My experience is that the main issue both in PnP and in computer games which necessitates rules is not world simulation (i.e. interaction between the players and the GM) - rather, it is interaction between players. That is why one-on-one PnP campaigns tend to be very relaxed when it comes to rules: it is usually both in the GM's and in the player's interest to get on with the story (and the player will not have to show off his character's mad skillz to anyone but the guy who actually controls the story). Similarly, WoW, a modern CRPG which dwarfs Oblivion in terms of success, relies on an incredibly rigid rules based approach - and it has to, in order to ensure some kind of balance between players. In such a system, players' rewards are obviously not so much based on personal skill as on prior strategic choices. I would then argue that WoW's success is enough to dismiss the current dogma of CRPGs having to become more "action-oriented" - there appears to be a huge customer base who is entirely happy with classical RPG gratification. There is a point to be made for more player control in the case of single PC CRPGs (like the Gothic and the Elder Scrolls series). Gothic 3 combat in particular makes the deficiencies of a "mixed" system apparent. Yes, I can make my PC perform all kinds of fancy attack moves, but what's the use when the difference appears to be marginal? Why do the old infinity engine "lure away and kill" tactics still work in a modern game? etc... However, in a party-based CRPG, I think that a departure from the rules-based approach is much less called for. Tactical micromanagement of party members' actions and skill-based combat are, to a large extent, mutually exclusive. Also, good party-based CPRGs will allow the various PCs to divide up their labour, which might reopen some paths which would have been closed in a game dependent on choices made by the player for one single character. Where many games get it wrong is at the level of interaction with NPCs. Usually, you will have to rely on some kind of lead character to engage in those. If you decide to have your lead character invest in combat skills rather than in diplomacy, tough luck. ToEE did a good job in allowing you to designate who of your party members would engage in conversations, and I do not quite see why this should not be done in a game offering some more meaningful dialogue choices than an old hack and slash DnD module.