Magister Lajciak

Ok, this is the same thing as what I call the quasi-turn-based system. It runs in real-time, but the underlying mechanics determining success are not based on reflexes of the player, but rather on the abilities of the characters. I like the system. I think it is a great compromise between real-time and turn-based and would indeed like to see KOTOR 3 based on this principle.

Ok, maybe I am missing something. I thought you just stated that "RTwP combat is the only way to go". While I don't know what 'RTwP' stands for, I assumed it stands for real-time combat. And yes, lightsaber action in the movies is fast and thus real-time combat might be better at evoking similar feelings. The need for good coordination and reflexes, however, lessens its appeal for me significantly. I think the semi-real time combat found in the original two KOTOR games is good enough at eliciting the right feeling.

Thank you! So if I understand it correctly, the PCI-E interface connection means the two cards cannot communicate as effectively as if they were on the same board and the whole setup is thus slower.

Although a true real-time system might indeed better evoke the feeling of Star Wars lightsaber combat, I would not be thrilled to see that, since I am not terribly dexterous and would thus find the game excessively difficult, perhaps even impossible, to complete.

I hope it is KOTOR 3, but I think it will be a let down (KOTOR MMO).

Fair enough - I recognize that you have a point here, but once I have played the game once and thus established the first playthrough as 'canon', I already know the story and even if I could detach myself from the feeling that future playthroughs dilute the first one, I would find any subsequent playthroughs much less interesting.

Actually, I wonder: How many of the rest of us who are not particularly enamored by the 4th edition based on what has been released so far also fall into the simulationist category of gamers?

Just out of interest, which of the classification systems do you prefer?

I don't think that D&D has ever been too strong in simulation game play. I mean, we are talking multiple forms of instant healing, over half the classes empowered by some form of magic, and people talking to animals, ghosts, gods, etc. on a fairly regular basis. Sim gaming seems to have better chances with almost any other system, especially GURPS or Shadowrun (Though a lot of house rules would need to go in place for SR). D&D has certainly not been designed around simulationist game-play, but it has been reasonable at supporting it. The key question is what we seek to simulate. I look for the simulation of a fantasy world, so having magic and supernatural effects is not a problem, so long as these are explained in the world and the mechanics correspond to the explanation. Gamist concepts, such as 'per encounter' spells that appear in the 4th edition, however, break this for me. Besides, I really don't want to switch to another system. I like many D&D tropes and monsters that simply don't appear in other systems, so if I decide not to change to 4E, I will simply stay with 3.5E - I will not look for another system.

Glad to help!

If that's what they're doing they'll lose more than 20% though, at least in theory. This because elements that appeal to sim gamers overlap with those of other groups. True, but not all simulationist gamers will be lost either, since no matter how hard they try to expunge it, some degree of simulationism will remain. Actually, it appears that I have conflated two systems of categorization together. My apologies for the confusion. WotC research ostensibly found different four categories: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gami...RPGPlayers.html The model you were thinking of and which in my shoddy memory merged with the one above is this one: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0 To be honest, I prefer the latter model, as I consider myself to be a simulationist gamer (though I do enjoy other aspects of RPGs), but I don't know where I would place myself on WotC's scale. Yes, this is the case for me - I enjoy DMing and playing D&D 3.5E in PnP, but the simulationist aspects, although subdued, are important to my enjoyment of the game. I also enjoy D&D in CRPGs. I was not trying to imply that they will lose the full 20%, just saying that these 20% are being completely ignored in terms of the design decisions made. In any case, I conflated the two systems of categorization. Using the Simulationist, Narrativist, Gamist (SNG) system we don't know what percentage of players falls into which category, so the 20% figure is moot anyhow. I would not dare to put a percentage on it, but I would say that there are very significant numbers of other gamers present too. Still, the gamist group might be predominant. I agree with your assessment of WotC's decision-making, but it does not make me any happier about the fit of 4E for my gaming needs.

No, as a straight sim it was not. As a game with fantasy simulationist elements, however, it was very good. In 4E design, though, WotC seems to have utterly and without any regret ignored any notion of the simulationist group.

Apparently, the 4E is going to have a consolidated skill list, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, WotC felt the need to combine this with auto-progression for all skills...

Changing of the combat system would probably only serve to move the game towards 'twitch-based' realtime combat. That is the trend these days, so I doubt that in changing the combat system developers would chose a turn-based one.

What is a PCB?

One issue I have with the 4th edition is that it seems to completely shut out simulationist gamers. I recall that WotC market research found that RPG gamers fall into 4 quandrants with approximately 20% of gamers in each (and about 20 percent smack in the middle). One of those quadrants was analogous to simulationist gaming and others to other concepts. I understand why WotC would want to sacrifice 20% of their customers to please 80% of their market, but it still hurts to be on the losing side and being a simulationist gamer I am rather miffed by this and unsure whether I will pick up the 4th edition.

Apparently, some of the info is not entirely accurate: http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?t...rum=84&sp=0

I have no clue what 'Soul Caliber' is, but mixing characters from different game universes is generally lame.

The changes being made to 4E are substantial. In fact, from the looks of it this edition transition appears to be the biggest rules change between editions of D&D thus far. Whether the changes being made are good is another matter. I personally feel that some are good (e.g. every class getting something interesting at every level), while others are negative (e.g. the removal of various abilities from monsters to make them 'more focused', which may make them easier to run in combat, but eliminates many abilities that would be useful for monsters as NPCs - I hope they add rituals for monsters to compensate, but with the focus of 4E on combat, I am somewhat sceptical).

I think short-term fun versus long-term fun is what this is about. Long-term fun, at least for me, but presumably for most, requires delayed gratification. Unfortunately, instant gratification seems to be a design goal of 4E. I am still not abandoning hope for the new edition - it may still prove to be a good one - but it does seem to be changing a lot of things I like.

This is definitely the case. The only alternative I can see is another 'event' that would remove power from one of the old PCs, but a new PC is the better choice.

I feel that in D&D terms, many if not all permanent magic items should be artifacts. This does not mean they should be overly powerful, but they should have drawbacks, interesting powers and a history behind them. Perhaps, they should even be unique.

Dragon Age is another game I look forward to.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to Obsidian and the Community as a whole!

Merry Christmas to everybody indeed! I was not trying to suggest that the complaint does not belong here - I think it is appropriate right here. I merely suggested posting it also on the forums I linked in order to maximise the number of developers and company representatives who get to see it.