Aristes

Yeah, but I'm not against regulation anyhow. I'm pro market, but not unreservedly.

I don't think that's it, Gorgon. I think most folks just don't have problems with their insurance and these big cases, such as cancer, don't appear to be the norm. I've known too many people with cancer who have received treatment, and none who have been denied it, to think that I've just been that lucky over the years. Assuming these cases are not the norm, which would highlight why folks who suffer these outrages have such a compelling story, then it leads to complacency. Still, I sure as hell don't like the idea of my insurance company using a technicality to deny me service with the result being that I end up dead. The reason this isn't a big issue for Americans is twofold as I see it: 1) Despite the high profile cases, most folks have received thorough and expeditious care and 2) Most people don't get cancer, let alone rarer diseases that literally bankrupt some families in the Unites States. My take is simple, we can't dramatically change our system because some aspects of it are very well politically protected, either by industry or consumer groups (old folks).

The irony is, I've actually been quite ill during this whole time. I woke up at 4am on Thursday with a stomach ache. My stomach had been hurting the week before for a few days, but I didn't think much of it but it's been getting worse/longer over the years. This last time was the clincher. I wake up with my stomach hurting on Thursday and I call my doctor Friday. She had me come in the same day and described my problem. She sent me out with a lab slip for blood work and a prescription. Well, I didn't realize she wanted me to go get that blood work done that day, so I went home and I planned on getting the blook work done this morning, which I did. Meanwhile, last night was the worst night of all. I didn't want to go to the emergency room, so I decided to tough it out. My wife called the doctor's office this morning and my doctor, who is not even in the office today, called me back and talked to me for about a half hour. She didn't even sound angry when she found out that I only did my bloodwork today. Luckily, the lab that did my bloodwork this morning should have the results to her by tomorrow and she'll be able to make more decisions. Meanwhile, she said that I should definitely go to the emergency room if the pain is bad enough to prevent me from sleeping. Let's hope that I keep feeling better. Still hurts, though. Right now, I'm pretty happy with my insurance because, since we don't have freakin' UHC, I need health insurance. Otherwise, everything would be out of pocket. By the way, the idea that my insurer makes money when I'm sick is just dumb. My insurer loses money when I get sick. What I want to make sure is that my insurance company doesn't look at the cost of getting me better and decide that they lose a lot less money if I die. I have no doubt that happens unfortunately. NEVERTHELESS (just thought I'd shout that), my insurance company makes money if I'm alive and well more than in any other state of affairs, right? As far as the health insurance industry making money off of their investment and spending money to lobby in Washington, I have a couple observations. First of all, we can all cite things to put insurance industry people in a bad light. Yeah, they lobby Washington. I wonder who else lobby's washington? I wonder who else contributes to political campaigns? As it seems to me, every industry and even non-industry people like, oh, I dunno, Move-On.org spend an aweful lot of money to be part of the political process. Oh, but some people spend money to grease the wheels because they're the good guys? What a laugh. There have also been several groups who have spent money lobbying congress on this issue. The trial lawyer lobby has once again ensured that no meaningful tort reform will take place in any of the legislation. Hmmm, those shining beacons of altruism, trial lawyers. Nevertheless, in the same way I don't begrudge insurance companies for making money, I don't hold it against the trial lawyers. Even so, if we need healthy oversight over insurance companies, we sure as hell need tort reform as well, and since we actually do have laws regarding insurance companies in place *gasp*, we probably need tort reform more than any other single thing in the health care package. I did watch the Bill Moyers interview with Wendall Potter. I think there's something to be learned from watching the clip, but I also have to observe that Moyers already fell squarely in the UHC camp and I was surprised that PBS uses a Michael Moore film as substantive support for any position. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Michael Moore. He does tend to be on the losing end of a lot of issues, though. You'd figure someone who cheats and plays loose with the facts as much as Michael Moore does would be more effective. *shrug* If the case is for federal regulation, I don't have anything against Potter. Frankly, I think he's courageous. However, let me turn this around. What about people who have Blue Shield? I do. I don't mistake myself in thinking that the execs there give a crap about me. On the other hand, I don't take for granted that nurses, doctors, mechanics, or grocery store clerks give a crap about me either. Nonetheless, my insurance has worked for me very well over the past decades. Moyers shows video of the woman who was dumped by Blue Shield after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and that shows that they're intentionally screwing all their customers? What about my friend who had Blue Shield and received treatments, including experimental treatments, until she finally died (of an opportunistic infection). You might recall me talking about this friend who recently passed away in the "what you did" thread. ...And, I would say, my friend, God rest her soul, was too scared to go to the oncologist for several years. That meant that she got treatment that was far more expensive and ultimately ineffective because of her own bad decisions. The other thing I'd point out is that we have auto-insurance in the United States. Folks have to buy it in the state where I reside. Auto-insurance companies don't make money off of your car accidents any more than health insurers make money off of your illness. Still, both companies exist because of bad stuff that happens. However, even though car insurance companies cover things like accidents, injuries, and deaths, they make a hell of a lot of money. It's not evil to make money. Let me try to see if there's any common ground to be had. Where I can agree with folks is that healthcare should be more efficient. I think obvious abuses of the system on the part of the industry and the consumer should be addressed. Tort reform is absolutely necessary if we're to move the operating prices down. I honestly believe that no one should be barred from health insurance. These are the big ones that spring to mind right now, but throw some other ones out there. Maybe we agree more than we think. You know, Junai, we always seem to be on the other end of the issues, but that doesn't mean we always have to be. I see you as a person who is keenly concerned with social justice. You have strong beliefs. I simply cannot think we don't agree on at least some things.

I don't see the difference between a doctor making a killing by practicing medicine and an insurer making money by investing in an insurance company. Even in Canada's system, the administrators don't work for free. It's just silly. People making money off of the sick and dying is the very definition of the Health Care profession. By the same logic, drug companies should not make any money for producing drugs to combat AIDS or cancer? The researchers working for those company only have their jobs because people get AIDS and cancer. They might be the noblest folks in the world, but someone must foot the bill. As I've said before, health insurance isn't even the most lucrative business. Walsh talked about the interaction between food products and the economy. Last I heard, most grocery chains make 1 cent on the dollar. They stay in business on volume. Come on, they shouldn't even make that 1%. After all, they're making money off of folks being hungry! How dare they? Krezak said earlier that it was weird reading what Americans had to say about healthcare. I'll turn that around. It astounds me to read what Europeans have to say about these issues. There must be someone who can put patients in touch with doctors to take care of medical problems and that would be the role of insurer. The insurance industry is not inherently evil. They provide a service and should be paid for it. Where there are abuses, and there are abuses in every industry, the guilty folks should be punished.

Buchanan is completely bunk. Wrathie's right. He not only defends Hitler, but vilifies Churchill. How messed up is that? The guy is a September 1 Truther for crying out loud. Well, not really, but you know what I mean. Anyhow, I haven't forgotten about you, Walsh. It's just that it takes a long time to write anything substantive on a topic so broad. ...And a topic where so many of us here lack firsthand knowledge of the ins and outs of policy. My background certainly isn't in healthcare administration. A couple things I will say is that I don't believe that placing UHC on top of our current arrangement will save us a damned thing. I think it will literally break the bank. Trying to remove Medicare is simply impossible. No party will take on Medicare to replace it with UHC. It's not going to happen soon and we can judge how desperate the situation is in the United States by the issue. When folks talk about scrapping Medicare, I know it's time to stock up on Toilet paper, food, and ammunition, because all hell is about to break loose. That's why the fiscal savings arguments don't do much for me. Meshugger has that blurb a couple posts up and I think it completely describes the situation. No one group wants to give up what it has to get UHC. I'm convinced that my wife and I have much better insurance than anything the reformers want to put in place in terms of normal healthcare. If we get a long term debilitating disease, that would undoubtedly not be true. On the other hand, my wife sees specialists extremely quickly and with hardly any paper work on our end. My mother has already had her MRI and had two meetings with the neurologist in regards to one condition within the entire time frame it has taken for an English friend to be diagnosed with a heart problem and then to see her cardiologist. No joke, as far as I know, she still hasn't seen her cardiologist. Anecdotal? Sure, but real people I personally know at the very least. The other thing is, 5% is not a huge return on an investment. I agree that the insurance industry is not efficient. On the other hand, the premier govt run plan, Medicare, is apparently so screwed up that the feds can squeeze 500 billion dollars out of it to pay for a government option that isn't even UHC. It's not even close. I don't think insurance companies are terrible because the investors expect to make money. I believe the actual payoff per dollar for the insurance companies is closer to 3 than 5, but there are other companies that make much more money per dollar. At some point, we have to stop worrying that someone might actually make money off of providing a service. We have a capitalist system and, no matter how much doom or gloom you guys spout, that system has served the United States well. The time is coming to pay the piper, but whatever we decide to do, we should not abandon a free market system. On a final note regarding this matter, I don't think UHC and free markets in general are mutually exclusive. For example, we don't have a private army for national defense. We could implement UHC and still have a free market system in place for other products and services. It does, however, undermine the free market principle. If we could start from scratch, I would be less hostile to UHC. I would still be against it on principle, but if the people wanted it, I'd live with it. What I cannot see working is mixing the two. I know I've said this several times, but we can't slap UHC on what we already have. ...And most of the demographic groups that weild real political power in the United States do not want to give up what they have in order to be part of a standardized system. Obama simply didn't win because he promised to reform healthcare. Most people in the US, even now, place the deficit and the economy before healthcare in terms of importance, and that's after months of privately funded commercials and endless government infomercials. Obama won because Bush was unpopular and the economy staggered. He owes less to anything he said for his victory than the fact that the public associated McCain, who is also a pretty lackluster politician, with Bush.

We barely made it into one coherent union in the first place and we've been dragging ourselves forward in that union since day one. Since before day one. Since we were a bunch of wildly independent colonies. I haven't given up hope in the United States and I won't. We can say our peace. We can vote. We can make our will known. The side with the most money behind it has not always won the day. In fact, there are many times when the side spending the most money has gone down to inglorious defeat. I don't want to give up a single New Englander, no matter how much he reviles me for being a 'conservative' and I, in a fit of passion, revile him as being a 'liberal.'

Ah, every president has someone telling folks that he's criminal, or he'll start world war 3, etc. Certainly, there has been a lot of hinkey business done in the White House, but some of these claims are just plain stupid. Don't like the President? Slap a 'Hitler mustache' on a picture of his face and make a poster. Even the liberals, who have used this tactic more, are the target. heh

I almost laughed out loud at this line: "...lowering even further the general level of civility..." made in reference to protestors at the town hall meetings. That's pretty rich coming from an expletive filled diatribe. The piece didn't make me angry, though. I can't respect it, and that's because the blogger had the opportunity to have a frank debate but resorted to what I consider deceptive tactics. That's funny considering his central theme of bashing deceptive Democrats. I'll cite two examples. On the first page (and I read each and every one) the blogger mentions 47 million uninsured people. The only way to come up with such a number is to include illegal aliens. Now, I don't know if European countries offer UHC to illegal immigrants or not. I'm not joking. Maybe you do, that's fine. However, if you want to be an honest little blogger, why not say something to the effect of "47 million people, 36 million or so are US citizens?" It strikes me as deceptive to leave out a detail that is the cornerstone of so many arguments against the bills. Of course, President Obama says that Illegal aliens will not be covered by this reform, but the fact is that California tried to deny non emergency public services to illegal aliens and the federal courts shot them down. The SCotUS opted not to hear the case at all, which means that California must provide these services to illegal aliens. Frankly, as an aside, I don't think we should deny public education to illegal aliens because many of them are here to stay and educating their children helps society as a whole. Non emergency healthcare? I don't know about that. I'm actually sympathetic to folks who want a better life and risk everything to come here. Balanced against that is the fact that I want folks to follow our immigration laws. The blogger used another example of what I consider decption in regards to a specific argument attributed to George Will specifically and conservatives in general. Basically, the argument is that private insurance will not be able to compete with the government option because the government option will not require a profit and therefore private insurance will be at a disadvantage. The blogger took this as an argument that affirms the greater efficiency of the government run system. However, that's not what Will or other conservatives mean at all. The point they make, and I agree with it, is that the government run option will be a mandate and it cannot lose money. Whatever shortfall it has, the government must cover. You can't provide insurance for everyone, let people with good insurance keep what they have, reduce spending, and do it all by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. That makes no sense at all. Frankly, it's a weird argument anyhow. The government will run things with much more efficiency but there is sufficient waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system that cutting it down will lead to sufficient savings to fund the bills? Most conservatives believe that this boondoggle will end up costing a fortune and the government, once committed, will be forced to spend an increasing amount on it. The CBO, which has hardly been a Republican bastion, has attested to this. To credit the blogger, he did mention the CBO on page seven of the piece. Where I will agree with the blogger is that we cannot have UHC in the United States without starting from scratch. Medicare is a complete disaster. It has built in increases in spending that are simply going to bankrupt us as a nation and there is virtually no way to get rid of the program. Even an attempt to reduce the increase in spending falls under attack from our wonderful media who literally refer to such measures as 'cutting medicare.' I don't see any way to go to a single payer govt run system that will not bankrupt our country faster than we're already bankrupting ourselves by misusing and abusing Medicare and Social Security. Anyhow, I think it was an interesting read, and so I honestly appreciate the post, Mesh. I don't have time to respond to your excellent post, Walsh, but I will only say, you're not a jerk. You're a lunatic. lol. Ouch. I've had this stomach problem the past week or so and it hurts to laugh. So much for posting at a quarter to five am.

Well, I just got vaccinated today. I needed to see the doctor and while I was there they gave me the shot. Yay! I can eat pork again. hahaha

Haha Good on you, Ros. Plus, I don't really think you're a jerk for calling me a lunatic, Walsh. That would be like the pot calling the kettle black. ...Or something.

Hey Walsh, you jerk, don't call me a lunatic. I was responding to your comments about the insurers being hungry ants. Are grocery chains evil for making a profit? ...And they have even less of a profit margin. Food is even more vital to life than health insurance. Is there a universal food coverage program? There is a food program in most countries to help the people most in need, but it's not the equivalent of UFC. I don't disagree with trying to make sure health care is available to all. However, any person with an emergency will get service. As far as insurance goes, there are folks right now who have the money to buy health insurance and decide not to do so because they don't want to spend the cash. Now, you mentioned straw man earlier. I would say that the only argument I have made is that it's expensive. It is expensive and I don't think the expense will lessen with UHC using the same sorts of paradigms we have now. Yes, the US spends far more on health care. Funny. We spend astronomically more on defense also. Once again, I say that comparing our state of affairs with yours simplistic. Otherwise, I would say that a UHC is not communistic, but it is socialistic in that it veers away from a free market. Mostly, I don't think my standard of care will improve. Having friends abroad, I have some basis for that assumption. So, which is better, good care for most folks are fair care for everyone? Which is better from a moral point of view? I'm not die hard against the system, but I don't see it as inherently better. BTW: I personally think the 'you must be greedy because you don't support UHC' argument is pretty hollow. I don't know what you all give to charity, but I have a lot of strident liberal friends who talk a lot about helping the poor who don't give a dime to charity at all.

Heh, sorry if that was a spoil to you. No, that's not a spoiler at all, bro. I mean, the mage gets a low damage unlimited use staff? That's exactly the sort of targeted info I want.

Oh, that answers my question. ...And undoubtedly doesn't spoil any of the game for me.

To be fair, I might like the magic system as much as Monte. Fact is, I don't know much about the system and I was just making conversation regarding the fact wizards apparently don't have a weapon skill. In fact, if we include at least some way for wizards to participate, I could live with the Vancian system. Heh, I didn't even know the system was called Vancian until Gromnir posted it. I had to look it up. Anyhow, I don't hate the system, per se. I just don't like it as much in a computer game. You can always come up with creative ways to use spells in DnD, but you lose a lot of that in a computer game. I can come up with a lot of differences between the rage ability of a barbarian as opposed to the mages spell memorization ruleset, but I don't really care as much since I learned that DA will use mana. Maybe not perfect, but it should mean that my mage still has some way to participate in the early battles even without a weapon skill. Frankly, I've been thinking and maybe I just don't have enough info. I was actually thinking that even before Amentep posted his stuff just now and seeing his post reinforces that suspicions. Just because mages don't have a weapon skill tree doesn't mean that they are barred from using any weapons does it? If not, great. If they are, I just want something I can do during the battle. maybe hurl insults at the bad guys? Scream and run in cirlces?

Yeah, Walsh, but this assumes that the insurance companies are making huge amounts of cash hand over fist. I simply can't see begrudging folks for making money. Now, I'll trust one of you accountant types to know more about this, but the return on investment in the insurance industry is supposed to be between 3-5%. That doesn't seem unreasonable. The point of a capitalist system is that folks invest money in order to make more. If we completely destroy the incentive by removing any return, investment stops and the government is forced to step into the role of insurer. Yes, there are terrible and greedy insurance company execs. There are terrible and greedy people everywhere, but the point shouldn't be to bring down the whole apperatus because of folks gaming the system. If we need oversight, fine. Implement oversight and try to catch the rat bastards who game the system. Of course, by the same token, folks game every system. In this forum, I'm probably one of the more conservative, but I'm not behind 100% free market principles without any form of government oversight. I just don't think that universal health care is the way to go. Even then, I'm not going to take to the streets if Obama manages to get socialized health care through congress. I don't think he can, but I won't rebel over the idea. My biggest beef is with the way the media depicts people who don't favor a government run option in the healthcare plan. If you voice your opinion on the matter, you're a 'brown shirt' or a 'thug' or simply uneducated. We have quite a few advanced degrees among the folks in my family. The only one who favors UHC? My aunt who earned her JD from Bezerkly in the early 1990s and decided that being a lawyer was 'not fun' and has not even used her degree for anything going on damn near twenty years. The point is, just because you don't buy into the govt run option doesn't mean you're ignorant. By the same token, just because you don't want UHC doesn't mean that you're some evil rich Republican. My wife is a registerd Democrat and she's far more hostile to the govt run option than me. Better educated as well. I'm just smarter. hehehe Just kidding. Anyhow, on top of the fact that we're a split R/D household, we give far more money to charity than many of our more wealthy friends. We also don't give as much as some of our less affluent friends. Fact is, both Republicans and Democrats give money to charity, volunteer, and support their communities. So, when I see the media and the Democrats blindly attacking folks voicing their dissent as ignorant, uneducated, and greedy idiots, it doesn't bring me closer to their positions.

At least that was an intelligent response. Come on, you might as well flame me. It's been a long time and I'm usually pretty quick to forgive message board showdowns.

Wow, what an ignorant post. One of the most ignorant I've ever seen. Your comments are foolish. Great idea, once one party gets in power, they arrest folks with impugnity. Good Lord, I rarely say this to folks, but please move. Go to Denmark. They've got well paid psychiatrists to deal with you. Yeah, that would be you, Aram. Don't come after me with your weapons now. As to the sane people in the thread: I think that amount will vary greatly in the United States, Ros. Denmark is not quite as large as the United States. If the average is taken from around the country, you're getting the high and low together. I don't know what the comparison would be, but I'd be interested to know how that comparison would work between major urban areas. For example, what about, say, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC? I did look up the salaries myself. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People..._Doctors/Salary Now, if you switch that US to other codes, which are fairly intuitive, then you can compare salaries. For example, DE is Germany: http://www.payscale.com/research/DE/People..._Doctors/Salary I would use Denmark, but I don't think any of them are open: http://www.payscale.com/research/DK/People..._Doctors/Salary Problem is, while most of the data seems to indicate pretty strongly that the US does indeed have damned good pay, the fact is many of the specialty salaries are hidden for the protection of the folks inhabiting the category. The US has the most open of them that I read, and my reading might be wrong also. I'm not exactly an accountant type. The biggest reason so many of us in the United States distrust claims about the rosie nature of other health care systems is because there are regional differences at work, which you noted. (Thanks, I appreciate that.) I think my biggest problem isn't with socialized healthcare per se. I have had excellent, speedy, and thorough health care my whole life, and so I don't think it would be better, but I would not go gonzo if the US adopted it. The problem is with the systems in place now, some of which have created many of our problems. Personally, I think we would need to start from the ground up, but that's not feasible in the United States. For the record, I don't want to go to Universal Health care. Someone will get the shaft in any system. Why should the fact that you've done well for yourself be any more evil than the fact that you're part of a particular group? Older folks vs younger folks? More likely to survive vs less likely? What criteria would the bureaucrats use? If someone claims that the bureaucrats would be fairest, I'll laugh. hahaha I'm laughing in advance. As far as free market goes, it's fairly pointless to compare the median salary for Denmark against the United States anyhow. That's because there are too many factors built into practicing within a country as opposed to moving between countries. Add wide variances between regions in large countries like the US and the problem is even worse. EDIT: I ammended my comments to be slightly less offensive. They were already quite a bit less offensive than Aram's. Aw, hell, I even excised the Will Rogers comment. Too personal. Still, one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen, dude.

Naw, I get it Vol. I disagree. It's not a matter of getting through the fights. It's a matter of convenience. I just happen to fall on the other side of the issue. I don't think it sacrifices much by way of strategy/tactics to allow more flexibility. You think juggling spell memorization is part of the fun. It's like folks who prefer more constraints on inventory and folks who just want a place to dump loot. I never had a problem with KotOR's inventory system. Then again, I've never had a problem playing inventory tetris either. At any rate, dude, I get it. Close as I can come to common sense, though, 'cause I'll still disagree.

The thing is the utility spells. Either don't bother including them, or don't punish the player by making his slots useless. DnD compromised for clerics and druids by making their primary spell type spontaneous. I like the mage. It's my fave and, memorization or mana, I'm going to play and enjoy one. I just want the game to emphasize strategy and tactics and memorization is actually a step back. Except for Vol and others who have mastered the knowledge of the exact moment they'll need spells of a particular type. Common sense just doesn't make sense to me, but I'm happy that Vol has the common sense to foresee the future.

Yeah, the DnD system really favors folks who do a second run, however, as they know the useful spells to include. I would think that there must be at least some folks that agree with me inasmuchas some games don't use the choose and pray option. ...And where exactly is the strategy in memorizing spells for an area you haven't seen yet? Sure, you can try to anticipate whether spells like 'knock' or 'detect lie' are going to be useful, but if you correctly foresee the usefulness, you're simply lucky. If you include it and don't find it useful, then you can either keep that slot dedicated or switch it out. If you keep a slot for Knock, then you've lost the slot for more enounters than you'll have opportunity to use the spell. Great, so you simply play until you reach a point where knock will be useful and then switch and rest? That doesn't sound like strategy. It certainly doesn't seem fun. Okay, so you probably dedicate most of your slots to combat spells. Okay, what sounds good? You probably want a variety in there, but let's say you choose a mix of fire, ice, and maybe some other damage type in there. If you end up fighting both fire and ice resistant/immune creatures, you're a great strategist? *scoff* If you end up facing either creatures with no immunities or with only immunity to ice, then you didn't make a good decision. ...But wait! You see that the first creatures you fight have no immunities and you have to decide what to use. So you use.... fire? Ooops, only ice immunity later. You can't know that before hand. You must use your gutometer and that is not strategy. The fact is, spell memorization can lead to trial and error for a lot of folks, and that's fine. It's especially okay for folks who are so prescient that they make the perfect choices all the time or folks who play the game and then go through again having advanced intelligence on the area. For other folks, however, it's nice to have more flexibility. I think it's great to make players choose which spell trees they get, although even then you either have to make it possible to kill everything not matter which spells the player chooses or include options that will eventually make the game extremely difficult for some players. It's not a huge deal for me, though. I've played and enjoyed games of both varieties. From what I understand reading the past couple of pages, the Dragon Age designers tend to favor the mana idea. cool.

I haven't really seen the mana style in any of the core DnD rulebooks. I haven't read 4e, though, so maybe it's in there. ...Or maybe I just haven't paid enough attention. *shrug* Dunno. I'm not a huge fan of mana, but it does have its advantages in a crpg, one of which is that it tends to help with the very problem I just described above. I don't think it's the only solution, but it suffices well enough I guess. Alls I care about is that I don't end up feeling compelled to save spells all the time. I should feel fairly confident that I can get away with using my heavy hitters without thinking I've squandered my stash o' spellfun too early. In a roleplaying sense, I agree that memorization tends to reinforce the mage as scholar philosophy behind DnD.

Frasier is my fave. I have the series on dvd. Anyhow, my favorite form of entertainment is PC gaming, which is why I'm talking about Dragon Age.

If mages can't use weapons, I would expect them to have enough umph to carry on through a series of engagements without rest. One of the things DnD does is grind out the party by forcing the characters to use a steady stream of spells. It was always a balancing act to intersperse larger battles with skirmishes and puzzles in order to make sure the characters were rarely at full spell capacity but they could conceivably win any of the big fights as long as they approached the area with at least some intelligence. What I don't want to see in Dragon age is a lot of moments where any one party member just stands around because he doesn't have spells, or his skills are useless, or he'd just get in the way. That's not fun in a game where combat is so prevalent. Frankly, that's one of my beefs with how DnD handles spells. Doesn't mean it's not fun, but I would expect mages to have at least something to bring to the table for every fight and maybe even be the prime combatant for some fights. In a PnP RPG, there can be room for what amounts to a non-combatant. Characters can have some skills that transcend combat value. It's not as common in DnD, no, but it's certainly viable and some RPGs even encourage focusing on non-combat skills. Computer RPGs aren't quite there yet. I don't know what's going to happen with the mages, but I intend to play one on the first run. I certainly hope that I don't get to blow my wad on the first few battles and then stand around waiting for the warriors to hack down opponents for the next three. ...And, forcing the mages to conserve some spells/mana/whatever isn't bad. Chaining them to boring battles where they must constantly hold off on big spells for fear of what's coming next is bad. I don't want to sit on my most powerful spells on my first run because I don't know if I'll be screwing myself by casting any of them. I know most of us have ended up at the end of the game with a bunch of loot that we never used because we saved it for a rainy day. If I know that I can cast a fairly steady stream of spells without running myself dry, then I can risk some of my hard hitters. I don't think mages should be able to run roughshod over stuff, just that we don't have the DnD spell memorization scheme that would result in a substantial number of battles during which the mage sits on the sisdelines without even a single weapon skill. Boring.

I want to be able to send one of my NPCs out to deliver a note to someone for me. While he's gone, I expect him to destroy a few crates looking for loot. At any rate, I want him to return with the response. I want to be able to reward my NPC with some money and maybe an item or two.