Monte Carlo

I'd love to see how this would have worked in Icewind Dale. This system is reminiscent of a game like Fallout, not a classic Fantasy CRPG and especially not a dungeon crawler.

They should be. If it's to be a credible world, some things should simply exist because they do, and not be part of some pre-written narrative. I'm talking specifically from a game design perspective. If they are there, then they provide a challenge for some reason. Even if that challenge is simply killing said creatures. The same reason you'll have chests to unlock and caves to explore. And so the circle turns. Why not just give XP in the first place then?

Alan you are basically saying that nothing should happen randomly. It's a reverse sandbox, in fact its a straight-jacket. It would suck.

Because you're looking at the term "quest" too rigidly. Think of it as "objectives." And in some cases, going out and exploring and killing some really tough guy that doesn't have a "quest" associated with it is still an objective and you'll gain XP. The same way that getting behind a locked door for fat rewards can gain xp. Alan I understand that but nobody has adequately explained to me how that works. I'll say it again - what happens when I meet tough wandering monsters and kill them? It's not part of a quest or objective or whatever you want to call it. What was the point?

Well I'm happy for you. Me? I like grinding wilderness areas, power-levelling and fighting tougher groups of monsters in new and interesting ways using different tactics and class combinations.

My concern is that exploration of wilderness areas / non-quest related content / dungeon crawling is somehow gimped so that the pure role-plaeyers feel good about their 95% score in basket-weaving. Edit: Before I get flamed and told to study game X or game Y, remember that this project was not advertised as the spiritual successor to Fallout or Vampire or whatever. It implicitly mentions games with more traditional models of XP gain. I'm not saying that non-combat skills shouldn't be rewarded, nor should there be no fulfilling non-combat quest resolution, but what I have seen mooted smacks more of Fallout than Baldur's Gate. And that wasn't what the developers presented.

Because I've never heard of a tactical, isometric CRPG where you move your characters on the 'battlefield' to chat with an ogre.

I presume there are some parts of the game where combat is unavoidable.

Yes but it destroys serendipity. You explore and kill some monsters. It's a tough fight, you lose an NPC. You're not on a quest. Er, what was the point? I'm not expecting a sandbox game, and I'm comfortable with scaled / difficulty class systems for the amount of XP given. But the idea that every piece of XP is controlled and predicated on a mission you've been given is certainly not in the spirit of the original IE games.

Hmmm. I'm not happy with quest only XP.

Who said there is no XP for kills? Because that's ludicrous.

No this isn't a homage to Tenacious D. Once upon a time, on Eric Noah's 3E D&D forums, a guy posited the following view: When your party reaches a certain level of power, they are often called upon to do stuff: protect communities, slay troublesome orcish tribes, clear out undead-generating crypts and take out powerful, village-incinerating dragons. And, in return, the party accepts a reward or does it because they are the good guys. Screw that. When your party moseys into a village or town demand tribute. We are powerful. We have fireballs and lightning and the martial ability to best your puny militia. This town will pay tribute. We will not pay taxes or obey your laws. In fact, in return for our protection we want to tithe you. We want the manor house as our base. We want free healing. We want free food. And if you don't provide it? We won't harm a hair on your greasy, mud-streaked peasant scalps. But we will go on our way and let whatever pitiful fate it is you want us to save you from claim you, let orcs render your fat into glue, burn your homes, take your women. Now, this isn't very nice. But what a great option for an evil party rather than rargh! we kill / slay etc.

LOL I thought this thread was going to be about nobles versus peasants and feudal societies...

I hope the magic system is non-Vancian too and see nothing wrong with mana-based systems personally. Merin, you are the first person I have ever met on this forum who actually likes 4E D&D. As a grognard I have obviously never touched it, how does it manage skills?

Yes, I get the impression that in the Obsidian offices, Romances are as popular as a ****-flavoured lollipop (apologies to the movie Dodgeball).

^ The Temple of Elemental Evil. Tim Cain was on it. It looked very purdy, it was a 3E D&D CRPG.

Actually, what Tim describes isn't a million miles from D&D. You get separate skill points per level in 3E D&D and many of those skills are non-combat skills. There is a parallel system of feats, admittedly but the idea that skills are divided into different application mechanics was introduced into D&D in 2000 with the advent of 3E.

Mya, I don't speak French but I totally understand. They scare the merde out of me too.

I'm going to be generous, it's in my nature, and give the OP a chunky C minus.

I posted on the Codex once or twice, about eight years ago IIRC. I found it too gonzo for my tastes, but hey they seem like they are having fun over there. But, yeah, look at the creatures on the Bio forums and ask yourself... do you want that here?

I think Lurky speaks for me. Kudos. I'm genuinely worried about the hordes of obsessives, like emotionally-drained locusts, coming over here and ****ing up my day.

I see LoF has turned up but happily I have him on ignore.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the whole point is to display an array of views and advocate what you like. This allows the developers to gauge what the customer wants. The idea that threads like this should be a one-view knitting circle for a certain feature is fatuous. I created a mega-dungeon thread where some people offered the view that they hated the grind it might entail. I disagree fervently, but at least I tried to moderate my view and even suggest that it was designed in such a way that it inconvenienced people as little as possible. This is about advocacy, and about making sure that the squeakiest wheel doesn't get the most oil. Romances have become popular but are like poison ivy - an alien interloper that can quickly overwhelm the host organism. My final word in this thread is that I can live with BG2 level romances. They were easily ignored. Do you think the Bioware fans and Squee-merchants can live with that? No, neither can I.

I think we should have a Bromance.

Yes absolutely. It should be easy to implement and if you don't like the feature you can ignore it. Was an awesome feature of IWD / BG