FlintlockJazz

One of the reasons why they are using Kickstarter, and why so many of us are supporting them, is so that they don't have to build the game according to 'market forces' and what publishers think will pull in what market, but instead make the game we want. Why would we donate money to them if they were to then alter the game and what we want in order to appeal to some market demographic that's not us? I'm British by the way, so it's not like I'm not even one of those people you want to target.

While I like to see the consequences of my choices, not everything should be world changing. It'd be nice to see that the world doesn't actually revolve around the PC and that some things he does doesn't result in nations rising or falling. The Nameless One made changes in others lives, but most people never even heard of his existence.

Depends on what spells are available and what restrictions the mage has. Any system can be horribly abused if not set up right.

In the end of the day whatever system they go with I'll be happy with as long as it fits the lore. No shoving something in because everyone loves it if it doesn't fit the setting. One method of controlling magic in a mana system that doesn't require rest would be to have mana pools regenerate after combat but during combat you only get what you started with and the mana pools themselves are quite limited in size, to avoid spamming of spells, instead limiting them to a few each combat, depending on how effective and powerful the spells in the system are. If the spells are designed so that the careful choice of which spell to use during combat for the current situation and/or enemy, with magic only being powerful if used right, then even better. All my own taste of course.

If they do have dark elves, it would be interesting if they didn't make them the 'evil' subrace, but perhaps maybe an oppressed minority or something? Since all elves are meant to be good looking maybe the dark elves are the ones who were cast out for not being 'pretty' enough?

True, but it'll be more likely that you will use them if they are still accessible as long as you have enough mana/soul/whatever it is that fuels spells in the setting. That's pretty much my stance anyway, it's not perfect but it's what I like. I'd love for there to be general and toolkit spells. In most systems magic seems to be solely about combat and/or enchanting items for combat, there are some in tabletop that have well-rounded magic systems that have roles for more mundane things, be interesting to see it done well in a cRPG. Dunno if they'll manage it but I guess that if spells require character points to be spent on them rather than just learning them from scrolls (I prefer the latter, love collecting new spells and adding them to my spellbook but I guess it depends on balance) then we may hopefully get non-combat spells as options for mages' non-combat skills (instead of buying up your persuasion skills the mage learns new influence spells, etc).

I think I've worked out what exactly it is that I dislike about Vancian magic so much: it's like 'speccing' your mage or cleric. You pick the abilities your character in an MMO has for a certain role, and then when you want to change your role you go through the respec, Vancian magic is like that for me except even worse as you get a 'free' respec after every rest!

You mean the right tools? No, if Magic is not an essential tool for the situation, then we'd end up getting the full gamut of diverse strategies. Some people will report being able to win encounter X without using magic, while others will report being able to win that same encounter by using Spell x, then Spell y. In the meantime, whether or not the spell system was vancian has suddenly become irrelevant. I agree with what you are saying, but if someone is taking a spellcaster in a Vancian system they are going to need to find that getting the right selection of spells for the situation is important (not one set of spells but one for the specific strategy for the specific enemy) otherwise the requirement of picking your spells first to be able to cast them is going to result in people just picking their favourite spells again and again and neglecting other spells. This is why I am not keen on a Vancian system in a cRPG, I'd prefer players to have access to their whole spellbook so that those special spells that are often only used in certain situations still get a chance to come out and play sometimes.

I'm sorry, but Jim Cummings is being fed to the Vorpal Rabbit, along with Claudia Black, Jennifer Hale, Simon Templeman, and other fan favourites for VA. VA from now on will consist of no-names and will at most do one or two lines of dialogue and that's it, the rest will be in text. You all brought this upon yourselves, I mean I even like Simon Templeman, but he had to be sacrificed for the greater good. Please replace the Grail Knights with the aforementioned VAs in order to understand just what you've all done. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg[/media]

I was saying just this earlier. Sure the game could tell you what to expect later, but really that cannot be true in all circumstances otherwise the game itself is just giving away what's going to be happening. Having your full spell library available to you at all times really is the best choice. Didn't we already cover this? Magic should never be so vital in a campaign that failure to bring a mage, with the precise set of spells for an encounter, leads to catostrophic failure. The whole point in 'strategy' is to be able to find a way to win, with the tools you have, when presented with a problem. If the game makes victory impossible without the use of a specific set of spells, then the flaw is with the game itself, not the magic system it's using. And in the context of that, it doesn't make a lick of difference if its magic system is vancian or if it's your system of "everyone knows every spell!". If magic is not essential to get the right spells for the situation then wouldn't we end up with people just selecting the same spells all the time rather than bothering to guess what they need for upcoming battles? They'll find the 'best' spells to take and leave it at that, in which case it won't matter whether it's Vancian or Mana-based, people will just load up on Magic Missle.

B. If done right they can add a lot to the game, tactics involved and feel of the world.

Agreement on both counts here. Plus, sickly pale skin always struck me as more 'evil' looking and scary anyway.

And I have found it!!! Link here. This one is older than the other one, so maybe something may have changed or they are not both working from the same sheet maybe?

Okay, I found an interview by Tim Cain that seems to contradict what I said earlier: Link here I'm certain there was another interview where someone said differently, I'll keep looking but it appears I may have been hallucinating...

I'm sure they've said somewhere in an interview that they have said that the actual dev time will change depending on how much money they end up with, the more money they get the longer it will take as they will be able to do more things or so they have said. They'll determine how long they take when they get the final tally of how much money they got. In the same interview I read they stated that there comes a point that throwing more people at something has depreciating value and may even cause more problems. Too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak. I'll try and dig out his interview I recall and stick up a link.

I dislike vancian magic. Immensely. Just prevent the mana pool from getting too big, systems like GURPS has magic systems that use mana pools while still having immense tactics, it all depends on what spells there are and how they are done (even vancian spell systems can have all tactics removed from them by having the wrong spells involved).

First off, I would try to define what a 'traditional fantasy setting' is, as while many people call it 'Tolkienesque' it really isn't if you think about it: Tolkien's stories have relatively low magic compared to the D&D usual setting, with for instance Gandalf using very little spells in them, you only ever really see him using Light and other low-key spells. It is also a monothiestic setting while the standard has polythiestic, more Greek influences, etc. So I would say a Tolkienesque setting would be different from the standard fantasy setting, even though the latter was partially inspired by it (only partially). A standard fantasy setting also has a very modern outlook and ethics amongst it's inhabitants, whereas the real historical setting would be very different, and the standard fantasy setting has many of the anachronisms of plate armour without gunpowder weaponry, strong trade, etc. The standard fantasy setting I personally find has a very specific traits, not actually associated with the sources people think they come from, and I find that even when the creator of a setting tries to use a different one he ends up importing the same traits that I would consider the defining features of the standard fantasy setting, such as the aforementioned modern outlook and society structure (even if there is supposed to be nobility they don't really have any social divisions or such like). Obsidian are at least using gunpowder in their setting and seem to be looking at how their societies would form and the justifications for it at least, that's the impression I got, so hopefully we'll see something quite different.

I agree with pretty much the entirety of this post. DAO's stat progression was one of the things that turned me off from that game, and I agree totally that improvement should be through the ability to avoid taking damage rather than just being able to take more of it. From tabletop, I guess GURPS would be a good example of it done how I want it: hit points pretty much stay the same while parry, block and dodge increase as your character's skill increases, with even weak enemies still able to take you down if they flank you and use techniques like grappling to lower your defenses or by using ranged attacks if you fail to use cover.

I would like climbing too. No doubt there's plenty of reasons why it won't work and why it should not be done even if it could be but it still would be cool, along with ingame horses you can use in combat.

I'd like a priest or templar class that works completely differently from how they work in DnD and as the MMO version. Something like a Holy Warrior type who instead of casting spells like a mage instead has specific powers granted him either by his god or faith, able to harm incorporeal spirits with his normal attacks, resist supernatural effects better, etc. I know this sounds a lot like a Paladin, but then Paladins to me are closer to what clerics should be anyway minus the warhorse stuff and more preaching.

I would love a sequel. We'll never get one but I would love it if we could get one...

Aye, the rise of the 'Holy Trinity' (Tank, DPS, Healer) is something I hate to see. If there is 'aggro' as well (which DAO used, the heavier your armour the more aggro you caused) and cooldowns in a game then I tend to be put off. It's not something I want to see in a SP game.

Dunno if it's been said yet but I hope they move away from basically requiring your character to specialise in one weapon. I'd like the characters to be able to switch between weapons without feeling like they have just gimped themselves immensely, letting you experiment with other weapon types when you pick them up.

Once I would've said for definite that BG2 was the better of the two, and if you are comparing the vanilla versions of the game I would say BG2 still, but with the BGtutu mod installed (runs BG1 in BG2 engine without combining the two like BGT mod does) along with other mods I actually found myself enjoying the first one more the last playthrough I made of them. Wasn't the first time I had used the BGtutu mod but it was the first time I noticed how my feelings about the two had changed. Could have simply been that I have played BG2 too much, but I do think that the two have different focuses in gameplay and story that give them different strengths and weaknesses. BG1 has more freeform exploration, you are able to wander off and just look for things with some areas just being there for the sake of being there while BG2 has more indepth quests, and the two of them have a very different feel in the writing department too: neither one is better but there is a style difference there.

I think it's an interesting idea and one that would be hard to do as others have said. It would be nice for the game to not assume that I am some leader of men but by their nature party based games require you to be the leader so it would be hard. Perhaps a short sequence at the beginning to explain how you're the leader (since some of the games just seem to assume that you're the leader without ever developing how it came to be that way)?