Luckmann

There is no set release date and there is no publisher forcing them. The only real constraints are economical or, if they are engaged in other projects, arguably legal (since they have to pull people off some projects to deal with others - potentially). Putting the release date later for the hell of it doesn't change anything. When the game is finished, the game is finished, and when they're out of dough, they're out of dough.

*sigh* This is the fourth time there's a thread like this, and this is the fourth time I will again write out what I want. Non-consuming Vancian memorization, with mana/energy, with cooldowns. Vancian memorization adds the strategic element of letting you pick and choose your loadout and number of instances of an available spell, mana adds an aspect of attrition, and cooldowns make it so you have to pick-and-choose what spells you use and when. Memorize multiple instances of a certain spell if you want to use it many times and activate as many independent cooldowns of that spell as you have it memorized. Regeneration of mana should be, like health, extremely slow or non-existent.

"Epic level items". No. No. Just no. No. No. No.

I very much do not think (and hope) that there are no drow in the game. Or anything resembling drow, for that matter. But yeah, this game isn't DnD, so, drow are unlikely.

lol lionheart

Now that's just crazy talk.

PnP:s are administrated by a Game Master that can make on-the-fly adjustments for all involved, presenting scenarios beyond RAW in order to balance the general gameplay between all the characters in the game. A CRPG has no such luxury, unless you happen to be hiding an AI in those fluffy pockets of yours, Volourn.

No. This reminds me of the precise problem with mages in 3.5: Anything anyone can do, a mage can do better. No one class should be able to fulfil all roles.

I hate the idea of a dog companion. I would support the idea of a cat companion. And by cat I mean a tabby, not a tiger. And by companion, I mean pet.

....what? Now, I don't mind the screen-shaking at all - in fact, I loved it - but I have to ask you here.. What?

Where's the "Why?" option?

Definitely not; at least not without significant abuse of the game system. The overwhelmingly vast majority of opponents should never become trivial. Even a group of well-armed brigands could pose a challenge to a lone knight. While the lowest of the low in the game might quickly fall out of the scope of what the player faces, they shouldn't become so trivial that fighting them becomes an afterthought or annoyance. A group of wolves is still a group of wolves, a dire wolf can still tear your head off no matter what armour you are wearing, and a dragon should be a formidable opponent whether you face it at level 10 or 20, without having to artificially increase the power of dragons to accommodate player-power inflation. When it comes to HP, just.. don't increase it by levels. Just don't. It's a terrible trope. You shouldn't be able to take multiple blows to the head just because you've gained a few more levels. It's ridiculous and it's just a plain bad mechanic. Even as abstraction, it's a bad measurement of punishment taken. From the start of the game to the end of it, at the very most, a character should have doubled or maybe tripled his HP, if he invests massive amounts of efforts, chooses the right gear, etc, to achieve that. Going from 8 to 208 is just idiotic.

Much as with elves, I'm tired of the dog companion.

8 different brands of sewer.

I was so happy to see him again in the expansion! That´s the kind of feeling I want to have for the characters in this game. It doesn't really matter to me, if it´s handled well it works just fine with the character being voiceless. Giving him a voice seems unnecasery when the cost of doing that can go to something else in the game. I loved Oghren, but in Awakening, his character was basically reduced to fart-jokes and retardation. I have no idea who wrote him in Awakening, but it was clearly not the same person that wrote him in Origins.

I could easily imagine a good RPG set entirely in a massive, enormous cityscape. I can't say that I care too much about this, but if there's cities, I hope they remember to make them city-like. Oblivion? For real? I would think that Oblivion and Skyrim would be textbooks in how to not do immersive cities. Five-ish houses and a castle does not a city make. Hell, you could have 20 houses and it would still feel smaller than a small village.

I would prefer Goal-Based Experience, and a level-less system where you spend experience on advances, rather than to arbitrarily "level up" and gain a bunch of stuff, especially hitpoints (if hitpoints were to be relatively static throughout the game, I would be very happy).

Your mother? :D Seriously speaking though, I do not think that it would require "a ****load of writing and scripting". It would no doubt require a bit extra per conversation, multiplied by the number of companions, but that doesn't make it some kind of insurmountable goal. We're talking about a few extra lines per conversation - when relevant at all. No it wouldn't. I've repeatedly lamented the under-usage of the SoZ-system in SoZ itself; obviously not everyone should have access to all the generic options. This is simple enough - make character a conversation statistic like any other. Certain conversation options would only be available from the main character, other conversation options only for specific characters, and yet others would be shared because they are simply so basic. It's as simple as that. Like putting a requirement for every conversation option (Strength limitations, Diplomacy, etc), it's just something to put before every selectable line of text when you're writing the conversation trees. That's like saying that "There's a reason it wasn't in IWD". It's a mechanic that didn't exist.. until it did. If I could retcon reality, it would've been in IWD/2, too. And in Baldur's Gate/2, KotOR/2, PS:T, etc.

Absolutely. A SoZ-system should not come at the expense of interjections. Interjections and banter should still be there for all those times an RPC feels a need to speak up, depending on their character. I might phrase that in reverse, and say the gameplay is part of the story. Potato/Potato. Point just being that they should be considered integral parts of eachother. Seperating between them on principle would be a horrible decision. Indeed; If there is an Aerie character, she shouldn't have the option of saying "Stop teasing me and just put it in!", or anything along those lines. All options in conversations should be appropriate for that character. Sometimes these would be general things identical to what the PC could choose, sometimes it would be just a little bit different, and sometimes it just plain shouldn't have the same options. Clearly only the PC should have access to the widest range of options, since his or her character would be entirely undefined; murderous or noble, you'd have the full range of picks. Keldorn, Dak'kon or Kaelyn the Dove never would.

I would love something like this; a bit like the Warlock in 3.5e/NWN2, but with a broader range of options, such as summoning and more... general magic-y utility/use.

Wait, what? That's not at all how Storm of Zehir worked, nor have I implied anything other than the complete opposite; Your control over the conversation would be even more complete than ever, and if you want it to be completely centered around your character, then by all means, only speak with your character. I know you didn't. I have never played Storm of Zehir. I never said you said that, I was just clarifying what I wanted and didn't want. My understanding is that the companions will be legitimate characters and not just stand in extensions to my party. I expect them to be actual characters involved in the story and the world like PS:T. Why would they take the time to create these characters and then don't actually give them any character. We control our character because he or she is us. We create him. He is who we control in this story. Otherwise I would expect icewind dale style party creation. Alright, so, assuming that you have played Planescape: Torment, then, check my reply to Infinitron on how Storm of Zehir-styled conversation could've worked in Planescape: Torment - and thus, by extension, of how I would want it to work in Project Eternity. Because the Project Eternity RPC:s should definitely be characters in their own right, not Storm of Zehir or Icewind Dale-like PC:s. that would certainly be interesting. Honestly, without playing SoZ its hard for me to say. As long as we can't force the characters to say things they wouldn't actually say I'd be cool with something like you described though. Basically, I don't want to control their personality directly. If they strongly disagree with the PC on a topic, the options I have for them in conversation should reflect that. Is SoZ more of a "group conversation" thing? I was thinking more along the lines of using a companion as a group spokesperson with him basically just replacing the PC in conversations. That I don't like. What you are describing seems pretty cool though. In Storm of Zehir, you create most of your companions yourself. During a conversation, you can switch between all of them as you see fit. Since most of your companions are player-created, they have identical conversation options, bar differences in skills or alignment. But you can also recruit a number of - in Storm of Zehir relatively shallow - RPCs, similar to almost any party-based RPG. Sometimes (very rarely in Storm of Zehir, which makes me sad), those specific characters get very specific options in conversations. There is, for example, a recruitable Shadow Thief in Storm of Zehir. There is a Shadow Thief NPC in an Inn. When you talk to that NPC, all the PCs have the regular conversation options, some may have an extra option because of high Intimidate, someone else has something else to say because they are Neutral Evil while all the others are Lawful Good, whatever. But you see, this one RPC, this Shadow Thief that we have recruited, if you talk with her, she has something special to say. Exactly what escapes me, but it is along the lines of "It is unexpected to see you here, <NPCname>, have you angered <GuildmastersName>?". It was heavily underused in Storm of Zehir, but I just love the idea of that system. Our character would be our character, recruitable characters would still be their own persons, but we would for once be able to control them in conversations, just like we control every other aspect of their development. What I want is a combination of this and, of course, regular interjections, for the situations in which the character in our party just can't shut up. Edit: Hear, hear! In a roleplaying game, the story should be considered a part of gameplay.

Wait, what? That's not at all how Storm of Zehir worked, nor have I implied anything other than the complete opposite; Your control over the conversation would be even more complete than ever, and if you want it to be completely centered around your character, then by all means, only speak with your character. I know you didn't. I have never played Storm of Zehir. I never said you said that, I was just clarifying what I wanted and didn't want. My understanding is that the companions will be legitimate characters and not just stand in extensions to my party. I expect them to be actual characters involved in the story and the world like PS:T. Why would they take the time to create these characters and then don't actually give them any character. We control our character because he or she is us. We create him. He is who we control in this story. Otherwise I would expect icewind dale style party creation. Alright, so, assuming that you have played Planescape: Torment, then, check my reply to Infinitron on how Storm of Zehir-styled conversation could've worked in Planescape: Torment - and thus, by extension, of how I would want it to work in Project Eternity. Because the Project Eternity RPC:s should definitely be characters in their own right, not Storm of Zehir or Icewind Dale-like PC:s.

Wait, what? That's not at all how Storm of Zehir worked, nor have I implied anything other than the complete opposite; Your control over the conversation would be even more complete than ever, and if you want it to be completely centered around your character, then by all means, only speak with your character.

Not to mention that they already have a clear picture of many of these issues; the number of classes, the number of races, the number of companions - all this is already spelled out in the Kickstarter page. When the Kickstarter ends, they know exactly how much of each they're doing.

I want direct control over what my party does, and speaking is a thing they do. Internally, I don't mind if they voice dissent or raise concerns or argue, but when dealing with the world the party speaks as one. if that's how it works I won't really be too upset. But I would prefer if that's not the case. I want my party to feel like real people. I'd honestly rather they just aren't included in conversations with the world than have me control what they say. So you're fine with controlling how they develop, who they talk to, who they fight, how they fight and when they fight, as well as what objects they pick up, and the clothes they wear - but when it comes to picking what they say, that's suddenly "Too much"? To me, preferably I would be able to pick what they say, in addition to their interjections (where appropriate).