Luckmann

I would have loved to have seen more "fantastical" choices rather than the regular old dwarves and elves. They don't even have to be "Unique"; just not the regular tropes. Take a step away from the regular "races" and a step away from the regular tropes associated with the more uncommon races. Civilized Minotaurs, deeply dedicated to architecture and spiritual creationism and creativism, influenced by Babylonian and Sumerian motifs, adjusted for a forestlands-and-hills setting. Tribal Insectoids, with many different sub-species, influenced by a number of different kinds of bugs, such as mantids (thri-kreen), ants, or scarabs, in an organized hierarchical society, where the variety of sub-species, castes and phenotypes cannot procreate, as in being physically incapable of crossbreeding, yet all with a uniform culture. Aasimar & Tieflings - not common enough to be trope-like, and can be as diverse as the gods they worship or the creeds they live by. Especially interesting if there would be no "baseline" humans, turning each human into however they live their life, or with pronounced ancestry. A multitude of religions, creeds, cultures and nations, as pronounced as the diverse racial profiles of mankind. Beastmen; Tengu (ravens), Gripplis (frogs), Skaven (rats), Kobolds (lizards) - the feral and barely civilized lesser races spread throughout the wildlands, specializing in whatever environment they live. Dragonborn, masters of the sea, high pirates of salt and rust, that only settle remote, isolated or well-defended cliffs, seaside mountains and islands. Recognizes no borders and as a people are deeply anarchical, yet honourable to those that show strength.

First of all, I want kits. I like kits. Lots of them. Big and small. Secondly, I think that kits shouldn't be optional. They should be specializations of the class, with bonuses and penalties. In effect, there should be no selectable base classes. Thirdly, there doesn't need to be an arbitrary number of kits for each class. Some might have 12, like mages, others might have 4, 3 or 8. The effect of kits should likewise vary greatly between the classes. For example, the multitude of Orders for a Knight would all have minor effects, while the four Cardinals of the Alchemist would be incredibly defining. Knight - Basic combat class, a mix between a traditional Fighter and Paladin, utilizing supernatural-ish martial feats reminiscent of that of a Monk, just without the kung-fu/unarmed sillyness. Utilizes primarily Sword-and-board or two-handed weapons, but are also proficient in ranged weapons - some Orders excelling at it. Order of the Branch - Nature-centric, ranger-paladin order. Can only use medium armour, receives a multitude of minor druidic-like powers. Can use bows as well as any melee weapon. Gets Duelist Proficiency instead of Shield Proficiency and starts as trained in Bows instead of Two-handed weapons (but nothing prevents progression in the latter). The Green Flame - An infernal order that manipulates the souls of others, instead of solely utilizing and training their own. Gets a wide range of spell-like abilities and rituals. Rumoured to consort with daemons and practice ritual sacrifices or torture in secret; a rumour they are quick to abuse, whether it's true or not. Gets a bonus to all fire damage, or can manipulate flames to cause additional effects. The Obsidian Order - The barbed bulwark. The black rock. The eternal vigil. Great bonuses to heavy armour, but doesn't get Duelist or Shield proficiencies, specializing in two-handed weapons; Greatsword, Sledgehammer, Halberd, Fullmace. Specializes in temporal manipulation, including haste, slow, and time stop-like abilities. Regularly refers to themselves as "Of Eternity". The Order of the White - Dresses entirely in white, always masked in white. Specializes in martial prowess above all else, imbuing every attack with the essence of their souls. Gets virtually no "magic", instead focusing on self-buffs or imbuing their weapons with effects, or powers that either cripple their opponents or shatter their defences. Vastly the most "monk-like", excepting the use of weapons and armour. Alchemist - Creation imbues every object with a fraction of the maker's soul. A stonemason puts his soul into the bricks he lays, a leatherworker in every armour, a blacksmith in every sword. An alchemist uses - or abuses - this to it's extreme. They 'cheat', not using magic that tears the mana or strength from oneself or others and twists it into supernatural effects, but instead uses basic incantations and tricks to produce potions, ointments, powders or solvents with extraordinary effects. The schools of alchemical thought is divided into four doctrines. Earth - Focusing on the imbuing of effects, or the disintegration of, on mundane objects. Transmutative potions, strengthening or weakening the drinker, turning flesh into wood, wood into stone, or stone to sand. Hardens steel to mithril strength, or turns gold to platinum. Wind - Manipulates aetherial circumstances. Snow in a bottle, lightning from a rod, bending light and wind with an ointment, or an explosive gust of wind from a ceramic bomb. If Earth imbues single targets, buffs and debuffs, Wind is the one to change battlefield conditions for better or worse. Fire - Bombs. Fires. Explosions. Kindling the flames in others, scorching or burning them. Straight-forward damage-dealing. Capable of doing fire-damage in a number of ways even to those immune to regular or magical fire, as well as putting out the flames of those using or consisting of them themselves. Water - Master of potions. Healing potions, regenerative potions, mana potions - anything drinkable. In addition, can manipulate water around them or in others, including turning it poisonous or acidic, capable of throwing or spraying such substances wherever they please. I had more ideas, but I seem to have forgotten them for now. Oh well.

A game without mapnotes in this day and age would feel extremely out of place. I wouldn't even request this; I'm simply assuming that it's going to be in.

None. It's a complete waste of resources. Any time now, I'm going to start demanding Scandinavian translation.

It was fun the first three times you used that skill. Then it was just insanely annoying.

The tactics system in Dragon Age: Origins was one of those things I think it did very, very, very well - perhaps excepting that it was tied to skills. Really, all it really is is an easy-to-use scripting system for combat. Lots of games have similar things, but it is usually clumsy or hard to use effectively. I'd really love something along the lines of the tactics system in DA:O, just not tied to skills or character advancement.

No. There are many RPGs that doesn't use stats at all. It's called Free-form.

Bleh, meh and blargh. :|

When I launch the game, I want my monitor to become covered in thick layer of grime, my PSU to ooze fat, black smoke, and be punched in the face with rust-clad gauntlet. How's that for grit?

I was shocked when Wikia banned you last year. Anyway, glad to see you on Project Eternity and Wasteland 2 wikis Ausir . You can be banned on Wikia for just about anything, especially if the admins are corrupt.

I liked the curve in Baldur's Gate; It only stretched a measly 7-9 levels, and depending on your class, each level was a tad bit "meh" on their own, but from a "Start Game" vs. "End Game" viewpoint, I think it was great. Gibberlings and wolves were a great threat in the start, but by the end, they weren't completely powerless against you, but they had ceased being the dominant threat (goddamned werewolves, curse them all!).

The issue with this is you just described a highly linear game. Since experience becomes Goal-based, and you can never progress without completing goals, you end up moving in a straight line. If Town A is filled with level 5 quests, and Town B is level 10 quests, you cannot do Town B without doing Town A first. ...what? How could you possible come to that conclusion? There is nothing preventing you from doing "Town B" before "Town A", nor has Goal-oriented experience anything to do with linearity. Anyone who has played any game with Goal-based experience can attest to that. Experience was always an abstraction. If experience ruins your suspension of disbelief, you shouldn't play experience-based games at all. Experience is an abstraction for what you learned on the way to your goal. If you chose to fight for that magic marble, you are free to spend your experience in combat-oriented skills. Experience has nearly always worked this way. You clearly are not familiar with PnP RPGs. The vast majority of them do not give out experience for minor acts, including killing mobs, pickpocketing, or similar. They hand out experience based on your performance or reached goals, as well as how imaginative or resourceful you are in reaching those goals. It is entirely possible to play practically any PnP RPG in a pacifist way, never touching a single kobold, accumulate experience, and spend it however the hell you wish - and the only price you'd pay was the ruination of your own suspension of disbelief and the groans of yor GM, as you pay for Exotic Proficiency (Rat-Flail) instead of improving your Diplomacy. This isn't true either. Plenty of games reward an ample supply of experience for disarming traps, winning conversations, or pickpocketing (deliciously abusable pickpocketing). The problem is that it is always more profitable to also kill everyone, because they give experience. If you want to play optimally, and we're basically hardwired to try, as to not cripple ourselves, you need to; pickpocket everything, disarm every trap, disarm the chests, lockpick all the doors (preferably even if you already have the key!), sneak to the end of the dungeon, win the conversation rolls, shoot the end-boss before he leaves the room, loot his corpse, back-track and kill everything. For an amazing example of Goal-based experience, play Deus Ex or Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines. For an amazing example of how to fail miserable while giving multiple options, giving experience for everything, and failing miserably to create a varied and mutually viable playing-experience precisely because of that, play Human Revolution. I think TrashMan ran you over pretty well, but I'd just like to comment on this specifically. Nobody said you had to have a quest. In fact, I made it extremely clear that a "Goal" could be virtually anything. Instead of asking you to go back and read things properly (people seem to take offense when I call them illiterate, and would rather keep beating their sorry heads against the wall than to admit that they missed something) I will quote myself: It was already colour-coded for stupid, but I put more emphasis on the relevant part(s). I also underlined it, so you wouldn't miss it again. You reach Bigtown. You get experience for reaching Bigtown. How you got there is entirely dependant on you. Maybe you had to fight because you don't have anyone trained in Survival or Stealth - that is the price you pay for that; a far lesser price than any Diplomat would pay if he forgot the same, considering that he would be rubbish at defending himself. Maybe you could teleported, or taken a boat, if you fear highwaymen. Point is; you get points for reaching Bigtown. Just because you sucked at getting there doesn't mean that you should get more experience. You explore a random dungeon. You get experience for finding it. You get experience for exploring it. You may uncover secrets. Whether you cleverly avoid all traps, carefully sneak through it, get the Thingomajig on the end or find a chest, or if you are playing a barbarian that rushes in, dodges the traps as they explode from the walls, and smashes the heads of all the poor kobolds (murderer!); either would result in the same experience. Experience is an abstraction for what you have learned. In this particular dungeon, a Barbarian group learned how to fight better, endure traps and smash the cribs of kobold children. A party of rogues learned how to sneak, steal the Whatchamagijja, and reverse-pickpocket a lollypop into the torn clothes of young kobold children.

Only if I get Gyrognome.

I've seen countless threads on a variety of topics, and having watched the forum like a hawk, I.. don't think I've seen a thread like this. If there is and it's not antiquated already, point me in it's direction and I'll see if I can trash this thread. Saw one for races a while back, but none for classes. Anyway; We already know that we will be seeing some traditional fantasy "races" (god how I hate the way "race" is basically "species" in the fantasy context) such as humans, elves and dwarves (le sigh). So I think that a lot of us are also expecting the nauseatingly predictable classes, as well. But this thread isn't really for what we can expect to see (although quips about that is welcome). It is about what we, I, you, want to see. I know that there's been threads on specific requests, such as Ninjas/Samurais (which I generally detest, personally, depending on setting) - but this is a chance for everyone to come out and talk about what they want to see. Alchemists, Pyromancers, Knights and whip-wielding Archaeologists, step right up! It doesn't have to be specifically classes, I'd like to hear some ideas regarding Kits or Specializations, or just class features that you'd like to see a specific, expected class to have! What would you want for your dream-class to have? What kind of class would be the most suitable for your favourite kind of character? I have a few ideas of my own that I'd love to see, but I'll try to write about them later in the thread, as to not derail my own thread before it starts.

It's all fun and games until someone loses a bike.

Wow, there's really 18 people that likes how Dragon Age 2 did it. That's.. scary, actually. I'd like to amend my vote of #2, with the added option of being able to send them to a location appropriate for them. For example, if I've recruited a member of the Thieves Guild, it would make total sense for them to go wait for me there. I'd actually prefer that to any option of making them just stay where I left them. Assuming a rogue recruited from the Thieves Guild: #1 Go wait in our ship / all the way back to base (Player House). #2 Go to the local inn (Nearest central Inn for 1 month game time, otherwise move to #3). #3 Go home / Thieves Guild (That character's "Home").

They did. You could even have a child with Aerie, or make Viconia Neutral instead of Evil.

I'm only 26! Honest! That said, the poll should be redone, with much wider brackets. Also, it should ask us to list our most hated games. Because there are some we all really hate.

It would only make perfect sense in the context of that particular encounter i.e. sneaking past the guards to get the whatsit was the fastest and easiest way to get the XP from MrX for completing that particular quest. If the entire game rewarded no XP for combat except perhaps Boss combat then every player would feel railroaded into non-combat solutions just as much as you say previous games have railroaded players into combat. Why would anyone waste 5 minutes fighting a group of guards for no XP when the rogue could go get the whatsit in 30seconds or less? You meet a bunch of bandits on the road, you sneak past them, here is 1000 XP...boring. You meet a few assasins in a dark alley, /cast Blind, run away, hide...here is 1000XP...boring. These things would be interesting to me as occasional alternatives but if the entire game was more rewarding and faster to play through by just avoiding everything combat related I think we would have a pretty bad game that felt frustrating to play as anything other than a non-combat focused character. If you award goal-oriented experience, the scenarios you present are the problem, not the mechanic. Why would sneaking past random bandits on a road be considered a goal? What have you achieved, apart from saving your life, when you run away from a group of assassins? Neither of those are in my opinion "Goals" and it would be regrettable to see experience handed out for such tasks, just as much as it would be regrettable to hand out experience if you fought them, just because you are to incompetent to avoid the combat. Furthermore, it is a party game. This would only be an issue if you are soloing, since it is unlikely that the entire group can sneak (but it would be awesome if you could build such a group). After all, while the rogue might run off into an adjacent alley and hide, he'd do so leaving all his friends to be torn apart by the assassins. As for the scenario of sneaking in and taking the whatsit, that is again an extremely simplistic scenario. What - for example - stealthing should offer isn't some kind of MMO-like invulnerability button. If a single rogue is able to sneak into a guarded fort, casually walk past all the guards, open all the doors, and then either engage an "end boss" in conversation and "beat" him or steal the whatsit, that is a terrible, badly thought-out scenario - entirely an issue of a GM being terrible, rather than anything that has anything to do with the doling-out of experience points. The amount of effort exerted and the risks involved should be about the same, regardless of what route you take. With combat experience, you have ensured that the most profitable way to resolve a situation is by adding to your bodycount, regardless of what solution would make sense to your character(s). With goal-oriented experience, you still have the option of doing it whatever way you please; whether that way is faster or slower is entirely a matter of encounter design, and one being better in one instance doesn't mean that it's not the worst the next. I doubt the rogue will be much help when you have to kill a Worg for it's fur, or when there's a dragon at the end of a dungeon. You just can't offer any counter-arguments? No, I am not here to argue, just offer my opinions. "Opinions" without arguments are as baseless as they are useless. Simply saying "I am not convinced" is like saying "I can't win this, but I refuse to admit defeat". It's weak, insincere and pathetic. There's only one thing I hate more than such slackjawedness, and that's "Let's agree to disagree". Blech.

You just can't offer any counter-arguments?

Damn. I no longer fit into the "up to 25" brackets. Oh, and favourite CRPGs: Planescape: Torment. Baldur's Gate. Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. Vampire: The Masquerade. Fallout 2. The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Favourite PnP: Warhammer 40k (the entire range by Fantasy Flight Games). Honourable Mentions (non-RPGs): Deus Ex. System Shock 2. Jagged Alliance 2.

Unless your character(s) had no way of doing that. Unless you're playing a balls-out insane barbarian, most people do try to avoid combat. It is just that some people excel at it, making it the best solution. It makes perfect sense to avoid combat unless necessary. And how would you achieve that unless it's goal-oriented? Award experience for combat, and you've ensured that whenever possible, you will be pressed to fight, even when it makes no sense whatsoever to do so.

Gah, yes, I remember this so much. Human Revolution was such a massive let-down. I don't understand how they could miss such an essential part of how the original Deus Ex worked. And let's not forget that Non-Lethal Takedowns were always magically more silent than Lethal Takedowns. Just to make sure that any semblance of choice was truly taken away from you. And then have the augments be experience-based and with no mutually exclusive choices, again just to make sure that you will always develop your character the same way, over and over again. Because by the end of the game, you had all the "important" augments anyway. A sham and a shame. To get back on the topic, though; Yeah, if I had it my way; Goal-oriented Experience. Please. In addition of being much more "fair" from a roleplaying standpoint (Diplomacy, Sneaking, Combat; all equally valid and potentially satisfying for all playstyles), it does allow the developers to more closely control the amount of experience that the player accumulates, allowing them to easier gauge what relative "power level" a character will have at any one point in the game. It also makes it much harder to exploit game mechanics (respawning rabbits that give 2xp? I'll just part my pet on "Hostile" here and go have lunch). Terrible idea. It would make everyone a multi-class. Because once I've snuck past all the mobs, accumulating stealth-experience, I will solve the dispute with the boss by diplomacy, accumulating diplo-xp, and I will then backtrack and murder the mobs, accumulating combat-xp. I think it is impossible to create a system that is equitable if you award experience for doing everything, because it would encourage people to do *everything*. And splitting the experience between the various fields would only cement that, by making sure that you're not only getting experience, you are getting experience that you can only spend in a different field, therefore giving you a higher degree of utility - and whenever offered, utility trumps everything. The only possible solution, which has been shown in several games (compared to there *never* having been a balanced game that awarded experience by combat) is Goal-oriented experience. The goal could be reaching a certain point in the game, finding a secret, uncovering a truth, reaching enlightenment, exploring a region or simply finishing a quest. But never, ever, should experience be awarded by the roll of a dice or by performing a feat specific to a character type (such as combat) unless that feat is mutually exclusive but equal to feats performable by all other character types and roles. And before people start shouting "Immersion", this has nothing to do with that. The only way this is immersion-breaking is if you are metagaming anyway, which is between you and whatever god you're worshipping. This is purely a game mechanic that is woven into the underlying structure of the game, and experience have always been an abstraction of character growth. Goal-oriented experience would simply be there to allow all character types the possibility to play the game to it's fullest, without our Thieves having to become Assassins, or our Diplomats turn into Generals.

And may I ask why? You expect every places in the world to have the exact same culture? No, I think he was saying the opposite. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Different areas of the world have different cultures. Therefore, a Samurai in one place is as annoying as a Knight in another. If there ever is a roleplaying game set in Africa, I will not expect to run around as a black Paladin, either. I'm sick and tired of the multicultural mono-culture that results from putting everything in a blender. It destroys everything unique and valuable, turns gold into massive turds and the rainbow into brown. I get enough of that in real life.

I'd like to see fascism pulled off in a believable manner.