Aldereth

Like you said, it would definitely work in a turn base system. But I really don't see a problem of pausing the action when conversation occur. eg. Player select "Let's talk this out" instead of attacking or firing magic missiles. If the check fail, combat as usual. If it succeed, the foe just say,"okay, let's put away our weapons and talk about this.". The Combat pauses and wait for the player for further input (or if the dev. like, give a time allowance for the PC to put away their weapon), either select more conversation option or it the PC are not very honorable and just want to use "conversation" as a tactic to sieze the initiative. They can then select from their list of attack or spell. Ding them for reputation, karma or what not. The point is, the entire dialog tree is a list of available "spells" and what is available depends on whether the intended target is a plot related. If it is just random monster, then the available speech is limited just like the run of the mill NPC in town and likely be the "Ask for Parlay" option that Arhiipa suggested above. If it is a plot character, then there are more available dialogs and they can be specific to this NPC. The situation is not too different the more sandbox game like Skrimm. You attack a certain faction early on, their town are not accessible. Some may argue it adds to replay value. I hear your point about the complexity and maybe you are right about building a separate subsystem to handle dialog trees once dialog get started with plot characters. My point is to bring the dialog option into combat. It added an extra dimension to combat other than the weapon and spell dimension. Further, reward in the form of xp doesn't just apply to reducing Hitpoint to 0, it could be reducing morale/will to fight to 0. There could then be many new and interesting scenario that can come out of it.

Not if the conversation system is completely integrated and not apart from combat so there is not any transition from combat mode to non combat mode. PC get into an encounter, be it indoor or outdoor. NPC initial reaction depend on combination of stats like faction, reputation etc... and also the NPC's agenda such as, if they are a merchant, they may approach and trade and if the NPCs are actually animal or monster, it is just a simple fight or flee. For example, as soon as the encounter begin, parameters are compare to determine either approach or ignore PC peacefully as oppose to attack or flee from PC. Let's say the NPC choose to ignore the PC, the PC can get to engage the NPC either by initiating conversation or (if the player is violent and antisocial) attack and rob the NPC. If a fight breakout, the PC can stop the fight by killing the foes or talk them down. The good guy, bad guy examples above are just that, an example in the simple context of good and bad. Here is a more complex scenario that is possible. PC encounter an extremely xenophobic settlement (eg. a wood elf faction). These elves will attack any outsider on sight. So, at low level, the PC either avoid or kill this faction. For those who avoid spilling any blood early on by fleeing. The can eventually level up to the point that they can use attack or spell like disarm, sleep that could incapacitate and chip down the Morale (not moral) bar, the PC would get to conclude encounter without terrible blood shed thus earning them enough of the wood elves faction point that you can start a civil conversation, thus opening up more quest and plot line... etc. It is going to be very hard to balance and debug, no question. And I am sure if the system balance is off, some powergamer could min-max a Messiah speech character build that could make every man, woman would automatically "surrender" in their mere presence. But properly balance, there would be a much wider range of interaction. And yes, this system won't be very helpful to non-sentient creatures that could understand the PC but story driven cRPG is more about characters who can relate with each other than fighting horde of monsters.

No big problem with different xp for different approach. You do not want a path where the PC is significantly gimped because of its choices. So it is going to be more of a balance issue than simulating reality/life.

I would very much like to see conversation system being integrated into the game combat engine and be treated like a special class of spells. Only this class of "spell" call conversation would affect the NPC/monster's "morale hit points". So in combat, the options are: a.) Take the guy down with swords and spell which primarily do damage to stamina and health. (spell like fear would damage morale, I guess.) b.) Wear down the guy 's morale/will to fight with conversation. How much "damage" depend on the character conversation skill level, his reputation, heck even some of his gear's stat. A really big sword or badass looking armor could add bonus to intimidate conversation attack. c.) Combination of both attack and conversation. eg. Disarm attack would have the added effect of doing "damage" to morale. Then, a fighter can neutralize ("kill") much more easily with an intimidation like "You can't win this." This kind of system would take much more planning and resource but properly balance, it open up whole new possibilities. So for the ultra violent anti-social PC, their rep is so bad that most foes will fight to the death and their conversation skill is probably non-existant due to the kill first no talk policy. However, if a guy who let people go, would have a merciful reputation and foes are more likely to yield. The dev. can give unique conversation that only apply to certain plot NPC as quest rewards so that the player would have them ready for the fight. And the big fight during plot event to play out very differently for the violent PC, the non-violent PC or the PC with right mix of violent. The violent PC will have to fight the bad guy's to the death, the non-violent guy can talk the bad buy into running or surrendering but the the "bad" guy is someone who would respect and join the PC with the right mix of "violence" and have a similar moral (not morale) outlook.

My memory of Planescape: Torment would be much diminished if Fall From Grace's diary would simply disappear. Perhaps, just made key item, undroppable with the PC saying, "I think I better hold on to this."

I would actually like to see the "rat quest" as some of the last quest of the game. Especially with Stronghold in, we can have a near endgame incident where the PC as the lord of the land/stronghold giving out the rat quest to a party of adventurer. PC: %^&*! I can't belive I am giving out rat quest! Stronghold Seneschal: Would you rather handle the rats problem personally, milord

Playing quite a bit of X-Com: Enemy Unknown lately. Would certainly like to see a cRPG that use similar (or better yet, evolved version) of the system mayhaps with Jagged Allaince's action point system. It wouldn't hurt to feature a melee component with depth to the combat system. I would like to see a melee system where fighter has a wider selection of moves that have different tactical depth similar to how mages have a wide variety of spells.

It kind of like a system with 2 HP bar. There will be plenty of Stamina "healing" magic I am sure. I guess it's kind of like the shield points in sci-fi RPG (eg. Mass Effect's shield and health). Have to see how exactly it will be implemented to decide whether the system is a fun tactical challenge or incredibly annoying ; )

I am actually not for depicting the move graphically considering limited resource and all. What I am pushing for is depicting them tactically so that each weapons comes with moves and each move and advantages and disadvantages. So with my example witht he dagger, at level one, you can slash (higher damge with bleeding) or you can go for more attacks deal to faster speed. At higher level and provided you meet the requirement, you can learn how to use the secondary function, I use dagger throw as an example. Later, you can add pommel strike. The same thing can be applied to all the weapons. The idea is to give the player a variety of speed, damage, special effect and range for melee so that say for example, the one on one duel in Dragon Age (I or II) would be more interesting than the good old dance of death for tanks and the kiting for range/spell. You will have choices of going for stuns with pommel, follow by short and fast stab or for some slashing with to cause bleed for DoT. Or if you are a board and weapon guy, go for shield pin on the other guy's weapon and put in couple of hits. Or throw daggers until melee range. The point is choice for melee fighter like there are choices for spell for the mage. If a game dev have the resouce to represent them with beautiful graphics, great. If not, the moves are there for tactical choice.

I am not a big fan of the Adventure Hall idea and your scheme does make it more appealing to me. As someone else pointed out, the requirement of server and added resource is probably going to be a tough hurdle to clear. I wonder if it is plausible to trade with your friend list and the save file will be kept client side only.

I would really like to see more 1 on 1 duel, however cRPG combat system usually make it a combination of the "dance" until one side HP dropped to 0 and doesn't have the depth to make it interesting.

If we are looking for accurate visual portrayal then you are absolutely right. It will be very resource intensive and perhaps beyond the budget for PE. If however, the aim is to provide more depth for weapon combat mechanic, then it can be done if cRPG take a completely different take on implementing weapons in terms of game mechanic. Most game treat weapon the same way, it has 2-4 attribute, the most common being: damage, weight/speed, requirement, bonus damage. And these few attribute just feed the damage, weapon speed factor and other effect result to the same attack function. I think a melee combat system that does not have only one attack function but treat different type of attack moves like spells. Weapons are just like "magic wand" with infinite or limited charges (durability) that allow for these different moves (which are basically touch range spell). The character holding the "magic wand" must meet the skill requirement to be able to do those moves of course. Here is an example of a normal dagger for this : Dagger Item Type: melee Weapon, Equipped speed: 2 (this is the speed to arm it just to add some depth in case the fight involve changing weapon or weapon being disarmed) Combat moves: Dagger Stab, Dagger Slash, Dagger Throw, pommel strike (1) , Flurry of stabs Enchantment: none. Skill Requirement: Dagger Weapon Skill And here are example of the combat moves: Dagger Stab "Spell" Type: Melee Weapon Range: 1 Attack Speed: 2 To Hit % adjustment: 0 Damage: 1-4 Special Effect: none Charges/Durability cost: 0 (if the game allow for infinite durability) Requirement: Dagger Skill level >=1, Dexterity > 3 Dagger Slash "Spell" Type: Melee Weapon Range: 1 Attack Speed: 3 (slower for the wind up) To Hit % adjustment: -10% (to account for the short reach) Damage: 1-4 Special Effect: 5% chance to cause minor bleeding Charges/Durability cost: 0 (if the game allow for infinite durability) Requirement: Dagger Skill level >=1, Dexterity > 3 Dagger Throw "Spell" Type: Melee Weapon Range: 5 (If you want to get fancy, you can make this Roundup(Strength/3) Attack Speed: 3 (slower for the wind up to throw) To Hit % adjustment: no Damage: 1-4 Special Effect: Delete the dagger from inventory, spawn same dagger in monster's loot list Charges/Durability cost: 0 (if the game allow for infinite durability) Requirement: Dagger Skill level >=2, Dexterity >= 8 Well, you get the idea. Combat moves become "spells" for the fighters. It will involve a heck lot more balancing but you can get a lot of depth.

Full VO is pretty much not going to happen for PE unless we raise a couple of million more. Personally, I think VO work great for Action cRPG that basically have one (may be 2-3) plot path and shooting for the "cinematic" thing rather than traditional cRPG which is what is being funded here. I too would like to see the keyword idea get back in cRPG and be further developed beyond the guess the keyword (old ultimas) or keyword hunt from a list. But not much idea how that can be done.

Glad that you like my idea. I would really like to see PE or a future cRPG that would better "gamify" dialog mechanics that would make it as much fun to beat down monster as winning friends and affecting enemy with words. I don't know maybe put a hit point bar for mental fortitude similar to a morale score. With conversation able to do damage or fill this bar.

Amen to that. P&P (pen and paper) and cRPG are two different medium. Each has its advantageous and each excel at provide different forms of enjoyment/entertainment. While putting limitation (memorization, fatique or what not) to balance out the classes makes sense for P&P, some gamers may find it to be a chore in an interactive cRPG to have their character basically do nothing in real time whether the game is turn base or real time. Consider the following approach that is neither Vancian nor cooldown. There are only 2 resource for caster, mana and casting time (action point for turn base and real casting time for real time). The higher level a caster, the more mana he has and each turn (or interval of real time) he would regenerate more of mana. Spell cost mana and casting time. The more damage and range and utility a spell have, the more mana it use and the longer the casting time. Touch range spell that say imbue your weapon or hand with fire for 1 hit would be so low in mana and time resource that they would be virtually next to nothing. The big trade off would be to spend the time resource for imbuing the weapon with fire whereas if he doesn't, he could attack one more time, run away, whatever. A short range (eg. 3 tiles) magic missle fire base spell cost a bit more but for a high enough level, he can throw 2, 3 or more to the limit of the casting time (action point) allow for in a turn. A long range fireball area of effect spell will cost so much that it would be beyond the mana pool for beginner level. At mid level, he could cast one but it cost like most of his mana and he can only regenerate enough mana to cast it again after 2 turns if he only do light casting like those touch range or short range spell. If he does not do any casting, he can regenerate fast enough to cast again after waiting 1 turn. A high level caster would be able to cast it every turn. Heck, at high enough level he can even cast the fireball and some other low mana cost spell as long as time resource allow. Yes, some may cry foul for a system that let caster do multiple spell casting per turn, but that's where play balancing comes in. The dev. can change the casting time requirement and mana cost to fine tune these to balance out the class. If they give the mele class enough power skill, you have lower requirements. If not, you can raise the time requirement to the level that it is virtually a one spell a turn deal. On the plus side, you can add depth and variation with this system. You may have gamers that play caster like ye old AD&D wizard, standing in the back and lobbing powerful spell, 1 per turn. While some would opt for mages that would cast a personal buff for +2 armor class, close in and fire multiple short range, mid-low damage spell. And mayhaps someone so inventive to cast a big damage absorbtion spell for 100 points of damage that would last for 10 turns at turn1, then follow with mid level buff for +3 attack that last for 5 turns in turn 2. Then at turn 3, he charge in like a tank and just hit with multiple low cost spell as he mana regenerate. Or maybe the caster have a +3 dagger and he could forget about doing the attack buff in turn two and charge in like a 100 HP boss on turn 2. Too powerful for the melee class to handle this Magetank, not if you give the fighter abilities to use either blunt weapon or pommel strike to do stun damage that either literally stun the wizard a turn or two to tick down the spell duration. Alternatively, if stunning is too powerful, let it marginally increase the time resource cost for spells (as well as other action). It is about balancing.

If resource only allow for picking something close to existing system, I would like to see it implement like Planescape: Torment. However, if resource allow for it, I would be more excited to see new innovation. I would like to see dialog system fully integrated into the game's core mechanic to the point that dialog is treated like combat attack or spells. So for characters that understand (your PC's) language, you can initiate combat by selecting an insult, just as effective as you select different weapon or spell to start a fight. And during a fight, you have the option of either select a attack, a spell or a conversation. For a non-plot general opponent, the list of available conversation may just be the combat taunt we see in the infinity games but this time, with the right skill or stats, you could cause opponent to feel fear and run. And for combat with plot NPC, you can select specific things to say that could have different effects. Heck saying the right thing may win the NPC over to your side entirely, a much more permanet form of Charm Person.

If a guy miss while poking from behind the shield, he/she is going to be disadvantaged assuming the opponent have similar reflex to him or her. To assume a combatant can follow with a lateral strike seems to be assuming that the combatant is more skilled and have better refex than the opponent. The safest thing to do is actually blocking the counterhit and back away to keep the range advantage. And if he was poking from beind the shield, the shield is still up. It would take slashing weapon longer to bring the shield back up. Slashing from behind a raise shield is awkward at best and even reduce the range of the weapon much more. By the way, this is by no means an endorsement of spear over other weapon. It is just to point out that it is a bit safer

Personally, I think the bigger problem with shop is its usefulness in mid to late game. The only function for shops are places where the player can sell off his/her loot. Few if any game would sell the best weapon or equipment in a shop because it cheapens the reward the game give you from questing or adventuring which is the bulk of the game. In turn, the core issue with the cRPG economy is that currency in mid-late game is even more worthless than the fiat currency that central banks of the world are printing in the real world. The problem is, the real demand or "want" in most if not all game world are equipment and so far the primary route to provide fulfill this want is through loot from monsters. Limiting money will help in only help by just not giving the player infinite amount of money. However, even if the game gave the player infinite amount of money; by around mid-late game, there is nothing to spend it on other than white-elephant project like player housing. After the house, the player may as well drop his 50 Trillion gold piece in the house and the player won't even miss it. I would like to see a cRPG that would limit the amount of overall world currency and give more more reactivity, more "game" for money other than buying equipment, and ingredients or player houses. Here is an example. First limit the amount of amount using one of the system suggested above or any other one. Let most of the village, town and maybe even city have different state of evolution. When player either spend enough money by selling loot, sleeping in the inn, the city will level up. The tiles that was a field in a village, could become another shop. And at different level of development, certain NPC may become recruitable or that NPC could have a different class for different level of development. So at village level, the NPC the party rescue in chapter one would be a recruitable ranger but if enough money is spend (and mayhaps in conjunction with certain factor), this NPC would become a mage instead. Another variation is to make different items become available for different settlement. With limited money, this could lead to further replayability. "Game+" mode could have a world full of metropolis and an absolute inavailability of NPC druids

While I am not an expert in hand to hand combat. There are some logical advantage one can think of. A few have point out the strategic advantage when use in phalanx formation. Further, it would be easier to field an army with spear than sword. metal is generally more expensive and all. I suspect training an army would be easier too. Mainly thrusting attack. On a individual level, spear and shield would be more save as one can pretty much poke from behind the shield cover while a sword, mace or axe swing, you are pretty open. Yes, you can poke with a sword too but it got far less range.

Why open up this old wound and rub salt on it. You evil, evil man

I mentioned this in the other thread about combat stance. But the core of the problem is that for a turn base game, there are only 2 key weapon stats: weapon speed in the from of rate/number of attack, and weapon damage. So at the end of the day, there is only one or few base weapon selection that make tactical sense. And most of the time, this lead to the dominance of sword in cRPG, the blatant proliferation of dual wield to the point that you would think every cRPG hero is ambidexterous. Some cRPG tried to mix it up by either dividing it into damage type like skeleton receive full damage only from blunt weapon, which only create the situation that players carry around a blunt weapon in the beginning up to the point they gain enough bonus on their primary weapon (sword for most case) that the penalty does not mean a thing. Older games give pole arm extra reach but the fact is, the core of the issue is in game mechanic terms, there is only one optimum solution. This is less of a problem for real time action game as they can give each weapon distinct move that make tactical sense. Case and point in Dark Soul where some players are more comfortable to use spear and board, axes or any other combination. So if we can take some inspiration from this, and assuming enough resource available, perhaps design a combat melee system that gives different attack and/or tactical moves for different weapons that offer advantages their specific blend of advantageous and disadvantageous . eg. Spear offer better defense rating for shield than when used with a slashing weapon, Special charging attack, spear throwing or set against charge...etc. or for the case of dagger allow for spell casting without penalty, bonus in cramp space...etc.

From Update 15 description of fighter class, they are implementing stance. It sounds like a selection of different combat mode like many MMO which I think add to the tactical depth of playing a fighter class and make them less boring than just move them to the front and use as meat shield. I loath how many MMO make these fighters (tanks) into a game of agro management. I mean, holy christ, how is that heroic? It sound like there is a kind of "tank stance" that is kind of like that. I hope they would develop the other stances to be viable and interesting when working with other classes in the party so that we won't just use the fighter for their tank stance. I think the standard one hand, two hand, sword & board and (annoyingly common) dual-wield are in by default. I suppose specialization in the form of adding bonuses to hit rate and damage would not be a resource sink to implement. But if resource allow, I personally would like to see a probably rarely done before system where different weapon would give different moves and tactical effect, I can only recall the pole arm can strike 1 tile behind opponent in Ultima and Wizardry. So, we won't see the situation of everybody using the weapon with the best trade off between damage, and speed in which case has always been the long sword or Katana. PS:T went so far to take away any sword in the game, which is more making a statement than addressing the core of the issue -- there is not any point to use anything else. I mean think about this "hidden" resource sink, cRPG developer for over 30 plus years gave players selection of weapons, sink all these resources into making art, models of the weapons and incorporating these model in the PC's avatar for all these weapons and most of it is basically wasted.

Agreed on not making too many quests of this type. In fact, I believe it should be restricted to around maybe say 3 quests but ones than span throughout the game. It should be a major side quest, with appropriate grave consequences. This would avoid diminishing its' impact. A path to redemption huh... , definitely great. At least the PC has some way to make amends for his/her mistakes. Yeah, considering how many of us learn from our mistake in real life, it is just odd that due to the ability to reload old save, cRPG heroes by the most did everything right : )

Quite agree. Not seeing immediate reward/punishment add depth and replayability. Just want to add not to make this too often and the consequence too far reaching to make this annoying. On a separate note, I would also like to see a viable and interesting path after negative consequence. By that I mean, after a player make a poor decision and people die (and I don't mean those decision the game force you to make). In most cases, the player will reload. I have yet to see a cRPG that have a viable and interesting path after some negative outcome from an ecounter.

I suppose, the "tutorial section" of the game can kind of benefit from this idea. Have the party leader/boss/commander/ NPC gave the PC some jobs to do so that the player learn the ropes of the game system. This idea would become exponentially difficult as time goes by if we want avoid player complaint of railroading the plot.