Nonek

Thank you and much appreciated.

If I may ask a few questions to those of you in the know: Is the game just a succession of combat encounters like the Baldur's Gates and Icewind Dales or are there more options and solutions to situations? Do the characters have backpacks or does the inventory just magically disappear as per usual? How is the gameworld, do npc's have routines and lives, vanishing at night and returning at dawn, or are they just static scenery? Why doesn't Dyrford have a stockade around it, is the area near a garrison or largely settled? What is the major career in Dyrford, is it largely agrarian, and what passtimes do the inhabitants partake in?

The Wild Hunt, i've liked the last two Witcher games immensely and so will obviously purchase the next one. Just a personal preference. I'm not really the target audience for Bioware games anymore I think, not fond of the squeeing cutesy humour, the npc caricatures, the art design which is absolutely horrible or the main theme of the game. That and I found their last game to only be tolerable, not enjoyable, with several aspects that were downright degenerate. The unhealthy focus on romance is also a little disturbing, one shouldn't cater to such people as enjoy these kinds of things, they should be institutionalised.

Dave.

It's not that bodily might represents spiritual might, it's just that they are intrinsically connected. You can still emulate that kind of character pretty well with low CON and DEX. Byt yeah, you can't get over the fact that there's only so much you can do with only six attributes, no matter how you twist them around. On the other hand, with these attributes some interesting character concepts are possible that wouldn't be possible with, say, D&D. I can't really say what bugs me about this, it just seems a little off to insist that the only people with perfect Souls are the physically strong. It just seems to be a little too Nietzschean for my moderate tastes, but i'll leave it there.

Just watched an absolutely fascinating documentary on Richard the Third, a young man with the same spinal twisting was put to the test in a re-enactment of battle in the War of the Roses. Full harness, authentic medieval wooden saddles, tilting etcetera. The chap passed most of everything with flying colours, his stamina was somewhat affected by his impediment, but he was more than able to fulfill the role otherwise.

I've got to say that one thing I don't particularly like is the fact that crippled, injured, maimed and just plain weak characters automatically have inferior Souls, because of bodily might also representing spiritual might. Just seems a little off. Edit: A waste of some interesting character concepts as well.

It's an Elf, smirk or not it should be hated!

One finds that a thoroughly waxed mustache, a raised eyebrow, a detailed perusal with ones monocle, a sporty TVR waiting in the sidelines and the casual mention that you own half of Hampshire suffices to woo most filly's. Time for tiffin what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-418SbXncFA

First edition is eminently playable, simple and fun. Second edition is basically a gathering of all the various optional rules that were added to AD&D from supplemental books like Unearthed Arcana and the Complete Dungeoneers Survival guide. The two are interchangable really, and if you play one then the other is not such a stretch. There are some very nice adventures and settings for both editions, over time you will grow aware of more and more of flaws in the system, but as a beginners entry point there's very little that can match the sheer fun and dynamism of first edition. However that said once i've finished my current Rogue Trader campaign i'm thinking of trying out fifth edition, see how it's evolved. Addendum: Personally my tip for a good setting would be Greyhawk City in Gygax' Flannaess, the sourcebook is excellent and the city really does spring off the page with possibility and vitality.

Personally I have always been a fan of good wordplays and riddles, the Moredhel chests in Betrayal at Krondor were a nice little experiment in testing the old IQ. Gave up the mornings crossword to focus on those, refreshingly difficult.

Though I thought the open maps of Baldur's Gate were a nice feature they pale next to the game worlds i've really enjoyed, Brittania in Ultima's 4-7, central and western Midkemia in Betrayal at Krondor, Rivellon in Divine Divinity, even Ancaria in the first Sacred. In these and others the world seemed to spring to life and be a joy to explore, while BG felt at all times a little too gamey and artificial. Icewind Dale could have been such a setting for me, when it was initially introduced I was both charmed and intrigued by the Kuldahar and the settlement around it, unique, interesting and something worthwhile in the world. Unfortunately it all too soon became dead and content deprived, when I was looking for the great foundations it had lain to be built upon and expanded. A shame.

Oh I do apologise if my grammar has not been up to snuff, not to excuse my mistakes but the generally poor level of observance on the internet seems to have bred a rather laissez faire attitude in my own prose of late, I shall endeavour to correct this however. As far as one is aware, whom is the objective position, while who the subjective, except after a preposition, has this changed in modern English? It's been four decades since grammar school and one is aware of the increasingly fluid nature of English. Edit: Probably smell too smokey due to the pipe, but it's a pleasant aroma to me, and one uses only the finest shag. 2nd Edit: To answer the OP's question, probably just Poe immediately. DAI has from what one has seen and read become utterly farcical, and i'm currently playing through New Vegas so my post apocolyptic urge will be sated, leaving Wasteland 2 to bide awhile.

Damn and blast! Pardon my french but this online obsession is the scourge of gaming.

Not interested in D&D or its derivatives, still i'll keep an eye open because of Obsidian's implementation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyTofklJQU

Sol isn't omnipresent or unique, we're formed of ever changing particles which so far as we know have only one common progenitor, that being the big bang. I still see no need to worship such things, or worship anything at all. Society should be moving forward not clinging on to religion or whatever new age comfort blankets people choose to cuddle with, whether that's spiritualism, conspiracy theories, the latest fashionable -ism, or alternative medicine.

I drink (tea) therefore I am. I do not believe that a large ball of burning gas in space is a god, neither is a rock orbiting it and the parasites that cling to it are in no way holy. Well i'm not and certainly the ones i've met aren't.

Some artist is definitely compensating. Why armour your limbs but not your vital organs?

I may try out a Dwarf as i'm somewhat enamoured of them at the moment.

I never realised that Geralt's voice actor was the chaplain in Band of Brothers, the man has range.

Not to be pedantic Mr Devil but it's Castle Falkenstein by M. Pondsmith (creator of Cyberpunk,) not Frankenstein, as in Rock of the Hawk from what I remember of the teutonic tongue. The Cthulu by Gaslight sourcebook sounds far more appropriate than Mr Pondsmith's system however. All the best.

Cthulu by Gaslight or Castle Falkenstein perhaps?

Personally I believe Moorc*ck is one of the few writers whom does not have to have internal consistency and coherence in his work, largely because the stream of conciousness he writes in and the nature of his multiverse is fluid, and influenced by belief, dreams, thoughts and the various powers whom may have arisen from these ideas. I think that the short story concerning Earl Aubec and the introduction to the Knight of Swords especially illustrate this, though all of his multiverse does to some extent, even in Hawkmoon's alternate earth one can undo death, change reality and travel to alternate dimensions. Anything is possible, chaos will eventually win and reality is ever so fragile. However to me it is usually his characters, be they Champions Eternal or not, around whom the stories are centred. And they remain very human, realistic, and act and react according to their personality, environment or perspective, rather than serving as clumsy caricatures whose only purpose is to move the plot forward. Even though the protagonists are largely metaphors, they live, breathe and bring their own truth to the novels often shaping reality as they see fit, or ushering in new ages and beliefs that they may not be comfortable with but do believe in. Personally i'm very fond of this approach and believe that most settings can benefit if their characters act in a believably human and personal manner, rather than acting illogically for the benefit of a plot that loses more and more coherence as it progresses. Just a personal preference however.

Now that you mention it some similarities are quite apparent, though without Mr Scott's skill or the depth of the real world setting.