Gatt9

The key point is that without any pressure they don't make mistakes; not that they never make mistakes. Turn based games take away the pressure of time which is why they are not inherently more challenging than real time games. Two points to make... First, the "Pressure of time" is largely illusionary. All you're doing is clicking on unit A, then click on enemy B. You're not under any pressure, so long as you performed that action, it's automated from there. In fact, most games have this so heavily automated that even without instruction a unit will engage an enemy within it's range or sphere of awareness. Honestly, you're more under pressure to keep the AI from getting you killed than you are from any time factor. In any given RT game, the biggest pressure is making sure the AI doesn't crap out on you and decide the shortest path is a 2 mile hike around the edge of the map, or that the automation algorithm doesn't crap out and leave your guy standing there. Second, turn based games can easily be an order of magnitude more challenging than a RT one. In a RT game, the AI has to process it's decisions in fractions of a second, which means it must have small contrived choices. "Attack the nearest enemy" "Attack whoever hits hardest" "Attack the mage" TB games, OTOH, have significantly more time to process their decisions. Not only does the AI have more time to process it's decisions after you make your move, but you can even thread out the AI and have it process it's decisions while the Player is taking their move. Since decisions are permutations and evaluation, the AI in a TB game will *always* be stronger than a RT one, simply because the AI has more resources (CPU time). There's a reason why no RTS has ever had AI that tries to use advanced tactics on you, it's because it doesn't have time to do the calculations, and some of the calculations involved are NP-problems (Shortest path is a common example). The reason no one has done it yet is because a cRPG game in the style of the IE games hasn't been made in forever. Compare the AI of shooters from that era (Half-life, unreal, quake 2, etc.) to the AI of modern shooters; the difference is night and day. I suppose you could cite DA:O as being a modern version of the IE games, but Bioware, at least nowadays, isn't very good with AI (I'm looking at you Mass Effect). Also, TB games have plenty of their own abuses which are unique to that combat system, and which would not work in RT games. The reason no one has done it is because you're talking very small amounts of resources, very large permutations, and NP-level calculations. You're asking the AI to determine a strategy for the best plan of attack, by processing all of the variables in a couple hundred milliseconds at best. "If I move here and my ally stays there, then I can do this, but what if I move here and my ally stays there, what's the chances that I'll expose myself to that enemy over there and can I survive it, or would it be better for me to move to my ally or..." Every unit increases the complexity at an ~factorial rate at least (Worsened by each ability they might have), combined with all of the calculations involved in pathing. The time slices involved in RT gameplay makes it virtually impossible to do any significantly complex AI, and it gets worse with each successive AI controlled unit introduced. That's why the AI in RT systems uses "Dumb" algorithms like predefined scripts, scripts with randomized behaviors (Attack the closest, attack the furtherest, attack whoever is attacking the most damaged AI), or just plain dumb "Attack whoever's in my range". Also, please note, the AI in modern shooters is at least as dumb today as it was years ago. In fact, some AI's are so dumb that you can literally reload and have it behave exactly the same each time (Gears of War, Mass Effect). Other AI's just use very simple algorithms such as "I was shot, I should move". Halo is a great example, the critters will stand in plain sight until they get shot, then move to cover. TBH, if the AI was any good at all in any modern shooter, in some game somewhere it would've figured out that all it has to do to kill you is sacrifice one unit to slow you down, fall back, and gather overwhelming numbers since any given level will have several dozen of them and 1 of you. The problem with any, and every, RT system is Time.

These topics pop up in the first few weeks of almost every CRPG's development. It really boils down to three issues very consistently: 1. Some people are worried their favorite class will be unplayable, because historically non-combat centric classes got the shaft in CRPGs (Think Thieves, Diplomats). 2. Some people cannot stand the thought that someone somehwere might play the game "Wrong". 3. Someo people cannot stand the idea that they might be perceived to be playing the game "Wrong" if they don't powergame and let it bother them. You really should've followed the conversation backwards. I addressed your concerns in my first post in the "Controlled imbalance" section.

I play my games on my laptop. Long gone are the days when I could set up a desktop at a desk and pla for hours and hours. Things change once you grow up. Not saying anything about your choice of places to play games, but this is a pretty weak arguement for why controllers should be present. Unless you had a catastrophic injury, or debilitating arthritis, you're perfectly capable of sitting at a desktop. You just don't want to. Millions of people who've grown up demonstrate every day that they can spend hours and hours at a desk. So honestly, it's kind of offensive when you try to insinuate that anyone who will sit at a desk isn't a grown up, and even more offensive while you make that statement simply because you've decided you don't want to sit at a desk.

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game. this is called strawman. *shrug* people, against their own advantage, want to win. if you, as a developer, provide a clear winning build, power or whatever, a disproportionate % of people will choose the win. such an eventuality is not good for numerous reasons discussed above. HA! Good Fun! No offense, but it's not even remotely close to a strawman. In fact, calling it a strawman is closer to being a strawman. It's math. Pick your variable. Damage? If any class deals 1 more point of DPS than the other classes, it's "A clear winning build" because it'll be superior to everyone else at all times. Experience? If any class or skill allows the player to gain more experience than the others, it's "A clear winning build". You have two options. 1. Everyone is the same. 2. There's "A clear winning build". Every system that does not make all choices identical will have "A clear winning build", because the math will work out differently for each choice. The only way you can get a system without "A clear winning build" is if all of the math results in the same value for every choice, which means you have everyone the same.

i dont argue with that, but i think the best option is to have all paths available for solving a quest require an equal effort, with varying but balanced rewards based on the outcome, except for xp that will always be the same. now if you are a dumb barbarian but you decide you want to solve a quest by talking, you have to save, try, fail, load, retry, reload and so on until you succeed. it takes more effort because you try to use skills on which you have not invested, should it pay more? if it did, a guy who invested heavily on his social skills, would breeze through the quest and get more than the guy who, having invested in combat, solves it with violence. a barbarian, would not be able to talk 2 feuding families into making peace, so he would just kill one (easily since he is a war machine and they are civilians) and get paid by the other, getting 500xp. a silver tongued chanter however would be able to do it (easily if he has the skills) and would get also 500 xp. then the chanter would get a bonus quest because of what he did, that the barbarian would lose, gaining another 500xp. however the chanter would not get access to a certain dungeon where only a barbarian can enter and gain 500xp by clearing it. of course if you have a silver tongued barbarian, you can have access to both, however a barbarian who invested in social skills, will probably not have the combat skills needed to clear the dungeon You're on a slippery slope though, the next logical step forward would be "All rewards should be the same at all levels", for the very same reasons being used to justify making xp rewards the same.

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game. The ideal situation is controlled imbalance, it's when people can excel at things through the choices they've made and manage something every other choice couldn't have done. But in aquiring that ability, a tradeoff was made that puts some other choice above them in other situations. Mage vs Fighter is a good example. A Mage is ideally able to achieve a great variety of effects and intermittently deal a great deal more damage, but in exchange can absorb very little punishment and has finite resources. A Fighter is limited in the things he can do, but deals more consistent damage, has infinite resources, and can absorb large amounts of damage. Are they balanced? Never have been, but they're generally controlled imbalances until some later factor is introduces (Kensai) or some basic rules are not implemented (CRPG Rest Spamming because there's no restriction on resting). As far as power-gaming goes, there's no way to eliminate it unless you implement a "Real balance" game system, which again is incredibly boring. Unless everyone is absolutely identical, every reward is absolutely identical, there's a way to Powergame.

Armor class meets it's intended purpose very well, which was to model a Character's ability to mitigate or avoid damage when something tried to hit them. But unfortunately, it's been my experience over the years that this is one of the two hardest concepts for people new to RPG's to get, especially if their RPG experience is limited to CRPG's which don't explain what's happening. So honestly, I think Damage Reduction is a clearer system to new players and achieves the same end effect. So my vote is for Damage Reduction due to it requiring less understanding of the intracicies(sic) of the rules.

This is a horrible poll. First, The poll neglects to acknowledge the concept of "Incidental treasure", treasure that represents the remains of previous victims, usually associated with creatures of animal intelligence. In other words, finding gold on a wolf is meant to represent the gold lying on the ground from past victims. That is where the concept came from, what it's meant to represent, and it does so *really* well. This is a user problem, most often a mistake made by people with no PnP RPG experience. Second, ARPG's concept is Random Loot, not disconnected loot. Anyone can drop anything. It is not prominent in MMO's, to my knowledge the only MMORPG in the history of MMORPG's that used this concept is Asheron's Call. Every other MMORPG uses predeterming drops with random frequencies. Third, your option 2 isn't "Connected" loot. It's predetermined loot. Every creature of the same type drops the same things. Further, Deus Ex isn't an RPG, it's a Shooter with a crippled interface to create the illusion of having RPG elements, that disappear as soon as the Player's skill is sufficient to overcome the handicap. Fourth, your option 3 is again D&D loot but this time without incidental treasure. Also, Skyrim isn't an RPG it's an Action-Adventure game, and IIRC it's loot is just as level scaled as everything else in it.

Disagree. If all paths result in the same reward, then the best path becomes the fastest path. There's always a best path. Worse, that just makes the choice of approach trivial. It becomes Mass Effect 2 and 3. It doesn't really matter what you do, you end up with the same result anyways. They should get different rewards because it's unreasonable to assume that all approaches have equivalent difficulty in achieving them. Talking someone out of something may be significantly more difficult than stealing it from them, and killing them might be alot more difficult than either (Or might be easier). The reward should reflect the difficulty in achieving the results with the path that was chosen. IMO, making all approaches equivalent ultimately makes the choice of approach irrelevant, and thusly makes the option to choose irrelevant since you're going to get the same thing no matter what you do.

And the other other side ... just plain ol' "Kickstarter burnout." ...the notion of Kickstarter being bought out and then altered in some way by some huge corp. isn't a nice thought, either. GoogleKick! .... I hope none of the possible negatives happen to KS (or crowdfunding in general), or at least, don't happen for a good long while. I want to see where it'll go, and if it really can change things in some way, long term. A big kickstarter failure is unlikely. A big kickstarter tends to have a strong deliverable, and could easily be funded by some form of private equity against a portion of the revenues if it were to get into trouble. Kickstarter burnout is likely in the short term, until the big projects deliver. Once this "First generation" delivers it should become unstoppable. I'd imagine though that it'll end up getting eclipsed by the Gambitious model, where there's more liability and there's a return on investment. That's a much stronger model for many projects, and will likely pull in major players with major investments. It could end up revolutionizing investments in many forms of markets by letting people invest in a idea instead of a company. Regardless, crowd funding is not only here to stay, but IMO is going to change the world... ...and it's all because of a couple video game companies that wanted to make an Adventure Game, an RTS, and a couple RPG's. In 5 years, we'll all be able to laugh hysterically at all of those people who claimed video games were pointless, and now have to deal with the fact that video games changed the world.

I think you're missing the point, it's not to convince other posters of anything, that's irrelevant. It's to get a message to Developers that is the goal. TBH, I doubt we'd even be talking about this if it weren't for Bioware's butt/boob level camera angle every time Miranda walked on stage and Jack running around in alien environments wearing less clothes than a stripper. EA pushed a few things over the edge with Mass Effect, and the DLC war and Journalist corruption weren't the only things.

Actually, I think it's changed alot of things. Aside from the Ouya example... Look at the Reaper Bones campaign and the Center Stage campaign. Both of those guys just wanted to fund adding some new minature models to their store, and in the end, ended up raking in a ton of cash. Backers got a whole bunch of minatures at incredible prices as a result, probably at cost, and over time the companies will profit hugely. It's a great example of a win-win situation. Look at ADOM, that probably never would've been updated were it not for the DFA effect. Plus there's a bunch of board game conversions, and old PnP RPG's being revived. One kickstarter offered cabinet plans for MAME cabinets as a reward. Another saw a new version of Arcade History get printed. Yet another saw new articles of Tom vs Bruce commissioned. Or how about the successfull efforts to crowd fund saving artifacts from Tesla that were going to be destroyed? Even more interesting, there's a group of major hollywood guys turning to kickstarter to fund a adult animated film of the comic book Goon going on right now. (Though I still pray Joss kickstarts Firefly and breaks every record!) DFA changed a fantastic amount of stuff, and IMO we haven't even began to see the effects yet. We have incredible potential for art, and theoretically even science to advance and flourish by putting the power into distributed funding.

That is an intentional flaw. Publishers desperately wanted control of the market a decade ago, so they successfully convinced Console gamers that Graphics > Gameplay. This was done so that they could insure that development houses could not develop and launch a competitive title without their help. Think Cold War Economics. This, combined with the expense of the 3D revolution, gave Publishers pretty much complete control over the entire market. Remember, Activision got it's start by releasing Atari Games without Atari. It was an event Publishers did not want to see, they wanted to insure that anything sold on a Console Platform gave them a piece of the pie. It's also a large part of the reason why the market shifted away from the PC to Consoles, if Publishers could successfully force the market to go in that direction, they could obtain complete control of the market. The PC is an open platform, nothing stops a developer from releasing a game on the PC without them. The Console OTOH is closed, and if they could position themselves as the Gatekeepers, they could dominate the market. So, the campaign of massive budgets was born. The Publishers leveraged their bankrolls in Reganomics style warfare by successfully convincing the Gamers that if a game didn't have the very latest in graphics, physics, full orchestral music, and voice acting by celebrities it wasn't worth buying. Now it'll bite them in the butt. It's a large part of the reason we're on the verge of collapse. This is a symptom of the above. They need millions of sales because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on things that don't improve gameplay, but they have no choice to do it because of their crusade for market dominance. Marketing expenses are huge, because Quality and Gameplay are secondary. They don't care if the game is innovative, fun, or even bug free. They spend massive amounts of money on marketing, because for years Gamers would just buy into the PR and go preorder. If they can convince Gamers to do that, they don't need to make a good game, because by the time word of mouth spreads, they already have the first 3 weeks of sales. It's also why they're going to fail in the next 18 months. They've created the situation where they have to spend tens of millions to make a game, and then a massive amount in marketing to convince ~3% of the installed base of 140 million to buy the game, just to break even. So what happens when the next generation they think will save them has a first year installed base of only 10 to 20 million? When 3% is in the hudreds of thousands, and not millions? Worse, how are they going to sell consoles when they're creatively bankrupt and the games will be the same things people are already so tired of that they won't buy them today? It's going to be a really ugly 18 months. Publishers are very, very, foolish. They don't know the demographics. Kotaku has an article on Friday where an anonymous Publisher (Likely a suit who makes decisions) seems to indicate people in their 30's are old and not the target market. But if you reference the demographics breakdown from 2011, you'll find the average gamer is 37 and less than 15% of the market is in the under 18 demographic. (Using that breakdown because the 2012 one assumes that anyone who plays Angry Birds or Farmville is a gamer, which is pretty wrong.) Publishers make decisions based upon what is "Safe", which really consists of "What game sold well last year?", and "What genre sold well last year?". Publishers do not make decisions based on anything even remotely resembling market reserach. In 30 years of gaming, no one has ever surveyed me, and I've never seen anyone say they've been surveyed. Then we're right back into the fact that the Publishers disregard the majority of the Industry and target the less than 15% part. The only name in film that can sell movie tickets today is Will Smith. Hollywood's been admitting that for years. Many years ago a name on the movie would sell tickets, but today movie goers aren't all that dedicated to any single name. Publishers in gaming rely on franchises because it's safe. Publishers believe that if we bought Game X, we'll buy Game X+1, and for a long time they were right. Gamers have a core demographic that border on obsessive, whether it's the Japanophiles, or people dedicated to some specific IP (Star Wars, Star Trek are good examples), Gamers tended to include the same demographic as AD&D, Comic Book, and Sci-Fi. Demographics known for total dedication to an IP. So if an IP succeeded, there's a demographic in gaming that'll buy it sight unseen for many iterations. New IP's aren't safe, because there's no installed fanbase. That means the game will have to succed on it's own quality, and that's something Publishers want to avoid, because they're not interested in quality. Quality costs alot of money, Quality means alot of tweaking and fine tuning. Publishers like nice safe existing IP's because they can just shove out the same game with a slightly different story and different maps and sell alot of units. Problem is though, Publishers have forgotten the lesson of the Horror Genre of movies. Sure Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street sold alot of tickets, but over time, people became increasingly bored with it, and by the late 80's the entire genre tanked. You cannot release 10, 12, in one case 20, iterations of the same game and think it'll last forever, because at some point the bottom is going to drop out, and it'll likely happen *really* fast. The Publisher alone add 25%-30% to the cost of the game. Look through the credits of an AAA game and you'll find a large number of people listed who don't actually do anything towards making the game. They also introduce a high degree of inefficiency through over management. I'd be willing to bet that if you cut out the Publisher and the bloated marketing campaigns, you probably get a budget around 50% lower.

It might be that if this kind of topics don't get opened, the Anti-WhiteKnight faction would die out of boredom. Edit: wait, was "goddess" a subtle form of sarcasm over the argument of this thread, or were you just citing the famous manga Aa Megami-sama? Probably wiccan.

I'm not a fan. Most implementations mean that you don't get to experience the full game unless you play through it twice, usually by making sure you don't reach the level cap (Mass Effect) or by making sure you don't see all of the content until the second play through (Dead Rising 2). Further, the only reason this system exists is because it's used by Publishers to delay the trade in of console games by a couple of weeks to improve revenue. It's not done to improve the game, it's done to force you to play twice by holding content hostage.

The first time through the game, how do we know what we should be doing ourselves to improve the experience? Simply put, we don't. Sure, the second time through I can limit my supplies to add to the challenge. I can limit my resting to when I know I need it. But the first time I go up against a tough looking enemy you better believe I will be fully prepared if the game mechanics encourage it. Why would mechanics be in the game if not to be used? Resting every time its available is not exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. Going back to town for arrows any time you run out isn't exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. If the design doesn't match up with the intentions of the developer -- particularly in terms of difficulty -- the player will suffer for it. There is no good reason to assume I should be adding my own personal limitations to these mechanics to get the desired difficulty level for the game. If I can rest and resupply easily, balance the fights around the assumption that I will be rested and well supplied. In general, a system that encourages undesired actions is poorly designed. Ah, but the system works perfectly fine. The implementation of the system pretty consistently leaves a bit to be desired. The system is a implementation of the PnP rules regarding resource restoration. In a PnP game, the DM won't let you rest every 10 minutes. Further, in a PnP game, the longer you rest the further the world progresses. The bad guy gets a step closer to his goals, or the denizens of the area reinforce and prepare for your approach, if they don't outright ambush you while you're sleeping. A CRPG doesn't make any attempt to do that. A CRPG lets you click the Rest button every 5 seconds. A CRPG doesn't progress the main quest while you're sleeping, nor does it reinforce or ambush you. The best solution to your contention would simply be to give the world a state and progress it independent of the Character's actions. Let the bad guy slowly complete his plan, and make sure his plan is one that can be undone even once it's completed. Which means the genre will have to quit using "Evil warlord/mage is going to destory the world!" and start using some less game-ending primary quests. This would be a true innovation in RPG's, creating a world state that progresses. Then you'll be alot more hesitant to spam all of your spells in every battle and rest after every one, because time will suddenly make a difference (A non-game-ending one). The problem is not the system. The problem is that the genre needs to take the next step towards emulating a PnP game and implement the thing that balances out the system.

Personally, I question if any of the Publishers will still be around after PE releases. Activision might be, but I fully expect everyone else to be bankrupt by the end of 2014. Actually, this is more the misinformation that the Publishers and Journalists try to push off as truth. The unfortunate situations are largely artificial, they're generally caused by... -A Publisher's deadline set to meet some fairly meaningless event (Holiday season, end of quarter) -A Publisher's demands for changes that really didn't fit in the game in the first place. Publishers set artificial dates in order to meet mythical events. "Holiday season", because they operate under the false belief that games can only be sold between Oct and Dec, or because they're hoping to exploit the tendency of purchasers to not check reviews during that time period and buy shovelware just because the name is posted somewhere as if it was great. They're hoping that they don't have to sell the game on quality. The other event is the Quarterly, because Shareholders don't understand game development and think you should show positive revenue at all times. Shareholders think game development is like every other industry, with constant cash flow instead of intermittent cash flow. The reality is, Games will sell well if they have high quality. It would be better for the bottom line if they actually spent the effort to finish the product instead of shoving it out the door incomplete. As far as it being the only way of getting things done goes, this is again artificial. -Console platform owners won't deal with Developers, they want to deal with Publishers, because Platform owners don't want to screen titles, they want someone else to absorb the cost. -Publishers generally give Development Houses a pittance of the revenues, they cultivated this in the late 90's, and increased this dependence by successfully convincing the console gamers that Graphics > Gameplay. Because Developers are forced to be dependent because of parasitic relationships with Publishers that border on Robber Baron type dealings, and because the console gamers will decry anything that isn't the very best in graphics (Until recently, it seems to be changing), Developers are literally forced to deal with Publishers. It's not a sustainable system, it's highly cannibalistic, because content creators are consistently given the shaft on all fronts and ultimately it has and will continue to reduce the amount of content creators. Everyone wants to succeed in life, and the current system is designed to cause content creators to fail in order to feed the parasitic publishers. No one really feels like a huge success when your company is literally at the mercy of someone else's company.

The Tomb Raider branch was an updated form of the C64 era third person adventure game combined with modern Shooter mechanics. The C64 era had a number of games which were focused more on exploration and intermittent action, like Seven Cities of Gold, Starflight, Star Control, and Pirates!. During the 90's, this split off about the same time as the survival horror branch split off the Adventure genre, and was actually defined as Adventure for many years. It had never really died, but the Tomb Raider branch just added some Shooter mechanics to it and ended up being successfull branch. Sadly, we've lost the direction of those games I mention though, which is a shame because those were some of the best games ever made

That's an easy one. You have two primary forces operating here... 1. In the software industry, it's common to offer bonuses related to the product line you worked upon, with games it's common for that bonus to be paid out against the revenue of a specific release. So the business people and marketing groups take a look at a concept and think "How many units is this likely to sell and how big would my bonus be?". Or to be more specific, they walk into the room thinking "Call of Duty is what sells well this year, if we make something like that I'll get a huge bonus!". So the thought of smaller, consistent projects isn't on their radar. They don't want the bonus from 2 million units, they want the bonus from 20 million units. So right there, the employees are conditioned to think in terms of Blockbusters instead of thinking in terms of a viable and sustainable business strategy like Hollywood has. There's no incentive for being the man who released projects that consistently made profit, only in being the man who released projects that made alot of revenue. 2. Shareholders. Shareholders want growth, consistent revenue streams, and they want to hear that their company is the one who will revolutionize the market. In other Industries, this is fine. That works with pretty much every other Industry, but it does not work with the Gaming Industry. Shareholders don't want to hear about games projected to sell 2 million units, they want to hear about games projected to sell 20 million units. Shareholders have no idea what the market's actually like, they have no idea Gamers are dissatisfied. Which ultimately has created the impending Second Great Gaming Crash. Now Publishers have forced the market into "Graphics sell Games" mentality on the Console side, and combined with the blockbuster mentality ended up creating an environment where all projects are $20,000,000+ in budget and need 5 million in sales to be viable. If you do the math on the 140 million installed base, they need 3% penetration, an event that is extremely difficult now with that installed base. Next Generation consoles means you'll only have a couple million units, so where you need 5 million in sales, you get a few hundred thousand. Combine this with the drops in sales the last 3 years because Gamers appear tired of cookie-cutter games and sequels, and likely will be slow to adopt, and you end up with only one possible outcome which is a market crash as Publishers fold under the unsustainable blockbuster mentality they fostered.

They're not legally enforceable in any country actually. The onus is upon the company to demonstrate who agreed to the contract. I'll guarantee you that suddenly everyone in the world will say a 5 year old, who can't legally agree to anything, must have clicked that button when they went to the bathroom after inserting the disc. That's why you've never seen a company try to enforce it in a courtroom, proving who clicked that button is completely impossible.

IIRC, doesn't it also not die if you take it to 0 HP, doesn't it require a Wish spell to kill? I'm all for challenging boss fights, but really, I'd rather fight Demogorgon while wearing no armor and with a pointy stick as a weapon. Plus, historically, the Tarrasque is a very Munchkin creature. Mainly because of years of Munchkins bragging about how their character kills Tarrasques single handedly (A dark elf fighter/mage/assassin named Raistlin who wears +5 platemail has a +5 intelligent poisoned vorpal sword, and a Staff of the Magi he's learned to dual wield, 5 random Ioun stones, 10 rings, and 2 necklaces, with a Pseudo-dragon familiar) I'd rather Obsidian used something else for inspiration.

Dopplegangers, Intellect Devourers (Those are always good for a couple second pause of WTF?), Golems (Especially the sneaky kind like Carytid Columns). Revenants are cool, as are well done Undead. Water Weirds, Elementals, and Mimics could be cool. Lurker Above and Lurker Below, Ropers, Molds. Pixies and Brownies if actullay represented as mischievous critters could be really fun.

Deus Ex isn't an RPG. It's a shooter with a intentionally crippled interface, that's slowly has the handicap removed to give the illusion of character progression, and once the Player's skill is sufficient to overcome the handicap, it's a pure shooter. Where is the fun in spending all of this time killing things so that your character can not progress? Here's where you get into trouble though. You're now defining "There's only one right way to play and it's this way", your statement means that being xp/kill is wrong, a system that provides xp/kill and rewards alternative approaches is wrong, the only acceptable system is Quest-based xp. If that's not what you meant, then what you really mean to say is that systems that only reward xp/kill are bad, and PE should use a system that provides xp/kill and rewards alternative approaches. I really can't understand why everyone keeps zooming right past the system where all approaches can give a reward and keep ending up with a system that not only makes no sense, but it's implementation removes the incentive from a primary component of an RPG.

Yep. It's about survival. I think the mindset of "I must get XP for battles" comes in part from the fact that combat in games these days is so damn easy. So you need XP to make that mindless busy-work worth your while. I agree with you, if the combat is fun and challenging, and incorporated into the objective based system fluidly, I don't think not getting xp for every single insignificant enemy is a problem. I disagree. All it does is implement Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3. Killing things is a pointless chore in between quests that all reward a couple of skill points when you finish them. Every quest gives you a level very predictably, to the point where you wonder why there's even an Xp value present. Further, it highlights the monotony of RPG combat since now every combat is just something you have to "Get through" to have any progression in the game at all. It's a real-time CRPG, you point your guys at the critter, and they go kill it. It's the failing of real time systems, either they're very basic, or the complexity they attempt to implement makes you pay more attention to the UI than you ever do to the actual combat. Legends of Grimrock's a great example, combat consists of you staring at the icons on the character panels waiting to press some buttons, and you can't look at the critter because if you do your party will suffer severe consequences.

Very good post! The only thing I would add is... "Why are we allowing a subset of Players who engage in degenerate play in a single player game to dictate the design?" All of this is to stop some people from "Playing it wrong" in a single player game, which really makes no sense to me. Why design around the edge case? How does this improve upon the genre? It really doesn't. The best improvement for the genre would be to give NPC's a resistance to various skills such as... Bandit xp - 100 Persuade - 1.25 Intimidate - 0.5 Sneak - 1.5 So... -If you kill this Bandit, he gives 100xp -He's set in his ways, if you can Persuade him to stop thieving, you get 125xps -He's a coward, Intimidating him gives 50xps -He's street-smart, so trying to sneak past him yields 150xps Etc. At this point, you've avoided introducing nonsense systems by introducing systems that more closely represent the real world, and rewards your approach based with a scaling reward that reflects the difficulty of using it on this particular creature. From there, you can easily create critters that are more rewarding for non-combat solutions, and critters more rewarding for combat solutions. It's a flexible system that effectively rewards both combat and non-combat solutions, and rewards them both based upon the relative difficulty of achieving that solution. As I said in the other thread, stopping people from completing a quest and then committing Genocide is trivial. The quest flag is already in the Player object, check it and if it's true, reward no experience.