aluminiumtrioxid

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. Wait what? I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it. First, no, your IQ hasn't dropped even by a single point, because if it had -- you wouldn't be able to turn on your computer anymore. So don't blame your IQ stat on me. I had a slight feeling that someone who had his Intellect attribute score neglected at character creation would eventually turn up and waste no time to let it be known he didn't comprehend the sentence. Now on to the point. The character doesn't know there's an XP bar ticking, no. However, the character does notice, assuming average or above average cognitive skills, that there's a direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat. People often roleplay someone who is to some degree similar to them, so I'm not surprised your character would be oblivious to this connection. You're so wrong on so many levels I just don't have the willpower to even start making a list why your argument doesn't make any sense. I just... look at it... realize that you are an arrogant **** who is so entrenched in his own ignorance he doesn't even see how ridiculously dated his viewpoint is (I mean seriously, have you ever seen an RPG system aside from AD&D, which, I might add, is more than 30 years old?), then think about the walls of texts necessary to even begin starting to explain to you why that horrible mess of rules has simply no place in anywhere but tabletop (and even then, totally unworthy of being treated like the Holy Grail of RPG systems), and this... seemingly endless ocean of ennui just washes over me, seeing the futility of this task, and I feel there is nothing I can do, because you're not only ignorant as ****, but also totally convinced that you're right and everybody else is not only wrong, but so deep beneath you they aren't even worth listening to. I call this "The Valorian Effect". Well, back to the ignore list, m'boy.

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. Wait what? I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it.

Ah yes, Only War. We usually play it as a side game, if too many (or too important) people can't come to Dark Heresy. We've had two sessions so far, the first ending in a TPK (we're playing without Fate points; guardsmen are disposable, after all), the second - surprisingly - with a completed mission (although mostly because the GM didn't have time for the grand finale). Highlights include the time when the Commissar has blown the whole party up with a misplaced grenade (except for my storm trooper with his insane amounts of soak, but seeing the incoming ork horde and the Commissar lying on the ground, bleeding to death, he quickly turned tail and ran, only to be shot afterwards for cowardice ), or the incident when "the Heavy didn't die because we killed him". It's a viciously fun game in small doses

This reminds me of the death of our guardsman - he jumped before a group of 6 snow bear-like xenos, bellowing a badass battle cry... two rounds later he was bleeding to death I, on the other hand, am not that happy with this: the insane amount of bickering eats away valuable play time, during which basically half of the party can only look at them with sad eyes and do nothing; in addition, the players involved have an infamous track record of derailed games. As an answer to this problem, I've created a houserule where everybody gets GM's Goodwill tokens for working toward a compromise or creating content related to the chronicle; if they want something really badly, they can basically buy compliance from their fellow players using these - but they're an important resource, because they can be used to buy the Goodwill of the GM, too, and settle a rules/fluff dispute in their favor if it doesn't interfere with core assumptions. (Or wouldn't make the game objectively more awesome, in which case it's allowed with no cost.)

The party I'm a player in consists of: - a Scum: mix of support (with tech-use, medicae and barter), plus combat specialist (with the Metallican Gunslinger alternate rank, Mighty Shot and a ****ton of Dodge, BS and Agility advances) - strangely, little to no social skills, although at 44, he has the biggest Fellowship score in the party - a Psyker: on the psyker-y path, specializing in Pyromancy; the player is often quite passive, so aside from the occasional Psyniscience check, Healer, Fearful Aura or Flashbang, she doesn't do much else - a Tech-Priest: heavily specializing in Tech-Use and Medicae (with his godly Int score and assist from the Scum, he tends to succeed quite often). Also, he has The Bolter, but he's not as shooty as the Scum, has no Dodge, and only 9 wounds, so... - an Arbitrator (courtesy of myself): tends to pick up whatever's needed to fill the gaps; currently I'm the party's spokesperson with my grand total of 31 Fellowship and basic social skills, since I'm the only one who's interested in that sort of thing, and the GM awards bonuses to the roll based on roleplaying. Also Security, some Forbidden Lore, a little sneakiness, minimal combat training - tend to tear enemies apart at close range with the combat shotgun and a decent BS score anyway. The party I'm the DM of has: - a Psyker: I've allowed her to pick up Favored by the Warp at rank 1 at the cost of 400 xp, some insanity and corruption, severe nightmares, and a pronounced interest of some yet-unknown daemonic entity as a unique background package. She has a fairly diverse skillset: actually payed for the Common Lore (Imperium) skill and Inquiry (at Fel 30, it was...surprising), almost no extra psychic powers aside from the ones she got from her Psy Rating talents, some generally psyker-associated Lores (Scholastic Occult, Forbidden Warp, Forbidden Psykers), and the Unshakeable Faith talent, so she's quite resistant to fear. Initially she wanted to go with Imperial World, but since her backstory specifically mentioned noble origin, I've allowed her to swap the Fel and WP bonuses of the origin, and pick up some Ecclesiarchy-related lores instead of the Peer talents, in order for the crunch to better match her fluff. - a Sister Famulous: she's a Famulous Protégé, so counts as Noble. Her unique background allows her to paint frescos and channel her faith through them (she can spend Fate points on miracles as if she was present, and if someone sufficiently pure would come forth - no connection to the warp, <10 corruption, belief in the Emperor - they could burn fate to reproduce the effect of such a miracle). She has mainly the staple skills associated with being a Famulous Sister - all social skills at basic level, some heraldry, Scholastic Imperial Creed, Forbidden Heresy, and - perhaps surprisingly - Tech-Use. I've also allowed her to pick up psy-resistance talents as Elite Advances, considering her cell-mates and the fact that daemons tend to hunt her because of her unique ability. - a Navigator: the player wasn't willing to play as anything else, so I've allowed her to use a modified advance scheme based on the navigator of RT and the adept of DH. She's also lost every benefit associated with RT characters, but since the character's from a Magisterial House, she has the Wealth trait associated with nobles. She has mostly picked up pilot/navigation skills, and the shiny power talents. - a Tech-Priest: he's a Disciple of Thule, and I don't yet know much about his skillset yet, since his first attempt at character creation ended up in a tangled mess of useless talents and skills. Since then, I've explained him that Dark Heresy's a pretty lethal system, and there is no shame in powergaming :D Strangely, neither party was mowed down by the baddies yet, mostly because they know that they have to use cunning, tactics, and all the allies they can bring in order to survive a serious encounter. They're usually 6-8 hours long, but about a quarter of this is lost to joking around. But nobody has a problem with it. As you can see, it was neither Their character concepts pretty much neccessitated being blue-blooded

They generally start to become halfway competent around the end of rank 3 (2000 xp), reasonably competent at rank 5 (5-6000 xp), and downright frightening at 10.000-ish. Never managed to get to Throne Agent level, though. The GM of the party I play in generally awards 200 xp per story, which tend to take 1,5-2 sessions to complete. We don't get any funding, nor loot, but we can requisition pretty much anything within reason. (And if something goes wrong - say, we get 200 liters of promethium instead of the stuff we ordered - we can sell the what we don't need.) I, on the other hand, tend to follow the "detailed method" and give out xp based on how difficult the mission was (hereby punishing efficiency, but hey, if they are already efficient, they don't need the exp that much). Also, my players get their wages, and being an almost exclusively nobles-only cell, money is never an issue.

I'm probably going to ignore them for the first time; after all, if I'm spending my limited free time on the game, I intend to spend it gaming. Second time around I'll probably read stuff.

Not really?

It doesn't change the fact that you deserve to be mocked and ridiculed if you still think BG2 was less complex than DA2.

...Someone should create a crpg adaptation of Paranoia.

I haven't read him yet, but he is in my list to be read. What do you think of him? - awesome worldbuilding skills, on par with Sanderson, but his characters are generally more nuanced than the black & white caricatures B.S. tends to vomit out - is able to create an actual plot (see The Scar for example), although, in some of his works, he didn't (I'm looking at you, Perdido Street Station) - prose and dialogue is better than Erikson's, although it's faint praise; tends heavily toward purple in PSS and The Scar, is absolutely minimalist in Iron Council, didn't read anything else from him (although I'm planning to) - tends to include some heavy-handed communist b.s., but still far from being author tract-ish - awesomely weird ("I AM IRON SNAIL!") This pretty much sums it.

Seriously, guys, no love for Miéville? I think he's at least on par with Sanderson in almost every respects.

Google is your friend. It has a QTE and you think its awesome? That should be illegal. You could turn QTEs off at the options menu.

Also, the kraken battle was awesome.

Cheap shot.

I know, right? If you're going to use ratings, at least go with rotten tomatoes. Debating which Kurosawa movie is better is like trying to pick out the best piece in a box of chocolates or the best moment during Breaking Bad. I'll generally go for the circular piece filled with caramel and cite the moment Gus killed Victor with the box cutter, but if someone chooses the dark chocolate heart-shaped piece or Walt blowing up Tuco's room, I'm not going to lose my **** over it. The genius of Yojimbo is in how well paced, fun, and entertaining the movie is throughout. For me, it's a lot easier to digest than most of Kurosawa's work and delivers a devilishly wonderful and clever tale of misanthropy. Kurosawa certainly made deeper movies, like Rashomon, but Yojimbo is the one I find most entertaining. If sorophx prefers Kurosawa's fantastic adaptation of King Lear, that's good for him. /shrugs While I largely agree with you, Ran a/ was never intended to be an adaptation of King Lear, and, consequently, b/ sucks as an adaptation of King Lear.

not only is Ran better than Yojimbo in every respect. not only is Ran one of the best movies in the history of movies. /offtopic Nope.

It captures the world of Shadowrun excellently, but otherwise kinda meh. Absolutely must if you're a fan, but the linearity, the not very challenging combat system and the lack of manual saving will probably kill the experience otherwise.

I sincerely hope it doesn't mean that now everybody will speak with that horrible, horrible accent.

Welcome, neonate. Also, nice avatar you got there.

Still, I have a very strong preference for spending developer budget and time on the inclusion of more constructive player options than "let's rape NPC #3699" (which would be literally almost anything else).

So torturing a prisoner for information (for example) is the same as rape? There are so many shades of grey here that the discussion becomes circular, but I'm sure you see what I mean. So, yes, there is a world of difference. From the ****-Dastardly tying a damsel to a railway track in an old silent movie, twirling his moustache, through to Jack Bauer beating up terrorists, and everything inbetween... those are all different to me than rape. I can explain this to you but I can't understand it for you. I don't want to get personal, as you have been civil, but I can't help you here. Your own moral compass is for you to consider. But, even among the most hardened criminals, harming children holds a special status as wretched. Child-murderers have to be kept separate from the general prison population once incarcerated, lest they be shivved. A prison favourite is pouring boiling water and sugar on child murderers. In almost every culture there is a strong moral and ethical imperative to protect children, even among those outlawed. Of course, there have been slaughters and massacres throughout history when children have been slain: they are remembered because the practice is outlandish. On the other hand, from a moral standpoint, I don't see much difference between torturing someone for fun and raping someone. (Although I think it goes without saying that it's completely unnecessary and quite distasteful to include such PC options in any game, ever.) Not to mention that rape can be a moral grey area, too: if you have a magical ability to make someone want you, does using it count as rape? If it does, is this kind of rape worse than torturing someone? What if the person using this ability has never asked for it, and even doesn't know that he's using it? I've got to respectfully disagree. I never quite understood why is killing children any worse than, say, killing someone who's practically a saint. Is it the much-fetishized innocence thing which is sometimes totally bull****? (I think there is no need to lecture anybody how cruel children can be.) Or the fact that we don't know what kind of person they will become? (If so, would killing a child who is very likely to be a sadistic little **** as a grownup be okay?) Or just the fact that we've always been taught that child-killing is THE single worst thing that could ever be done by anyone, and never questioned it? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "your moral compass is stupid and you shouldn't think that way", because you're the only expert on what kind of boundaries you personally have.)

Perhaps because the majority of players finds combat fun on its own right, and if the game would only contain "meaningful" sequences, it would be woefully short?

Oh god no.