aluminiumtrioxid

I'd like countermagic to have three different styles: Unravel, Dissolve/Devour, and Block. Unraveling is a continuous process when you try to disrupt the enemy magic while it is being cast. Its drawback is that you have to do this while the opponent is casting, thus preventing you from doing your own spellcasting. There is a direct correlation between your success of Unraveling the enemy spell and the time you've spent doing it. There is partial success, though: you may choose to Unravel just for a limited amount of time while your fighter is getting close; while you don't necessarily manage to completely crush your opponent's magic, it may disrupt his concentration enough to buy time for your fighter. On higher levels (or higher levels of success), Unraveling an enemy spell may result in the target botching, which may lead to all sorts of interesting magical mishaps depending on the type of spell being cast. Dissolving is also continuous, but it eats away already existing magics (thus its utility is reduced to dispelling buffs, curses and magical defenses). It always succeeds, but the time you spend dissolving enemy magics is heavily dependent on the complexity of the target spell and the power of the mage who cast it. Its main strength lies in processing the residual magical energy of the spell being Dissolved. This process is called Devouring, and it partially refills the Devourer's magical reserves by an amount dependent on the spell being Devoured and the user's skill. Blocking is the least time-consuming of the three, but it comes with a price: the less time is spent setting up the shield and observing the enemy magic being cast, the more costly the block is in terms of draining your mage's energy, and also, the risk of the barrier shattering and only partially defending against the attack increases. On the other hand, extremely skilled practicioners or ones who had proper time to set up their defenses can get away with only a moderate cost of mana, and can even reflect harmful spells back at their opponents.

I like what you're suggesting, but I don't think potions are the best way to accomplish this. I mean, they're in a fragile flask, you have to actually drink them... not very practical for such short-term buffs. A rune system could accomplish this a lot better: they are on your person (hanging from your belt, for example), can be easily activated by touching them and saying a command word, and permanent but requiring constant refilling, which makes balancing them a lot easier. Also, you'll have to figure out their command word in order to use them, so looted ones are either completely useless (and thus, can be freely given to enemies without worrying about the player having too many of them) or a great money/skill sink (you have to invest into spells which can divine what said command word may be). Also, you can have a separate potion system resembling to Witcher: you chug 'em down before the encounter, and last until it ends, but don't give very substantial bonuses.

I sincerely hope that the gods in the setting cannot be concerned with such petty matters.

You've obviously never played 4E. It has its flaws, but any aspect of the class/level up system is not one of them.

I think it would be extremely cool if we could get some epic items by doing sidequests related to finding their parts and reforging them, and THEN carry them into the next installment of the series as a rather powerful starting weapon you only get if you've done these certain quests, and can further upgrade even in the sequel.

How does that make it a harder moral choice? Or shows that romances are adding to it and don't just make the game shallow? In fact your example does the opposite. "And the family aren't attractive at all"? Ugh..... Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm?

That is true. On the other hand, PST, Arcanum, Jade Empire, Deus Ex (let's count it as an RPG, C&C and levelling was present) and VtM: Bloodlines also had kinda neat villains.

- killing the coffin maker's pet zombie in Torment. - the whole second chapter of The Witcher - assassinating someone by loosening a minotaur trophy in Oblivion - persuading the random adventuring band to get the McGuffin for you from the fiery pits in Arcanum (IT SHOOTS DEATH RAYS FROM ITS EYES!)

It's because the Aryan are also strong and stupid in their games.

...so...beautiful...

Companion for every class. They can cram them into the expansion though.

Massive wall of text incoming. Savage Worlds is worthy of its slogan - it really is fast, furious and fun. Also, there are some quite interesting ones among its worlds. While I love 4E D&D, I also think it has nothing to do with D&D. On the other hand, Hackmaster (the new edition) is an excellent retroclone. It has a beautifully flat power curve (you gain a hit die every odd numbered level, but can reroll the one gained at the previous level at every even-numbered one; mages and clerics gain new spell levels at every level), an excellent combat system (there are no turns, weapon speed determines the frequency of attacks - but on a critical miss or a critical defense roll, the defender gains a free attack, so low weapon speed is not such a hindrance; also, the damage dice penetrate, meaning you can reroll the highest results - so any hit can be lethal), and great mechanisms for classes (such as the completely tailor-made cleric classes and the luck points of the rogues). The world is rather boring, but the point of retroclones is to encourage you to tinker, so I don't think it's a huge problem. Dragon Age RPG has a retroclone-ish vibe, too. The setting is limited (it's Thedas, after all - some interesting issues, but rather bland because of the restrictions inherent in low-magic settings), but the system itself is great. The combat stunts are an excellent idea - it spices up fights, yet allows for a speedier playstyle than 4E because of their random nature. Also, the DM can allow the players to execute custom stunts (the modules seem to support it anyway), thus encouraging player creativity. The official modules are of superb quality, by the way (although the fights are extremely lethal). Definitely worth a try. A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplay has the same issues as DARPG - the setting is very limiting. But the system has beautiful points: generating a House (a noble line, that is), body parts freezing off, the whole defeat/wound system, etc. Worth checking out, and definitely a must for fans of the series. Fate is also a great generic system for narrativist games, especially because it encourages roleplaying mechanically by rewarding you when you get into trouble because of your character's traits. The Dresden Files RPG uses this system, for example. Over the Edge is rather nice, too, with its surrealistic setting and similarly roleplay-oriented system. I almost left out my favorite one: Eclipse Phase, "a roleplaying game of transhumanist conspiracy and horror". It's extremely professional, with a setting somewhat reminiscent of Iain M. Banks' Culture novels, Dan Simmons' Hyperion, and, to a lesser extent, Neuromancer and Mass Effect. It's absolutely amazing, and it's completely free. The only drawback is that the setting requires a level of commitment to understand completely. But it's totally worth it. Here's a review. If we're mentioning horror, we should talk a bit about Kult. The most visceral, Clive Barker-ish setting ever. It's also Clive Barker-ish in other ways, but saying anything more would be spoiler. The system is not so good, however, and I have concerns about the long-term playability as well. Whispering Vault is similarly horror-oriented, but with a more straightforward, monster-hunting attitude. It's a great toolbox, but heavily dependent on the GM's creativity (although the modules are generally great, and outline the game's concepts beautifully). Highly recommended for those who like to tinker a bit (the system can be a bit clunky at times). Also, the new World of Darkness has to be mentioned. It's an improvement in every way compared to the old one. The system is solid, a lot better than in the previous incarnations. The writing mainly gets rid of the pretentiousness plaguing oWoD (and stigmatizing the players in certain circles). And the worlds and concepts of certain monsters have improved in some ways. Vampire (the Requiem) remained largely the same, it's only a more streamlined and coherent version, and focuses on local affairs instead of an all-out war. The power level definitely decreased, but instead of the Generations determined at character creation, the characters have a stat called Blood Potency, which can (and, most likely, will) be increased during play. (OK, it was a possibility in VtM, too, but more like a theoretical one for most parties.) Heavily recommended. Werewolf (the Forsaken) got a lot better, in my opinion. Instead of the tree-hugging hippies of the previous generation, we get badass, ferocious hunters and supernatural investigators (ironically though, the combat potency of the characters has decreased - not that I mind, WtA got boring quite easily because you controlled an absolute killing machine). Absolutely in the "must play" category, even though the Gift system can be horribly broken (the tiers sometimes look like: useless, useless, useless, AWESOME McAWESOMESAUCE, useless - except that in some rare cases, the awesomene one can be any tier, or may be completely missing). Mage (the Awakening) is a curious one. I feel it has a heavier focus on the global than any other line. The setting is also somewhat of a setback compared to Ascension, I think. But the core magic system is awesome. A lot better than Ascension's. Recommended with a grain of salt. Changeling (the Lost) has seen the greatest improvement, and has the strongest horror vibe. Truly "a roleplaying game of beautiful madness". I could rant about it for a long time, but instead, here's a review. I'd say a must play, but it's only marginally easier to play than Wraith, and that doesn't help much. A must read though. Then decide what to do with it (the core book is great for decoration purposes, too). Hunter (the Vigil) got a massive revamp, too. Essentially, you can play with it mainly the same way you could with the previous one, but the fans hate it regardless. Because of the factions. Well, they're tools - use them or leave them as you see fit. Personally, I think it's better than Reckoning, but still a mediocre game (just like Reckoning). NWoD has a lot better options for playing humans. (Even without the specifically human-themed stuff). They've got rid of Wraith (it was bordering on unplayable, anyway - although a great read). Instead, we have Geists (it's actually reminiscent of Demon, but with a death theme... can be good, only skimmed through it though) and Prometheans (the Unplayable Game of the nWoD line... basically Frankenstein's monsters on a quest to obtain mortality - interesting concept, but most GM's are no Avellone). I generally don't like oWoD much, but Orpheus was a great line. Basically a campaign + setting + system, all in one. It's completely ready-to-play, you just have to DM it. Also kudos for being a lot more playable than Wraith, despite the setting. And last, but not least, the Warhammer 40k line. They are radically different, but each line is excellent in what it aims to do. I'd not waste time with introducing the setting itself, you must have heard of it (it's a gaming forum after all). Dark Heresy is basically Call of Cthulhu with balls of steel - the players are members of the Holy Ordos of the Emperor's Inquisition, and hunt the heretic, the xeno and the daemon. The mortality rate is pretty high, but it's extremely versatile both because of the nature of the enemy (you can play it as pure hack & slash or pure investigation & intrigue, or any shade in-between) and the nature of the Imperium itself (the culture, tech level, etc. of individual planets can differ wildly). If you have no aversion of the setting (you're playing Catholic Space Nazis, after all), it is definitely a must play. Rogue Trader is ideal for sandbox campaigns. It has an entirely different focus than Dark Heresy (also, the Catholic Space Nazi aspect can be toned down pretty much, since you play at the fringes of the Imperium). It's basically a merchant/pirate/whatever you want it to be game set in SPEHSS. Hard to balance, though (the players can quite easily become capable of extreme carnage, even without calling in orbital strikes). Deathwatch lets you play Space Marines (or SPEHSS MEHREENS, if you've been introduced to the setting by Dawn of War 1). As a genetically engineered super-soldier, the game is purely about killing xenos and is quite open about it. I don't like it very much, but it's excellent at what it does regardless (although lacks the tactical depth of D&D 4E). Only War is in beta, but I'm completely blown away. It combines the frailty of the Dark Heresy characters with the hack&slash of Deathwatch. An excellent game (if you don't mind dying a few times for the glory of the Emperor, and have an appreciation for gallows humor [that part is heavily GM-dependent though]). Finally, Black Crusade is about the heretics and Chaos worshippers. Read through it, but I don't have an actual play experience. I think it's even harder to get right than VtM on the side of the Sabbath. Requires a rare kind of both player and GM. Looking forward to playing it. If any of these interests you, feel free to ask about them.

I'd like to see spells manipulating fate/luck/probabilities etc.

I was hoping for something more original along the classes, but... if Cadegund's a priestess, it means there will be gun-wielding priests in the setting. Which means I can play Jules from Pulp Fiction in a fantasy world. Which is awesome.

First time player's first random encounter with vampires on the freakin' streets of Athkatla?

The answer is obvious: only ginger elves won't have souls.

- realizing what TNO did to Ignus in PS:T (of course, PS:T had many great moments, but that's what sticks to me the most) - first play of Morrowind, getting lost in the swamp then finding the first settlement waaay after nightfall - Dead Money (on hardcore mode, with mods that increase all damage taken - it was beautiful ) - ending of ToB - realizing that KotOR 2 has basically the same story as PS:T, only in a Star Wars setting - first play of Alpha Protocol, the endgame: Marburg really respected me, and I was quite sure that I can find a way to avoid fighting him, but I also manipulated Parker into turning away from Leland... so they tried to kill each other, and I ended up having to fight a weakened Marburg - Vampire: Bloodlines with its abundance of nicely written horror(-ish) quests, up until it all degraded into a mindless killing spree in the second half of the story - Skyrim with all kinds of difficulty/realism-increasing mods; the moment I was finally strong enough to leave Riverwood at lvl 11 - Mordrin's death in ME3 - the end of the first chapter in Witcher 1 (the greatest example of a morally grey choice in the game - pity they ruined it in Chapter 4 for those who sided with the townsfolk) - Arcanum's final boss

Dirge of Eir Glanfath is just... hauntingly beautiful. Also, Prelude 0:22 has kind of a nice, Icewind Dale-ish vibe.

Actually, in the OSR movement there are some really convincing arguments about concentrating on player skill. On the other hand, implementing (for example) a trap-finding method such way would a) get boring in subsequent playthroughs, b) eat up a fair amount of resources better spent elsewhere. Regardless, I think player skill is important.

The biggest problem with memorization is that while it CAN be implemented in a way that encourages strategic gameplay (asking stuff of the townsfolk, reading dusty tomes, hunting for rumors about your enemies etc.), it would require an IMMENSE amount of resources. Think about it, for a moment - every area, most monster types and every important boss would need its own set of information sources. It's just not worth the trouble. If you decide to use a different system (eg. cooldowns), you can create a lot more content.

I just don't really understand why do certain people feel that they are better qualified to decide what will be best from a game design perspective than the people who have been doing this for years and are frickin' paid to do it?

Perhaps because they didn't expect psychotic outbursts or threats of revoking the pledges unless this feature gets changed.

I read into it that this either means: a) memorization and strategical depth remains in the game, since you can have only one spell set active, or b) the whole cooldown issue will boil down to having a cooldown when changing between said spell sets. Either looks fine (and in keeping with the IE spirit) to me. I really don't understand what the fuss is all about.

THAT. If I want to play a sociopath, it's okay to have really evil options*. If I want to play a saint, it' perfectly okay to have the saintly options. But if you want to play the average dude who tries his/her best to do good, but ultimately f***s some things up because things are usually not so clearly black and white... well... the presence of such options completely obliterates the character concept. Having clear good and clear evil, and no unseen consequences for making seemingly obvious choices... just kills the suspense of such a playthrough. I want to doubt my decision and hope that I did the right thing, but sit on the edge of my seat in anticipation of the possible consequences. (Also, the other thing that kills it is not showing the consequences. While I can understand it from a design standpoint ['if we show the consequences, that's equivalent of deciding what's morally right or wrong in the situation, which a) is pretty arrogant, b) kinda defeats the purpose of moral dilemmas and c) completely robs the player of the ability of making such judgements for himself'], I also think that it cheapens the choice, or make it a non-choice with the same outcome [hoping for the best and being none the wiser] which is even worse.) *They should have real consequences though... whether rising to power through macchiavellian manipulations, like Littlefinger in GoT, or being executed like a rabid dog in case you were not careful enough.

Or have them start to recharge only after their effect has faded. (Or got dispelled.) It could be argued lore-wise that the mage has to concentrate on maintaining the spell, and that's why persistent (or rather: sustained) ones won't recharge while their effect persists.