fixedpoint

Detailed rulebook is a must, be it in-game or a separate document. “Increasing stat X gives you benefits in Y” does not cut it for me. N points in X, is it big or not really? Is progression linear or there are diminishing returns? Lots of such questions, and answers are just easier to deduce from the logical and coherent rules rather than explained in an ad-hoc manner. I'd love to see an option for detailed combat log, too.

I don't care about Vancian particularly (though I love it in my D&D and Pathfinder, and sitting there staring at the spell selection screen can be oddly enchanting), but I really want Obsidian to come up with something other than mana pool or (*shudders*) powers with cooldowns. For me, the biggest drawback of Vancian system is that low-level spellcaster options are extremely limiting. Pathfinder tried to address this with at-will cantrips and school/domain-specific abilities, and it worked to a certain extent. It's not that all classes should have roughly equal possibilities at every level, anyway (I'm looking at you, 4E). Of course, Obsidian is not making a D&D/Pathfinder game, and neither I want them to make one. But this spirit and general approach to magic is where my heart lies. If anything, I want complex system that provides both strategical and tactical depth, allows for specialization and spell variety beyond DPS/crowd control/buffing, and has the potential for a combinatorial explosion of choices. And above all, magic should feel magic, not a game mechanic device. It should be reasonably balanced and convenient, but not built for balance and ease of use. I am somewhat opposed to the systems that gradually reduce magic efficiency while spellcasting resource (mana, stamina, whatever you call it) dwindles. This seems like an invitation for potion chugging (or equivalent) and if it's not an option, your imminent failure just becomes slower, more painful and boring. Use of long and complex rituals (time resource) for potentially miraculous effects is an interesting idea to explore, but I wonder how it will work out in RTwP.

Voted for the second option because I think it works better when horrific details are mostly left to your imagination. Explicitly showing such things often breaks suspension of disbelief, and you just stop sympathizing. This defense line is broken when unspeakable things happen in your own mental image of the game world. And what PC can witness while we are looking at the world through his eyes, pales in comparison to what happened in this room yesterday, what was going in this country for years, and in that plane of existence for millennia.

The only stretch goals I could come up with when it became apparent that success is inevitable, were: * OS X and Linux ports; * bring George Ziets back to Obsidian. So, yes, please. Fargo already made MCA a stretch goal for WL2, so it's not unheard of. Totally need more excellent writers because so many good ideas require disproportionate amount of writing.

QFT. Assuming this is the game begging for multiple playthroughs, knowing that you should visit that room and loot that chest to get this particular nice sword does not exactly add to fun. Random loot, of course, should not be important per se. Instead of item randomization I'd rather see randomized locations/possessors of certain moderately important (side-quest level) items, preferably backed by at least some writing.