Jump to content

Umberlin

Members
  • Content Count

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Umberlin

  1. Absolute nonsense laced with either outright lies or a complete inability to read. I've given exact explanation multiple times, in nearly every post in this thread covering: 1. Why I think such things don't work in the games they're in. Where? In posts where I admit, that even games in which such systems 'do' have a place (not this game, and not this genre) I point out actually flaws in the system. In some cases I've pointed out a person being able to pick even the master locks in the game, without having more than the starting points in lock picking. I've also given an opposite example of a game (in another thread unfortunately) where a system was so flawed that even though the character had significant lockpicking skill, they were still failing on an easy lock because the mini-game was so convoluted and flawed at a base. 2. Examples of those games, the particular systems, and in addition explaining why they don't work. Where? In posts where I talked about games like Skyrim or Mass Effect, and those are not the only examples out there, that use mini-games and other systems in order to allow the player to take part in these activities. In theory it's fine, and in an action-RPG like Skyrim maybe it even has a place, but the end result of these things is that a player can still exceed the limitations of their numbers in some way. Even the most careful of these systems I've come across have still, likely unintentionally, left room for the player to wiggle out of the limitations the numbers are meant to set in place. 3. Why I don't think such systems have a place in an actual RPG. In posts where I talked about places these systems do actually exist, and why they're other genres entirely or a sub-genre of RPG. I've gone onto explain, using Obsidian's own words, the intent of P:E and how such systems differ from that provided intent. Not my intent. Obsidian's intent. 4. Examples of how such systems negatively effect the intent of the numbers that define your character in an RPG. Where? In several posts where I explained the purpose of the numbers, why they're there and how they help you define the character and challenge you to actually play the role defined by the numbers (the role of the character). I've even have given examples of games that were hurt by allowing players to exceed the numbers limitations. 5. Explaining why assurances that, "surely this time one of those mini-games (etc) can be done right this time." do not assure me of anything. Where? In the post where I outright inform you that you are not the developer, and cannot control the quality of such attempts, therefor your assurances mean less than nothing. The amount of games that have gotten these lockpicking mini games wrong works against any assurance you could give me, I have absolutely no reason to think that this time would be an exception and that magically the lockpicking mini-game would miraculously be perfect here. 6. That Obsidian have already done lockpicking systems well. Where? In the IE games, in a successful way that does not break the relevance of the numbers through the manner in which they already exist in the exact brand of games P:E is attempting to replicate. And they did this, successfully, without the need for nonsense mini-games or action RPG elements. It's not just a matter of, "don't fix what isn't broken" it's also a matter of, "don't fix what worked perfectly in its own right, and worked perfectly toward ensuring you play within the limitations of the character - ensured you were playing a role." I have talked about these things multiple times thoughout this thread. If you are unaware of them, them it's your own fault - but it's through no lack of my attempting to give you, or anyone else, explanation for my thought pattern. If you were aware of these explanations, then you have simply outright lied about my lack of expalantion, making you a complete waste of my time. Consider yourself put on ignore either way, I have no time to waste on someone that won't read - and then claims I haven't said exactly what I have said. Let alone if you did read it, and simply lied about seeing no such explanations to make it look like I'd said nothing. Considered yourself put on ignore as well. The forum will be much improved for the lack of your visual presence.
  2. Ah, the usual, "I have no legitimate counter, so I'm throwing around basic English 101 Elements of Arguments dismissals in order to lure the spotlight away from that fact" approach to discussion. You can challenge it all you like. It won't make action RPGs into RPGs. At the end of the day most action RPGs rely so much on the player and twitch, and gut basic RPG elements to such an extent, that even, yes, as a sub-genre, they barely resemble the core RPG they spawned from. Everything and anything from, 'I can overcome the fact that my character can't pick locks by way of this mini game' to 'I can overcome my character's lack of accuracy with my own ability to make up for the numbers penalty' and more are reasons why action RPG elements, of all sorts, need to stay far and away from games attempting to be actual core RPGs, especially P:E which is attempting to be in the style of the old core IE RPGs.Yes, usually. Doesn't it make you wonder? The only thing this conversation makes me wonder is, "why you're even here, other than to keep on insisting that an apple should be an orange?" People came here for apples, not oranges. P:E is an RPG, not an action RPG, and no one that 'actually wants P:E to be an RPG' will want or ask that there be elements that allow a player to overcome the skills, stats and other numbers of the character. No, it doesn't make a lick of sense. The only thing that makes sense is you mousing over something locked, and ordering your character to go over and pick the lock. Their success or failure wholly up to their skills. No mini games. No twitch. No player input that allows them to overcome a lack of skill on the part of their character. These systems in every game I've come across that had them just let me, the player, go around with a character with nearly no, or completely lacking, lock picking ability but succeed against even the hardest locks. This is wholly unacceptable. The old IE RPGs didn't have these nonsense mini-games that 'always' end up exploitable allowing the player to circumvent character numbers. The old IE RPGs did it right. This is what I'm here for more of, and I'm here for that because that experience is exactly what Obsidian promised me. I'm not here for action RPG elements like lock picking mini games, that always end up allowing the player to ignore their character's lack of ability to pick a lock. You can insist that won't happen 'til you're blue in the face, but, I'm sorry, you have no control over that. You're not the developer. Your insistance means less than nothing.
  3. Because they aren't RPGs. They're action RPGs (and the RPG portions remaining are just BARELY there, especially in regard to nonsense like Mass Effect). Get that through your head. Action RPGs are not RPGs. The difference is obvious an action RPG is more reliant on the player, but it's an entirely different genre for that reason. Obsidian, by their own description of P:E, are making an RPG. Not an action RPG, just an RPG. That means the twitch elements, and elements that let the player overcome the numbers - like lockpicking mini games - have no place here. The character picks the lock. Not you. Their skill matters. Not yours. If you're looking for that sort of nonsense, games like Mass Effect are perfect for you, but if that's the sort of game you want then why in the name of everything and anything are you looking at an actual RPG in the style of older RPGs more true to the RPG concept than modern 'supposed' RPGs? It's like you've gone on a forum for an FPS and complained that it doesn't have enough RTS elements.
  4. No, the action is your characters, you, at most, in a true RPG, give the command. That's it. That should be the absolute end of your input. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to pick the lock. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to swing their sword. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to move to a given location. These actions are theirs, their abilities based on the numbers telling you what the character is, and dictating what they can do in the world. The extent of your input is the command. Commands that mean nothing, and should mean nothing, unless the supporting numbers are there to carry them out. Your character is not going to pull off a charismatic dialogue option unless he has the numbers in the supporting areas to allow for it. Your character is not going to pull off hitting an enemy with a blow unless he has the numbers in the supporting areas to allow for it when contrasted with the numbers of the target and the terrain. These are the things that force you to actually play a role, to roleplay, as the character because their limitations are set in the numbers. What you think and what you can do mean nothing, and should mean nothing, if a game is an actual RPG. No, you order your character to do so. Whether they're actually able to do anything about the order is wholly up to the character, their supporting numbers, the environment and the numbers of the presumed target. Ever played an RPG where you wanted your character to do something and there was a lapse, maybe a complete failure for them to act or a failure of the action itself? This isn't a mistake. This is their numbers not supporting the action in question, because you tried to get them to do something outside of their capabilities. I've never seen one, Fallout 3 and Skyrim as just two examples, and far - far - from the only examples, where the player couldn't have a baseless effect on the outcome of the lockpicking. If your numbers are not the 'only' thing determining the success of the attempt, if you can have any effect yourself on the outcome, then it's faulty. A failed attempt at an RPG system. The extent of your input should be the command to 'try' and never to get involved in a 'player hands on' manner. All the successes and failures, the actual attempts and actions themselves, are the character. You can disagree all you want, but in the end, if you do, what you want is not an RPG. You want one of these games that are saturating the market right now, having any old gameplay they please and slapping the RPG label on it. Anything from Mass Effect to Dragon Age and many other 'supposed' RPGs in the modern day are all guilty of this nonsense. If your character doesn't know how to walk, for some ungodly reason, and your order the character to walk, it should fall on its face no matter how much you command it to walk. You're just going to have to accept that they only know how to crawl, and you're going to have to work within those means. That's the point, working within the means of your character and having NO way around that from the player end. This forces you to think as if you were in the shoes of the characters. In this manner your command become dictated by what the numbers allow. This limitation is the essential essence of an RPG, because you are being purposefully limited, and offered no 'player skill' solution to get around these limitations. You can think all you want but the thoughts have to work within what the character is capable of, the numbers dictating your thoughts - you are now in the shoes of the character through the only means an RPG should put you in the shoes of the character, by forcing you to think like them, think within their means and do things as they would . . . never as you would.
  5. Remember that a dialogue choice won't succeed/won't appear without the statistical values there required for your character to come up with it, or to pull of saying it properly. This extends to combat, you might try and move ten tiles, but if your character on a numbers level can only move five, well, it won't work. These numerical values dictating what your character is, and what they can do, are essential to proper roleplaying otherwise you have those, "and then I sprouted angel demon ninja wings and cast ultimate super death nova" type players running amok. You might tell your character to swing a sword all you want, that's fine, but whether it hits, misses or whether you even get to your target, in an actual RPG, bow to the numbers of you, the sword, the thing you're swinging at and the numbers of the terrain itself. There are terrain types in many PnP games for just this reason that can hurt you, hinder movement and so on for just these reasons. You character may be able to normally move five tiles, but each 'hazard' tile, shall we call them, might have a numerical value that says, "a single tile of this type takes up two movement to cross". Thus where you'd normally be able to move five, you'd only be able to move two in a single turn, that extra tile worth of movement being wasted potential. As such when you go to pick a lock, if there 'anything' you can do to help overcome your character's inability to pick a lock, then it's faulty, I'm looking for an RPG, not a nonsense twitch game that lets be throw the lockpicking numbers out the window, and sprout the "samurai god elemental demon horns of unstoppable vampire werewolf lock picking" whenever I want to. Combat in an actual RPG it like this. You have no control over whether the swing misses or not, as it should be. This actually does apply to movement as well, if we're talking PnP where the amount of tiles you can move is dictated by certain numbers. You might choose which tiles to move to, and whether to move to the fullest extent that you can or not, but even the movement is still firmly under the rule of the numbers. No extra tiles moved without the numbers to support it. Obviously you get to choose what to do, whether to throw a fireball or a lightning bolt, for example, but whether they hit or not how much they hit for and the surrounding ideas are completely up to the numbers that come together. This is on purpose, you aren't the character, if left to the hands of many players a character could do almost anything, or what the player could do, this is important to move away from in an RPG because the numbers tell you what the 'character' is capable of. How much they can hit for. How charming they are. Whether they're knowledgeable in old languages. All of these things are statistical values to make sure you stay true to what the character is capable of. You dictate the character's personality? Only within the context of what the numbers allow. If you didn't stat your character to be charismatic and handsome, then he isn't, no matter how much you want him to be otherwise. If you try and play it like that, and the numbers don't support it, all your rolls come back through that filter. That filter needs to be there. It's the one that tells the NPC you're actually ugly and awkward, and that your character acting otherwise is, to the NPC, delusional by way of the statistical feedback they respond to. I see that you're quite confused by modern action/choose your own adventure games that try and pass themselves off as RPGs. Regardless, I'm done.
  6. It should be wholly dependant on the character's skill, and the extent to which you've advanced said skills. The entire process of failure or success should be on the character's skills and statistics, on the numbers, not on player skill. Ever. No matter what we're talking about. I want an RPG, not a twitchy action game. You are not the character. You are playing as the character and all your failure or success should be dictated by what the character is capable of, not what you are capable of. No mini games, no multi-tiered nonsense. Just go up to the chest, or whatever. and search for a trap. The check passes, you find no trap, you try to open it, it's locked. You tell your character to pick the lock, and they do it. The pass or failure of the attempt has nothing to do with you or any mini games or other nonsense. Just on your character, their skills, their stats and their gear.
  7. Funny you make it sound like it's only me, when, the reality is, the major portion of the gaming community have no care or want for such modes. Such modes, and the hardest difficulties are always the least used, least played and least cared about. Outside of the scope of a few loud mouthed elitists, and a few not-elitist, but very hardcore gamers, that is. Any time, manpower, effort and resources they could spend on a mode so few will use, let alone care about, could be infinitely better spent on features that the majority will actually make use of. It's the old MMO only 5% of players ever seeing the end game issue, why make content that only a tiny fraction of the total possible populatin will ever use? It doesn't make a lick of sense from any perspective, save for a few stuck in the constant, but loud, minority. Still, none of that matters. The original poster asked a question. I gave an answer, no one has to like or agree with my answer. He certainly didn't ask for answers that he'd like, and especially not for ones you'd like. Just for answers. I gave mine. It doesn't matter anymore than your answer. We have ironmad mode regardless. You don't have to like or agree with my opinion. I don't have to agree with yours, and I honestly don't care enough to like or dislike yours besides.
  8. A waste of manpower, effort, time and resources better spent elsewhere.
  9. Diseases at their most immersive, for me, in games, are when they also bordered - or outright were - at their most annoying. Different types of diseases, and poisons, in my mind, rather than, 'one poison' effect and 'one disease' effect as many games do, allow for a more balanced application of 'both'. You get your lighter, less impairing and less resounding effects, but also your rarer and nastier, more clingy, effects, at the same time. Balance out different effects with concepts like rarity of the disease or poison and the manner in which they spread/afflict, keeping things like duration and difficulty to remove (if they can be removed at all) in mind. Sometimes the nastiest effects aren't always the most outright negative, take Vampirism in the early TES series, where is could balance itself between being a gift and a curse. A gift for statistical advantages. A curse for reactions from the local populace, and for the difficulty of removal if you didn't catch it, and remove it, before it fully came to fruition.
  10. I dunno, did changing the gender make them suddenly okay by you? Male chars as I've seen them in games tend to have more twists to them even if they're meant to portray an archetype. When you offer a straight yes, or no, to a yes or no question, it doesn't usually bode well for what the actual answer would have been without the provided further explanation. Funny, I always despised Wrex and Minsc. If I had to pick one out of the two it'd be Wrex but, honestly, in the ME context I'd take Mordin any and every day over Wrex. Wrex? Meh. Sometimes I let Ashley shoot him. Sometimes I shoot him myself. I change it up. ME is a great example of badly handled female characters though, Miranda comes screaming to the forefront of my mind - screaming about how perfect she is. Bleh. Just about all the newly introduced female characters from ME2 made me grind my teeth, though, I can balance that by saying most of the newly introduced male cast caused the same reaction. Except for Mordin, jewel in the rough and light in the tunnel that he is. Seriously, I have no idea how Mordin happened given the rest of ME2. It's like that monkeys jumping on keyboards until they produce Shakespeare sort of thing I guess. I'm biased though, anything past the first ME tends to furrow my brow. Bad characters, male or female, are in the majority of games, movies and tv from my view though - very few of either gender are ever well done, but I could just be hard to please. Luckily there are exceptions, and there are some great characters out there. Did I mention I like Mordin? But, still, you don't want to copy or even be inspired by a good character like that beyond, "I want to make a good character too" because, if you just make another Mordin, it's . . . well . . . not good. In that sense I guess my addition to the thread is, "I don't want to see any characters I've liked in games before" rather, "I want to see new characters, that, hopefully, I'll like as well." I don't want to see a Mordin in this game, even though I loved his character. I want to find new characters to love, and, well, hate. Yeah, I don't need to like every character, it's the reason I can say I'll take Wrex over Minsc. I don't like either of them, but, while I don't like Wrex, he added a good element, and killing him every time I played through ME was entertaining all over again.
  11. The Origins were one of the few worthwhile points of DA:O, and all of them getting shoehorned into the headache inducing at worst, boring and tiresome at best, greywarden storyline, was . . . sad, because any one of them was more interesting than that. You could be winding your way through Dwarven politics, and their intrigue, and it would be great - you'd be having all sorts of fun - and then the story would slam into a wall, the greywarden wall, and the rest of the game was agonizingly scraping your face along that wall. Logan was probably the only character in that bloody thing that was a saving grace, and he was entirely wasted on the horribly generic and cliche storyline. As much as I can't stand DA2, at least it 'tried' to bring something other than 'evil sweeps the land' to the table. I hate saying it but DA2 was a better concept than DA:O, but like too many concepts . . . had terrible implementation, it didn't follow through with the concept. Anything, actually playing through DA:O's origins, it's a flavor thing, in a way, but a flavor thing that worked. Like Kaine (at the end of the last page) I'm actually more in favor of Background traits you select, but, I need to stress that they should matter beyond simple statistical means. If we get to play through a background we choose, neat, but the important thing - at least for me - is the actual impact of a background trait in the overall story and gameplay. Your decisions should matter, even seemingly simple character creation choices. Ever meet a person that saw you, or another person, creating a character in an RPG and go, "What's the point?" That's a good question, and the answer is that every single portion of character creation should have a point. The choices you make, ideally, from height and age to class and skillset to background and gender and so on . . . should all matter in some way. Who you are as a person, on the physical mental and spiritual levels all matter, at least to some extent, even if not in every single situation. In that light, to me at least, character creation is one of the most important points of a game, and, thus, coming back to 'origins' or 'background traits' these things are very important, in my mind, and should be handled with the weight, respect and intelligence thatt demands.
  12. Honestly if we're talking younger heroes, then it's not at all a bad thing unless they're badly handled, badly written and such. The age is rarely a problem one way or another, they can be any age. You see the same issue in aged characters, though, bad writing, or their game mechanics not matching up to the writing. When you have characters in their twenties and up characters starting off with no skills, or very little, it always bugs me more than any young character I've seen off on a quest. A young character is often a good eye to look from, to introduce you to the world, be it the main character or a party member who the older, more experienced, main character explains things to - in turn allowing the player to be introduced to concepts about the game world they may not know or understand properly. I'm not going to say misconceptions 'never' happen, but, be the productions eastern, or western, movies the people behind them tend to conjure such variations purposefully, rather than through simple misunderstanding. If it's intentional, it's not a misconception, it's just fiction - and intended to be nothing other than. This discussion has come around enough times by now to be tired, but, again, you can't handle it wrong, unless it simply doesn't function in the gameplay mechanics. You, or others, usually a vocal minority, may not like how unarmed combat is handled . . . but that's a taste issue. When there's something obviously supernatural going on, like with the Monk in P:E's fists crackling with energy, there really shouldn't be question as to how or why they're viable. If we're talking gear issues, then I haven't played an RPG, not even D&D, in recent memory where a Monk didn't still use gear, and have options besides unarmed - and those armed options were also viable. In some they use gloves or claws in place of normal weapons, others use staves and other normal weaponry, and still others use exotic weapons. The release we had talking about abilities for the non-core classes even noted Monks in P:E could extend their abilities through weapons, not just their fists. Whether the weapons are equally as useful as fists and feet, we'll have to wait and see, but, given they're magically enhanced, even the magically enhanced unarmed viability against arms and armor should be no more questioned than a magical fireball to the face - especially in a setting where pulling upon to soul to enhance yourself was one of the very first concepts introduced, before the Monk itself was even revealed. Enhancing your body to super human extents is a concept in P:E, so an unarmed Monk, fists crackling with supernatural energy, punching through a wall or armor or what have you, shouldn't even cause the blink of an eye, anymore than a Wizard searing a beam of energy through the wall or armor in question. The question of, "if this what a Monk is" is . . . well, silly, in the modern age where, "Monk" in an RPG purposefully, and intentionally, means something different than it would in any other context. No Hollywood misconceptions here, be the games eastern or western Monks in games have a more action oriented bent, and with purpose. - Ideally, however, a P:E Monk, be it unarmed or using a weapon . . . would be equally viable, for purposes of gameplay. Both options being viable creating more build variety, and, thus, ways for players with different tastes to play the Monk in the way they find to their liking.
  13. I also think that she coud be a little bit older ... Funny, I more often find myself wondering why characters that are older than children/teenagers in games, on these 'epic' quests have next to zero skills, sometimes not even starting at level 1, being somehow below that.
  14. How about we move past polarized good/evil decision nonsense? I'd like to think we're well past the period where Light/Dark side points and Renegade/Paragon nonsense were the height of morality and choice in games.
  15. No such thing ever existed in Dune. In the David Lynch movie I mean. Some "behind the scenes" trivia here about why they used the Weirding Module in place of the Bene Gesserit martial art known as the Weirding Way. In other words it never existed.
  16. 1. Viconia For those that need a proper guiding moral compass in the game. She's smart, witty and insightful - just flawed enough to be fun, but not annoying or overbearing. If I could have only one I'd choose Viconia every time. I don't think I could do her justice, the best thing to do is to experience the character first hand yourself. 2. Gann of Dreams Properly entertaining, and sometimes insightful when he's not being a smarty pants. Useful in combat, and entertaining and helpful in dialogue. When he wants to be. Despite the obvious, I still like him quite a bit, and he'd be a boon to any party with his abilities as a spirit shaman. Probably my favorite hagspawn companion ever. Also the only hagspawn companion I've ever had along. 3. Mordin Funny, entertaining, serious, possibly a little mad . . . someone who could get things done, but also someone believably fragile - not a construct that could bash through anything. The vulnerability and likability combined with the actual smarts and usefulness made him a character I'd hate to lose. The sort of character that I'd actually be sad about dying. He isn't necessarily the best combatant out there, but his great intellect would be a boon to any party. Despite the scientific bent, he also has a rather mercenary streak that I absolutely love. . . . I think my party might be magic and science heavy. 4. Bishop I think I'd add Bishop (NWN2 OC), with that in mind, he's a fun character with just enough snark and personality to make him likable, but enough 'put off' to make him flawed enough to be more real. More games need a character that can and will stab you in the back, and the only thing that could improve Bishop is allowing him to do it dynamically, instead of at a fixed point. Anyways, he was a good ranger and I never found him anything but helpful in terms of battle. Sometimes he wasn't so helpful when it came to not making other characters angry, but, hey, that's just part of his charm. 5. Safiya Despite being magic heavy I'd probably add in Safiya as my fifth, simply because she is a terribly underrated character - easily one of the better companion character you could ask for in general. She's just 'iffy' enough that you aren't always sure which way she'll jump. Safiya came off as a complex and interesting character that was worth spending time with, and always worth having in the party, with just enough flaw to make her 'Human' and not off putting. Hard to argue with the power of a Wizard by your side, especially one of her particular origin. . . . I ran out of room for the rest . . . I swear I'd shove Atton Rand into this party if I could. I don't have enough room damn you! Not enough room for Visas Marr either. Also Xzar, as if my party wasn't magic heavy enough as is. Seriously, I need more room. o_0
  17. No such thing ever existed in Dune. 1. Does that mean Steampunk? The on-topic question: 2. Could a Cipher use some experimental "machine" or "contraption" to enhance their Ciphering? Doubtful. The notes we have, up to this point, make it pretty obvious they'll have some sort of damage and utility beyond the manipulation of others. Whether that's TK abilities or soul burns, or something still more exotic, is anyone's guess at this point. All we know is that such abilities build in power as they're used. Typically, because of my experience with 'building' damage in other settings, that tends to mean damage over time - be it a traditional DoT, a channeled abilities or short duration, but building, burning effects of some sort . . . of course that's all speculation. Actually Allods online had what amounted a mind mage with some similar notes, forming a connection with the target and it allowing them to affect them more drastically, for example. There are just a lot of possibilities, or takes, on the information we have at this point without further, and very specific, information to give the current more general revelations context.
  18. It actually reminds me of the DAoC Heretic, a healer and damage dealer whose magical fire damage started low and build up over time (it was channeled). Just the note that they're going to grow in strength, over time, in battle, gives me the impression that they will have some form of non-melee damage - not just their manipulation abilities. What sort of damage, exactly, I guess is anyone's guess but it bring me back to the older discussion on Ciphers where some of the forumites noted the Cipher may have Telekinetic or Psychic damage abilities, having links with Psionics and other 'Mind Mages' . . . I say that despite the notes on 'souls', though, likely in the theme of souls rather than the mind, even if the manipulative aspects draw parallels.
  19. I am having trouble seeing how you could have trouble remembering spell effects, and have to look them up, in the context of modern PC RPGs where most effects are explained right on screen, or with a pop-up on mouse over. Even, for example, the BG series had spell effects described on the spells in the game, no time wasted and no need to go out of your way to look them up. Still, if you don't want to use magic, don't. Oh well. If you really want to do that you'll find a way to make it work. If your time is so limited play nothing is forcing you to play for longer than you need, and magic certainly isn't forcing you to. If anything magic spells up progress through most RPGs I can think of.
  20. I'm really not sure hoping for a Paladin modelled after historical roots, in any manner, is really going to pan out in the context of a fantasy RPG, especially a high fantasy RPG. It's something you'd be more likely to find in a historical game of some sort, and there are games out there, even RPGs, that set aside things like magic and such for exploring 'fictional takes on history' embracing the more mundane instead of the flash of magic and sorcery. Such a genre has its place, and I feel a paladin model like you were hoping for best fits into such things for than any fantasy RPG. I'm not saying a historical model can't be used as a basis in fantasy or high fantasy, mind you. I just feel it's better used in something already exploring a more down to earth and historical setting, even if it's a 'fictional' take on history. In books and movies there's been quite a lot of that, and, while it has been done, it's far too rarely explored in games. I like that they went the way they did for P:E because P:E is that high fantasy setting, and, at some point, you do want to expand on an idea - especially if it fits better in your setting. Obsidian have gone this way, so I just have to assume, at a base, that their vision of P:E's Paladin fits in their setting. Heck, at least you have a Paladin. I've always been a fan of truly ancient history, so whenever I hope to see settings pulling inspiration for some of the oldest civilizations on earth . . . in the 5000-6000+ year range and older? It doesn't happen a lot. I'd love an RPG where fantasy was pulled from ancient Sumeria and Egypt, as well as some of the other older Middle-Eastern and South American cultures . . . but it doesn't tend to happen. It's not impossible, and there have been attempts here and there, but it's pretty rare. On the other hand you can throw a rock at a pile of RPGs and likely have it hit one with a Paladin in it. I'd just love to see older mythology and history exploited for content more often, especially if it meant we started seeing some very different abilities, weapons, armor, architectures and magics on a visual level and different ideas and dialogues on a moral level. Something new is great, I love it, but sometimes something old is just as good as something new too. I'm happy either way . . . it's a round about way of saying be it an 'old historical' base for a Paladin or a 'new' base for a Paladin . . . I'm happy either way.
  21. My post? So many spelling errors . . . What was I doing? Bleh. Outside of majoring in English, not that you'd know it by that post, and taking on a few other languages, I had a big interest in archeology and ancient history, origin of man sort of stuff. Combine that with some modern history courses and you have all of that. Then, of course, I absorb tons of fiction, like Howard's work, to weigh all that against . . . just for fun. I like my fiction, especially fantasy that doesn't devolve into the usual 'chosen', 'dark lord', 'dark army', 'end of the world' etc etc etc . . . Hm, what qualifies as that particular point for you? An example, or set of examples, if you will.
  22. How they do so is debatable, but never forget that effort, risk, and reward have to balance out at some point - when it comes to a game. Challenge, in my opinion, is very important and should always be present. I'm not a fan of 'trash' encounters for that very reason, and I'm less in favor of trash encounters with reward attached to them, mostly because I feel - again - challenge is important, however, I'd add that so is rewarding the effort and risk involved in taking on a challenge. As such, if you do have trash or easier encounters I like a system that makes those 'a part of a whole challenge' rather than presented as a challenge themselves, because, simply, they rarely are. I never am happy with an encounter I don't have to think about, and take on tactically. If I can steamroll, or get through somehow without real thought, then something has gone wrong . . . at least for me. But that's my opinion, which, really, doesn't amount to much.
×
×
  • Create New...