Umberlin

On the subject of the worth of Gold, who is to say that Gold is the precious material in the first place? What if the monetary system concentrated around something else? What if it didn't exist at all and the game used a trade mechanic instead? Giving items a sort of 'worth' in and of themselves not attached to money but in how one item would trade against another item, or how several items, possibly even particular ones, might be needed to trade for another. While not necessarily the most likely scenario . . . it's something interesting to think about none the less.

Well, I can't deny that I'd love a construction set for players to make their own campaigns, and a good DM toolset that allow a player to easily DM said campaigns. I don't know how reasonable a thing it is to ask though, even as a stretch goal. No lack of a want for such a thing though, at least on my end. More toward NWN1 style than NWN2 style though.

I do think there should be a limit of some sort, even if it's not a weight limit, because in my mind it's important players think about what they carry around. Sort of like that player in a PnP game that always loads himself up with Alchemist's Fire never thinking of what happens if he gets set on fire. I do think he should have to think about that in a PC/Console game as well, it would definitely make you play more carefully, and I like systems that encourage players actually having to think about how they're building themselves, where they're going, what they're bringing and what they're planning to with all of the above when they get where they're going. Even how they're moving.

I think it's an interesting thing to discuss certainly. I do wonder about to point force of a spear versus the larger area coverage of a mace. I don't think of it as, 'the spear can't pierce bone' it probably can, provided the bone isn't reinforced somehow. I'm thinking of it as, 'your spear pierces the skeleton's skull' versus 'a blunt weapon caves the skull in.' One assumes whatever is animating the skeleton needs it in a certain level of structure in order to mainain itself. So my view of peircing spear versus blunt smashing on that subject has always been that the point was to smash it into as many pieces as possible to prevent it from just going and going. The hole through the skull with the spear? I'm not entirely sure it did as much as shattering it into many little fragments. This is a point brought up in rulesets about various creatures that certain weapons are more effective/less effective than others. It's an interesting thing to consider because you do tend to have magical and elemental resistances and weaknesses in RPGs. If those are there then you also need to encourage the melee player with his weapons to prepare different weapon sets (of different weapon types) on their character as readily as a Wizard might need to prepare their spell book ahead of time. This is to ensure tactical play. If the fighter can just go in there with any ol' weapon and be effective no matter what . . . what's the point of tactics? And why would the Wizard be needed at all, since they have limited numbers of casts in addition to resistances and immunities to consider. Tactical play is brought upon by several things, and one of those things are the limiters. A player should have to think about what they can do, what they can use, and what they can even bright due to carrying limitations because these are the things that make them enter an area carefully, thinking and planning, rather than just rushing in and bulldozing everything with that one weapon everything else is useless in comparisson to.

So there being a distinction between poking a Skeleton with a Spear versus bludgeoning it with a Mace doesn't seem sensible in your mind?

I generally like the idea that your one weapon can't do everything, and any system that ensures there's no one best thing for all situations. One of the divides that you don't see in many Console and PC RPGs is that a melee character can often just find one weapon to suit them and hack away with it non-stop. In contrast many games that have caster have systems and limiters imposed on them while the melee characters continues to hack away non-stop without limit. I always felt the way to make a melee character more interesting was by ensuring that they had to prepare for battle as surely as any caster typed character (this applies to ranged and other playstyles too mind you). They need to have that arsenal and bag of tricks, the strategy needs to be there just the same. It can't just be a passive non-stop whack a whole fest. I rarely play melee character in games because of this, not because I dislike melee, but because so very few games manage to make melee combat interesting or tactics. They forget that there are limiters on physical effort, just as surely as any fictional idea of a limiter on a non-physical effort like magic. As someone that likes to have to think tactically and think before battle, as well as on their toes during battle, I crave any system that would bring that back to melee characters (and ranged for that matter). I've just played one too many games where as melee you could whack away non-stop, and, even if you had a resource to spend, your constant normal attack that cost nothing was still there and still very effective either through your stats or the weapon's stats leading to no real need for tactics. Tactics are important to me. Systems that ensure I have to think tactically are welcome. Having to manage weapons for different situations is as 'needed' in my mind as systems that force a wizard to sit down and prepare spells thoughtfully ahead of time.

The Aesthetic I miss seeing in games, or at least the portraits of older games, isn't realistic, necessarily, but I'm not sure the image people think of when some say 'stylized' is right either. Those old fantasy artists and paintings you used to see for Dragonlance, Conan, Ravenloft, AD&D and in many other places are what I miss. The Icewind Dale portaits and BG1/2 portraits are a great example and I'd love to see a game done in those styles visually even outside of portraits. I'm not sure this is the game for it, but, that is something I'd love to see that old Dragonlance painting come to life in a game that looked like one of those painting. Probably little more than a pipe dream on my part. Artists like Victoria Frances, with art styles as seen in my own Avatar are also terribly beautiful to my eye.

I can't agree more. For that matter the bombing later in the game, you can see it coming from a mile away he outright comes to you for help. You can refuse him, but even though you can get a definite air of 'not good' from what he's about to do, the game prevents you from doing anything about it. Even though any sane person would have knocked the screwball over the head, stripped anything he could use offensively from him, and dragged him to the nearest prison.The only reason that bombing should have happened is if you were just plain stupid, and really didn't see it coming, or actually agreed with him.

Personally I don't feel like true challenge has to come from requiring players to min-max stats. In fact a good DM in a PnP game will tend to punish players for min-maxing and over specializing readily. They do this by requiring broader and more varied tactical thinking from a player, so when I ask for real challenge I don't mean requiring min-maxing, nor do I mean pumping up monster health and damage to absurd proportions. I mean the tactical approaches that enemies can use, their abilities and set ups, their mobility, and so on, require more than just that straight line power build that's always best. Coming from a PnP background I love DMs that just smirk as they riddle the supposed power builds, that over specialize themselves, with holes. Because, while I know some people enjoy that, when games are made to specifically cater to that playstyle . . . the results can get pretty monotonous pretty fast for anyone that was looking for actual roleplaying or tactical, strategic, combat.

With that in mind I do think ornate weapons can be done well, as, obviously some weapons we can look at in various historical books or even in museums were very strange, ornate and just plain interesting. So while I agree that over the top can be bad, I'd also say that more down to earth weaponry does not have to be boring. In fact, as I've said before, a lot of interesting weapon types could be added by just pulling inspiration from some the less common, but very real, weaponry in history especially the very ancient weaponry before Iron and Steel became more common place. Some of the most ancient cultures in the world had some very exotic looking weapons, that, by their standards, were still wholly practical for what they were doing and what they had on hand.

I definitely don't want my character's level or power to be the final deciding factor. I like games to require I think, I never want to walk through a door and just bulldoze the competition. Any challenge the game throws at me, regardless of what it is, I want to have to think tactically and be punished if I don't or if I do something stupid like walking into a trap, be it a laid trap or an ambush or what have you.

I think I'll go back to my response of Romances in general, where I believe if a sbject matter is going to be in a game my concern isn't what the subject matter is . . . as well as it's well done, thoughtful, respectful in the sense of treating it intelligently and maturely. With that particular forms of subject matter whether it be a gay relationship, drug use, or other subject that can sometimes be hot buttons, with some people, I don't care if they're present. I just care that if they're present they're well done, there for a reason, and not just there as fan service or to poke the hornet's nest. Quality is my concern, first are foremost. If they think they can handle 'any' given subject matter well, maturely and intelligently then more power to them.

Not entirely sure what you mean but thank you for the response, I'm glad you got something out of it.

Definitely, and how the opposite dead, something that may seem harsh or even evil could potential result in just the opposite, in the long run. Happily. And how your values may just not mesh, creating conflict where you didn't want any or didn't intend any. Only if they're handled very well and not ham handed tree hugging sap, intelligent multi-sided and complex takes on it are fine. Yes. I wonder how well it could be handled, but if handled well could be quite interesting. Many other of the ideas in this thread as well. There's a lot here that could make for a game that makes you think, as long as the subjects were handled with the respect they deserve and not just, "Slavery is bad" because, let's be honest, for thousands of years all sorts of people were held in servitude of one sort or another. It's easy to look back now and say it's bad, but in certain timeframes and cultures it was just everyday life and there was no other option. Sad as that may be. Even today there is still slavery in some parts of the world. It needs to be handled with more intelligent complexity, care and respect than simply, "slavery is bad." That goes for just about every subject matter mentioned here, actually. Take the one about Drugs, we know some drugs have legitimate medical uses, but are illegal, because they have, shall we say, 'other' uses. Two or more stances can evolve out of something like that and it can be very hard to compromise those two (or more) stances, to the extent that a compromise may just never be reached. Either way, whoever gets their way, if anyone, there's still the chance for strife and suffering.

In the end I wouldn't want co-op for the main campaign. The only sort of co-op I'd take part in is co-op in player DMed stories created by the players via an included toolkit. If you had an NWN like toolset and DM toolkit to create and run your own campaigns for players to take part in I'd be all for it. I am not for just adding on co-op to the main singleplayer experience though. A well designed toolset with a DM toolkit attached to run campaigns you've created for a few people though? That's another thing entirely. And I'm all for it.

The problem is, in game conversations, 95% of RPGs that use these base stats in conversations don't treat it like this. I understand that. I just feel they should. I think some of the problems as mentioned earlier can be avoided by playing the system straight, instead of fiddling. I can't disagree really, in fact I think we see eye to eye it's just a matter of what we wish games would do on the PC or Console versus what they tend to do instead. When it comes to DnD style rules (and I guess we have no idea that they'll be using that system here, I just use this example as . . . well an example) anyways. In the end I have a lot of trust in Obsidian to make a game with characters and story I enjoy regardless, but I do think it's nice to talk about. Thank you for the well thought out reply. It was definitely worth reading.

He shouldn't have been carrying all that alchemist's fire . . .

It's relative, in theory you could pump intelligence to the level of a Wizard in the DnD sense, certainly if you so chose. As you said your combat would suffer, but you could. However would you be intelligent in the same way as the Wizard? Without the comparable Wizard levels to said Wizard you wouldn't have any of their Wizard oriented knowledge or specialization that they might add to a conversation. And, really, why would you? That said the same happens on the other side of things, all things being of equal intelligence, and you're a Fighter, a Wizard wouldn't necessarily have your knowledge of physical combat tactics . . . though one could argue, being you've upped your intelligence, and neglected your combat prowess, that you might not know some combat oriented stuff that another Fighter might know despite being less intelligent. This is where I come into the idea that the Warrior with lower intelligence would be able to accomplish his goals as readily as the Wizard, he'd just do so through different means. No less capable, just capable of different things by the chocies he made. Statistical choices and Class specialization choices aren't necessarily linked. I'm not sure that you should be able to do, 'what that guy can' just because you're both smart, as your class choices represent different life choices and knowledge bases.

I don't feel a game needs multiplayer to be good, and I in fact, no matter what some developers claim, feel it can in fact take away from the single player experience. I'd rather have one complete and polished mode of play than two that suffered for the others inclusion.

I'm fine with anything as long as they're done well. Homosexual relationship, straight relationships, intellectual romances or complex relationships and whatever else. Even if I don't personally want to take part in one or more of them, I'm fine with them being there, as long as they're well done. That's the most important thing to me. The quality of what is there, regardless of what that is.

I like it when you have several background options, if they're done well, that can be worked into the main story fluidly - without feeling tacked on. Only, I must insist, only if they're well done. Otherwise what you imagine can often be much better than something tacked on.

I remember this sort of thing in the Quest for Glory games to an extent. You could miss certain things if the days they happened on went by, and you weren't there. I remember in Quest for Glory II if you went out and goofed off for too long the Elementals (or Iblis) could destroy everything and you'd get this need game over animation of your Hero watching whichever Elemental you didn't defeat destroying everything you were supposed to be protecting. I like unfortunate or bad ends to an adventure when they're well done and make sense, where it's not just game over but 'it's game over and here is why now watch everything you worked for burn.'

I feel like your options should be limited by the statistical, and other, character choices you make in conjuction with decisions you make within the game itself. Should your race potential shut some doors in an RPG? Yeah. Should it potentially open others? Yeah. Your choices should be the limiter. All your choices. You make the choice to limit your character to 2 intelligence, thus cementing that your character will never be spouting String Theory or solving Euclidean Geometry problems. You make the choice to have low Charisma and low Intelligence and end up with a character that other characters see as socially awkward and pretty stupid. You make the choice to have low strength and endurance and characters will see you as kinda dinky and unhealthy looking, and react to you and treat you as such. Those limitations are needed. It's what forces you, from a numbers standpoint, to roleplay a specific character. Because the numbers, those statistics, your choices and the flags they set off, say what your character 'is'. What they can do. What they can say. How they are even able to say it. The thing is I see people that want to be able to do or say anything they like, do 'everything' and not miss 'anything' regardless of their statistical, racial, gender, class and story choices. I can't get on board with that. I understand it, sure, but . . . that's why I like pen and paper and a Human DM, that's not cutting corners or playing favorites, right there that will quite literally not let you do 'anything' and force you to play within the limitations you've set for yourself. I have to . . . prefer that in any game. The limitations set in place by your choices should have impact and resonance in a story, and, obviously, that includes the dialogue. That said I dislike the idea, 'lock out' when I tend to see it as a branch. I always felt like those choices should result in you having to play your cards differently, sure, but locking you out? Locking out suggests a dead end when what should happen is you just have to use the tools that you 'do' have to achieve your ends.

Inventory should be there, it should have limitations and, more importantly, it should be practical and make sense. It should be easy to use. Never a hassle.

And I guess you'd get inside the van of anyone who gives you enough candy too? No I don't think most of us would, still, it has actually happened so let's not completely get rid of a factor like gifts provided they aren't just 'anything' and that they aren't absolute certainties. Still I'm not sure how I feel about it as a main mechanic, whereas as a particular companion related event in which you could give them something would make somewhat more sense. It's something to think about certainly. At the same time content lock outs? If a character is done well, in my mind, it feels like there would be no truly 'wrong' dialogue, simply dialogue that took the companion's story, and your interactions with them, in very different directions - even if that meant into a well built up rivalry over time - possibly causing them to leave or betray you or leave and come back later for either positive or negative purpose and so on. Lots of potential ways for things to go if they're well written.