Umberlin

Odds are several decently sized spiders have crawled in your mouth, while you slept, repeatedly over the course of your life, so a few big spiders in a game won't hurt you.

Human Cipher or Wizard.

Not to take a side here, but 'what women want' and 'what men want' type discussions are always . . . so very off. You can fill rooms with ten women and ten men and get twenty wholly different opinions. There is far, far more in effect than simple gender, 'men want this' and 'women want that' because from one man to another or one woman to another opinions can differ drastically. Some individuals, that happen to be female, are hardcore conservative christiams that cover up every inch of skin. Some individuals, that happen to be female, run BDSM shops downtown within walking distance and have a penchant for wearing skimpy leather outfits. And, countless other individuals, that happen to be female, are in between the two or are completely unlike either of them. The same goes for men. One man shouldn't act as if his opinion counts for what all men think of as acceptable anymore than the gender reversal. Some men are more conservative, some less, some are monogomous and faithful, some never settle down In short: "Morality differs drastically by individual and things one might think of as unacceptable may be the everyday life of another." There are so many varities and flavors that one should never guess at the majority, minority or other brand of opinion. It's always best to just speak for one's self (which you're doing, and I respect that). - Personally I think it's best to not try and please everyone when making a game. You'll never accomplish it. Still, I also think making a game wholly by one's own morality suffers in its own way due to, as I mentioned, what's acceptable, or not, varying so drastically from individual to individual. I think good developers find a balance, but I'm sure the success/acceptability of such things is debatable on an individual level. In the end I don't know what a man or a woman wants in a protagonist, or any aspect of a game. I know what I want, certainly. I know what specific individuals want, if they've made such information available . . . but entire genders, cultures, nations and so on? Not a chance. Making a game must be very hard . . .

When it comes to a single player game? People can play the game they like, to their preference, and I, nor any of you, should have any say in that, nor should they have any say in how you or I play. If the people that want to restrict themselves can't manage to restrict themselves on their own, that's their own sad little problem, and no one else should have to suffer for it - not the people that can play legitimately all on their own, and not the people that don't care about playing legitimately in the first place. This is a hobby, not a Final Examination, conduct yourself as you choose, it's not serious business and it doesn't matter. Those that need restrictions, such as on saves, already have modes - separate modes - that cater to their needs. Those that truly want to play legitimately will play legitimately regardless. Those that don't care, and want to exploit or abuse systems, will find a way to do so no matter what elements are put in place.

One of the notes in Bioshock (and, no, as far as I'm concerned it isn't an RPG) is that many reviewers looked at the choice of harvesting or saving the little sisters meaning very little, in the end. The most common complaint amongst reviewers was that, in the end, you still came to about the same reward, one of them simply delayed compared to the more front loaded alternative option. The result of the options being about equal was that people felt like the options didn't matter. I'm not sure how to feel about that, or if I should just note that choice in Bioshock was barebones in the first place, but I do think it's something to consider, that: "Consequences and Rewards should never be the same or equal, regardless of the types of choices available to you" and, really, I'd pad that with, "The choices shouldn't be black or white in the first place."

I don't see less companions as being a reason to not have such features. In fact, in my view, it makes it even more important to have than in a game with many companions. With less companions such differences, arguments, fights, deaths, betrayals and even just leaving mean a lot more. And, yes, meaning a lot more means that it can effect you negatively. All the more reason to really think about what you're doing as a character, and how you interact with other characters, especially companions. In the end getting that "full group of all eight characters" to all agree with you, and do what you say, no matter what, like mindless slaves, doesn't seem like the right goal in an RPG, It defeats the purpose of an RPG, in my opinion, and it's one of the many reasons modern RPGs come off as so shallow and insipid. That, 'working together for the end goal' justification only goes so far until you realize it's just a plot device to force the companions to put up with anything you do, and, once you realize that . . . it ruins everything. - At the same time . . . if they leave . . . there's usualyl a way for them to not leave. So, really, if they leave, it's a result of your own choices. Not wanting to deal with that just sounds like not wanting to deal with the consequences of your choices. It's essentially asking for choice with no consequence. That's not a line of thinking I'd want to set in place, especially not in an oldschool inspired RPG that's supposed to be pulling from RPGs that were better than that.

Means to an end? An adventuring party isn't a birthday party. They join up to do something, not just hang out. As long as the greater objective overrides the objections, they deal with it. That only works in the soldier/military mindset. A band of adventurers is so oft ragtag that end objectives are questionable. There were end all, be all, objectives in other games where companions could leave, argue, fight, kill each other and even outright betray you and those were no more than adventurers coming together for and end goal. News flash, people are petty, even in times of crisis, and even a soldier can argue with, kill or ditch his fellow soldiers - even with penalty or death for doing so on the line.

If they disagree with you, or another companion, to a particular point they should speak on it, even if it comes to drama or conflict or outright leaving no matter the amount of companions. If they viciously hate you or another companion, or what you/another companion is doing goes wholly against their moral compass . . . why would they stay with you? It would be just another shallow husk of what RPGs used to be if they went with the modern Bioware compaions style with this. They're characters. Not hypnotized slaves that do whatever you bid. They should be able to leave if they want. They should be able to die. If they can't leave or die . . . then . . . they're just these static sure things you never have to worry about. They aren't characters, they're drones. Older RPGs had it right where companions would just up and leave, argue, or fight, over the differences they had with other companions or player character. And this is a game that pulls from those older games. Why bring in one of the downfalls of modern RPGs in a game that's pulling from better crops? If you're doing horrible no good things, a companion that dislikes that should - at the least - leave. At the most they should try and stop you. Sure, it should be possible, within reason, to convince a companion to your way of thinking on some things . . . but only to a certain extent, and over a practical amount of time. Just the opposite is true as well. You had games where companions had ideas of race, gender, religion and so on within their setting . . . that did not mesh well with one another. They'd comment on these things, give you a chance to correct their problem with things. You could kick out a problem companion to make others happy. You could change your ways to make companions happy. Or you could keep on as is, and watch the fallout. Those that were happy with your ways, and the remaining companions, would stay.

I can live without romances. I can live with well done romances. If they're not in, oh well. If they are in, I'd hope they'd be complex and intelligent - engaging things that didn't reduce companions to player character obsessed nit wits. In the end I'm more concerned about the quality of the overall game. Viconia was a decent enough character, and the player could, potentially, become close to her, but the things that made the character and dialogues with the character enjoyable . . . were still there even without the potential. So, again, if it's there, I'm fine with it as long as the quality is there. If it's not there, oh well. For that matter I could care less about the types of romances; straight, bi, gay, lesbian transgender - I don't care about such things being present or about them being absent. I care that whatever Obsidian does. is done well. What is present should be done well. If they don't think they can do it well, they should leave it out.

I suppose it would please some people.

Having companions disagree with you, or each other, to the point of drama, conflict or just plain leaving would be perfectly acceptable - by my measure. I liked the games that did it. Developers that don't do it for 'it's too hard' and 'it's not fun' reason just make me roll my eyes. I loved and enjoyed it in games that bothered to give their companions that much backbone.

We know we have them, and I'm not against the pictures being updated but . . . if they don't update them I'll go on living, I doubt I'll even blink an eyelid.

I don't mind either way. They can ham up the violence or they can downplay it. They can have blood spatter and limbs flying or that can have sparks and little BAM! messages batman style, or anything else. Violence, regardless of depiction, is really not something that concerns me in games. I have a very steadfast opinion that fictional things are, not surprisingly, fictional, and thus I don't care about extreme violence in fiction - just the same I don't care about very watered down violence in fiction. I don't read or play fictional settings for the violence in the first place, so it's a pretty moot point with me.

I'll probably make a Human first, but . . . class? Eh, it's a toss up between Cipher and Wizard. Whichever one I don't make will be down the line, along with the Priest. I don't tend to make characters outside of Humans in RPGs unless the other races are truly well done. If it's an elf/dwarf/other traditional fantasy race I never touch them no matter how well done, because they're always just Humans with an Elf or Dwarf or whatever skin over. So if I do a race besides Humans it'll be because one of the original races caught my eye, hopefully they don't come off as Humans in a different skin. It's not just the visuals. if, culturally/socially/etc, they come off as a Human in a 'whatever' suit I'll likely just skip them. If I want to play a Human, I'll play a Human, which is what I typically get stuck playing. I shouldn't be thinking when playing an Elf or even an original race of things like, "This is awful similar to actual Human culture X."

NPCs are one thing, but, in regard to player made characters, how 'bout we leave what attractive means, and whether the characters are attractive (or not) up to the player?

It'd be interesting if the depths produced signs of older, ever more ancient, cultures. Sort of like the idea of cities in the real world build upon older cities that are upon older civilizations and more and more. A layer cake of cultures, getting older as you decend. The potential variety with that idea gets pretty up there, and helps with monotony. You could also get a certain air of mystery from it, that way, especially if there were hints of such things outside the game, but never outright revealed, just enough to foreshadow so that things aren't completely out of left field. Honest to goodness mysteries and secrets to unconver in general, can be interesting, especially if you have variety between the simply mysterious and those that build up a creepy, sinister tickle down your spine.

As much as I wonder why characters in so many games seem oblivious to their other fingers, and even toes (toe rings are a ting afterall), I can, at least, understand that it's typically a gameplay decision meant to keep the enhancement aspects of certain items from going out of control. Actually I'd note the original Guild Wars, in regard to that one aspect, I liked that (even in D&D, depending on the stat) certain statistical advantages granted by items simply would not stack with each other. Regardless, the point is, having to pick and choose it, actually, a good thing.

Eh . . . I'm not really fond out outright cheatcodes. Still, I do realize, as someone that is prone to taking part in modding communities, that having the developer console unlocked, or there being a way to unlock it, is a boon.

Crazy idea . . . leave the health static throughout levels, low for everyone, and with very little variance between classes. Have the main up front battery be Stamina and allow it to be the most modified. I don't think it's likely to happen, or even the most practical system, but it'd be interesting to see health loss as a truly bad thing, no matter how little was lost. Still, I can see plenty of reasons not to follow this method, and I highly doubt they will. I'd just be interesting to see stamina as the main buffer, so to speak.

Can I save one that never came out? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Isle%27s_Torn

If Twitter is to be believed, yes.

Quite so.

I'm not entirely sure you should be looking at a dungeon crawler for ways in which to make stats in an RPG better. I find it a little distressing that people look at Path of Exile as see complication, when it's actually incredibly streamlined and straightforward. Sure, the tree itself is massive, but what is contained within it is incredibly simple. Simple and streamlined, blown up in a big branching of lines with little extras like spell damage, different elemental damages and such, but not really complicated once you get beyond the size of the thing. It effect many skills as well, such as: Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Knowledge, Search, and Spellcraft checks that are used beyond the realm of the Wizard. A smart, tactical Fighter wants intelligence as well - just the same you can make a Fighter built around dexterity, rather than Strength, if you so choose. Beyond the Wizard and Fighter you have the Thief, again, he wants intelligence. In fact any character that wants a good range of skills . . . wants intelligence. Yet, a character may purposely not want intelligence as well, even if it could be useful to them in some ways, because if it's too high . . . your character may not be the average joe, or the drunk dumb as a brick dwarf that you wanted to play as. Reasons to want it. Reasons to not want it. Reasons to invest casually in it. Reasons to invest heavily in it. Reasons to ignore it entirely. A stat like Intelligence, in PnP, however, in itself, goes far beyond those very straight forward applications like increasing a mana pool. It has many applications. The number of languages your characters knows, the number of skill points gained each level, a wizard gains bonus spells on their intelligence score, and it will even effect how your character speaks (perhaps they come off as simple or very stupid at lower levels, maybe average or below average or slightly above average and of course smart or genius levels). But that's not all! It can effect whether your spells are resisted or not (as a Wizard) or even how powerful those spells can be. You have that theme of, "not just useful to one, but useful to all" but you have that added layer of how it's useful beyond combat. You can tell when something is a mindless dungeon crawler when it's stats all refer to combat applications, and not a single application beyond that. So, let us, for example, take the effect of intelligence on how you are perceived when you speak/act (let us say low intelligence, very dumb) but combine it with intelligence, which may be very high. Now take a character, say, John Coffey from The Green Mile. A man of simply intelligence, that many thought stupid, who, despite this, was very wise. And thus, while he could be percieved as dumb his advice could be sage. This is a very important thing to understand, because it's why things like Mass Effect don't work as RPGs, because you can make almost any choice you want . . . and the only limiter for some options are their silly 'good' or 'evil' meter which allow you to choose special good or evil options (I know they aren't called that but it's still so black and white that I don't care). In an RPG, a real RPG, those statistics are what limits you. Why? Because otherwise you'd do anything you wanted to. The limiters of stats on conversation, movement, battle and everything are what force you to role-play. That is the most important thing about stats, that they make you play 'the character' you've built. If they're done right they trap you within their confines and force you to leave 'you' behind, so that it stops being about what 'you' would do, and instead is about what 'your character is capable of doing' no matter the circumstance. - Obviously P:E is not D&D, and the systems will be different, but I always prefered systems that made statistics 'more' than one liners. In a way P:E has already moved away from D&D with their note on Social stats, of a sort, but I still think it's worth pointing out why something, such as a Dungeon Crawler, are not a good reference point for a real RPG. And I know some people really like Dungeon Crawlers, that they like games like Path of Exile . . . but they are 'not' RPGs - no matter the mindless marketers that attach the label. Reference good RPGs for ideas on how to do stats right. Not dungeon crawlers. Not action RPGs, because, while they are a subgenre, they are not RPGs. Reference RPGs. Well done RPGs.

They've not presented a class that's a Necromancer, so unless there are Necromancer NPCs in the game, that we cannot play as (or they announce a very strange last minute stretch goal) I'd say no. Maybe there is a way to build an existing class toward Necromancy, but again, that's speculation and we have no information to confirm or deny such a possibility as of this post. Would I want that? I'd rather they concentrate on magic forms we haven't seen countless times over, but, that's me, Obsidian are the only ones that can decide such things. If it were up to me we'd axe almost all the traditional stuff; create new classes, races, environment types and so on. Overused magic types like Evocation would be axed and weirded less used types like Transmutation, and the more weird magical types would be used instead. Personally I've seen Necromancy done countless ways, including the misunderstood Necromancers that are harmless. I could live without Necromancy, but what I want and what I can live with are irrelevant. It'd be incredibly selfish if I thought otherwise.

What would someone be paid by the hour for that sort of work? Or would it be on a case by case basis, like how much you get paid relates to how often you have to step in? Extra payment required for each foam sword bopping.