septembervirgin

I think they should use icons of painted miniature figures set on a hexagon map with drawings on the hexagons.

What I'd want isn't what I'll likely see. What I'd like to see is that the NPC faction leaders react to eachother and how they perceive the situations with mild random variation. It's like a chess game to them, they manuever given the board they believe is there. If you could imagine they're like nations in Europa Universalis, they don't always make the same opening move from game to game. The player character(s) begin at a level where the game to them is like The Sims 3 or The Guild 2 except they're adventurers. The player characters struggle to establish some order (or chaos) and the world they know is pretty much structured by these NPC faction leaders. With their growing power, the faction leaders must begin to see them as important factors. There might be a number of ways this can be reacted to. However, the adventuring party (and any adventuring party) that becomes powerful must be seen as a faction in itself. Or if the party is still affiliated with a faction at this point, that faction is seen as having a powerful resource in an adventuring party.

Actually, what I'd select is not given as an option, I fear. I think there should be a type of map like a modified Arcanum, where a point could be selected on the world map and the characters would journey to it, or they could walk through the wilderness in an open world. There would be random encounters regardless of which method of travel chosen.

I'm not sure. I'd like to be able to continue playing after the end of the story. I think players should be permitted to see the land they've changed and saved. I think they should be able to refine situations, to alter relationships, to fight wandering monsters. If it's enjoyable enough, players will buy new expansions just to see the new crisis and new characters.

I was thinking that perhaps one reward might be customizing a district in a city made specifically to reward those who grant 5000 dollars to Obsidian.

If there's enough employee, two years should be sufficient time for a few mini-games. I don't see why they couldn't nor do I think they'd be opposed to the idea.

I believe this is a good idea. Item descriptions were one of the few things I loved consistently about all the Infinity Engine games. I rued the lack of item descriptions in subsequent games. It seemed a sign that the writers were growing laconic and losing inspiration. I hope they find inspiration again.

Heya, it's me Andy Warhol. I think it's only right and proper to want to kill, but maybe story-based NPC should not be easily killed. If you don't like the story around them, kick them out of the group. I kept Anders at arms length throughout DA2. I didn't like the Jowan clone to begin with, I thought they should've used Jowan and made Jowan more likely to live. In any case, maybe there should be two types of NPC, story NPCs and hirelings/henchmen.

I prefer Infocom to Sierra but Sierra is pretty cool. I noticed their influence on the mansion belonging to Hawke in DA2. "The eyes seem to follow you..." was from at least one Sierra game. I think "plot forgiveness" is not so much the issue as plot flexibility. In old school games, they really didn't have enough memory room to accommodate many choices and solutions. Now all the designers need is patience and wit. xyzzy!!!

Why not permit it to be a perk or feat? "Was Once Male/Female" or "Wants to Be Male/Female". Not much work at all. A few new dialogue options and you're there. When I read the first part of your post, I thought it might be very hard to implement a "transgender option" into a game without a huge amount of work. But in my opinion, this is a fair proposal, that can be accomplished rather easy. I like it!

Music: Diamanda Galas is looking for something to do. So is Tara van Flower (of Lycia). So is Nina Hagen. So is Suzanne Vega. So is Elizabeth Frazer (of the Cocteau Twins). So is Dame Darcy (of Death by Doll). Advantage yourself of darling old musicians when you can. You might wish you had done so later on in life. Graphics: Don't forget Dame Darcy! She is a charming visual artist as well as a fantastic banjo player and sweet singer. Writing: Keep recent Nebula Award winners in hand, as someone might appear that you want to hire for later expansions to this game. Keep in mind that subpar writing sickens fans. Whenever I notice something in a CRPG that isn't up to Temple of Apshai room description standards, I feel a little mad. Tanith Lee had her feeble moments with some works, yes, but not all of us can be a Fritz Leiber. Remind your writers that they are competing with Fritz Leiber, not with Grand Theft Auto 5. If you've read Hart's Hope and Tales of the Flat Earth, you've pretty much played Dragon Age. Sad to say but it's true. Don't become your influences: surpass your influences. If you gotta become a Harold Bloom fan, do it. Character Creation: I've found that giving visual representation of choices helps the player visualize what they're deciding on. "Madlib" phrases for the combined choices they've made so they have a textual description of their character choices. Let the player through a brief prelude story to give them an idea of what life's like for a person of their character's species, class, and "prior life" background choices. Include languages if you can. Coinage: Have different coinage for different nationalities. It's been done in PnP and it would probably work in CRPG. Yeah, some players will think of it as a pain, but also consider that some people liked the concept of money changers for CRPG where they've appeared (usually to exchange denominations) and currency variance has appeared in the more elaborate of MUDs too. Inventory: Let's have an inventory where different shapes and sizes of item matter as well as weight. I think that Villains and Vigilantes had the right idea in making character weight important as a modifier for how much a character might lift and carry, so please don't have three foot tall gnomes hoisting two hundred pound backpacks laden with greatswords. So have different sizes of backpack too, if it comes to having short characters. Also, if there's going to be a party inventory, make sure it's on a donkey or mule or horse. It wouldn't be so bad if there's animal porters as long as there's no canid torch-bearers. Movement: Characters walk outside battle, run during battle. That way, there's less running into traps. There should be internal rules about characters trying to avoid ongoing sources of damage unless they're largely immune or resistant (even so, they should not void commands for movement). Movement should not "scale down" or seem slower just because the area has to be small; slow running people pleases no one and everyone realizes that the area is smaller than in RL anyway. Parties: I remember in IWD2, adventuring bands could have names. I'd like to see that again but capitalized on more, be more a prominent feature with more game-play in it, because it has opportunity for game-play value. In some computer role-playing games, the player characters will stumble across fanzines about themselves. Rusty Venture found that his deeds as a "boy adventurer" had spawned a sex act named for him. These have merit but lack gravitas. I suggest graffiti and limericks, erotic portraits (with little resemblance), and street plays exaggerating their exploits. Also, adventuring bands might be invited (or permitted) to enter sporting events just as knights were invited to joust each other. Morale: Characters should have morale ratings that influence their battle-readiness and fear. I don't mind my party going nuts and running -- that happens and it's an interesting occurrence. Let friendship influence morality but for heaven's sake, don't assume that lovers never panic and leave their beloved to certain demise. It's a heroic adventure, and I'm being entirely non-sarcastic, but people should occasionally lose their courage and flee for the hills. A high morale leader should be able to influence the followers (but it would take a feat or skill to do so). I like the way they handled command and obedience in the new Chainmail game. Luxury, Amusement, Resting and Time: Alot of games have ways for characters to amuse themselves. I suggest there be a role-playing game inside the role-playing game, that a popular pastime in the fantasy world *is* a role-playing game albeit a rudimentary tactical and card-based RPG. This could be done simply, by representing time having passed, letting the characters say something indicative of what's going on in the game, and then representing more time passing, then let a summary of the game occur. They can keep their character sheets on file with an official scribe. These sheets are scrupulously kept in several places and double-checking occurs regularly. Also, there should be luxuries. Even if it has no place in the swords and sorcery part of play, the players of this new computer game will want to play with dolls. They will want to move their dolls around and be happy with their dolls. They'll want periods of quiet, crickets chirruping, listening to a minstrel strum an instrument, playing at drinking wine or tea. They won't want to be attacked by monsters nor be interrupted by pithy statements like "I wish we could go kill something". So in essence, permit fairly large and pretty areas that have nice music and allow characters to be moved around and do things that yield nice text results. The nightclub in Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines is also a useful example of this but too small. Have taste descriptions of liquor and tobacco and food. A wrong way of luxuriating would be SWG. The dances and foods and drinks were so mechanical and composed of such hardships that enjoying it all became impossible: the entire game lost some beauty because dance1 dance2 etc were just ways of healing, nothing more, all far too commonplace and often misplaced. Resting, like luxuries, should be soothing. I liked BG and BG2, the cut-scene played for resting, and I also liked the campsite in DAO. The problem was that in DAO the campsite was too redundant. I couldn't see the inside of a luxurious inn room as anything but a place to thieve from in DAO, and the campsite became the place of begging for happy companions. And I detested them all, but I shan't go into why I detested them right here. Note that dreaming is a part of resting and dreams can have gameplay value -- and yield benefit for those who undergo a dream. Remember the Eternal Dreamtime (Alcheringa or Alchera) of the Australian ancient faith. What is done in dreams is sometimes influential on the waking world and in the world of souls. Time is best done in Baldur's Gate and Temple of Elemental Evil (I admit I loved trying to rest for a few years just to see what would happen). I felt as if Thedas was part of the Fade because time really didn't pass realistically in that game. A player should not be able to pass the time without a source of food. If rations become scarce, don't let the player spend time resting. I think that makes sense. However if they have rations, let them experiment with passing time for years. Encounters: Not every encounter should be for battle. Unexpected (or carefully sought) meetings with merchant travelers can rid the party of unneeded but valuable items. One should be able to hunt for encounters as well as be surprised by random encounters. Random encounters can keep the game going long after the story has ended; but everyone would buy the new expansion if the initial game pleases sufficiently! The best encounters can be met in several ways -- someone might want to ambush that darn traveling bazaar. Someone might want to trade with carnivorous hominids. Also, why not use magic to shoot down that floating city that acts like an umbrella during winter? Cities: Cities should have the function they've had since Akalabeth and Odyssey: The Compleat Apventure but also don't forget Ptolus and Baldur's Gate. Cities can have adventure as you well know, but perhaps you haven't considered that a sufficiently large city without the multitude of unusable doors can be exciting and interesting. Make big buildings filled with detail instead of fake unused buildings. If you can't imagine what a building could be useful for, check out A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe Second Edition, Central Casting: Heroes of Legend (and extrapolate from the character histories you roll up), the Yellow Pages, and www.neighborhoodscout.com -- all of these can be useful for DMs and game designer alike! Again, I can't emphasize enough that you should NOT MAKE FAKE DOORS AND UNUSED BUILDINGS. This is irritating to everyone I've asked. Finally, make sure that some cities won't let the characters in with their weapons, magical items, and armor. Merchants: Illustrate trade routes. Take a look at The Guild 2 (potentially at Guild 2: Venice) by Dreamcatcher Games. Notice that merchants get money from what they have to sell that's bought. Temple of Elemental Evil did a good job with merchants that won't buy expensive items if I recall correctly. Also, keep in mind that merchants won't offer gold that they don't have and won't *usually* buy items they can't sell. Keep in mind merchants sometimes sell useless stuff (and clever game designers make sure there's at least one situation in which this useless stuff is useful, such as sacrifices at a temple). Keep in mind that merchant buildings sometimes became something like Barnes and Noble: merchants would serve drinks and food, entry sometimes costs, and there was occasionally beds available (for a fee) if crafting time was extensive. Temples: Understand that Steve Perren was doing a great job with Glorantha and that his approach to religion (especially as portrayed in the computer game King of Dragon Pass) was useful to a strong degree to any designer and GM or DM. Temples should provide service to the soul and should dreams be deemed a touch with the soul, keep in mind Wraith: the Oblivion (a PnP game) which gives interesting suggestions should you interpret the word "Wraith" as Dream. Again, King of Dragon Pass with its "Hero Quests" in the sacred ritual and spirit lands, can be influential on temple activity. Temples can serve as places where sacred stories take place: and as to their actually taking place, well, perhaps everyone is a part of the story which happens in the spirit world, in the past, and in the present time too. The movie Inland Empire is particularly influential on how sacred areas can work. A temple can be the entry to a spiritual "dungeon" so to speak. Magic: Magic must not be so powerful that a single mage usually beats a single person of any other class nor so weak that the mage usually loses. More importantly, know precisely what magic is possible from these souls. First define a soul and even structure it, as if it's a building or engine. It has to work in a definable way that you know of. Magic works from the soul, you say, so describe the limits of a soul and how it functions even in ways other than magic. Does it somehow work hand in hand with emotions, dreams, language? If so, to what extent? If magic is to work though, might some magic be invisible and take a long time to work? This should be available to the player. Invisible magic should be your very best friend because it's cheaper to insert into the game and has a more impressive, subtler feel. If magic is said to work in a certain way and someone is available who has done that magic in the story part of the game, they should be able to do that sort of magic for the player too. If Morrigan says she's turned into a cat in her stories about herself and she's telling the truth, shouldn't she be able to turn into a cat in the game too? And shouldn't the player's characters who use that sort of magic be able to do the same thing at the same level of power? If a Magister Templi is able to nurture the Word of a Magus and use that Word in tandem with their Sumum Bonum, isn't it appropriate that the Word suffuse the temple and so all the flowers of the temple garden grow inscribed with that Word? Combat: I found that Battles are too plentiful in DA2 when I least wanted them. I found that VtMB had sufficient conflict but at times was impoverished of taste. The Sabbat had a flavor to them that was untested and untouched in that game (see Storyteller's Guide to the Sabbat), but I understand it needed a year of development more than it got (or at least a year less than I'd wanted it to have: imagine, a taste of the entire World of Darkness through the mouth of a vampire). DA2 often loses flavor by just throwing the battles at the player but so did Arcanum, in which I felt that I walked outside a beautiful library and music hall into a mosh pit. Arcanum, btw, was a beautiful game but the combat ruined the immersion often times. Combat is useful especially in a CRPG where it is expected. Make sure that it doesn't overwhelm the beauty of the game but make sure it's there. A critical hit and fumble table should be included -- after all, we're using a computer and we needn't worry about masses of combat tables to read personally. If the argument that "so-and-so can already use Hamstring as a power" keep in mind that if it randomly appears as a critical hit, it's not like the average combatant can aim for it. A power that permits hamstringing a foe is far more reliable than a rare critical hit result. Critical hits should be more likely if the attacker is high in level and the opponent is low in level, has no armor nor shield, especially if facing archers who can take their time to aim without interference. Fumbles shouldn't be ferocious (except the fumble indicating "hit self" or "hit nearby companion" with a critical strike). Fumbles should decrease in likelihood as one gains in levels; but there might be feats, perks, and spells to increase the chance of an opponent fumbling (or increase ones own chance of fumbling) and also if a lower level character attacks a much higher level character, they might find themselves fumbling more often as it's a known fighting trick to make the opponent fail painfully even unto striking their friends by mistake. I think D20 did an excellent job of dividing between wound points and vitality points. I also think that Obsidian should remember to generalize combat advantage sometimes. Runequest (and very early D&D) had rules for location damage (although in D&D it was an optional rule). This would work well in tandem with location-based inventory (armor slots). Finally, I think that the cowardly retreat option should return. Characters who should run run run away should be able to run run run away. Also available should be the option to surrender in lieu for a proposed ransom, to be paid by patron or family or friends (or oneself). Captivity should be permitted and creative solutions to PC captives should be available. This has reflection in chivalric stories and history alike and has appeared in some computer games (most recently in Medieval: Total War). This is easier if there's a similitude of vitality points and wound points, if non-lethal weapons are not unknown, and feats can be activated to permit non-lethal strikes. NPC: It's really not difficult to come up with common situational statements inclusive of variables indicative of recent situations for NPC to say and random chance that an NPC says it as the characters pass and that any character overhears it. Necessary, story-based statements of course should follow typical rule (catchy, loud, repeated) so they can be overheard and noticed. There's a difference between important gossip and story-based bylines. One thing I'd like to see are predetermined conditions for certain NPC to band together and become adventurers. This would be interesting especially if they appear from time to time, assisting the player character party or vying against them (not always lethally). Mutual respect is always a rarely accomplished feat in a CRPG. And there are not many apparent opportunities for a game designer to inspire respect for a rival in a player. I wish Icewind Dale 2 had gone further with the named adventurer band concept. I prefer NPC run and scatter or stampede if they're endangered; they'd only shout if they think it will attract the guard and not draw dangerous attention to themselves individually. Remember, visiting adventurer NPC are probably as drawn to conflict by luck just as much as adventuring PC, so NPC might just stroll up as a playful player directs his party to attack NPC (if such a thing is permitted, and a "nostalgic RPG" would permit this). It takes awhile for guards to answer a call of distress, but if the town (or district of a city) is roused, a party could flee into another district and notice measures to locate them slowly growing in obviousness and aptitude. Outlaws might note a detective lurking around (if they're truly capable) a little bit before the "Flaming Fist onslaught". In smaller towns, they'd note local knights come after them as they become a quest objective (and might just answer a quest to investigate their own crime or defeat themselves). NPC movement could be on schedules, moving from one pasture to another, with different NPCs gathering in different pastures at different times. One pasture might be the tavern, another their work place, yet another an unmarried dormitory or homes. Important NPC might have replacements from time to time so they're not just standing on the roadside 24/7, but maybe (just maybe) a player character could make contact with any one of several NPCs yielding the same result: objective obtained. That way, you don't have to follow a single path to complete a quest, you could just talk to an NPC or any of that NPCs family or co-workers (or maybe even a trustworthy person in the village) to win. I think at least one companion possibility should be an inanimate doll. Romance: Sometimes fine words and fine sentiment are enough. We don't need moans and bared flesh with each conquest. Keep in mind that should the game be long if one romantic interest dies (or leaves), another might be found. Pregnancy needn't be an outcome always, but marriage might be possible. Most adventurers are smart enough to keep intercourse out of the picture until they retire (let us assume in their early thirties); mutual satisfaction can be achieved without. Sometimes pregnancy isn't an option due to practical considerations (females with females, men with men). Endgame: Let them keep playing afterward. The more they like the game, the more likely they'll want the next game. Also, give the PCs a treasure of a journal in which is written a summary of their deeds and the epilogue text so they don't have to keep returning to the last saved game, fighting the last fight, in order to review the epilogue words.

Personally, I adored the inventory system in NWN. I liked arranging item shapes. I'd usually find room for what I needed to place in it. Also, gem bags and potion cases made the sorting system work well. I agree with the OP. Not only does a constrained inventory system make for fun gaming, it also permits greater immersion -- at least for me (and obviously for others too).

Mac users are having a happy dance!!!

I think we're all just a little excited about this. I still agree with the OP that yes, Obsidian did a poor job. No one thinks it's Obsidian's fault. It's not Obsidian's fault. Yet out of excitement and surprise, they could NOT do a good job at all of replying, of responding, of communicating. As I stated, this is their first big date with liberty. And she's kissing on them at the doorstep. Wow. So if they stutter and stumble, I understand. We understand. However, we should also understand when someone rightfully points out, "hey, Obsidian's t-shirt is on backwards". Yes, it is. And we couldn't be happier that they have a t-shirt. What we want to know is: what *might* be done with our money? Why is it 300,000 dollars more to make a region. That's 300,000 dollars, guys. It's not unreasonable to ask out of the blue, "Why do you guys need all that money? What are you going to do with it?" If you'd know that a contemporary game can cost more than twenty million dollars to make, you shouldn't be surprised.

I think that Obsidian could use some advice on what to award those who give them $5000. What would you want that's the equivalent of a tavern in scope and importance?

I'm not talking about success and failure of quests but rather in dialogue skill use and in skill checks.

Maybe it will be structured so that one might send other people out to do some or all of the combat adventuring, should one wish to go that route? I dunno, it's their call.

If a character succeeds, by what margin does that character succeed? I think that success in most CRPG is on a binary rate, except in combat (damage done should be considered a "quality roll"). Contested or opposed checks to a skill or attribute should always be rated for quality. Also, should the effort be gauged by any audience, judged somehow, it should also be rated for quality. If we fail, that might be rated for quality too. A fumble table could be included in a game and is usually entertaining but I've yet to see fumbles incorporated into a computer role-playing game although I'd like to see it (with the occurrence of one tenth of a percent chance but more likely while being hampered by an enemy more capable than oneself or if unlucky trait is possessed or if a certain "feat" or spell is used against ones character).

I think you should provide a new option in this dialogue poll. If someone needs to bluff, they would see the option if it's possible but possibly not the chance they have. If they don't have the skill they might still see the option but the player *might* realize it's a snowball's chance in Miami bath salts to succeed. All the same, the degree to which they're successful might still be dependent on skill. Fortune and accidental circumstance are only a tiny portion of any victory.

I notice several games which handle loot and loyalty differently. Dragon Age has NPC accepting gifts and being customized by the player. This is good to a small extent but the upshot is, no one seems to want anything beyond gifts for dangerous duty. The feeling this gives is utter reliance and trust in the player character, a system that seems a bit over-reliant to me. They have loyalty ratings so to speak, but it's the loyalty of a party attendant. It's more happiness than loyalty and friendship. Temple of Elemental Evil has NPC taking a share of the loot before the player ever sees it. This is problematic (because it takes an invisible section away from the player) and relies on player trust of the computer game. It was a swift way of handling a delicate issue but its drawback is there was no approval of each situation where loot is to be dispersed between party members. The sense of loyalty was only in that they continue to work unless offended or lead away by the story. There's no actual sense of approval nor disapproval in that game, not really. I did admire that the NPC had their own partially represented wants. Some MMORPG have each player receiving their own version of the treasure; this might be ideal but some players like outfitting their party individually. What I'd like to see is that NPC will always want a share (and indicate what they want). Before entering cities there should be a "dividing the loot" screen or something, and gauges showing how satisfied each NPC is with their share and commentary as to their feelings on the matter (see Civilization 5 diplomacy). Also, gifts could be given, and NPCs could be offered items to use and will use these if they feel that the item is useful or better than what they have. Some NPC would deny some loot, including items they feel ethically against or see no use in having (even if it seems useful to the player). I guess I see loyalty as not being entirely applicable to adventuring. In AD&D loyalty was for NPC and only if they found themselves in a situation safe enough to leave or if they were tempted to abandon their leader's cause. Morale was for how well they kept themselves together in dangerous situations. I think what we see in most recent RPG is not loyalty as much as happiness and what they ask for is often unrealistically meager.

I've found that family portrayal is usually not done well in immature CRPG. If this game is to last, we might see several generations of the same family proliferate through a region. A character with skill to do so might be able to trace family histories (and so also might books about families be kept by these families). Also, an actual family usually doesn't treat their members with distaste -- disagreements don't occur in the way they're usually portrayed to occur. Adopted family members are usually treated to pity and gentleness, but adopted family is usually where "disobedience" and unspoken disagreement occurs, more so when the adopted family member is from adopted by invaders to that person's city or is enslaved through force. While we do not need to see families being all homey and domestic, it might be prudent to avoid the overwrought themes of orphans and runaways. If someone is adventuring away from home, it's usually because they see themselves as capable and cautious enough to survive, it's not because they were kidnapped by doppelgangers, to be rescued and raised by an enslaved blink-dog princess and an gray ooze psionicist. One mature element I've noticed missing is pastoral moments. The young usually don't want for quiet moments in a computer game where they can move their action figures through a beautiful scene, unless that beautiful scene is en route a battle. There should be lovely places where one can just "live a sim life" or "play with dolls" so to speak. Such play finds dissonance when characters complain about being left standing around or wanting to fight something. Also, wandering monsters are ruinous to such moments. Soothing or gloomy music is useful for enhancing quiet moments, with an animated computer screen image which can also be useful as a portrait to glance at while doing house-hold chores. A further mature theme might be the inclusion of surrender and retreat as viable options for both the NPC and the player. In chivalric romances (and other heroic myths) sometimes a combatant can sue for ransom, which is considered an honorable surrender, whereby a combatant or combatants permit their own capture to be ransomed by family, lord, church, or the city. This result of combat isn't outside history too. It would be seen as dishonorable (although sometimes occurred) that a combatant would claim they wished to surrender and then attack after capture; also false accusations can occur whereby a person is accused of doing such a thing, and punishments did exist if a vassal of a lord falsely surrendered to an enemy and then slew the enemy while living in captivity (and enjoying what hospitality could be afforded). It would be insipid to think that people always fight to the death or always seek an opponent's demise. More often, one seeks the enemy's surrender and PAYMENT (sometimes just in the arms and armor of the captive). If this is a part of the game, the Player Character house might have a small dungeon of its own -- and dungeons weren't always uncomfortable places. Alternately, captives could be herded to a friendly lord or knight (or priest) and sold to them for a third or quarter of the offered (or potential) ransom. People didn't run around killing everyone and stealing from homes, not in the more interesting legends even.

While I see the merits of an inn or fortress, it seems to me that the functionality of a fortress can be found in a war ship and an inn is only a place where a travelling adventurer might sign into just as they might sign into service aboard a sea-going vessel. The benefit of a sea-vessel is that it's a vehicle and can be used to adventure in. One might store ones goods and valuables aboard, one might upkeep ones friends aboard, and notices as to places to rest during sojourns could be placed aboard the vessel. Given a magical world, one might never need to leave ones vessel except to gather resources, and fishing to support the life of sailors has been with us since pre-history.

Might we have a "social status" trait that can be influenced by how much money we put into appearance? Status is often supported by capital: the wealthy have a constant source of wealth and so their status can be reinforced by their wealth -- a name for oneself isn't secondary, but someone without a reputation can fall back on their apparent status and hopefully their social graces. Say, if I buy a resource of "fragrant soap" it should be assumed my character uses said soap to wash, but must rest in a civilized urban area to use that resource. Still, when in that civilized urban area, I'd have "fragrant soap" as a resource which might boost my status. If status is seen as an objective trait, wealthy criminals would use fragrant soap and so would barbarian kings, so we don't have to worry about sixteen types of status. Of course type of fragrant soap might differ. An elven prince would use one kind of soap, a human merchant lord might use another sort. We don't have to quibble except as to who gets the money for this resource, something which might come into play should a wealthy soap merchant be robbed (and the soap resource vanishes temporarily). Expensive clothing is a bit more important to determine which culture it comes from. While elven aristocrats might wear finery of one sort (elfin muslin), human aristocrats and dwarven aristocrats might wear something else entirely. Reaction based on foreign culture should be applied to exotic clothing. So if my human noble is wearing (elfin muslin) around humans who hate elves, while the status would be worthwhile, the reaction would be modified by (elf sympathizer) or (elven). This might be complex if organizations (and individuals) can change reaction modifiers on the fly, outside the static story plot, especially if NPC adventurers and monsters roam on their own. I doubt that will happen though and it's likely that if a group likes or dislikes a certain group, they'll not change their mind unless plotted story conditions are met. Hence, complexity can be avoided while keeping a concept such as status resources and cultural reaction to the exotic. To be simple, reaction to an elven sympathizer might be equivalent to reaction to a half-elf (although not always). But if you're making this game for mature considerations, we all know there's a few modifiers to reaction that I've noticed. Social status is one modifier -- if I look rich and smell rich, strangers treat me with at least mild respect. However, if I treat them well, they are more friendly in a personal way regardless of my apparent social standing because I seem an upright fellow to them. If I look poor and smell like unwashed sweat, maybe kindly people ("good alignment") will treat me with gentleness and civility, but to most they'd wish I'd get a home and stop begging for cigarettes in the streets; there's another modifier. Also, if they already know me, there's a standard reaction they fall back on, a reaction which can change due to startling news or new observations. If I'm suddenly bedecked in wealth, of course acquaintances are gladdened and this improves their feelings to a degree. So we have essentially an "NPC reaction" based on NPC outlook and social paradigm, a reaction which can be modified by behavior and status. Once that NPC has become acquainted with a person, they will have a standard reaction (which is only adjusted by a high modifier either positive or negative). Of course, we must assume that common NPC will not frivolously throw punches at unwashed strangers who stumble into a tavern looking for news and a place to wash. Also, the reaction of common NPC might be of negligible value to an adventuring party and hence little use to the designers of this game. If there are only a few adventurers in the world, why bother judging the reactions of non-adventurers who aren't merchants -- and wouldn't merchants be sensible enough to charge a flat rate in most cases? One might as well just have a "XYZ City citizen faction" reaction. I'll argue that should it be that numerous NPC might see fit to adventure, the reaction roll could be a useful concept for hirelings and henchmen, but the value of such NPC should be apparent in their inexperienced manner ("why should I latch on to a poor bumbling wretch like myself?"). If they're not strong story-based NPC, they are most useful as porters, potion-testers, and cannon-fodder OR for their minimalist appeal should they also seem charming. Some people might not want a huge story with each NPC. Some people might just prefer a spare body to put into the fray. Icewind Dale fans might be made just as happy as Baldur's Gate fans. And there's always Temple of Elemental Evil fans, like myself. No need for an expansive background for each character but it is interesting to delve into the guarded moods and memories of ones hired help. And it is telling what an NPC says to a person whom one is to fight for and fight beside, trench-buddy conversations grow in detail. Once the battle has begun, status means little in the trenches except a faintly noticed tale of foreign living. Status comes to fore in other ways though. Surely a noble will not grant quests to unknown scoundrels, especially armed and avaricious scoundrels, unless these scoundrels are known and accepted or the need is so great that help from wandering adventurers is being sought widely. Even so, the clean and virtuous person might be seen as more useful (and better rewarded) than some upstart rogue who isn't of a recognized family. Why make potential rivals wealthy? All this could be too much to consider in each NPC if each NPC is an intricate portion of an intricate story, but should behavior be generalized and hence emergent to some degree, it might not be too much at all. It depends on how many NPC you permit to have complex relations with the PCs, other than "hey, let's fight bad guys" with an assumed mutal agreement on what bad guys are defined as.

Of course that's difficult to do. And they're aiming at old school design structure, not stunning us with a shattering new NPC AI. The cost of developing a new NPC AI might be exorbitant -- and the opportunity to do so will come in the decades ahead of them. Game designers could study card games (like Steve Jackson Games' Illuminati!) and computer games (like Republic: the Revolution, Rome 2: Total War, Europa Universalis, and Mafia games) that do have organizations that respond with some sophistication to losing leaders, changing objectives and such. Grand Strategy games have been influenced by role-playing game structure and vice versa: "attributes" of leaders and experience all come to fore on how a person administrates, with even subtle differences being telling when the tension comes. Even sim-life games have the potential for influence in CRPG, where individual NPC go about their daily lives with only a few variables being influential; preference to self-preservation in all but "stupid adventurers" being a primary goal. But that level of complexity might not be possible nor wanted here. I don't mind if the tavern populace are "always in position", ready for their closeup with their one liners. If the taverns change customers between day and night sequences, that would be suitable and even laudable. If the one liners are indicative of recent events that were rumoured or observed personally, that would be nearing ideal. However, we're talking about nostalgia -- and sometimes what is loved in nostalgia belays the potential of avant-garde concepts. Potential is not so great when it would cost a few hundred grand per year. Finally, new faces aren't going to swarm to a single feature, no matter how refined, that's been used in Fable and Fable II, arguably poorly executed in both games. Obsidian isn't competing with Fable (nor with Taeis MU*, RIP). Obsidian is bringing back the gold, returning home from exploits afar. And we're glad to see our Black Isle guys. If only Infocom were still around to applaud their efforts. We can expect that Obsidian will excel in storyline and in "bringing sexy back" to the nostalgic world of CRPG.

I agree with the OP. It's apparent to me that Obsidian is excited and tense. They aren't going about this like it's a regular, normal project: they are hot and sweaty, it's their first date with liberty. So maybe Obsidian had best calm down and express themselves reasonably -- they know they'll get what they want and get it easily from us. We like them. If we didn't like them, we wouldn't buy their games. And we've been buying their games. So perhaps Obsidian should communicate to us as if we're shareholders, because that's close to what we might be for them. The least comprehending among us would love better elucidation as to why they'd need three hundred thousand dollars more than 1.1 million to develop a single character race, class, and companion. It almost sounds like unfair and disingenuous budgeting. I'm going to give them anywhere from $20-120, but I'd really like to know why they're claiming they need hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't want this money going to some cult, a political party, massage girls, organized crime, nor directly into their tidy little pockets as spending cash with the game being a minute twinkle of potential work. I want the money to go into the game and to reasonable salary expectations for them. While it's not much my business, I would foam at the mouth if their Better Business Bureau rating slipped because of this.