Shadenuat

So how are you going to fast-talk, steal the money or sneakely approach danger without your rogue skills? I did't play every cRPG and I don't own every PnP book in the world, so it's hard not to agree. But your post is mostly just another set of "what if's" and theorising that we would, for sure, get a system where "martial" wizard build will have only a small to moderate advantage in melee while trading a lot of spellcasting capability. Which I a) don't have much faith in, and I already thrown so many arguments on why rule bender archetypical class should't have access to a lot of stable and mundane advantages, and b) I won't be interested in playing that sort of character anyway. I did't state so, but in class based systems there's nothing wrong with that type of design. Obviously it works with idea of moderation in mind and by supporting archetypical roles (fighter based classes get to wear armor, but only the fightest of fighters wears the better one). You balance classes between melee prowess, utility and magical capability. It's very basic stuff and that's how a lot of classes have been born (like a Paladin, or Ranger). The more the better.

I'll make sure to pass it to Josh once I'll stop watching Avellone get his silken dress mawed by twenty wolves. You can replace battlemage with Abjuration-like tree, still get a defensive-based wizard with lower offensive capabilities, but keep the magical theme and all the tactical nuances which are associated with playing a spellcaster (like defensive spells requiring timing and upkeep to use effectively).

This stash mechanic means you can't pop infinite amount of potions out of your inventory during combat, which is good. And it solves a lot of tedious micromanagement with items which also it's that bad. So, what is bad. The bad thing is that designers do not even concider any dungeons or any loot specific situation where encumbrance will matter. Meaning, no dungeon exit collapsing after you run out of it carrying dead companion or unconcious NPC on your hands, leaving all loot behind. Do designers EVER did ANYTHING like that? In my p. long hobby life of cRPGs - no, I don't remember. Should they concider encumbrance/greed as viable plot encounter? I think so. But they never do it anyway, so... duh. IMO, most of problems with inventory management could be solved by just making part of inventory shared, like in Wizardry 8. Just a shared part which can "carry" as much stuff as STR attributes from every party member combined, minus their equipment and items in their quick slots. You still can get overencumbered, but all inventory tetris and such goes away, yet you keep the feeling that it's your party carrying stuff, not some abstract born of mechanics black hole. *shrug*

Character like that could ask for double share in loot or gold (like Korgan in BG2). I remember that soldiers in first ranks like pikemen had double pay for their service.

Skills are your instruments of roleplay in cRPG. Without unique set of instruments, you won't have any unique roleplay.

Okay. To hell with you, and with them, but okay. Well of course it is, when you put it *that* way. My point is that there are gameplay elements which are appropriate to one game, but innapropriate to another. Because of lots of reasons. A game with smaller set of skills can allow itself to make them more complex. A game which is more focused on a specific skill can allow itself to move it inside the core of the gameplay. A game can make some skill more complex for immersion reasons, because of protagonist, amount of party members, even camera position. Because that would be completely different game. Why on earth lockpicking should depend on player reactions and skill, but swinging sword should't? You're playing devil advocate/ass/ignoring my real points for the sake of arguing. I'm tired of minigames, so I'm out of here.

You based your argument on a fact that intelligence and complexity are good and minigames can help with that, if you're withdrawing that because "twitch is fine too", you should't have made that point to begin with. We're talking about IE games, and IE games successor. We know what their core gameplay was like. As for isolation, the focus was not on a fact, but on "THAT MUCH". A single skill which governs a minigame won't do; a time restrictions because there are patrols walking around - that's already a bit better; a set of puzzle blocks in the minigame which set alarm to whole level - even more. But the question stands - why the **** do you need a minigame for all that? Because better design of minigame mechanics, physical mechanics (puzzle blocks, their variety, locks variety, whatever) - it does not lead to less isolation. You can't perfect tumblers&mouse cursor. Which in turn leads to a fact that if you design skill application well on a grand scale, there is no need for minigames anymore, because you get yourself a real *game*.

Too bad repetitive twitchy actions or trial-and-error confined puzzles don't require any thought. Something which is not isolated from core gameplay and mechanics that much ceases to be a minigame. This is a minigame: http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/573686-kingdoms-of-amalur-reckoning-xbox-360-screenshot-this-mini.jpg If you combine IE stealth (not very complex) with NPCs making Search checks against you (not very complex) and reaction modifiers/reputation/guards (a bit complex), you get = actually complex, multilayered gameplay. That's good designer's magic, and you don't need locks with five positions and one hundred difficulty levels for that.

And you're doing it wrong, because you think that clicking more buttons matters. It does't; making anything more complex by adding more isolated mechanics to it (minigames) will result in failure. This: Or this: Is how you make skills more complex, true. Not minigames.

Yes. It is an appropriate design for a game like P:E, yes. Point investment involves strategy on a level of building your party, while clicking also involves exploration and possibility of dealing with the owner of property broken, at least it should.

There should be no minigames because they are now, as in modern game design, a flawed concept of synthetic, timesinking gameplay completely unrelated to the real, core gameplay, the one which actually resolves things. Like combat resolving conflict, character progression and plot, or dialogue resolving character growing (and plot too). Someone, somewhere decided that picking a few strings of code out of a screen full of moving numbers and syllables is relaxing to the poor player tired of shoothing baddies and as much as fun. I say **** that guy.

Locks in F3/Skyrim are even worse than twitchy games (like runes in Amalur), they are just mindless trial and error repeated hundreds of times which add nothing to the game but sinking even more time in the flawed mechanics and savescumming. It's an interesting question. The answer is in what the game is focused on. And for these types of games the meat of the gameplay is combat. For most RPGs it is so, that's why so many rulebooks even in PnP games have all of their system work around resolving combat. Same would be true for P:E. People would prefer developers create 50 more new monsters than 50 completely different types of locks, which poll shows pretty well. Because everyone fought monsters in IE games, but not everyone even had a thief in party. Not that OP's idea could't work in any game. It could work in a game like Thief 4. Why should I? It's not that there will be any in P:E [TROLLFACE] You're placing too much value on the process instead of resolution. The real value of lockpicking in RPGs is't the challenge of picking a lock, or a process of picking one. It's the possibilites you get by reaching that what lies behind that door or inside that chest. And that is the part of lockpicking which should have most effort put in, not raising tumblers or twitching wire in a keyhole.

Because there are dozens and hundreds of these spells. Still don't get it? Ahahaha.

Minigame is still a minigame, no matter how well designed it is, it is a little game inside the game, which repeats itself and requiers twitchy actions to solve it. It breaks order>follow gameplay, and if it repeats itself, it's still sucks ass. Hence *the name*. If you want in your game a chest with runes you have to desipher, or a safe you have to crack by listening to sound puzzle, say so. But stop using that retarded next-game term which puts everyone on their toes, because it has a baggage of suckiness draggin behind it.

They are and they are't. There is a design idea of giving and taking which on higher level creates unique gameplay for classes. Magic is magic because it is not something which only has a price in 1's and 0's, but because mages, generally, have a unique option of manipulating world and rules of the world they exist in, while most of the others just "play by the rules". This advantage is so absolute compared to better THAC0 or ability to wear armor that they are often compromised when it comes to mundane things to balance that out. This is what makes them unique.

I will play yang and say that searching for unique equipment for races is more interesting than suits-anybody items.

Do something with burgonet next. Armor porn!

Glancing system indeed will give touch-based spells an edge they needed since... um... forever, true.

Well, I also don't like twitch elements in my calm strategic RPGs with pause (and cup of hot chocolate). Now eat me.

Pausing combat allows player to allocate actions, it does not allow to carry them out (and breaking the lock is an action). The same goes for controlling the group; you're giving commands, not following them.

I am not a fan of elements which do not relate to the game world. Minigames are like ships in bottles - they exist in extra dimensional space of my mouse, they generally pause the game (enemy patrols galantly waiting for you to place a lockpick in required position, fun?) and require, usually, nothing, *nothing* but same set of repetitive actions which add nothing to the game. Once you figured them out, it is just a timesink. Essentially, minigame is a puzzle which repeats itself multiple times. And that not to mention that in party based RPG, I may not even be a thief who's all immersed in challenging lockpicking process; my companion is. A good puzzle is one which does't get repeated. Unique locks with puzzle elements can exist. But I'm not interested in playing a puzzle every time I'm opening peasant's barn door to steal his pitchfork. **** your strawman and all the other pre-generated arguments from Google.

...yeah. Execution of the strategy is always just clicking buttons. When and where is what really matters, not picking little tumblers with mouse.

Touch attacks still require roll to hit. They can be p. fun in unorthodox roleplaying situations (like when you're shacking hands with somebody), but that's not relevant for cRPG. And mechanics for armor class and hitting targets are still a bit... blurry from what we've heard from P:E. All these glancing hits and so on.

I don't understand what MuseBreaks wants, and what to hate him for. Is it Characters&Drama vs. Full Party Control? As a note, drama should not exist for a purpose of itself. Characters should only leave when it is logical for them to do so. If anything, Imoen/Yoshi was a very heavy handed writing, and whole cutscene with protagonist just staring at NPCs moving their own plot was p. dumb.

Oh, strawman, my dear strawman. People are so determined to find you everywhere, you are probably long dead by hiccups. We're talking about IE successor with megadungeon in it, right? (Not that minigames worked well in any other genre exept adventure games; just remembering ME, F3, TES and so on makes me want to take that man who designed lockpicking **** for an open world game with hundreds of doors and chest AND STRANGLE HIM WITH HIS OWN INCESTIESASAFSDAFSF!---) Sure! That's certantly a way t--.. ..-- ... ..... ....... O_o