rjshae

That sounds like it would work for a roll-to-succeed system, but doesn't PoE run more on a X level of skill Y needed system? I.e. if it's a skill check for level 5 and you've got 4, you'll fail 100% of the time, but with 5 or more you'll succeed 100% of the time? You could still simulate it by selecting an appropriate skill range and using that to compute a failure %. Ex: use skill range 20 to compute odds. Character skill level 4: (20-4)/20 = .8; two skill level 4's: .8 x .8 = .64 = (20 - 7.2)/20; thus equivalent to skill level 7.

collaborative checks sounds bad - idiots with low "lore" can't figure out complicated task - even if there are 6 of them. At least thats my way of looking at this ... Collaborative effort is how a lot of scholarly teams work these days. Everybody brings different strengths to the effort, so the whole is stronger than all the individual contributors working separately. It's not unrealistic to do it this way. With a computer it's easy enough to figure out the effective odds of a skill check with multiple contributors. Just figure out the odds of them all simultaneously failing the check (which is the product of their individual failure odds), then subtract it from 100%. Your high skill character is still going to dominate the odds, but they will receive a small bump from the others.

Well there's no Space Opera on the poll, so that makes the outcome meaningless.

I'm guessing a single player cRPG, there's already a Pathfinder MMORPG project. He is working on The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game that we announced last year. Thanks.

The Hawks also have kind of a mediocre O-line. So, even with Marshawn Lynch, an inside run play against a goal-line defense wasn't anything like a sure thing.

I'm guessing a single player cRPG, there's already a Pathfinder MMORPG project.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/196697/conspiracy-theory-surrounding-seahawks-last-play# Apparently I'm not the only one who thought that might be it. It does sound pretty crazy, but I had the same question when the 49ers were a few yards away from scoring two years ago and tried to hit Crabtree in the same spot 4 times, despite the fact they had run it very well. It's like they were trying to choose who to make the hero instead of going for the best plays. Based on watching them the last three seasons, I did not have that impression; it seemed like a pretty typical work day for Marshawn, and the Seahawks coaches have done that before--putting in a different play when it seems like the ideal opportunity to hand it off to Lynch. In many cases, though, it has worked out.

A powerful modder's toolkit.

Perhaps that can be made an option for backers? But it might be too late for that anyway.

An established vendor probably has the means to obtain a certain amount of additional gold as needed, so the removal of that limitation is not completely unrealistic. It just skips a step in the economic cycle so you don't have to wait for the shopkeep to run down the street to obtain more money.

you know, all the "muh immersion" stuff everyone suggests in the long run detract from the game making it tedious. it looks realistic if the maimed character is limping behind the rest, but after a while you will be tired of it since he will be slowing down the entire pace of the game. you have a maimed character and want to go to the inn? if he is limping it will take twice as long to get there for no real reason and after a few times it will get to be a boring chore and you will wish they had not included it Mmm, I only suggested an interval of discomfort and groaning while recovering in the aftermath of a battle. How did you translate that into an endless trial of slow, limping characters? Apparently you're reading additional meaning into my suggestion.

It would help with the immersion if downed party members looked like they were in pain while recovering, and perhaps groaning and grumbling.

Mechanic sounds much too modern; perhaps adramancer? Or you could just use tinker or artificer.

^^^ I think you'd need to have a theory of contagion to understand that is even a suitable tactic. I've read that siege warfare tactics included tossing diseased cattle into a fort in the hope of killing people, but I'm not sure that would translate into knowing that coating arrow heads in the mouths of Kimodo Dragons could infect people. In the middle ages, the miasma theory held sway instead, and it was used as recently as the 19th century to explain epidemics.

But there's something to be said for vintage cars... even if they don't have a/c, heaters in the seats, or airbags.

Aww... A group hug thread. Aww... Well, apart from everybody on my ignore list.

I can understand companies wanting to milk that particular cow; it's a good way to fund indie gaming and to engage with the player fans. Just as long as they don't start trying to milk the bull...

The drawback of limiting pickpocketing to scripted behavior is that it does not encourage creative approaches. There's no emergent game play, just a choose your path adventure book.

It'd be interesting to have a game system designed around the use of cheat codes. For example, earn karma points and use those to enable specific minor cheats, or one-time major cheats. Kind of like the old Luck Points from WFRP.

Once you've run out of you tube to watch, it's time to turn to your inner tube... and do some rafting.

That's where proper level design comes in. Is it? I'm not so sure. Do you balance those specific battles with the powerful elemental in mind? In which case you either have that capability or you probably don't win the battle. It seems too asymmetrical for proper design. I suppose you could create two paths to the solution; one that requires the powerful elemental for a brief battle, or the alternative that takes longer and involves more battles.