rjshae

Personally I'm interested to see how this approach will work out. Pretty much every other RPG-style game out there rewards slaughter for its own sake. How well will it function now that the reward system has significantly changed?

Nope. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Nope.

Hmm, here's a zinger then: what would happen if the PC has a relationship with one of the companions, then a couple of levels later it is discovered the companion (or the PC) is pregnant? Deny everything and move to a new continent? Edit: On a more serious note, it is a situation that *could* be put to good use by a good writer. How it plays out and if you actually end up having to support somebody is not a given. Quite so. Of course, it does rather significantly fork the main plot. The writers would either have to arrange an unfortunate short-term resolution, or else insert a lengthy time break while the couple takes care of the child.

Excellent! Plus they are at three times the initial goal.

Hmm, here's a zinger then: what would happen if the PC has a relationship with one of the companions, then a couple of levels later it is discovered the companion (or the PC) is pregnant?

The two approaches (XP for monsters vs. missions) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the designers want to allow XP reward for vanilla monster-slaying behavior, they can always implement bounties as side quests. Alchemists will want the extracts from certain creatures; merchants for bandit scalps; village elders for getting rid of orc raiders, &c. The players would just need to be a little more patient about receiving their XP.

It was mentioned that nothing is set in stone yet, so we'll see. Definitely a good idea for the developers to create and maintain a consistent philosophy to the game though.

Yes, the game would need a mechanic that allows you to capture, hold, and transport prisoners. I think you should have to move them cross-country and deal with the consequences. You would also need a way to work with the slavers guild, since they won't necessarily like the competition. Apart from the mechanical issues of implementation, though, I don't think slaving by the PCs needs to be included unless it is a necessary part of the main plot.

They're obviously not going to show sex scenes, but perhaps a watercolor bedroom illustration with a little sonnet from the bard would do? Gives the mood at least.

Yep. It'd be good if this discussion were held in a different thread.

I can live with it, as it were. I never used resurrection spells in a game anyway. Not when you can quickload.

How much XP do you get for handbags at 10 paces?

I know a surge was expected toward the end, but the rate of increase over the past couple of days has been tremendously impressive.

I was hoping they would exert some editorial control and not allow silly names or out-of-context characters. Some people can't resist that sort of awkwardness, so I expect a few "Sir Thomas Furball Cookienose" type oddball NPCs.

I wouldn't say it's dumb; it's just a different design approach with different player incentives. But I'm not sure why you wouldn't get at least some combat experience from a battle, at least for the first few times you fight a particular beastie. Shrug.

The combination of rare healing and a lack of XP for killing monsters provides a strong player incentive to resolve problems without combat. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Sure, I could be apply some strict self-control and not reload saves when I get a bad roll, but that's missing the point. The point is that the mechanic isn't well suited for computer games, and could be replaced with something better. It was originally designed back when all you had were a handful of dice, and in some cases a deck of cards in place of random events. The alternative is what? Player-skill-based minigames? Always succeeding when you pick some option in a dialogue? If you're at skill rank X you fail, at X+1 you succeed? Life is a crap shoot and you usually don't always know all the variables. Random seems fine to me.

I'm a little iffy about all this clamoring for making healing rare. It will have other consequences for the game that the same people may not like quite so much. I guess we'll see...

I suspect that will also mean the encounters will require more careful balancing. If the party is in over their head in expert mode then the game is basically over. That's usually not a good thing.

Yep, I remember that. There's a lion pride that specializes in taking down elephants. Some will also go after giraffes, which is dangerous work since a giraffe kick can cave in a chest.

Once you're passed out I'm guessing you'll be helpless and further attacks will go directly to health. At least that is how it works in similar PnP RPG systems like HERO/Champions. Since stamina has a recovery rate, I'd think that will continue to run even if you are passed out.

Thanks, that is an interesting update. I really like the split attribute approach to health; it addresses a lot of the defects of the old hit point system. I hope the developers also decide to include hit locations so we can have more variety in armor components (instead of boring old 'leather armor', for example). The update makes it sound like disease will be a lot more dangerous than in standard D&D. 'Ware Mummies!

I'm sort of expecting something like the Dragon Age/Drakensang systems where there are specific modes and maneuvers fighters can use. It didn't seem that onerous to just activate those when the circumstances seemed opportune, or else you just let the AI handle it.

Didn't the old AD&D-based IE games used different XP scales for different classes? That led to some scatter in when characters would level up. For newer systems it tends to happen all at once. At 60 hours of game play and 12 levels, that's 1 party level per 5 hours. Personally, I can live with that. There will be plenty of other things to keep us occupied.