TrashMan

This is something I've been seeing more nad more in the world recently. In the efforts to enforce "proper" behavior and morals, the politcal correctness crusader become worse than the monsters they are fighting for. In todays news, Obama was branded as sexist becaue he complemented one female judge, and besides mentioning her being hard-working and all, also mentioned he was good-looking. And s*** hit the fan immediately. Apparenlty we live in a word where you can't even compliment someone without a bunch of MORONS overreacting. I weep for humanity.

To mess with you. What I am saying is that franchise is loved by people because of X. It becomes known for X. X is expected. Turning it around is bound to rub many people the wrong way - as you are abandoning the roots and what makes the franchinse/character what it is. Just take a look at the more experimental re-imaginings of Batman and Superman. And Sonic? Yeah, it's a perfect example of things gone horribly wrong. Nothing worse that a simple, cartoony, carefree game suddenly trying to go all dark, and hip and edgy. But history repeats itselfs. It's full of games, movies and cartoons that tried to include everything considered "mature" and "trendy" at the time, resuling in horriblness.

What I don't get is how anyone thought it was a good idea to begin with? I mean..really!? The "Dark and edgy" angle? Atmosphere exist for a reason. People like stuff for a reason. Compeltely flipping the atmosphere of an established character/franchise is just moronic. If I go watch MLP I'm not doing it for darkenss and gallons of blood, but for friendship and magic. If I'm watching Berserk I'm not doing it for friendship and magic. If I'm watching Buggs bunny, it's for cartoony comedy and not for Sheakspearian drama. Just at whom are these complete reversals targeted? They sound more like bad fan-fics or bad thought experiments.. ... Altough I do admit, I might actually be interested in a MLP/Berserk crossover, simply to see pony blood.

I honestly find I don't give a damn anymore. I don't really care about covers and I want people to just make game for the love of it and I'm again ANY pressure to try to influence them to do X/Y. I really couldn't care less what your agenda is or what your goals are - wether you want to incite homophobia/sexism/racism/religiophobia or fight against it.... I don't care. Let the poeple create the games they want. If they suck or I disagree with it I won't buy it, if I like it I will. Simple. We live in a day and age where everoyne LOVES to play victim and point fingers and is easy to offend and at hte same time completely uncaring on whom he offends. People need to start growing some backbone and stop gettnig offended over everything and in other peopels names. Free speech and tolerance cannot exist if you only tolerate people you agree with, regardless of criteria. In other words, tolerating "intolerant" and "evil, stupid" people (from a certain point of view) is the price of freedom of speech.

Ahh..the classic "unintended consequences" scenario. Basicly you introduce X into the setting because it's cool and you like application Y of it....but you didn't think it trough and failed to notice a rather obvious applciation Z and Q that people would use...and that makes a mockery of the setting Like for example, introducting replicators into your setting because it's cool for your hereos to generate bullets on demand.... yet kinda forget that replicators would make economy totally poinltess. It causes a rise of "why didn't they use X or do Y if they could do A or had acess to B"? Basicly creates a completely illogical setting with people runing around with idiot balls.

Start with general and more towards more specific. Each class can use every weapon (but IIRC, with a penalty?) then on top of tha you get: First tier - general proficiency/style: two-handed, one-handed, shield + weapon, dual weapon, etc.... Second tier, specialization: Two-handed: polarms, two-handed swords, two-handed axes, spears One handed: swords, axs, hammers/maces, flails, etc... Shield+weapon: large shields, small shields Third tier, familiarity/focus: Two-handed; two-handed swords: claymore, zweihander, flambarge, etc... Two-handed; polearms: pike, halberd, godendag, etc... Shield+weapon; large shield: tower shield, kite shield, spiked fortress shield, etc...

That bridge/area even kinda looks like the one from the PE screenshot...

I always considered weapon proficiency to be basic knowledge/weapon training. Basicly moves/counter-moves, blocks...things and competent fighter should know. This is the type of knowledge you can apply to every weapon of the same type...and even when fighting agasint someone with that weapon.* High-guard works with every sword (or at least is should). Familiarity is more of a experience with a single weapon. It's weight..it's balance. You get better at performing those specific moves with it. * this should actually be in. Get a bonus against opponents using a wepon you're familiar/trained with. Another thing that would give fighters an edge over mages.

Yeah, there is nothing to master in regards to slippers.... And bonuses for weapon type - that's basicly weapon proficiencies...specializations. They are general training, while familiarity is more specific. Best not let them on eachothers turf.

Ya know I'm kinda similar. I do tend to get hung up over details and talk about little things within the context of a big thing...sometimes exiting the context. And while you are right that the simplest solution is to not implement X if X might cause trouble (in this case, to-hit enchantment), from a lore perspective you'd still have to explain why they aren't possible at all (just as you would have to explain why they are more difficult). I guess "magic just can't do that" is an explanation, but when magic cna do tons of other mazing things, it becomes harder to accept. Either way, wether such an approach would be pruedent depends entirely on the goal of a developer. If the developer likes X..... well...

It might. If people have actual vision cones and not 360° views. Also assuming skills like stealth and camuflage. (I'd expect hiding in a bush would give a HUGE camuflage/stealth bonus) Basicly, stalkers can come from behind..especially if your party is on the move

Never a reason to change lore? Ideally you wouldn't want to, but games are built on gameplay (mechanics), lore is a nice bonus. If you just want pure lore, you read a book. Especially if you are deep in development, chaning lore might be simpler or easier than chaning the mechanics. Or vice-versa. And the question is what is the CORE mechanics/vision? Is enchantment scale one of hte things you already had pre-planned, or was it flexible to bein with? Any why wouldn't you change them? Maybe your initial idea sounded good on paper, but is horrible in practice. Would a change make lore better or worse? What we are talking about is so heavily subjective, that telling me that "change X is bad" simply has no practical value. Ultimatively it's the result that matters. If the developers were to implement familiarity mechanics because a pink flying unicorn told them in their sleep, as opposed as a product of carefull planing, it would make no difference to me. Ya know, maybe we should stop agreeing and drag this thread on an on without having an actual conflict? We need actual conflict. *slaps with a glove* "Thou, Sir, art a excrement flinging simion!"

Of course it isn't. But the impact of it is VASTLY overblown. DiD has it's place as a trope. And the reason I don't like her is because she has already been doing YouTube videos. She already had everything she needed. So funding for her project was really unnecessary.... A better camera? Unnecessary. Make-up artist? Unnecessary? If people want to give her money, I'm not gonna stop them, altough I do find it funny that people gave her money so she can basicly buy a ton of games. Not to mention that what I have seen of her show was rather boring, and some of her examples and arguments were atotal miss. Maybe she improved the quality of the show with the money, I wouldn't know as I don't watch it. And in the end it depends little on how I said it. (I sure as hell didn't spread around hatered of women or male superiority) Disliking a you tuber doesn't constitute as racism by any strethch of immagination. I'm getting sick and tired of the Political Correctness Inquisition hunting down immaginary monsters.

Ahh...this thread again. I am personally not impressed at all with the show or Sarkeesian. Can you believe I got banned from another forum becuse I said I didn't like the show? Apparently it's racism if you think her money-grabbing was unnecessary and...immoral? "HAY! I make YouTube videos. Gime money so I can make more Youtube videos." Hey, you know what's funny? On that other forum, some poeple actually claimed that using the Damsel in Distress trope is brainwashing/conditioning people to look at women as inferior. You know..kinda like games condition us to be bloodthirsty killers.

Well, 40K psykers are a LOT more powerfull. IIRC, lore-wise, a powerfull psyker that becomes possesed can doom a PLANET. But in 40K there are training regimes and devices and wards that help fight demonic influence. Dragon Age doesn't have that. And you are right - it's easier to portray extreemes. But they did a good job in DA:O, why have they frakked it up so much? You had Connor -a child that almost destroyed an entire town - that was an excellent example of the danger mages present. Yeah, power-hungry mages that abuse blood-magic left and right ARE a danger and problen, but the bigger danger comes from normal, good mages, since they can abuse their power, fall to temptation or possesion too. That is what DA2 failed to show properly. It also failed to show abominations as dangerous. Also, DA:O had a better portrayl of templars too. Gregoir was good example of a fair templar, even if he did call for Annulment.

@Bonecrusher: Hell, if I was Elminster with all those epic levels and spells, I'd be taking strolls in hell myself.

Okay, obviously creating magic rules that fit your mechanics can be silly/bad. Therefore, all I'm getting at is that you need to keep it reasonable. You have to establish SOME world/lore/setting that goes hand-in-hand with the mechanics, like you said. But, they also both have to make sense, individually. The lore/world has to be a quality, interesting world. AND, the mechanics have to be functional and complexly interesting. AND, the two have to work together. Precisely. And the "accuracy enchantments are harder to do" can make perfect sense and be a good part of lore. Exceptions prove the rule and RL is filled with examples, so I dont' see how it would make the setting less believable. As for why it is harder? Maybe because the sword has to affect the wielder, hence the enchantment has to expand beyond the sword itself. Come to think of it, any enchantment who's target isn't the sword might be harder (and thus have a lower max). Enchant a sword to be sharper - not too hard, since it is focused on the sword. Enchant it to erupt in fire? - again, same thing. It's the sword that is on fire, enemy burning is a side-effect Want a sword to shield you from magic? Harder to do as it has to affect you entirely, so the enchantment will be lower. Enchant a sword to cut trough/block magic - easier, as only the sword is affected. If you don't get the difference, the second case would be the fighter having to actively try to cut/block incoming magic missiles, lighting bolts or fireballs to dispell them. The first would be having a magical resistance aura. Actually, this might make legendary items interesting, as they can overcome those restrictions. No mage or smith can make a sword with more than +2 to hit, but that legenday sword of seeking? +4 baby! Well, I didn't establish a world with massive to-hit bonuses and then gone on to change that...now did I? B.t.w. - severly limited magical healing is BOTH a lore and mechanics decision. You really can't tell what went trough the minds of the Devs and how they've gone around making it. So the exact scenario you describe may have happened. At the end of the day, making a game is a iterative process - games inevitably change from their inital concepts and ideas are tested and develpoment goes on. The "Purity of Lore" is in realtiy unnatainable as you never have unlimited time or funding, nor inital perfect ideas. Lore WILL be changed or ignored to accomodate balance and mechanics in at least some places. It is inevitable.

About the whole "without unique powers/skills, characters have no purpose. Can't have a RPG without those" No. Unique powers are cool and all, but not a necessity. There is nothing that has to be inherently unique. Character can fill roles they are built for...and roles are defined by your need and what you want. So let's for an example take a classless system where anyone can pick any skill - you'll stil end up with roles. Someones playstlye and skill choice will gravitate towards melee fighting, others ranged. Some towards utility, etc.. Some may be jack of all trades who are there to fill in any gaps. It doesn't have to be decreed from on high that character X does Y and only Y.

I beg to differ. In the "game" (aka combat, being abstracted, maybe even turn-based, etc.), you don't go around getting perfectly clean sword stabs to the gut. The HP/damage system's sole purpose is to abstractly quantify the effectiveness of concrete actions and details in your game world. So, yes, the world doesn't have HP, but it has single sword stabs to the gut that kill men. Therefore, for your "game" to be suggesting you're stabbing a guy in the gut with a sword, and he's simply not dying, when he would have in the "world," would mean that the game is simultaneously tallying 100% of his health as damage from the sword attack AND less-than-100% damage from the sword attack. I beg to differ too. If you're landing critical hits, doing mechanicly max posible damage with a weapon, what does that mean? Of course it is different from game to game, and oyu have some where characters have 100000 HP and the most damage you can do is 100. Mechanics aren't always ment to mirror lore. Games aren't setting in of themselves. A setting first and foremost forms in the mind of the creator/writer...and is consequently adjusted to fit the medium in question. There are a million of examples where the same setting feels compeltely different in different formats (game, novel, comic book). So criting someone on the head with a two-handed axe and they still continuing the fight - yes, silly design. Creating magic rules that fit your mechanics? Not. Becuase magic isn't pre-defined nor has any comparison in real life. As long as the rules are internaly consistent and make sense, everything is fine.

Hm...insanity wolf? Or courage wolf?

While animals aren't dumb, they wouldn't judge a group by their gear, but rather numbers/size.. unless they are really smart animals with prior experience when encountering armed humans....but in that case any sword or weapon would raise their alarm bells. Frankly, I want any enemy group to act and fight according to who they are. Developers making te AI should think about how these creatures would fight. What are their weapons? Their advantages? Do they have rudimentary inthelligence? Organization?

Game systems can have any number of explanations, or none at all. Perhaps because one can't see the heart. Perhaps because it is more firmly embedded in the chest than a hand is attached to an arm. Perhaps for some nebulous reason involving the person's body more strongly resisting attacks against more vital organs. Perhaps because 'game balance'. Also I'm really not sure what your second sentence has to do with this particular conversation arc given that the example had rather specific limitations. Waht doesn't it have to do? Implications of magic have to be seriously considered in order for a world to be truly believable. And while you can invent any explanation, not all are good nor make much sense (and again require you to be consistent). Take for example the "you can't see the heart". Fine. But I can see the head. So why not rip the head off insted of the arm? So as you can see, you have to pay attention to explanations and the workings of magic.

Don't explain everything. The world should be there to be explored and it should have some misteries left in it.