Knott

Actually, having large bonuses that don't stack make this a lot easier. Are you wearing a strength item? Yes. What's the plus on it? +6. Well, this one is +7. Will I do more damage if I take off the +6 item and put on the +7 item? Yes. It's a very simple comparison. That works OKish under the presumption that most items only add one or two bonuses. With a wide spread and lots of bonuses comparing gets slower if you have to do everything manually. Easy as in anyonone can do it; yes. But easy as in quick to do and easy to read, still requires proper UI elements. In most newer UIs you can get popups of all the items on your screen, but you will also have a lot of useless information (in regards to doing the task we're talking about) along with it and you have to manually cross-reference things.

With itemization where most things don't stack, then we would also need an advanced UI to figure out what we have and what we have too much of in a more comprehensive manner than looking over every single piece over and over again. Trying to figure out if an item would be better than what you already have can already be a troublesome affair. Having to consider stacking is even more troublesome if there's no fast and easy way to see all your current bonuses. The middle option; many or few different kinds of bonuses, would entirely depend on the system. We obviously don't want too many or make it too complicated to the point where we have lots of bonuses we don't really understand or have the slightest ability to compare to other types of bonuses. Example: Comparing the usefulness of +HP to +Mana is usually easy, but comparing +'weapon speed' to +'weapon damage' will need those factors and connected calculations to be visible in the interface.

As is concluded in the end of that video:

Let's see... I count several shields in various forms. And just a single count on people who are displeased with it. Besides, people who dislike seing signatures can disable them in their profile-preferences. Its even possible to disable specific users' signatures without resorting to completely ignoring them.

This should really depend on how far Obsidian plans ahead. How many sequels will the character from the first game be the main protagonist? In the last game the character takes part in he/she should be an awsome legend at the end of the game. (But that doesn't mean there shall be no challenge of course)

Its a technique that puts a statement to the extreme edge in order to shed light on a valid point. Clearly the sarcasm was lost on you. The point is that a "get-better-by-doing"-system is always flawed by design. Mostly because they are made with a half-assed effort. They will always lead to grinding and exploitation, neither of which are any fun. We end up with arbitrary and repetitive points of increase opportunities. The opportunities to increase will not be evenly spread out. Sometimes chances will be random, sometimes hardcoded for a set event. Some skills will be easy to find opportunities for and can be repeated for increased effect, while other skills will be frustratingly rare and unrepeateble. The man-hours, coordination and discipline required to make such a system on a large scale in a game with hours of gameplay; will ultimately be an immense waste of resources when the alternative is simply more fun!

Yeah, grinding the same button over and over again is about as entertaining as watching paint dry. I want progress in the story and entertainment, not spending two real-life hours hiding from sleeping hobos until my skill is high enough to advance the story.

As long as it makes sense, I'm not against it.

If you want to see the sky then the better solution in this game format would be for an artist to create vast, beautiful vistas that you can admire during f.ex. longer narrations and loading screens

The most important part of the companions is their stories and personalities. So I would like to be able to customize the companions' abilities so that favourites can be brought along because you made them fit to your party composition and your preffered party tactics.

If you look at Obsidian's kickstarter profile you can see that they've already begun to support other projects, so its a moot point to argue about this.

Stop being polluted by all the bad tutorials you have experienced before, Watch this: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/tutorials-101 And then demand that the tutorial shall be High Quality! Also the rest of the Extra Credits team's videos are a great view to any aspiring developer.

If when you get an increase you get the same amount of points to all pool, then it would work fine. The concern perhaps is with people who have a very rigid way of thinking would argue that you shouldn't get points to all pools when the things you did prior to getting the points revolved mostly around a single gameplay aspect. It would the perhaps be easer to use "levels" or a "level-like" system. In which your xp goes to a bar, and when it fills up you get a set number of points in all your aspects. The free-form "skill-based"-system could divide a character's abilities into different aspects, not just Two; combat and non-combat. Some aspects could be simply numerical values you increase, some could be general abilities to select and some could even be a form of ability-tree. A "Background"-aspect would certainly have a part during CharGen.

Thank you!

Classes come with a lot of baggage. Pathfinder did a lot of good things to aleviate this by offering a lot of cunstomization. But that massive list of options is not really conceivable in a computer game of this scale. It would in fact simply be easier to drop the use of class and simply make a system that is flexible to begin with without starting with limiting lables. And for those who need inspiration/frameworks; there will of course be pre-generated characters. As for an example of class baggage: The Ranger The stereotype most people will limit their imaginations with is that the ranger should either dual-wield or use bow and arrow. Some will also expect them to have animal comapanions or even a little bit of magic. The fighting-style limitation is perhaps the worst straight jacket here.

I just love the bold choices and ambitions presented in this update! I can only hope you can be even more bold and rid yourselves of the shackles and straight jackets called "Class" and even "level".

Och..! 4E... I remember the April Fools charSheet they released the same year 4E would be released. At release I was horrified to see that the joke wasn't actually that far from the final product. As for Update #7: Not giving xp for kills is a very bold move, but I absolutely approve!

No "classes" and no "levels", would be the way to go in my opinion. All the narrative benefits of class can be replaced in most free-form systems by hooking on to different selected aspects and adding a comprehensive "background"-section to the character creation.

So if you're not there to baybysit everyone, then they should die? Reffering to update#7, there will be no xp for killing things, only for completing goals/quests. So there is always a plausability for people to level. And besides, balancing companion levels will be better for your options so that people who enjoy switching around their party composition can do so without annoyances.

Even in table top games mounts never really amounts to anything more than a novelty that carries you or your loot overland. They become too cumbersome to take into certain areas and terrains and if only one player character is any good at mounted combat, then its usually a waste of xp. Mounts can be really awsome though, if the campaign itself revolves around them. A full party of mounted heroes in a story driven by the elements that makes mounts fun and interesting is quite rewarding. Such a campaign will be refreshingly different from ye olde dungeon crawl. A and C

Oh, I would just love it if this project could attain a lavish art budget!

An adventuring party of several houndred? It will perhaps be more likely that the "Obsidian Order" is reffered to in the lore of the game. If it won't become an actual in-game faction that makes a little cameo or something.

Well, "in spirit" lefties have been included in almost all RPGs. Historically though, Latin for left = sinistre, which created the prejudice superstition that laft-handed people were sinister people and in league with the devil. In such all villains are left-handed. j/k But yeah, having to create a double set of animations would be a wasteful allocation of resources for something that would just be a gimmick.

Heh, one of my many memories from BG2 was that in some areas there was plenty of ambient sound reminiscent of a lively and flourishing city, but on the screen the populance was as scarce and lively as the downtown of Nowhere on a rain heavy sunday.

Obsidian have done a lot of other games, and have already done some pre-production on this project. So they should have some cash laying around, but the scope of how much of that they are willing to risk ultimately depends on the success of this Kickstarter. Even taking up a loan would be plausible if they are realistic about what they can expect from post-launch sales. (Though, loaning-terms in the US are very unforgiving and a soulless affair) AAA Games usually have a lot of cost ascosiated with marketing, but also with hiring a lot of external help from expensive/renowned contributors. And sometimes simply adding more money will exponentially increase costs even though the effects will be diminishing. The cost/result ratio will entirely depend on good management.