Caerdon

What, you're afraid your female warrior doesn't comform to the modern western criteria for physical attractiveness? Whenever you're representing a person's capabilities with just six attributes, those attributes by necessity represent rather high-level concepts. Strength as an attribute refers to more than just raw physical strength. It also represents your skill of applying your physical strength in an optimal manner so that you can intuitively take advantage of such concepts as leverage and momentum, even if you don't understand or be aware of those things at an intellectual level. It represents your skill in coordinating your body as a whole so you get the most out of it and can use your physical strengh in a manner that suits your needs (explosively, for example). And so on. Attributes are abstractions. If two characters have the same value for strength it doesn't mean they have the same amount of muscles. It just means that they are, on average, equally good at applying strength and generating and manipulating physical force. They don't have to use strength in the same manner; one of them might excel at "brute strength", the other at "smart strength". Of course, anyone with max strength is going to be rather well built. But not necessarily a mountain of meat.

I would assume the stat affecting damage is Might/Power, and I would be perfectly OK with all damage governed by a single stat, as long as the game can be balanced so that it doesn't make this stat too important compared to the others. When there are only six attributes that represent the entirety of a person, each attribute by necessity has to be a combination of several aspects we would ordinarily consider unrelated or independent of each other. For this reason I find Might or Power better names for the stat than Strength, they are more abstract and make it clear they refer to more than just plain physical strength.

The thing is that, at least in our real-life history, the overwhelming majority of weapons were made for the average soldier. Heavy weapons that only a very strong person could use were almost never used in battle. "Massive" axes and swords never really existed, except for ceremonial purposes. (Bows are really the only exception to that, they were made with a wide range of draw weights.) For this reason it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a strength requirement for most weapons - a better solution would be to make strength matter with weapons in the first place, affecting things like attack speed, damage, accuracy, stagger/disarm chance etc.

The idea that strength (in real world) doesn't affect weapon damage is just plain silly. Sure, precision cutting and piercing weapons like a rapier can do well withouth a lot of force behind a strike, especially against an unarmoured opponent, but strenght is still definitely a factor. On the other hand, there are a plethora of weapons that benefit hugely from increased strenght: maces, clubs, war hammers, axes, halberds, quarterstaffs, spears, glaives, javelins, bows. In fact, if there was one weapon type where it would make sense for every individual weapon to have a specific minimum strength requirement, that would be bows. That said, do I have a problem with a game mechanic where damage is determined by intellect instead of strength? Not really, if it leads to good gameplay. Still, I think strenght should be a factor with most weapons, and not just melee weapons. It could also be a factor when determining how much proctection you get from using a shield (and I hope we'll see much more shields than dual-wielding soldiers in this game).

It'd be fun if one of the potential party members was an OCD character that'd automatically keep his own inventory perfectly organized, no matter how much you move his stuff around...

Speaking from martial arts experience, tripping is something you do when your opponent leaves himself vulnerable to it, which someone who is super awesome at swordplay never does. You can create the circumstances yourself, but it's very hard against someone who not clearly inferior in skill. Tripping would work just fine as a passive skill. It would happen more often when your opponent is lower in level/skill/dexterity/whatever than you and less often otherwise - and practically never if he's way above your level.

1. Friendly fire One thing that IE games lacked was simulation of terrain height differences. In reality archers would tend to pick spots where they can shoot over obstacles - but as that's not possible in this game, I think we just need to imagine that's what the archers in the game are doing. I think it'd be a mistake to implement a simple 2D collision detection based FF mechanic. FF is potentially a good idea though. I think the game should first wait for a "critical fumble" of sorts and then check if there's someone (a friend or enemy) close to the intended target or along the line of fire - not the other way around. That said, I'd hate it if FF is a major concern that's used to balance otherwise overpowered archers. At least I'd like my squad to have a good enough AI that they don't shoot each other - make them prefer targets that are safe to pick and side-step when someone gets in the way. 2. Environmental concerns While rain and foliage do make archery more difficult, they can also make actively avoiding arrows more difficult. It's hard to evade in time if it's hard to see the release of the arrow. And for obvious reasons a humid swamp would be deadly if you have no shield and you're facing an archer. (As an aside note: I hope the terrain type is a factor in this game.) But I do agree that blindness would make archery mostly useless and potentially dangerous to allies. 3. Aimed Shots/GUI Shots How much archers arch their shots depends only on the range of the enemy. That's how they aim for range. If you try to shoot an arrow at half speed you lose 75% of the kinetic energy and most of your accuracy.

Swooping is bad.

Summoning should be implemented very carefully. The summoner and his summons together still represent only one character in the party and their combined power should reflect that. If a summoner can conjure up five ogres to do his bidding, then what incentive is there to have a fighter in the party instead of just another summoner?

Your projecting your own ideas onto the game. The devs haven't said anything about "prana", skuldr detects souls. And "by definition"? That's pure conjecture. For all we know, skuldr could use its ability 1) to detect weak, sick and dying (or even recently passed away) souls that indicate an easy prey, and 2) to avoid dangerous creatures from afar without necessarily having to depend on camouflage or fighting.

you're right, that was Caerdon Don't put words in my mouth. I was saying the exact opposite: there are so many ways to tell characters apart without having to exaggerate the difference between male and female armor. Thanks a lot for linking those images, I should have thought of using them myself too. They demonstrate impeccably well how easy it is to tell a man and a woman apart from different physique alone, without having to make women wear special "breast plate". Yes, you understood my point perfectly.

It's not that heavy you know. It weigs less that most traveling backpacks I'm seeing some hikers use. And they walk from country to country. But if you are out travling, you probably wouldn't be going everywhere on foot either. If you can afford plate, you can afford a horse. Which is also another reason why in RL there are no accoutns of adventurer in plate. a) there is no RL equalent to adventurers b) if you can afford plate, you are rich allready, so you wouldn't bother trudging trough the woods in the first place Other way around. A Zweihander was probably more usefull as a personal weapon than it was in military formations. You need some room if you want to swing it. There's got to be a reason why it was a preferred weapon fo many bodyguard and banner guards. Also, you carry a shield over the backpack. It has a long strap. A) I never said plate armor is heavy. I know it's not nearly as heavy or cumbersome as many people think. And it distributes weight quite well across the whole body. Still, there are many reasons why an adventurer wouldn't want to wear one. For example: - you need both help and time to put it on and take it off (just for taking a leak...) - it requires a lot of maintenance (it's not made of stainless steel) - extremely inconvenient in harsh weather conditions In other words: it's exceedingly inconvenient. You wear one when it's your job to wear one or when you expect you're going to need it. Adventurers - as I understand the word - are not in constant, imminent danger. The vast majority of their time is spend far from a battle. B) Longsword evolved with plate armor when shield became less necessary and you needed the force of two hands to penetrate the opponent's armor (yeah, I'm simplyfying things, but that's the gist of it). In later times, Zweihänder was used in battle by Landsknechte and - yes - bodyguards and banner guards. Two-handed Claymore was used in the constant battling of the clans. None of those weapons are something an adventurer would carry with him for personal defense. They didn't generally even have scabbards - they're too big to be worn. You can wrap it in a cloth and add a strap for transport, but then you aren't exactly ready to use it. Like plate armor, they are something you have with you if it's your job to have a weapon constantly at hand or you know you're marching into battle. -- I was probably a little unclear in my original post. I didn't mean that an adventurer would never use plate armor or a two-handed sword. They might do that when they know they're entering an actual battle - just not when "adventuring". Of course, we all probably have a slightly different idea of what an "adventurer" really is - as you mentieoned, there is not real-life equivalent. Mine is mostly based on fantasy novels.

Xiphos was leaf-shaped because it was made of bronze; a leaf-shaped steel sword would be quite unsophisticated. Would it fit PE's world? I'm not sure. It guess it would be a weapon suitable for a militia with limited training.

*Nods*. Miss the point you did. I'll keep this brief (for once): A) I said you should be able to tell males from females, just as you should be able to tell males from males and females from females. In other words, to use your own line of interrogation, why should you be able to tell males from males and females from females, all wearing the same equipment, and not be able to tell males from females and females from males? B) I'd like to see you extract a quote from this thread, authored by me, in which I state that we should be able to tell females apart from males "by looking at their boobs." The discrepancy between what you're arguing against and what I posted might explain why you find "my" argument so strange. A) You raised the question on how tell, "at a glance", female party members from male party members. My whole point the entire time has been this: why is gender so important? Of course I want to be able to recognize my party members. But why is it particularly important to see the gender of a character (clad in a full plate armor!) at a glance? Do you still not understand what I'm saying? This is what you wrote: "Another point Obsidian brought up was that, if you've got a party of 6 warriors wearing full plate, and it all looks the same, how do you tell, at a glance, your female party members from your male party members?" That question implies that it's especially important to see a character's gender at a glance. I'm asking: why? B) You really don't get why I was referring to boobs? This thread is about female breastplates. In this context, what you wrote suggests that female armor should be more feminine in shape so we would be able to differentiate between female and male characters. My reference to boobs simply meant that it's not the shape of the breastplate (i.e. gender) that allows me to tell one character from another. Seriously, you should read that part again. I'm not saying that the physical characteristics due to gender aren't one of many traits that help you recognize a character. I'm also not saying that male and female armor shouldn't look different in the game. I'm just asking why is immediately recognizing a character's gender so important that it should affect the design of plate armors in the game? I've now asked the same question many times, in many forms. You have every right to keep not answering it, of course. And others are perfectly welcome to answer it, too.

Why is that even necessary? Why is gender such a defining trait that it's super important to tell a man from a woman at a glance? Why is it OK that you can't immediately tell two male party members from each other, yet confusing a man with a woman must never, ever happen - even if it would happen in real life? I dunno. You'll have to ask the player who's controlling you and 5 other people, in the game of Real Life, why he has full control over your every action, yet has to guess for a bit, select you, THEN go "Ohhhh, that's Tom... I wanted to select Cedric," then select someone else, just because you thought there was absolutely no reason for you to be easily discernable from one another. And you totally missed the point. You want to be able to tell two male party members apart, also (when did I say otherwise?). How do you do this? Based on their visual properties. Why is gender such a defining trait? I dunno. Ask genetics why it shaped female skeletons, muscle structures, and organs differently than male counterparts. I missed the point? I have nothing against women looking feminine or having specific female plate armor in the game. I simply find that argument strange. Let me recap: you brought up the example (made by Obsidian) of six warriors wearing plate armor, the question being how to tell the women apart from men. My point is: why is gender specifically so important? I want to be able to tell Tom from Cedric, not just to divide people into men and women. (Gender typically doesn't even affect gameplay, unlike traits like class and race.) There could be so many ways to differentiate bewteen two characters: physical size and build, color and style of clothing and armor, different equipment, different selection circles... So why is it so important to make the look of armor depend on gender? You said it yourself that male and female skeletons are different, so women wearing a plate male already look different from men wearing plate armor, likely being shorter and slenderer. So, to answer your original question: all my six wearers of plate armor are going to be using different weapons, they will be wearing different colors and they will have different physical builds. They might even wear different style of plate armor. That's how I tell them apart - not by looking at their boobs.

Why is that even necessary? Why is gender such a defining trait that it's super important to tell a man from a woman at a glance? Why is it OK that you can't immediately tell two male party members from each other, yet confusing a man with a woman must never, ever happen - even if it would happen in real life?

Yes, full plate armor worn by an "adventurer" is one of the most ridiculous things we see in fantasy games (and literature), and it's rarely questioned. Plate armor is an armor of war, and a traveller would never use one just for occasional protection. In fact, the same is true of some weapons. A large two-handed sword, for example, is something you only see in battle, no one carries one with him at all times. There's no way you can carry one with you comfortably yet be able to draw it quickly. And what about shields? Do you really carry one in your hand at all times? And if you strap it to your back, how do you carry all the other stuff you need to carry with you: bedroll, food, some extra clothes..? There's a lot to be said in favour of light armor and small weapons. Unfortunately it's difficult to model all their advantages in a game. P.S. Here's an interesting idea: make it impossible for a solo character to use a full plate armor. The fact is that you don't put that kind of armor on by yourself.

Historically most women used plate armor made for men, and they had no problem with it. A typical plate armor already has some extra room in the chest area because of the way it was designed to deflect attacks to the sides, and if that wasn't enough, you could always go for "one size larger". There's a lot of padding worn underneath anyway, that's going to make up for most of the differences between male and female body types. In other words: while armor was generally made for men, it was essentially unisex in design. That said, if female warriors are reasonably common in the world of PE, there will be armor made specifically for them. That's especially true if the armor in that world is more close-fitting than ours, which is certainly possible, as the world has its own history. Cadegund's armor looks good in more ways than one (although the abdominal area probably should be more protected). While I find the typical female "breast plate" armor silly, there's no reason why an armor made for women could not - or should not - have some accentuated female characteristics. Armor was primarily made to be practical and functional, but often it was also made to impress. Some armors in our world had vastly exaggerated codpieces. In PE, it could be perfectly reasonable for a noblewoman to wear an armor designed to emphasize her beauty and femininity - as long as it doesn't affect its functionality too much. We shouldn't forget the importance of culture.

Maybe all melee warriors should have a Zone Of Control which hampers the movement of enemies? And why not a skill that makes ZOC larger and/or more effective? An another skill that helps you ignore enemy ZOC to some degree? I don't know if ZOC has ever been implemented in a real-time-with-pause game, but there's not reason why it couldn't be made to work just fine.

Yeah, I'm starting to get that. Come on guys, what do you expect? I'm the Black Sheep of the Obsidian Order, after all.

(EDIT: Just to make it clear, this is addressed to metiman) Whoah! I was expecting strong reactions, but nothing that dramatic. Forces of evil, huh? So, let me get this straight: because I defend RTwP when it's represented unfairly in a biased essay, I'm now an enemy of intellectual games everywhere? Riiight. I assume you're an intelligent guy (you play intellectually oriented games, after all), so maybe we could actually discuss some specific things that I wrote that bug you? Well, you did quote me once, so I'm going to address that one: I wrote: "Yes, it's all about the definition. You're defining RT games as non-tactical." You wrote: "The idea of real time combat without built in pause mechanics being tactical is ridiculous." Firstly: I'm not advocating RT systems without pause. The OP was about RTwP. I simply used RT to refer to that, because that was the topic. Sorry for the confusion. Secondly: Your claim is undeniably false. Why? Because real combat is both real-time and without pause - and it's most definitely tactical. Also, you wrote: "There can be no debate about whether turn-based is a more strategic style of gameplay. It is that pretty much by definition." Yes, there can be, and that was largely the reason for my original post (and the definition of "turn-based" has nothing to do with how strategic the game is). I'm not saying that RTwP is more strategic than TB (or vice-versa). I'm saying there are completely valid arguments for both sides - i.e. the issue is very much debatable.

Dear OP, That is a very biased look into the whole turn-based/real-time question. You've just defined tactics so that TB systems appear 'deeper' and more tactical. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your essay is far from objective. Let's have a look at some of the things you've written: Tactics as positioning units and queuing actions for an event. For starters, that's an incredibly limited definition for tactics. I am not going to use that definition. Round: When a game is NOT turn based then every unit takes a certain amount of time to finish its action. If all actions available to the unit are made to take the same time and simultaneous actions are allowed for multiple players, we call such an action a Round. A completely useless concept. It might be relevant when talking about IE games, but here we're discussing things in general, right? Games that focus on tactical combat require certain amount of 'consideration time' before action is taken. Thus, it makes sense to choose a time-keeping device for a game with respect to the number of tactical decisions available and the depth of such decisions. i.e. If the characters in the game under the player control can take a large number of possible actions and the same holds for the enemy then it makes sense to choose a time-keeping system that allows larger consideration times. Now, this here is purely your opinion. It's true that tactical combat requires some 'consideration time', but that doesn't mean that more consideration time is better. You have consideration time even in RT with no pause systems. You just have to be quick. And you know what? Making fast decisions is part of tactics - and if you don't agree with that, at least you should agree that you can have strategies for quick decision-making. For example, "a quick decision is better than the right decision" is a strategy. Computers by default are always faster than the player. If in a continuous time keeping system with deterministic mechanics, such as Round based or AT based, the computer is given free reign, the player will NEVER win. Thus difficulty for these games is always artificial, in the sense that evenly matched characters in the game will always be biased towards computer victory. In evenly matched turn based games, where the results of actions are purely deterministic, the game will always have a fixed outcome (if there is no starting move bias) of draw if the player is an expert. Otherwise the computer will always win. Only in a game which has mechanics with random component to it, can a player have a chance to win. You have some really weird ideas on how AIs work. Very sophisticated AIs can't even win 100% of the time in Chess, where the number of possible actions at any given time is very limited. Creating an AI that can challenge a human player in the kind of RPGs that we're talking about is exceedingly difficult. There's absolutely no need to purposefully make the AI any dumber than it is. For a well designed game TB system automatically implies deep mechanics. Nicely put. I'd like to add that for a well designed game RT system also automatically implies deep mechanics. Also, for a badly designed game neither TB nor RT system imply deep mechanics. This is a two way necessity (TB <-> Deep Mechanics) since if the developer wants to provide deep mechanics to the player, he should also allow the player the time to consider them. Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game. This again. You know, we have this concept know as planning. It's very useful in tactical games - especially in those that don't allow you to spend as much time as you like (or need) pondering your every single move. Planning can be done on many levels: for example, you can plan your movements and actions, you can plan how you will react to different situations you will face on the battlefield and you can plan how you will act when things get too heated and they won't go as planned. It's a completely valid argument to say that this makes RT systems more tactical - precisely because you don't have as much time to think, so preparing and planning is more important. It now makes sense to state that games with large number of party members require a closer attention when each member has a large array of options. Since a battle is dynamic with the enemy also strategizing it is important to adopt to the situation. Now with larger and larger number of teammates it is progressive harder to maintain control of all actions. A game that has so many options but does not require you to use them is of course badly designed since its RS is too high for non-casual games. One significant tactical consideration is choosing how and where to direct your attention. This consideration only exists in RT systems. Real-time games: There is a large video games audience that plays games just to vent off steam. There is also another audience that plays games to vent of steam and feel like a little tactical challenge and a listening to a good story every once in a while. Real Time RPGs are typically oriented for the latter. A great start. You conjured up the impression that RT games are not to be taken seriously, they are just for venting off steam. They don't represent a tactical challenge - they just feel like it. You have an agenda, and it's not very well hidden. Please do not misunderstand: these games DO require strategizing. But not strategizing the way tactical has been defined in this post. Yes, it's all about the definition. You're defining RT games as non-tactical. A game that offers 10 options per action and is real time driven without pause would make no sense to have all these options, because to win you'd either require to cripple the AI severely or have a hand-eye coordination + genius of batman. This is so because the Computer has instantaneous, absolute and precise control of its units, while a human being can meaningfully control one unit at a given point of time. Thus what he can do, the AI can do better. Crippling the AI risks the game becoming casual (although some level of crippling is always necessary). Again, your ideas of how AIs work is fascinating. Let me tell you: it's much easier to create a challenging AI for turn-based games, because the AI needs time to think. A Real time system with Pause introduces some level of fine control over the actions of the units. It now allows to issue orders, all the while synchronizing them periodically thus preparing for long term combat. AT based games that do not use a standard time-keeping devices, lose synchronicity faster since the units end their actions at different times thus forcing tighter control over action. That is why I presume a Round based system becomes necessary. It is interesting to note the apparent inspiration of the idea of a round from the idea of a turn. Round is a one sided time-keeping device that allows greater synchronicity or at least a temporal scale for the player to control his units. Even if individual units are not synchronized, rounds act like mini alarms giving the player a breathing space. The problem with them is of course again the AI and the number of options. Those who play NWN2 see this often. The Units if left with even slight freedom start acting up with their 'in-duh-viduality' by casting nuking spells or AOE spells on their own party, running heedlessly into enemy Area of Free Attack zone or buffing themselves up un-necessarily. It is of course sometimes necessary for Units to act on their own. But since the correct balance between automation and tactics is hard to achieve (or you'd have skynet) these things typically do not work out as expected. The solution to that in IWD was that AI was overall too dumb and relied on strong but small 'organised' (scattered but balanced) mobs instead. But again this is a sub-optimal solution. There are indirect ways to take care of these issues: The first is to exploit the idea of the Round as a time-keeping device. Since Rounds are required to create synchronous and provide 'consideration time', by making everyone's rounds last longer it is possible to make the game more controllable. This automatically reduces the game play speed, which again has to be balanced with gameplay so that it is not overtly slow. Interestingly DA:O to DA2 transition is the travesty of this idea where slow round speeds were replaced with bad AI and restricted spamming to compensate for the lack of tactical combat to achieve faster game mechanics. Another way of dealing with the problem is small parties. With a single player character or two player character parties, it becomes easier to get a handle on the situation and micromanage effectively. Three is where probably the line is crossed although this may be a little preferential. This is complete nonsense. This 'round' is a leftover from D&D that exists in IE games. It has absolutely nothing to do with RT games in general. Conclusion: Thus it makes sense to have both kinds of time keeping devices for games as long as they are being developed for the right audience. Video games are a relatively nascent form of expression and will require a lot of guidance and experience that can only come from developing and playing bad games. It is the ability to identify the exact ingredients and the context of the elements that create poor games that will save gaming as a whole from Bioware and co. Conclusion: an unobjective and disingenious look at two different game mechanics tells us nothing about their relative strengths and weaknesses.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What kind of reasoning lead you to this conclusion? I'd like to see a character's defense/dodge/etc skill affect spells thrown at him. I know I'm probably in the minority here, but this is one of the things I hated about spellcasting in BG2. The more you have to waste your spells on dispelling all those protections, the less spells you have left for everything else. It's like a zero-sum game.

"Aggro" should just be one part of all those under-the-hood calculations the enemy AI does. It shouldn't be something the player can directly influence with multiple skills like "taunt", "detach", "intimidate" etc.