PrimeJunta

I will play a wild orlan paladin and name him Mewbacca. After I finish with Thelonius, monk. Digging the paladin mechanics. Nicely differentiated from the other fighters, and I especially like the work you're doing to make the concepts fit the lore. "Buffmeister" isn't my favorite mechanical role but I'd sure like to have one in the party, OTOH if you make the world reactive to the paladin's lore-position, even a little, I would want to play that as the PC at some point.

Language geek here. Clean, phonetic spelling is boring. I would love it if orthography reflects language history in the world of P:E. Just stick an appendix somewhere in the manual that describes the phonetics, orthography and (even better!) grammar and vocabulary of the languages, and I'm a happy panda. Even better, have different spellings for the same things depending on who's talking. And misunderstandings. Tangent. You'll find a spot on a map in Southern France which is marked "Temple des druides," Temple of the Druids. It's a small stone ruin built partly into a cave and partly under a big rock overhang. Popular with hippies. However, the story of the name is much funnier than if it was actually a temple of the Druids. Turns out that some time during Napoleon III, the official cartographer showed up and started marking up places of interest. He, naturally, spoke French. The locals, naturally, spoke Provençal. Not the same thing. So he asked them what this spot is called, and they said something along the lines of "toumple dei drudas." "Cool," he must've thought, "Temple of the Druids." And duly marked it down. Thing is, in the local patois, 'toumple' means 'cave' and 'druda' means 'prostitute.' The place was actually a spot where the poorer village prostitutes went with their johns for a little privacy. So the locals called it the Cave of the Whores. I would love to see this kind of misunderstanding in P:E too.

Not to put too fine a point on it, BruceVC, but do you only make connections to female NPC's with your peen?

Well, we know that (a) the game is going to be combat heavy and a completely "pacifist" play-through will almost certainly not be possible, (b) character-building is strongly combat focused, © there will not be combat XP, and (d) there will be no systemic loot (i.e., all loot will be hand-placed, including death drops). From that we can infer that grinding will not be possible. Knowing JES's design priorities, it's unlikely the game will have opportunities for other types of farming either. On the other hand, since the game will have quest/objective XP, "completionism" will result in faster character progression. So "grindy" players will be scouring the game for quests rather than monsters. I too would like to see cRPG's break out of the mold where violence is the main mechanic with which you interact with the world. Perhaps T:ToN will go in that direction; I don't think P:E will however.

More like conflating than equivocating, methinks. Thing is, as you say, it's never been done right. That means that the people who want romance options are talking about the stuff that's been done wrong. I do not want any of that stuff. I'm also something of an empiricist, and I understand at least something about what it's like to write stuff. Based on this, I think you're being, frankly, unrealistic. You want something that probably can't be done -- at least not by the people making these things, within the constraints under which they're operating. Attempting something that can't be done usually doesn't turn out well. I would prefer to avoid that. You do know that = is commutative? If a = b, then b = a. So you are equivocating, and you most definitely were equivocating when you claimed that my opposition to in-game romance implies that I must also be opposed to all forms of in-game personal affection- Could you? Wow. In that case, I would humbly submit that we have reached an impasse. You believe that it's a realistic proposition. I do not. We have both made our preferences clear. Given the stage the game is in (nearing production), I would expect these decisions have already been made in any case, so all we can do is wait and see. If they do manage to put in romance options that aren't 'romance options' and do not eclipse non-romantic interpersonal relationships, then I will be duly chastised and salute them for their writing skills. Until then, I remain skeptical.

Needs more hyperbole.

That's because you're equivocating. Of course not. That would be silly. Blam. That's the equivocation. "Romance" != "personal affection" and being opposed to the one in no way implies being opposed to the other. The problem with romance in games -- especially multiple characters as "romance options" -- is that if you write a character as a "romance option," then you automatically do not write the relationship with that character as some other type of interaction. The one rules out the other. Perhaps not in theory, but in practice it does -- or can you name one cRPG that has (a) "romance options" and (b) meaningful interpersonal relationships with those "romance options" that are not romances or truncated romances? Yes, absolutely -- I would like to see cRPG's explore these other types of relationships with NPC's besides stale fanservice romance. "Romance options" poison and drain the blood out of all other relationships. So away with them I say. Write a game with varied, interesting, and deep interpersonal relationships of various types. Then we'll talk again.

I actually liked one of the DA:O origin stories. Only one though, and the disappointment was that much bigger when the game completely failed to build on any of it. Which one, I hear you asking? Dwarf noble. Why? Because it's the only time ever, in any computer game, that I've seen a believable depiction of an ancient caste-based society in all its hidebound, backstabbing glory. Hell, the lower castes aren't even allowed to look at you, let alone address you, and you talk to them through an intermediary (when you have to). Seriously good stuff. And then it all fell apart with that dudebro back-slappy king and the rest of it. The return to Ommazzaarrooammhmm or whatever it was called was the same ol' superficial fake-caste-pap as ever, compleat with the democratic egalitarian good-guy dudebro who would make it all better and practically sign the Bill of Rights, Declaration of the Rights of Dwarf, and the Constitution all at once. That alone makes DA:O one of the bigger let-downs for me among computer games actually.

I'm pretty neutral on the romance thing, I think this is the first time I've looked at this thread....however, this always makes me laugh 362% on kickstarter of what they actually wanted to make the game, plus whatever they've made since...people are tripping over themselves to hurl money at obsidian, as well as other studios like inxile and double fine, yet every suggestion is always met with "Nooooo...limited resources" it just seems to be an excuse to try and stop them adding a feature you don't want. I know they are not limitless, but how much do you think they need? $10million? $1billion? .....they didn't seem to think so. As far as romances go, as long as they are well written and optional then I'm fine with them Resources != money. Also time, ideas, creativity. Write a character as a romantic interest means NOT writing that character as something else. A player not pursuing the romance line will be interacting with a half a character. Rhett Butler is not the same character as Dirty Harry, and you can't "add a romance sub-plot" to Dirty Harry without fundamentally changing who Dirty Harry is. We all have preferences about how those resources ought to be used. I consider romance subplots generally a waste of time. I won't throw a hissy fit if they're in (although I probably will if there's another Elanee or Casavir in there!) but I'd rather have them focus on something else. They, naturally, will do as they see fit.

That would make sense if romance was free. But it isn't. It carries a cost. The characters have to be written with that option in mind, and with a representative selection of player-character roles in mind. All that constrains other possibilities for the characters' story arcs, not to mention writing, design, and development effort. Some of us "romance-haters" feel that, resources being limited, there's more gameplay enjoyment payoff in spending that coin elsewhere, especially as one of the biggest studios in the business makes a point of servicing "romance-lovers" already. Short version: if you want a BioWare romance, why not play a BioWare game? Obsidian doesn't do romance much, and when it does, it usually doesn't do it all that well, even by cRPG standards. (Exhibits A and B: Elanee and Casavir. Exhibits C and D: Safiya and Gann, two excellently-written characters that turned incredibly awkward the minute their romance arcs started.)

I bet they're going to put in a wild orlan romance just to troll us. Also make it the only romance option, and make it unavoidable.

Good thinking, @Chilloutman. Why not make magical light do stuff normal light can't do? For example, it could desaturate everything it lights (=drain it of color), saturate it (=make colors brighter), decrease or increase contrast, cast no shadows (=illuminate everything evenly), etc. All of these would be dead simple in a computer game and would make magical lights look genuinely unnatural and, well, magical.

@ORDUCKMANIAC... no. Just... no. (I dig the update though, even if the take-home message is just that everything is going smoothly and everyone's having a good time with it.)

@teknoman: I agree. You could additionally make the game somewhat intelligent about offering time-limited quests. The usual 'lawnmowing' way of playing cRPG's is to go to a hub, talk to everybody, get all the quests, do all the quests, come back and get all the rewards. This is pretty silly IMO when you think about it, but it's the most efficient way to play most games so it's not a surprise that most people do. Time-limited quests don't work all that well in this type of system, as you'll easily end up with several timers running and some will run out, and there's no way to tell beforehand what will trip a timer. So you start fudging the system: "I have this (relatively lenient) timer running, but I better not talk to anybody until I've finished it so I wont accidentally start one" or, on subsequent playthroughs "Note to self: don't talk to merchant for kidnapped-wife quest before resolving poisoned-man quest." I would prefer a game that offered its quests more organically, which would make it easier to stay in character too. Timed quests would work in such a framework. Just not overdone, otherwise it becomes just another type of railroading.

Hey, I have an idea. How 'bout we discuss Anita Sarkeesian's excellent video from today? :ducks and runs:

Nope. How it's made is still something of a mystery, although there have been somewhat successful efforts to reproduce the technique. It has to do with the crystalline structure of the steel, which requires specific impurities in the iron and very particular forging techniques. It's a mix of hard and soft crystals in a tight, "organic," swirly pattern. The hard crystals make the blade keep an edge, the softer ones give it tensile strength. The iron used to make Damascus steel originated in India, and when the mines ran out the techniques of the smiths in Damascus stopped working and were lost. Modern metallurgists have attempted to reproduce it with variable success. (We can make better steels nowadays though, but for the day and age it was something exceptional.)

I'm starting like the sound of pollaxes. Sounding more and more like the ultimate melee weapon. For you weapon geeks, what's the tradeoff? Why didn't it displace other melee weapons altogether? Or, put another way, when would I rather be holding, say, a sword, mace, or hammer instead? Edit: Also, @Kubilayhan,cool tower of skulls in the background. Makes a bit of a statement, that.

I never managed to get past the start on that one, so I don't really have an opinion on it. I'll probably give it another try one of these days. Keep an eye out for "deal weekends" on GoG -- I bought mine from there a while back when they had one of those "five for the price of one" type deals going.

So I've been putzing around with NWN2 again. Back around when they came out, I played through the OC about two or three times, and then the same for MotB. I never managed to finish Storm of Zehir, and never got past the start of Mysteries of Westgate. Revisiting them, I can see things I really liked about all of them, and things that I really didn't like. I'm not really trying to complete any of them; just playing in and with them. The OC has aged the worst IMO. It's too deeply rooted in NWN, like Obsidian was trying really hard to make a BioWare game but their heart wasn't really in it. It has most of the weaknesses of the IE games and not so many of the strengths; the quests are mostly linear do-this do-that, kill-that-meanie, find-this-trinket, rescue-these-hostages kind of stuff and of course the main campain story driver is about as unimaginative as it gets. The best part is IMO Crossroad Keep. I like the introduction of strategy and resource management elements into a straight-off fantasy cRPG. Storm of Zehir... whoo. I think this is the one I like best of the trio... in principle. The trade empire back story permits a lot of emergent gameplay and nicely lets you set your own objectives in the context of the bigger story. This is true-blue spreadsheet-RPG game in the IWD tradition: screw larping, just make the most efficient team of adventurer/merchants you can, and make the world your mollusc. I love discovering hidden stuff on the map and in fact one of the challenges I set for myself was to make the ultimate world-map party guide (and I think I did OK with that). But. It stumbles badly in the execution. The constant transitions between the world map and locations take way too much time. It's poorly balanced, as in soporifically easy, with a reasonably well-constructed (far from perfect) party. And at least for me, once I had my trade empire all nicely set up and grinding in obscene amounts of wealth, the main impetus for continuing the story was kind of lost for me. If I make, like, a couple of hundred grand by taking a few power naps, why would I even want to keep adventuring? And MotB... oh, MotB. I love the writing, and in my opinion no cRPG integrates game systems and ethical choices and consequences quite as well. If only there was a that rescaled it to levels 4-15 or so, like SoZ. Epic-level D&D is just so utterly silly. "Please, Safiya, dear, would you be so kind as to NOT lob meteor storms on me while I'm busy fighting these epically dangerous spirit beasts? Or at least slap an Energy Immunity (Fire) and Greater Stoneskin on first? [casts Heal on self in mid-combat]" What would I like to see in P:E? From the OC, Crossroad Keep only a notch further. From SoZ, emergent gameplay objectives that are driven by a system of mechanics similar in style – but not necessarily at all in content – as the trade system. From MotB, the personal story, fantastically written companions, and off-the-beaten-track locations. If "all" P:E does is that, without any major innovations of its own, it will be one hell of a good game.

Actually I think it might be kinda cool to have showy, impractical armor in the game... which is commensurately poor as armor, but might have other benefits. Paladins for example have those leadership feats -- sticking a big honking pair of ... horns on your ... helmet might certainly enhance those. Speaking of codpieces, I wonder what kinds of armor enhancements the paladin of a fertility god would have...

I'd like to see it taken a bit further than that, even. I'd like to get rid of unambiguous "success/fail" conditions. Instead, have a range of possible outcomes. Some of them will be more desirable than others. Some may be more desirable than others depending on your motives, your needs, or your character builds. And sometimes there should be interesting consequences for apparent failure. This would add a lot of depth to the game, and as a side effect not reward savegame abuse.

I think Obsidian has said something along the lines that they don't have a 'morality meter,' but they do have reactive people. I.e., people react to you based on what they think of your actions from their ethical POV. So presumably if someone thinks witches should be burned and someone else thinks they should be put in charge, they will react accordingly when you deal with a witch however you see fit. I would like that.

Bingo. I've run my PnP campaigns as fairly sandbox-y, in that I barely ever force the players to go anywhere or do anything. However I figured out maybe 20 years ago that to keep things interesting I have to keep them hungry; give them some burning issue to address. The nice thing is that with PnP it's a continuing back and forth with the players, which means that if things go well, they'll start to develop their own ideas about what matters and what doesn't, and then that can become the impetus for the story. But there has to be some at least somewhat hairy situation they're in. "You all meet at a tavern and decide to go adventuring" doesn't really work IMO.

It does... but I think the interesting question is, what is the relationship between freedom and roleplay? There is one obviously, since without any freedom there's no agency, and with no agency you're reduced to a more or less passive observer of the story. However I'm not at all convinced that more freedom always leads to more roleplay. I'd sum up the essence of roleplay as "tough choices." Choices become tough if they're limited: if any choice you make has trade-offs, sometimes tragic ones. These kinds of choices emerge naturally out of crisis situations, and crisis situations emerge out of story arcs. A sandbox with maximal freedom kind of takes the edge off those choices, since by definition you'll have the choice of walking away from the situation. So I see the relationship between freedom and roleplay as something of an inverted U curve -- no freedom, no roleplay, 100% freedom, no roleplay, with the sweet spot somewhere in between where you have agency but your choices are fairly strongly constrained by your circumstances. This can be done in an open-world game too, but to pull it off it needs to constrain your choices in other ways than writing it into the script. Otherwise it just becomes a hiking simulator. Oblivion didn't appeal to me at all, and I didn't even play Skyrim for this reason. I agree strongly. Screw moral dichotomy, let's have shades of gray instead. Again, I agree that the "defeat the King of Shadows" trope is hackneyed and unnecessarily limiting. However, I'm not sure that a scenario of finite limits is a bad thing per se. I like resolution. The alternative is a world that just goes stale and you stop playing because you get bored. I prefer a rousing finale to that. Another +1 on the ego-stroking, good-vs-evil, heroes, and villains. There are other stories that you can tell also. But I do find that to role-play without any story becomes thin gruel. Don't get me wrong, I like simulations as well, but in them I don't role-play. I was really hooked on Dwarf Fortress for a quite a while, but I don't think of it as a role-playing game, precisely because there's no story arc, even in adventure mode. Any role-playing you do has to be "larping." Its strengths lie elsewhere, and IMO it exemplifies both the strengths and the limitations of sandbox games rather beautifully.