PrimeJunta

Yep, but why is it better to tie that improvement to killing something rather than to fighting something? You could make an argument based on realism for tying it to fighting something, regardless of outcome -- in fact, IRL people tend to learn more about failures than successes (assuming they survive, of course). However, you said your argument isn't based on realism. Fine. I agree; putting realism over fun in a game like P:E is a bad idea. But in that case, how is awarding XP for victory in battle better than awarding it for achieving a quest objective? In both cases, you're rewarding the player for accomplishing something: winning a battle, or achieving some quest- or story-related objective. Neither makes much sense from a realistic POV, but both make sense from a gamist POV. Suppose you have Rudolph the Rogue, Barbara the Barbarian, and Valorian the Munchkin attempting to obtain the Eyes of the Lizard God Ssilt from the Temple of Fanged Evil. Rudolph the Rogue sneaks in and filches the Eyes from under the noses of the Lizard Priests, and sneaks out. Barbara the Barbarian smashes everyone in her way into a bloody paste, grabs the Eyes, and marches home in victory. Valorian the Munchkin sneaks in, filches the eye, sneaks out, returns, and kills the Lizard Priests. Now, the question. Who do you think should get the most XP for what s/he did, and why?

Okay. So you want XP for killing things because your elf chick's combat abilities should go up when she has practice killing things, but you don't want your elf chick's shield block ability to go up when she practices blocking things with a shield because...?

You know, Val, I just thought of something. I gather you'd prefer a system where your abilities improve as you use them -- for example, your barbarian's fighting skills improve by fighting. I've heard there's a somewhat obscure computer role-playing game franchise where it works exactly like this: your block skill improves by practicing blocking, your jumping skill improves by practicing jumping, your sword skill improves by hitting things with a sword, and so on. In fact this is just about the only way you can improve these skills in it. What's more, there's no limitation to where you can go, enemies respawn so you'll never run out, and pretty much any character can do anything. Why don't you give it a whirl? I can't quite recall the name at the moment, though. Older Books, or something like that. Ask around, I'm sure somebody else does though.

Oh, so you're saying it's not realistic? :innocent look:

:raises hand: Teacher! Teacher! I thought the point of playing a computer role-playing game was to complete quests? Wouldn't "not engaging in completing ... artificial 'objectives'" and then complaining about being underleveled be a bit like complaining about not winning any races in a racing game because you think it's more fun to drive around the track in the opposite direction? :re-lurk: (This thread is full of epic.)

I <3 this thread.

Yup, it has. The game will include an Adventurers' Hall which will let you create your companions. It is not known exactly how this will work in the game. However, the "pre-built" companions will have histories, personalities, and relationships that you'll miss out on if you roll your own. The game will not force companions on you at any point; it is possible to go solo or construct your party any way you like.

Gimping the AH at harder difficulties would be doubly stupid, as the people most likely to enjoy using it to the max are exactly the ones most likely to play at harder difficulties and multiple play-throughs. I voted "yes" on the economy question, although it's more a "maybe" really. It depends on how the economy works. I'm all in favor of making stuff harder to get at harder difficulties, and tweaking the economy might be a part of this.

I'll go with "chosen one" too. Kill it with fire.

I don't find arguing about what to call them a productive use of anybody's time.

In these parts, what you call "secondary health" is called "health," and what you call "main health" is called "stamina." Stamina is regenerated continuously, health on rest. Follow the link to update #24 for details (and the exact definitions of the terms). And yeah, it is IMO a good idea to stick to shared names when available. Otherwise confusion and unnecessary chatter will result -- this exchange of messages, for example.

Syopa oui lyh ujanfneda dras fedr y hela kysa uv Pyngmao - Crid Ib Yht Zys: Kyetah?

Update #24: That's pretty unequivocal IMO -- you're only killed in Expert mode or as an option in standard play. AFAIK they haven't said anything about what "maimed" means in terms of mechanics, nor what, if anything, you can do to fix it. Again, perhaps they haven't even decided yet.

I'm pretty sure that type of 'resurrection' is in. If maiming meant that a character became useless, that would be a close functional equivalent of permadeath; no matter how much you liked him, it's unlikely you'd want to be wheeling your rogue around in a wheelchair when going dungeoneering. Nah, I think it's more likely that @Gfted1 is just confused.

I see. No doubt a good nights sleep will unmaim you, since theres no other mechanic available to do the job. Since they haven't stated how maiming works, all we can do is speculate. Maybe you have to go to a bone-setter, then rest. Maybe there is un-maiming magic at a temple (but not portable.) Maybe there's a skill like Doctor in the original Fallout. Maybe they haven't even decided yet how to handle it. Huh, I wasnt aware that resurrection had definately been removed from "normal" mode. Bummer. Huh indeed. There is no dying in "normal" mode. Therefore, what possible use would resurrection have? I didnt say anything about healing between chapters. I said that with no resurrection you will be a lonely fellow by chapter two. You are going to have battle deaths, yes? Uh. No. In normal mode, if somebody's health drops to zero, they're maimed, not dead. Presumably if the entire party is knocked out (with zero stamina or health), it's game over, in which case there's nobody left to use any resurrection magic even if it was available. Once more: there is no combat death in normal mode, ergo, there is no resurrection either. With combat death enabled, the consequences will be permanent.

@Gfted1: First off, we already know a lot of that stuff. One, at normal difficulty, when a party member's health goes to 0, they won't die; instead, they'll be maimed. We don't know what exactly that means, but I would expect something unpleasant but fixable. So resurrection won't be needed. I understand that with permadeath enabled, they will be gone. They've been pretty unequivocal about not having resurrection magic available at all. Second, since health will be regenerated on rest, attrition across chapters just ain't gonna happen. They're bleepin' unlikely to put in chapters with no resting possibilities at all. IOW, and pardon my French, but it sounds a lot like you're making up concerns out of thin air. There are legitimate things to gripe about re the mechanics, and definitely ways in which they could go wrong, but what you're sayin' ain't it.

Agreed. Awesome. Then how come you're speculating that they're going to design something that's for all intents and purposes unplayable?

You know, @Gfted1, I don't think the designers are complete morons.

I'd be tickled if it turned out the boreal dwarves spoke suomi.

Funny, I can't think of any better way to take the romance out of romance. Thing with romance, both real-life and (good) fictional, is that it's capricious. It happens when you least expect it, in ways that you least expect it to happen. The very thing that makes it romantic is that it's elusive. It's all about possibility rather than actuality. Being sure that it's 'available' will, by definition, destroy it and replace it with a shabby imitation. I do agree with your larger point, though, sort of, except that IMO you're looking at it too narrowly. If your choice of race, class, sex, etc. locks you out of meaningful interactions with your party, then yeah, that's bad design. However, if your choice of race, class, sex, etc. affects and changes those interactions, that's good IMO, even, perhaps especially if it means that romance will only happen to some of them. (The only bad thing about that IMO is that it would certainly cause such enormous whining that it would probably be better to leave out romance altogether.) Seriously: if the potential love interest is your typical golden-haired high elf maiden, the whole romance would have to be pretty damn different if you're playing a female half-orc or male wood elf princeling. If both of these got the 'same' romance, now, that would be really shabby writing. OTOH if it meant that playing one or the other locked you out of any meaningful interaction with her (and didn't compensate in some other way), then yeah, that would be sub-optimal too. (Come to think of it, if they wrote in a romance between the female half-orc and the golden-haired high elf maiden, that might actually be interesting to play. Certainly a hella more interesting than the one between her and the clichéd wood-elf princeling.)

David Gaider is a hack, and his writing for DA:O is emblematic of everything that's wrong with writing for computer games, computer role-playing games in particular. That's a false equivalence. In a party based cRPG, hell yes, your interactions and relationships with the party members are a big, big part of the game. I'm opposed to romance options precisely because once you bring it in, especially once you bring in 'romance options', it cheapens all those relationships. You choose which one(s) you want to bang and go after them, and eventully win teh secz. It's a lowest-common-denominator approach to character interaction. Again, IMO the best cRPG romances so far were in Planescape: Torment, and there they were left very much implied, hanging in the air, just out of reach. Which was the key to the whole thing. Simply put, almost always cRPG romance takes away more than it brings in.

I would be very disappointed if your choices had no consequences and everything happened the same way regardless of what you did. I would also be very disappointed if all there was to choices and consequences is a binary "good" and "evil" path. I think it's going to be more nuanced than either of those.

Cool idea, if the engine allows it without too much trouble. Also, carp.

How about using real-life languages? That would save time and would certainly be no less realistic than having English as the main language. Tolkien did this to an extent in his books; for example Hobbit names and the language of the Rohirrim were Anglo-Saxon although he had actually made up entirely artificial languages for both. The rationale was that Rohirric is to Westron (the Middle Earth common tongue) what Anglo-Saxon is to modern English. So Meriadoc Brandybuck's name was really Kalimac Brandagamba. Plenty of cool RL languages to draw from, both contemporary and ancient! Edit: BTW Bilbo Baggins's real name is Bilba Labingi. Heh.

Ev drao bid dra avvund du syga naym eh-kysa myhkiykac, E cruimt ruba ed'c y ped suna ehdanacdehk dryh y cesbma cipcdedideuh lebran. Nihel (un cesemyn) ymbrypadc fuimt pa luum druikr.