IndiraLightfoot

AGX-17: I mean objectification, earlier sometimes called cenopsy (by Pierce), as seen in cognitive sciences, but also in the sociolinguistic sense that has been developed in various schools of philosophy via Saussure. Language is not peripheral to our grasp of the world we live in, but central to it. Words are not just vocal labels or communicational adjuncts superimposed upon an already given order of things. They are collective products of social interaction, essential instruments through which human beings constitute and articulate their world. This typically twentieth-century view of language has profoundly influenced developments throughout the whole range of human sciences. It is particularly marked in linguistics, philosophy, sociology and anthropology. A common view among information theorists, for instance, is that information integrated with entropy in some way is a basic structure of the World. Computation is the process of the dynamic change of information. In order for anything to exist for an individual, it must get information on it by means of perception or by re-organization of the existing information into new patterns (objects and arrays of objects). This cybernetic-computational-informational view is based on a universal and un-embodied conception of information and computation, which is the deep foundation of "the information processing paradigm". This paradigm is vital for most versions of cognitive science and its latest developments into brain function and linguistic research. Taken to its extreme metaphysical scope this paradigm views the universe as a computer, humans as dynamic systems producing and being guided by computational functioning. Language is seen as a sort of culturally developed algorithmic program for social information processing. From a general epistemological as well as philosophy of science foundation, you could argue that an interdisciplinary paradigm of information, cognition and communication science needs, within its theory, to engage the role of first person conscious, embodied social awareness in producing signification from perceptions and meaning from communication in any attempt to build an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for information, cognition, signification and meaningful communication.

They are. Objectification at its core is everything we do, in cognition, language and other ways of making sense of the world. That aside, objectification can be a "subconcept" of itself and then used in a negative sense, as something degrading and derogatory, while idealisation, another subconcept of objectification, captures it in an overly positive sense.

This question makes me think of this song performed by one of my favourite singers of all time: And nice to see your putting a firm foot down in the name of liberalism, much appreciated. I have a feeling though that BruceVC is quite a bit of teaser, and sometimes he's even pulling our legs from time to time, especially when it comes to in-game romances.

Ieo: Yes, that's often the case, but... ...I have a feeling this being the case one way or the other, some proto-scientific worldview emerging in this age of discovery we're entering. Also, knowing Josh's attention to details, I would almost be surprised if he hasn't created got some basic geography and astronomy for Obsidian's baby. I mean, it makes sense. It would bizarre arguing for the inside-view case too far. Then we wouldn't see working maps either, but exaggerations of one's own lands and regions - very centric world views translated as maps and even areas in the world. That would make for an interesting playthrough: "These plains are vast and older than the sun" Reality check: "They are 45 miles by 35, and were formed a few thousand years ago."

BruceVC, go ahead, shorten your post and make a sig of it. It is indeed legendary! Elerond: Post of the day!

Wonder what caused this shift in calendars. It doesn't have to be some power trip by some hegemony. When Caesar established his Julian calendar in 45 BC he set 25 March as the spring equinox. Since a Julian year (365.25 days) is slightly longer than an actual year the calendar drifted with respect to the equinox, such that the equinox was occurring on about 21 March in AD 300 and by AD 1500 it had reached 11 March, and this drift induced Pope Gregory XIII to create a modern Gregorian calendar.

Indeed. The colour of the polar auroras vary quite a bit, not only being green. In Australia I've been lucky to see the southern lights in shades of red and yellow. It was magnificent. And imagine if the field would be slightly weaker than ours - all the radiation coming in (perhaps mutating a few monsters). And it takes an iron core to begin with too. And our sun nowadays - fewer sunspots than ever almost, well at least going back to the 1600s - is certainly affecting us much more than we think. For instance, the amount of water produced in our rain forests is directly linked to solar activity.

Hot Ring instead of Fertile Crescent, that's just fabulous! Perhaps it's prone to earth quakes and volcanic eruptions, like the Mediterranean? I wonder how serious Josh & Co have been? Have they drawn a world map, complete with tectonic plates, climate zones, and tradewinds? As somewhat of an amateur astronomer occasionally (living in the great outdoors has it perks; great seeing and no light pollution, so I get to follow those Galilean moons around Jupiter with my trusty 6-inch Newtonian reflector on an EQ-3 mount; I can't help pondering about how many days it takes for the PE world to travel around its sun. And at what angle does it tilt? What are the resulting differences in night and day? Are there any other light-intensive phenomena on the PE night sky? Nebulae, recent supernovas or even a nearby asteroid belt, perhaps even some ice-particle ring? Ah, the possibilities are endless.

I must add that except for the tips I've just read here, I haven't really min-maxed anything on my first playthrough. I went with tradition and my guts. So the part of course includes an elven ranger, Indira. And almost always I have a female shield dwarf included as well. I already see weird choices I've made that are far from optimal, rather dismal, actually, but I'm having loads of fun. I have Kenji in the party also, which means better rested outdoors (He cooks wonderful food), and I have that sneaky girl with me as well that detects traps and secrets (so perhaps no need for dark magic, then?). SO, I'm certainly bleeding resources or xp or whatever it was the hirelings does to you.

This one. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/10/mega-impressions-obsidians-pillars-of-eternity/ There's some more criticisms in there. Nathan Grayson seems to be a level-headed guy. Hmm... EDIT: Ninja'd by ZornWO! :D

Thank you very much for all the tips! I'm like 8 hours in now, and I must contradict one thing. My low-level party uses bows and crossbows quite often, and they are a life safer, especially outdoors. I can back up the party, and still deal some precious damage against enemy parties (one opponent this ain't that much of a deal). But from your comment I gather higher level gaming will make them obsolete, then? Some tips of my own. Armour does matter in this game. Let's just say I ran into some ethereal dinosaur (guees which enemy?), and my only party member standing like 8 rounds on her own against it (We were not prepared for that opponent at all) was my shield dwarf with heavy armour. It can make a huge difference. Another stat that is easily overlooked is Perception. It actually affects all attacks, so putting quite a few points in this make your party a much more hitting one. Moreover, I'm pretty sure I can confirm that my mage's spells are affected by increased crit damage, so investing skill in that attribute (Destiny?), is a must.

Epic! You probably could build an entire mythology and pantheon based on all of us mad posters here!

I'm happy to hear that, especially as I have more cultural and historical info here, taken from when Josh helped golden backers design items and stuff: Aedyrans, Readcerans, and Dyrwoodans used to speak a language called Eld Aedyran that is an analogue for Old English/Anglo-Saxon, Old Frisian, bits of Icelandic, and Scots (for Hylspeak, a more contemporary version). j, q, v, and z do not appear in their words and names, though the /v/ sound is found in medial and terminal f. E.g. "Wyflan" is pronounced "WEE-vlan". Male names: Aldwyn, Beacwof, Ethelmoer, Furly, Hafmacg, Unfric. Female names: Battixa, Bricanta, Esmy, Grimda, Iselmyr, Yngfrith. Vailian Republicans speak Vailian, which borrows from a mix of Italian, Occitan, Catalan, and French roots, but is Italian in overall flavor. "Romance-y", you could say. j, y, and x are extremely rare in their words and names. Male name: Cendo, Giandele, Liano, Randatu, Verzano. Female names: Ancelle, Laudira, Malita, Pallegina, Salgiatte. Glanfathans speak Glanfathan, which borrows elements of Cornish, Welsh, and a bit of Irish. q, u, x, y, and z are all unused in Glanfathan. w is both a consonant and a vowel ("uh" or "oo" if it has a circumflex). It has the Irish-style "si" ("shih" or "shee" when there's a circumflex over the i), the Welsh "ll" (hard to explain, like an aspirated l sound), and distinguishes between an unvoiced th (like "thought") and a voiced dh (like "the"). Male names: Arthwn, Brân, Enfws, Simoc, Thristwn. Female names: Bledha, Iswld, Onŵen, Sîdha, Tamra Those are the major definitions. Broadly speaking, the natives of Deadfire Archipelago use a language with some Inuit/Greenlandic roots. People in Rauatai (especially the nation of Rauatai itself) use a language with Maori roots. People from Ixamitl speak a language with Nahuatl roots. I have not done significant work on those, though. The differences between Meadow Folk, Ocean Folk, and Savannah Folk (from Aedyr/Dyrwood, Old Valia/Vailian Republics, and Ixamitl) could be simplified as Euro/African/Central American, but those are just broad and superficial physical similarities. The real differences come down to culture. E.g. while the Vailian Republics are overwhelmingly populated by "Calbandrans" (Ocean Folk), there are Meadow Folk, Savannah Folk, and other races/ethnicities in the republics. Animancy has flourished in the last hundred years or so. It's been legal to research and practice in the Dyrwood (through omission from the law) since the revolution a few centuries ago, but it's only lately that it has received more official legal recognition and benefits from extensive interactions with the Vailian Republics. The Dyrwood and Vailian Republics are the two leading nations in animancy research. Notably, the Aedyr Empire and Readceras view it poorly and have legal prohibitions against it

I couldn't resist googling, and I found another statement from Josh, quoted at RPGcodex dec 16 2013: "The timeline of the civilized world is not "Realmsian". The Dyrwood and the Vailian Republics have only been colonized for a few centuries. The Glanfathans have lived in Eir Glanfath for two millennia. Before them, it was occupied by a relatively unknown civilization known as the Engwithans (who built most of the monuments and holy sites that the Glanfathans now guard). The Aedyr Empire is about 600 years old (well, Aedyr as a nation is that old). Old Valia as an empire was about 1500 years old but has collapsed by the current day. The main point is that more than 4,000 years ago, civilization was extremely modest, not advanced." Also, he describes the various states and some history about them: "The Dyrwood - Focus of the game, colonial area full of once-Aedyran humans and elves. Hardworking, surly pioneers in the country, animancers in the city. More-or-less blew up a god in the Saint's War which (in the new timeline) happened about 10-15 years ago. Dyrwoodan virtues: independence, perseverance, sacrifice, communal hospitality, and vigilantism/feuding. Dyrwoodan vices: servility, shirking (responsibilities), selfishness, lingering (near Engwithan ruins), "facepainting" (pejorative term for sympathizing with/acting like a Glanfathan). - Eir Glanfath - Deeper forest to the east of the Dyrwood. Once in conflict with the Dyrwood, now (mostly) at peace. Less tech advanced, more communal. Protect the Engwithan ruins. Orlans, elves, some dwarves. Glanfathan virtues: cleverness, subterfuge, frugality, communality, mathematic aptitude. Glanfathan vices: selfishness, cowardice, vanity, social intoxication, token gestures (as opposed to meaningful action). - Vailian Republics - The most successful offshoot of Old Valia, these colonies sit to the southeast of the Dyrwood and south of Eir Glanfath, past a mountain range. They are a group of allied city states who mostly wield economic power. Mostly humans and dwarves. Vailian virtues: success, shrewdness, restraint, wit, polymathism. Vailian vices: failure, bad style (i.e. doing something not in the "Vailian way"), bluntness, dullness, mercilessness. - Aedyr Empire - The source of the colonists who settled the Dyrwood and Readceras. Lost both to revolutions, though the Dyrwoodan revolution was far bloodier than the Readceran one that followed. Much younger than Old Valia, but still in existence, which is worth something. Overwhelmingly human and elven. Aedyran virtues: duty, efficiency, loyalty, modesty (not of dress, but of character), purity. Aedyran vices: inconstancy, sloth, sloppiness, impunctuality, mixing work/leisure. - Penitential Regency of Readceras - Quasi-theocratic state ruled by priests for their patron, St. Waidwen, and their god, Eothas, both of whom seem to have disappeared at the end of the Saint's War (which they started and the Dyrwood ended). The prevailing attitude is that they failed Eothas and Waidwen and must do penance to regain their favor. Readceran virtues: optimism, faith, propriety (proper behavior for your age, sex, and social class), vigilance, discipline. Readceran vices: pessimism, doubt, deviance, rebelliousness, aimlessness. ... or these remote regions, which are relatively far away: - Deadfire Archipelago - Quite a ways south of the Dyrwood, a wide archipelago of small volcanic island nations. Naasitaq, home of many boreal dwarves and aumaua, is the biggest and most stable nation around. Various nations and empires fight over the islands, to the east of which are sea monsters that invariably annihilate any ships that attempt to go exploring (many of them dwarven). - Ixamitl Plains - Northeast of Eir Glanfath, the Ixamitl Plains are large expanses of fertile savannas. Mostly occupied by humans and orlans, though the orlans have a bad history with the humans. The Ixamitl culture is one of the oldest continuous cultures in the world, going back a little earlier than Old Vailia. However, they are the least imperalistic large nation around, having only expanded their borders slightly in centuries. Among other things, they are known for their contributions to philosophy. - The Living Lands - A frontier island area in the far north, a land of wild weather, strange beasts, and hundreds of difficult to reach valleys containing oddities never before seen (according to the people who find them) by mortals. It's a lawless land where communities band together, fall apart, and fight petty wars with each other constantly. Has a reputation for breeding oddballs and madmen. The racial mix in the area is extremely diverse but not necessarily harmonious. Dwarves, propelled by their desire to explore, are very common here, even among the mix. - Old Vailia - Once the crown jewel of the southern seas, the crumbling island nations of Old Vailia sit thousands of miles to the southwest of their offshoot, the Vailian Republics. Humans and dwarves are common. They are renowned for their great culture and history of accomplishments, though the rest of the world considers them to be far past their prime. The nations that once made up the empire are engaged in a continuous war for dominance that has been going on (and off, and on again) for over two hundred years. - Rauatai Gulf - Dominated by the aumaua of Rauatai, the gulf to the north of Ixamitl Plains is the trade center for several nations of aumaua, orlans, and dwarves. The land is rich with resources, but hotly contested. And in all matters, Rauatai and its powerful navy almost always gain the upper hand. The whole region is also relentlessly pummeled by storms for half the year. - The White that Wends - A huge southern expanse of polar ice occupied only by pale elves, some boreal dwarves, and a few really brave individuals from other lands. It is considered mythic -- or at least inhospitable -- by most people from "civilized" areas. Virtually no plant life grows in the White, but somehow its residents manage to survive from year to year."

7) Dec 10 2013, in an RPS article , Sawyer and co describe PE as “the beginning of a golden age”, so that's me replying to a bit of question 7. In the same article, I also found this an interesting read: "Also unique is the game world’s geographic setting. This is no mighty empire or crumbling, er, empire again, but rather a series of liberated colonies. The game’s regions are cultural and ideological melting pots, the ecstasy of fresh freedom fueling revolutions of all sorts. But a melting pot stirred without care is a civil war just waiting to happen, and while Obsidian makes no mention of things escalating to such a level, there is certainly conflict brewing." And: "The Dyrwood and Eir Glanfath, it’s a colonial land,” Sawyer says, practically looming from his seat like a proud tabletop DM. “It’s like America in some regards, in the sense that it’s been colonized by people who’ve left another country and declared their own independence. Animancy wasn’t allowed to be practiced in a lot of these old countries." EDIT: Scarily, the author didn't get wowed by trying out PE like he was by Wasteland 2 (which in its current state ain't exactly wow-material. What the...? EDIT 2: Another bizarre google-find. It turns out that Pillars of Eternity already is a copyrighted name of a fantasy book!!! Pillars of Eternity Mass Market Paperback by Barrington J. Bayley. This doesn't bode well for Obsidian's name of their new game. Also, from another article: "It’s a Renaissance-esque setting. Obviously it’s not literally the Renaissance, but it has some of the same elements. One of the most prominent to a lot of players is the fact that there are early firearms in the world. It has made some players think about the setting differently. More importantly, though this will come across more in the story, the time in which the story of PoE takes place is during an age of discovery. Animancy is a young and rapidly-developing field. With the development of animancy comes technology that can significantly change the lives (and deaths) of people in the world — not just kings and knights, but all sorts of people."

Jarmo & Messier-31: Heh, turns out I'm not alone then! I pasted it in here and edited a bit: The following is a timeline of the world in which Pillars of Eternity is set. Dates Circa 300 AIThe tribe referred as People of the Deer is formed.Circa 800 AIThe order of palace guards Darcozzi Paladini is formed.Circa 1300 AIFoundation of Old Vailia.Circa 2200 AIThe People of the Deer tribe becomes the Aedyr Kingdom.2399 AIThe human Aedyr Kingdom merges with the elven kingdom of Kulklin, forming the Aedyr Empire.Circa 2670 AIThe Iroccian calendar replaces earlier Vailian calendars.Circa 2723 AIThe Broken Stone War occurs.Circa 2808 AIThe Saint's War informally ends when St. Waidwen was destroyed by a massive bomb north of Halgot Citadel. Eothas stops communicating with his faithful. 2823 AI Pillars of Eternity begins.------ Btw, what does "AI" stand for in this case?

I haven't really seen or heard anything about the historical outline of the Pillars of Eternity setting. Admittedly, I haven't scoured the internet for it. So, questions... 1) What's the planet called? 2) How many moons does it have? 3) Any nearby planets? 4) How many suns? 5) The timeline of the various races. Basically, how old are they? 6) Any major cataclysms? They may involve deities and catastrophes, and resulting major wars, starvation and other hardships. 7) Any golden ages which ought to know about? There's an emphasis on technological development. Are there some technological periods, like stone age, bronze age, and the iron age? Sorry if some of this is already common knowledge. I'm simply curious.

Yes. I think I would rather say that there is more than one good way to get the XP that you need (as well as play throughs that will succeed whether you hit the level cap or not), but I don't think we disagree on this. Sure, assuming two players accomplish the same set of quests, I would be fine with them having the same XP. I think there is a legitimate reason why several people in this thread disagree with me though (and why I might have a few concerns). Let's take BG2 as an example, specifically the stronghold quests you can get in chapter 2. Large parts of them could be skipped if you had enough invisibility potions (or spells) with you and didn't care about the XP or loot. So, if all you did was remove kill XP and replace it with objective XP, a player could, say, stroll through the Windspear Hills dungeon and only kill the orcs in the prison room, have a conversation with Firkraag and then go back upstairs and kill the mage in the prison room and they would be done. Of course, nobody will design exactly the same encounters and just swap out kill XP for objective XP - they will design encounters with objective XP in mind. However, that may give the encounters a very different feel than the encounters in the IE games. That is how I interpret these concerns. PoE will almost certainly be a well designed, well written game, but will it be similar to the IE games in the ways that matter to people? I think that is the concern with objective XP and all of the other differences that people have been concerned about. The differences may not matter or they may even make the game better than the IE games in every respect. That remains to be seen. This is a great post, Yonjuro! I think you capture the concerns of many people here quite nicely. Also, may I add, I'd much prefer the devs to leave it up to us as to when and how we reach the level cap (within reasons and without extreme cheese - like parking on some stupid spawn zone). One concern that I've seen already, although sometimes not expressed outright, is that the game will end up being over-designed, that it's far too well balanced and designed that its level of enjoyment is slowly farting out like a deflated balloon. Another concern is very much that it has lost stuff that were very important to all of those who love the IE-games, and for some this includes the classic xp system, including kill xp, skill check xp, and quest xp. And the most vehement opposition in this thread and the other before it seems to revolve around that example of yours, where the player can breeze through important scenarios via some kind of surgical CRPG-bombing, as it were, just selectively ticking off what's needed to get the accomplishment xp. This last concern worries me too, and regardless of how frantic the tone has been in some of our discussions here, I've slowly come to see what these proponents are on about. I really do think this needs to be addressed by the devs, and personally, I'm leaning towards an xp reward system with quite small increments of xp awards not all tied up to quests or even "larger" objectives.

I know, this ended up being a bit contrived. I mean, I'm actually for devs trying to stop area/map-switching as a tactic to survive in games (everything from hardcore-players in ARPGs to players in NWN CRPGs used this tactic), but I think it must make much more sense if implemented. You're absolutely right! Even Civilization nowadays don't come with updated in-game digital manuals. It's crazy.

Not exactly a cutscene, rather a teaser/trailer-thingie. It's from Witcher 2, a game I've tried to get into, but I couldn't. This, however, is pure genius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwUAv-SSZqw

5 hours into it now, and this game just grows on you. My pcs get stunned and poisoned and even killed with ease. Apparently, they were not a team of ghostbusters by level 5. I see... I love this game for being pretty open and with interfaces that really works for this kind of game. I also love it for not being overly easy, kind and handholding. One wrong turn, you may very well die because of your hubris. The loot makes sense and it is easy to compare with equipped items (I hope PE will be like this). My blade dancer had a sword break on her in the midst of a tough fight. She had to make do with one sword now. What's not to love? There are a vast number of combinations when you make and develop your characters, just as it should be. There's fatigue, there are stables for hire, even pack horses. Most of all, they have got that old-school RPG-feel just right. It's almost like Civilization; just one more turn! You can't resist to see what's around the next bend. I'm sorry, but Grimrock pretty much sucks in comparison to this. I really hope that Grimrock 2, outdoors and everything, will match this. I love the atmosphere and the ancient shrines with weird blessings. At one time, I got an anti-blessing, which made my party worse! EDIT: It's worth mentioning that all the stunning etc of characters make your characters level up out of sync, which I like. And stuff has to be identified at a cost, and for the first levels I had my front line running around in robes and slippers, basically, coz they couldn't afford any decent armour. Mmm...

Haha, I loved your three approaches! However, I meant AD&D as a RPG-system, and that doesn't encourage stuff like that. Reading the DM Guide, it clearly advises to steer clear from stuff like that (ultimately that's up to the DM, of course). I know that things like that occurred in a few places in BG1. I didn't exploit it, though. That would just be boring. And we're on the same page there, one single option "kill, kill!!" would be a pretty awful CRPG, or rather an ARPG or some dungeon crawler. They are quite fine too, but that's almost an other kind of games altogether to me.

First, and this is no biggie, just a funny recurring typo, but you happened to write "tumble" each time you meant "stumble". No need to correct it, though. It put a smile on my face! As for your description of the xp system as overarching storyline quests with plenty of objectives attached to them like beads on necklaces, I see no problem there. If done right, this makes for great checks and balances when fine-tuning the gameplay and the RP-experience and world reactivity overall. However, if there are even one encounter that doesn't fit into this scheme, then I reckon xp should be rewarded just like it was an objective-bead on one of those quest-strings. It should be just as much an accomplishment as any of the other encounters. I have a feeling there will be a few of these maverick encounters that don't affect any quest in any way, but that's just a guess.

Indeed, and that's why Tim Cain's "accomplishment" is so much better, because it rewards the party after they have dealt with the encounter, instead of the concept "objective xp", which to me entails having an objective, and thus it's almost is like a mini-quest or a part of a quest, and that won't do it, no? I like have you emphasized "hand-placed". This is what I presume as well, even if it has some randomness via some script, all encounters should have been thought through thoroughly and make sense in its context (heh, a comeback for that term). And the question of "significant impact" is very interesting. What happens if the party takes out one ogre and flees?

I can totally play a game like the one you delineate above, no problem! But is it the best game possible for PE? I'm not so sure. Lets' see now: I agree that all xp has to be contextual, but not by your definition of context - the players "have an objective". I reckon that a computer game is slightly different than PnP, and that if its areas are rightly and richly designed, they can accommodate all kinds of exploration and choices, and not just parties commuting between quest givers. I really hope this is the way PE will be designed. My worst fear would be DS3 in this regard, it was far too linear and the choices weren't really many, and usually only bound to text lines in dialogue trees. If my party stumbles upon three trolls, a few short guys and some ponnies, and then I kill this weird bunch for RP-reasons, this should be rewarded with xp as an accomplishment (no need for some quest linked to it). And here I wish that we drop the "objective xp" concept from now on and stick to Tim Cain's "accomplishment xp" (let's abbreviate it "axp"). Btw, my example was of course deliberate, as most of the valuable experiences Bilbo and his dwarven companions acquired weren't quest-based, but haphazard stuff and bad (good?) timing. Even my PnP-sessions with players, most of them ends up digressing from the obvious paths and objectives, even main quests, and instead we find ourselves in adventures that weren't really planned. And this does not entail a party going northwards for days (that sounds like my first playthrough in Daggerfall). Several cases in BG1 felt like that - real roleplaying. It was rather PnP-like, and I loved it. AD&D's "flat" xp rewards didn't encourage grinding random encounters (that would be bad DM-ing). PE will not have an infinite XP pool. But giving axp for encounters that weren't part of objectives or quests per xp should not and hopefully will not "unbalance game progression". I hope that PE can handle my "less predictable" playthroughs, as that's what roleplaying a party is for me.