Osvir

^So basically you both agree that Hardcore should be Hardcore and Easy should be Easy?

I recall statements "Cultural Background" stuff for the character in P:E at character creation, as for how does backgrounds affects the main story? I don't know. Sounds like a lot of work though. By the way, the "Main Character Dies=Continue" is purely mechanical in design/development whilst "Main Character Dies=Game Over" is narrative "The End". The story (which was bigger than my character) abruptly came to an end. Parallel example, it is like you are reading Star Wars and suddenly Luke Skywalker slips on an insignificant "banana" and its "The End" in the middle of the book. If the story is progressive without the main character, then a good story following that example should be able to continue. The Main Character could also be like "StarCraft 2", an overlord type. I think Jaheira really strikes gold and enough said. "Yes, oh omnipresent authority figure?"

That pretty much sums up where I stand too. Great post .Leif.

Something I did real quick. Red is "Picked Level" and Grey is "Locked out". Could you choose "Class" level up every level? This would allow for the oddball, but it would also allow for a purely focused "Class" direction as well. Basically, the Character levels up (as a character) and gets to choose 1 Class at Level Up to get better in. So the Character would be some like this: Character Level Level 1: Fighter Level 2: Wizard Level 3: Fighter Level 4: Barbarian Level 5: Ranger So basically a Level 2 Fighter+ Lvl1 Barb/Wiz/Rang. It wouldn't mean that the Ranger gets level 5. Likewise, instead of choosing Upgrades when you level up, is there a way to choose Upgrades before you level up? This might go better in the 'resting' mechanics thread but w/e... could you pre-decide the Class direction/experience before gaining the experience? (Kind of like "Research"). Example: Telling my Rogue at Camp "I want you to gain Offensive Experience" which makes the Rogue get Offensive Abilities, or I can tell the Rogue "I want you to gain Utility Experience" and he instead gains experience and abilities correspondingly.

Here is some Zombie history from Haiti on Wikipedia

There are some alternate endings in PS:T? I know you can become the Skeleton King (or w/e it was) and get an early ending (bad) ending. This thread pretty much goes into that bin I guess. "Early Endings" and "Alternate Endings" I guess.

Disclaimer: Tired thoughtful brainstormed rambling. @Dream: Pretty much all M&M games, Lands of Lore, Realms of Arcania... uuhm... Wizardry.. most of these requires the entire party to be wiped out. They are also FPS RPG's, can't think of a Party Isometric RPG that does this. How does Pool of Radiance work? (the later one, not the original old old school ones)... how does ToEE work? All of the FF games pretty much (that are Party based story more so than "Main Character" Story). Disgaea (likewise other Turn-Based RPG's, though those are some mechanics that doesn't work for an IE game). Likewise, none of these old classic gems really doesn't have a definite main character though. Lands of Lore does, I have only played with one character (of the 4 you can choose, I guess you could call those "Cultural Backgrounds"). All of the above are irrelevant though. Relevant to your challenge Dream, but not relevant to P:E. @Scenario (includes the party mechanic, stated in this thread that it is going to be in P:E, that you only lose when your Party dies): I go out into the P:E world, got Mortality mode on. My character lost all health but doesn't get perma-death because... the rest of the party needs to die first? So this would mean I could resurrect the main guy on Mortality mode over and over again because the rest of the party survived? So basically there's 2 outcomes that could be played with... Reflecting on paragraph^: for some reason I think that there is a misconception of how "Mortality" works, I suspect it should be something like "Outcome A" if anything, and not like "Outcome B". I can understand with "Mortality" Off or on easier difficulty that your entire party needs to be wiped out, but with it "On"? Doesn't sound quite right. Outcome A, The main character dies when he dies, you lose the game so you'd have to keep your main character alive (BG style). No ill intended but this was dumb, even if the Bhaalspawn lore made it reasonable, it was pretty dumb. I think Baldur's Gate generally follows a story where the main character doesn't need to be the main character, and hardly is needed to progress the story (there are other actors that fills that role very well). If you could spawn at the Temple (as a Priest, w/o Gorion) and walk from there to the Friendly Arms Inn (or directly to Nashkel) or start in Gullykin as a Gnome.. it wouldn't have mattered if your character was the Bhaalspawn or not really. In Baldur's Gate 2 the Bhaalspawn is way more important (granted) but in the first game... I don't know, I never liked the main character too much in Baldur's Gate. The companions made the game interesting in my opinion, not the main character. Heck, Sarevok felt more interesting than the main character in Baldur's Gate. Jaheira or Minsc could progress the story in BG2 now that I think about it, both of them has an agenda and motivation versus Irenicus to continue. Outcome B, The main character dies when the party dies, you lose the game only when the entire party has been wiped out. So basically a standard Party game mechanic. You die when you've been completely wiped out, makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that the party members around you could die like flies (Perma-death) but not the Main Character. So if all 5 of your companions die they die, even if you keep your main character alive through it, but if the main character dies and the 5 other guys are still alive the Main Character manages to somehow survive? All I am suggesting is, Outcome C, The main character dies when he dies, you get to continue, or you can reload. You only lose when the entire party is wiped out. So this is a hybrid-thing with B. It would give most material for a roleplaying experience on a 3rd playthrough, 4th playthrough etc. etc. this "Outcome" could be tied to the final dungeon, but it would really shine the most if "Global" possibility, why? Playthrough 1: Main charcater survives all game. Playthrough 2: Main character dies in Chapter 1, I get to continue. The story I experience and create/narrate for my character/story from this point on becomes different because I don't have the main character, instead I follow the experience as an observer rather than the main actor (StarCraft story and character control. The player is in this case an, example, "Commander". Not some player generated character). Playthrough 3: Main character dies in Chapter 2, I get to continue. The story I experience and create/narrate for my character/story from this point on becomes different than Playthrough 2. You get more material to play with your character in "Outcome C" on different playthroughs. You could also play the game more similarly to a Final Fantasy game, where you use the in-game designed characters (companions) instead of your psuedo-important character. I am deliberately excluding "Companion" playthroughs, which would be a novel by itself (Playthrough 1: Forton, Playthrough 2: Edair etc. etc. with main character death possible you'd spice up those combinations as well). What I am implying is not that there should be written content for each of these playthroughs but merely allowing for it to happen opens up so many door (and that, my friends, is the point). Many people thought Imoen was bad, I thought she was way more interesting than the player character story in BG1. I respect your opinion Nonek (btw, the silver shard in his heart being some sort of reason for him to be alive = "chosen one"). Can't I just rip the silver shard out of his heart and insert it into someone else? What is the main "character"? A soul? An item? An artifact? Are you, the Player, the Soul of the "Character"? If the main character is some sort of "Soul", that could explain why the entire party has to die, as either the main "character" could simply jump between bodies as a "Soul". Which would be an odd way to solve this, but it is a solution nonetheless (E.g., if the main first guy you created dies~permadeath, you could perhaps simply just inhabit Forton and take over him and interract with the world still as the main "Character" but you simply just have Forton's appearance). I am simply trying to push for an idea which allows you to do just that, but where the main character is disposable as well, for even further variety. As a possibility and not something that gets forced down your throat, something that allows you to move on and continue without the main character (without messing it up for those who wish to play with the main character). In a way, more options for what to do with the Main Character (up to the player and not up to the game~). Like I've said before, if it is already pre-designed in the game that Companions can act as front-figures, then it should be possible to play without the Main Character naturally. It wouldn't be "Everyone has to do this!" but more of a choice a la "Do you want to do this?". Some players could simply reload (as some already have stated), other players could say "Darn it!" and continue. I'd prefer both of these options, as it would give more options to more players different styles and provide more material for replayability. Diversity and variety. And hey, if the main character could die you could have some "Suicide" Ability that you could use to make it even more epic as you take out the final boss by exploding or something you could go out with a "Bang", and still continue the game. Kind of a "Companion Revenge!" type of thing. Finally, and following the direction of the thread (About the main characters role in the story) I'd not want my character to be the plot, but more or less be a part of it. Most preferably a character that gets "hit-by-lightning" (the "Event", figure of speech) and then move on and experience the world in different directions. Summary of post: * The point: Opening doors, possibilities, variety, more options. Replayability. * What is the main character? * Baldur's Gate main character was pretty pointless. In BG2 the main character feels important for the plot and progression. * Starcraft & Warcraft 2, the player is a "Commander"/"Overlord". The player character is you pretty much and not some avatar figure.

Could the Player take the "Quest" in a completely new direction by the actions he/she is taking? Say, there is a Side-Quest to banish a Demon, but instead you release him and becomes his master. Now this wasn't just some "Hey Demon become my summon!" but an actual "Doomsday Demon" making it even more threatening than the task previous task at hand, and he's on your leash Could the player produce some "doom events" themselves? Basically, instead of facing Sarevok, the Bhaalspawn goes off elsewhere on a "X" choice. Choosing to face other player triggered events that is way more a problem than Sarevok. Or stumbling into some dark deep place and accidentally summon Cthulhu (in a side-quest). Sarevok is just an ant in a much larger scheme after all... no? Basically, can the Player kind of become the "threat" narratively?

Conceptual, not a suggestion, just improvisation. Chapter Based Scaling: * Chapter 1 You are thrown into the world, it is at a current state somehow. The world might be a little bit docile, and little to find or fight. Some bands of bandits lurking about etc. etc. of what you can explore during chapter 1. Maybe you can travel to a Xvarts Village and thwart them somehow. * Chapter 2 Unlocking more areas possible to explore, monsters from both Chapter 1 and newly introduced monsters reacting to how you played in Chapter 1 (non-lethal or lethal) and providing some sort of "counter-evolution" to that ("How many X did you slay in Chapter 1?"). * Chapter 3 Further unlocking more areas to explore, perhaps you choose Faction A above Faction B in Chapter 2 and that effects what kinds of soldiers run around guarding cities and towns around the world or whatnot (random towns?). Character/Party gets introduced to the world, starts to gain in reputation. Though, one could possibly take the route to not gain a reputation and choose to stay more suburb? * Chapter 4 Etc. etc. plot related~demon summoned from outer realms~character could be the "Catalyst"? (Knowing the True Name of a Demon side-quest that transforms into Player triggered main quest? :D) On Level Scaling I think you need to bring it into 4 brackets: How does Level Scaling work on Easy? How does Level Scaling work on Normal? How does Level Scaling work on Hard? How does Level Scaling work on Hardcore Ironman? Additionally important, where do you feel you belong?

^Great post! I also got an idea from it. Could leveling up be pre-decision? "I want my character to gain experience in this" and whenever you gain experience the character gains experience for specifically what you have chosen before-hand. So you could tell the Rogue "I want you to gain more Scout experience" or "more Offensive experience" and they'll level in whatever you choose and thus you'll get a class style. You'd be able to choose the "Direction" you want to take the class/leveling up at camp.

^I think that sounds like a misconception. The idea lies in the character struggling at the very end of his life. You've been stabbed in your chest and if you are given immediate treatment you'll survive otherwise you'll draw closer to death. It doesn't have to be "-10" either, simplify it to 3: 1: "All health gone, starting to loose life" * Maimed 2: "Time is running out, you need immediate assistamce" 3: "Final breaths" During this time you get a chance to "resurrect" (i.e. stabilize) the character in a maimed state at 0 Stamina and low health. Failing to stabilize kills the character, a.k.a permadeath (if you play with "Mortality" On). What this means that in a tough fight one of your companions lose all health, so you are 1 guy short in the battle. You could probably take out the monster, but not before the companion dies, so you might need to grab one of your guys from the group to "stabilize" the dying guy, now 2 guys short in the rough fight. Basically that it could cause tactical situations where you get to decide. Is the companion fodder? Some random guy from the AH or some more important companion you've grown attached to? Etc. etc. Lots of FPS games use this mechanic where you can resurrect your companions, so not so much ToEE only. Not really a D&D mechanic but it seems that the FPS genre adopted it more than modern RPG's do.

good design would not give a benefit to someone who walks away from the game like that. I understand its the player's choice, but predictible player choices should be considered when designing mechanics. LoL clearly discourages you from walking away. A mechanic that limits resting to every 16 game hours does nothing to discourage walking away. In fact, it would seem to encourage it by allowing you to be rested for more of your actual time playing the game. Obviously some of the blame is on the player. But ideally the game design would encourage the game to be played. A single player game doesn't need to discourage someone from walking away. Please include a pause button. But I don't want to come across a point in the game where the optimal solution is to stop playing the game while I wait for some artificial timer to finish. The 16 hour rest limit would do exactly that. If there is a difficult encounter coming up and I'm injured, the optimal strategy would be to wait until I can rest before I attempt the fight. The optimal strategy, so far as I understand it, is to fight one battle then walk towards the next one because my stamina will have regenerated almost 100%. Whilst you are making sandwich I am well under way to finish the game. To be honest... why do you need "Resting" in P:E? There is no spells to memorize, no health to heal and stamina will heal by itself. What is the function of the resting? What can you do there? Is it a special place where you can access crafting? Some preparation inventory management? "What is Resting?" in P:E

Heh, I've seen a couple of episodes from some Let's Plays playing Lands of Lore & another one on Legend of Grimrock, different players but both picked up the rock to do some "throw rock" damage in both games. In the LoG one the guy spoke about "Arr me trusty rock!". Some Let's Plays has the Chair as the most trusty companion pet to have (Amnesia). I vote for Pet Rock too by the way, as in an actual rock and not Shale.

@GrinningReaper659: Likewise, on the other side of Yin (where you stand), there's us who prefer Yang which is Ego stroking too. Endless debate and I will not try to sway your Ego above my own so... *bows* Pretty much this:

@whining: *shrug* @company: What I said before the other thread died. "Creative QA". Some free employees. I can't say I think what they are doing is bad, they are introducing new people into development for a price. They also mention that you'd be able to use it in a resume. Seeing how P:E and Wasteland 2 right now stands, Black Isle is inspired by something. It is like they are adding one step before being able to work in "Technical QA". In my opinion, Black Isle Studios does it wittingly but that doesn't mean that it is any lesser of a serious matter. The Developers (Black Isle Studios) can directly communicate with the Forums as if they were employers and the Forums could be used more of a "Meeting" I guess. If you are a Developer you might understand, heck if you know any work. I used to work in stocktaking, to make it better I had to discuss with my colleges at the job, for the job and be able to demonstrate work for the job "Pointing at things" etc. etc. it is another mentality than what we are doing on these forums. There is no guidance here (because the higher tier backers got that privilege). So what Black Isle Studios is doing might actually be great for the game. A whole new way of developing products and ideas, no? As a customer you know what you want, and discussing with the costumers so they get that is probably good. That doesn't mean the game gets tailored for a specific group, it just means that the game gets more polished. Regardless, if Black Isle Studios makes the game by themselves the game gets tailored around them, so it is also about "expanding the circle" for how "big" or "good" game it should be. 5 people makes a game, they really like it and think its great, problem is no one else does. 30 people makes a game, they really like it and think its great, chances are that more people are going to like it is substantially bigger.

This is the update from interplay that has caused the ****storm, just in case anybody hasn't seen it. Then you need to read their Update 1. Here is their Facebook page by the way. And a Gamasutra article I haven't read. That Update (#2) also sounds like a trick to gather more seriously devoted backers (who actually wants to help out with the project). The game seems to already be in production, they are just trying to grab some free employees. Ask Obsidian, how much does it help to have a forum which discusses ideas and finds problems that you haven't seen or thought about? Sounds like a "Creative QA" to be honest. Black Isle seems to be going for a more specific targeted group. Like I said in another post, a closed forum "with purpose"-discussion.

Because it is Ego stroking the player, obviously *skims thread*

^Oh, on this: As a choice of course. Either you press the "X" button making the AH "Off" or you don't and keep it "On". "X" can be a Mod or in-designed. Likewise, Economic Difficulty could also be possibly modded in.

It's a player character with a heritage. It's the same thing as being born black/white/asian/gay/straight/whatever. There are things about you that you can't change but that doesn't mean you're not you. You can change It has been implied that the cultural background in P:E is going to be definable at character creation, which implies that your character can have a different heritage. Already differing from BG and getting closer to DA:O and Arcanum, so depending on the cultural background my character could possibly be a "Nobody". The "Chosen One" for the Event, but not for the unfolding. Is the main character really the only one who can defeat the Darkspawn? Ferelden would probably have been lost to the Darkspawn, but other nations would repress it I believe. Grey Wardens stationed elsewhere etc. etc. same thing in Baldur's Gate 1 specifically, your character holds no real importance to finishing the Quest and other characters could have gone on without the character.

Almost done with Divine Divinity, resting really works well in Divine Divinity, all I am missing in that game is a bedroll that I can carry with me and use wherever I'm at (does it exist?). If the "Bedroll" doesn't exist in P:E then I've got nothing against specific places where you can rest and not everywhere (unless you've got a "Camp"/"Bedroll" that is placeable).

Is the Bhaalspawn really a player character though? In most ways I would like to say "No" (you only give the character a "Face" basically), because it is Bioware's character and we are just following their red thread that they've created. That's why I thought it more fun to create the PC in a multiplayer game (someone following the Bhaalspawn) and those characters that I made would continue the story without the Bhaalspawn, they would try to figure out the conspiracy and try to figure out everything that's happening without the Bhaalspawn. It is also way more easier to roleplay a character that you've created rather than something the developer has created.

Because companions will be free (I guess). Ye your guess is as good as mine. I hope they aren't free, but more of "Hired Guns" ("Hire" implies paying) that I can narratively insert into my story as I see fit. Uhm, I already told you. What the AH does is add diversity to parties because you can create any party makeup you wish, rather than choosing always the same companions because there will be (max.) 1 of every class. You're talking from the perspective of someone who wants to play with companions and only uses the AH for restocking, but realize that this is not everyone's play style. I'm also repeating my point that it's not going to be easy to restock your party from the AH because they'll start at level 1. Imagine being halfway through the game and losing 3-4 of your characters in a battle that went horribly wrong. It's good that you can restock at the AH, but it's only a slim chance because half of your party will be very weak until they gain more XP. I've said on numerous occasions that I want to be able to play skilfully, that means replacing characters if there's perma-death in the game. I don't want free candy, only a chance to continue if you play the game well. I'm with you. But likewise I would bi-polarly want to see options where everything is gimped and it is a real challenge. "I want a Challenge but I don't want to lose" is all fine, I kind of want the opposite, a Challenge that makes me lose or makes it way more difficult for me to "win"*. I want to make characters at the AH, that's where I'll be spending lots of time. It still adds more physical tangible difficulty if you are locked out from the AH. Like I said in another post, I could just not use the AH and when someone dies they perma-die (with no replacements) but that is more abstract lock-out. By the way, I intend to play Hardcore Ironman Mode All Hardcore options On and make a Let's Play series on my first playthrough * I guess that's partially the point as well, higher difficulty implies that it should be harder to win.

I think Combat should reward Combat Exp and Objectives rewards Objective Exp. Basically: Character/Class/Quest Experience Combat Experience Non-Lethal Experience And before the non-lethal pathtaker arguers start arguing about "But then I'm going to be weak in combat!!" suck it up! You chose to play non-lethal, then you should not be as lethal as the lethal path, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that being non-lethal wouldn't be able to handle themselves in combat. They shouldn't be as strong physically, but could use their class abilities to overcome challenges. As the challenge for Level Scaling, I can think of countless situations where it can be good, just don't make it like Oblivion or FF8. Enemies shouldn't just become stronger because you get stronger, but they should be strong by themselves and it should represent itself. The Bandit Lord starts of at Level 5 in the game, when I get to him on a standard gameplay I get to level 4. He shouldn't be an equal challenge on Level 1 and Level 4, that's why the "Set Level" which is static. The level of the Bandit Lord gets dynamic when you get a level, so when you are level 3 the Bandit Lord magically levels up to present more of a challenge (on harder difficulties) on an easier difficulty the Bandit Lord might not need to scale at all. It is also a question of the Bandit Lord always being representative of his strength, and that's why he should scale on higher difficulties. This means that on Hardcore the Bandit Lord could be level 8, and on Easy he stays on Level 5. I said it in another post but that would not equal the Bandit Lord having better gear, he just deals more realistic damage and gets advantages that you get. He gets more realistic to the representation in the game. If he is bigger than the party characters (physically) that could represent itself much more in Level Scaling. I don't like Divine Divinity for this, absolutely great game but I was running back and forward like a fool. Ran into a nest of difficult Orcs, simply ran elsewhere, ran into a pack of easier enemies, gained a level, got back to the Orcs, defeated them until it got difficult again, backed up and ran elsewhere, got a level from easier enemies and stragglers, returned to where I couldn't defeat... etc. etc. I wouldn't mind some instances where it is "This is too difficult for you now, so back off", with level scaling you can remove lots of that though. Level Scaling might simply imply just that, on Easy the enemies are Level 3, but on Hardcore they are Level 5. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

The point is that you get a chance to save your character whilst they are dying, or you fail/don't get there in time and they die. EDIT: Edair gets stabbed in the chest but he isn't entirely dead, dying sure, but not dead. With the use of magic or whatever I can stabilize him, but he wouldn't be ready for combat right away (unless someone throws some "Stamina Health" potion at him or whatever) and the HP he has now should be low and take several days to recover all the health. When the battle is finished he starts to regain Stamina like the rest of the party. It is also a question of being able to save the main character (if it is Game Over when he/she dies).

I hope not. I'm planning on making my own party for nearly every playthrough, with a few exceptions (if I definitely want a Barbarian in my party and there's a Barbarian companion I'll probably take him). The whole replayability hinges on the different kinds of party setups you can have. If Difficulty handled the scaling, it wouldn't mean that you wouldn't be able to hire more companions, it'd just mean that companions would cost more on higher difficulties (See my next answer on your other paragraph). Likewise, on a simpler difficulty it would just mean that the Companion costs closer to nothing the lower in difficulty you go. Why should Companions from the Adventurer's Hall be "free"? That would be a bad idea. All it would do is elevate the status of companions compared to those you can recruit through the AH. Which would result not in you building interesting parties but always playing with one of every class. The AH characters WILL become more of a problem on the higher difficulties, as they will probably start on level 1. That means it might be a pain/ feat of skill to keep them alive on a higher difficulty late into the game. So there's no danger that you will sacrifice them on suicide missions. How and why is it a bad idea? (As an "Option") On Ironman Hardcore mode, Forton+Edair died, I can simply go and restock. Does that add to the difficulty? I think I voted "Yes" but I'd prefer it as an optional thing. It is also a question of making "Hiring" from the Adventurer's Hall a "limited" amount that you can do (on higher difficulty). Basically on Hardcore you can only hire 5 companions in total or something.