Osvir

Wait what... reading up on it quickly I am not speaking about a Spirit Eater mechanic (not devouring souls... well... Cipher?). A death counter, that's what I'm going for.

That's what I am advocating for I guess, money being a big deal on Hardcore where you have to think about your economy, whilst on easier modes you'd be able to do the standard "I'm rich!". It'd also make the game more difficult. I can understand that lower difficulties should be different, but Hardcore kind of implies that it'd be Hardcore, not just a challenge but more realistic. The further you go away from "realism" the more Easy, Easy gets, and the closer you get to "realism" the closer you get to Hardcore (Dark Souls & Demon Souls). I mean, I wouldn't mind it if I got taken down in one hit by the enemy, and they do too (bosses being different ofc, they go down in more hits but I still go down easily). You'd still be able to survive the fight, and perhaps not so Hardcore as Dark Souls or Demon Souls but close to. That's how I'd like Hardcore to be :D

Don't know how Mask of the Betrayer plays (never played it), which makes me wonder what is it that was bad about it? Or just because MotB did it bad, does that mean it is beyond redemption?

Just thoughts. What is a soul and what is its role? The soul is the persona, the Ego, the inner spirit or whatnot. Spiritualistic fluff, abstract, parallel-realm-ish, the underworld and the overworld, "Oneness". Connection and coincidence. Its role could be that Gods fiddle with it as they see fit and for a purpose, whilst some "earthlings" fight it, the "Gods" plan, some abuse it, some respect it. "The Grand Device". Do souls grant sentience? Yes. Do souls animate whatever they inhabit? Yes and no. Souls are everywhere all around, the "spirit". Druids, in my opinion, probably knows most truly what the "Soul" really is. They don't necessarily animate objects, but they are still there. "Soul of the Rock". A stone has a soul, Earth has soul, which is why it can be transformed into magical golems. Are souls necessary for life? Yes. Some form of it. Life is Death and Death is Life. Everything that has an ending has a new beginning. Dying in a "Body" doesn't necessarily mean that the "Soul" is dead. What is undeath? Undeath is the trapping of souls in vessels, which requires a second source (Necromancer) to utilize. Of course, sometimes lost powerful souls (such as a Wizard) can retain their existence and achieving immortality to become a Lich. In rare cases some with a great will still lingers left in the body, re-animating it (meaning that someone died rose up because he didn't quite feel he was finished with his life. So in a sense his body is dead, but his soul still lives on). Are gods a passive or active force over life & death? Active and passive. Do all gods have dominion over life & death? No. Could they all achieve it? Yes. Hades is a God of the Underworld, his purpose is to Govern the Dead, but he also tries to Govern the Living by his own schemes. What is the role of a priest? How does Priests interact with Souls Ideologically/Philosophically? How potent are the abilities of a priest? How does Priests interact with Souls Physically? Is there a distinction between Divine & Arcane magic? The power of the Priest should lie in how they interact with the Souls physically+ philosophy. Is the Priests abilities and beliefs against the Undeads favor? Does the Priest cast words of "Light" or like an "Excorsist" banishing the spirits (or releasing them) from the Undead vessel? In that case it fits. But if Priests use their abilities somehow differently~I don't know.

I'm thinking more like... if I'm a dual wielder irl, would I run out and fight with both of my swords out gung-ho style or would I have them sheathed? Probably sheathed. When a battle begins I would pick up one of them, because I want to test out my opponent and find weaknesses as well as learn from his style, I might bring out both of them instantly if I'm facing an opponent I realize I have to have 2 from the very beginning. But tactically it might be better to just wield 1 sword (a Katana?) with two hands for some instances. Switching between dual-wielding and two-handed. Two-Handed being strong against some enemies, dual-wielding against other. Read "Vagabond" manga, such a great piece. It's the story of Miyamoto Musashi, well.. inspired by. As for magic, why not? Not Skyrim magic, but P:E magic, combining two elements in your Grimoire.

So, some thoughts on mortality. I've never played DnD but I've read some stuff and played some stuff. Some slight research and understanding, got some friends who has played it too. -10 That would be a really cool feature. Life is ticking away, you've been maimed. But instead of the Mortality being what is "going away", it could be the "Soul". When it hits 0, it obviously kills the character, and during this time you could heal your character. What I understand this is kind of a "Death" Counter, starting with 10 then, -9, -8, -7, -6 etc. etc. Doesn't necessarily have to be 10, could be lesser. Maybe... -5? -4 It could be part of difficulty, you get "less" or more "counters" depending on difficulty, giving you lesser time to "stabilize" the character. At "Stabilized" the character shouldn't be able to fight (maimed, starts at 0 stamina). -3 Could you use some unique "Soul" abilities in this state at the cost of 1 death counter or more? -2 Not anything powerful, of course, and no "Second Wind" abilities either (Like Borderlands) but more "chilled" (Maybe the soul of a maimed character can "heal stamina" at some weak rate or distract enemies somehow. -1 *stabilizes* Sorry "To Stabilize", what would be required? A shot of some powerful stuff, a potion? A hard beating on the chest to not stop the heart? Bandage? Magic? What would be required to become de-stabilized? Thoughts?

Dragon Age 2 is a bad example in my opinion because it wasn't a finished game. Or rather, Copy+Paste game. Baldur's Gate 2 can work without the backstory from Baldur's Gate 1. @motorizer: I kind of want a red thread going across both games rather than a "figure" or an "actor" being the red thread. But I understand. If possible, being P:E2 being ambivalent somehow, that it could be a new hero just as much as it is the predecessor from P:E1. Dragon Age 2 is also narratively a bad example, because it left the red thread and poked it some times when mentioning the "Warden". It was way too vague in my opinion. I never finished DA2 though, and obviously no multiple playthroughs, how much does the background you choose effect the story? Opposing Force, Blue Shift & Half-Life is in my opinion a great example. In Blueshift you get to see Freeman once or twice running past you as well. Just finished Black Mesa <3 *relaxed* what a great game want Blue Shift, Opposing Forces mods naow! Haha TL;DR: Discussing sequels

This isn't talk about anything that is forced upon you, but an optional somewhat random situation. You are in the last dungeon, there is no turning back, your party has come this far and they could defeat the evil last boss or finish the last key without the main hero at this point. Which you, as the player, can of course. Or if your main character dies by chance in the last dungeon or against the last boss you would (as a player) be able to finish the game still (which is also a question of multiple endings or mod content). Now, Commander Shepard was required at the end... no he really wasn't why did they make such an ending to begin with!?!? Anyways........ What I am just suggesting is the possibility for the main character to die, and you have the control of it from a non-narrative perspective (in-game designed) meaning that you hold the control of your characters life and death (Story-wise). In a sense I kind of not want an in-game designed death by Obsidian (they can handle the epilogue for a multiple ending scenario), but let me have that control of the death. The death of the main character doesn't often go good, I'd rather narrate it myself "My fault the character died" not "Obsidian's fault the character died" <- that's also why people complain about it. If they make a sequel, then it should follow the cannon story rather than the cannon character~eeeh what I mean is that it could follow the main story rather than the main character from the first game. That depends on how Obsidian does it though. Maybe in the sequel you follow the story of another one, who walks a different path but in the same world, perhaps at a parallel time which is a piece to unlock the big picture that unfolds when you've finished the Quadrilogy together perhaps you have to go back and play the First one when you've finished the 3rd one because there were clues that you completely disregarded the first time you played (non-important originally). Anyways that is just rambling.

This makes me wonder, should P:E's animals be sentient or non-sentient? That would make the Beastmaster Role way more interesting but I think I now understand why all monsters have been "riled up" somehow and it is a big thing in the world. Isn't in Baldur's Gate they say "The animals have gone all whack! And Bandits too!", or am I thinking about another game? Regardless, developers making up lore to make the animals more mindless. It might speak for itself that making every animal sentient is probably a big workload.

I recall what .Leif. is recalling too. Something along those lines. Here is the thread

Dual Wielding, in some ways I feel it should be some sort of "activated" stance akin to "The Witcher". Being able to switch between Dual Wield stance and One Handed. This way you could hold the Katana like a two-handed sword, and mid-combat do some "hidden blade" attack or even draw the second Katana by using an ability. Likewise, I would like to be able to go into combat dual-wielding two Katanas, but be able to switch back to single-wielding mid combat.

Maybe the player simply can't speak for the character at [Point of Death], and the characters will simply speak for themselves as pre-written (as they would with the player), excluding [Player] from conversations with some sense of purpose to why they are going on, perhaps no more banters but more "silent protagonist party" basically who seek vengeance or is in sorrow/confuse. I can think of it as.. kind of a earlier era Final Fantasy party style. You didn't play your character, you were playing Cloud, Squaresoft's character. If P:E will be as customizeable as it could be, chances are that Obsidian's character story will differ way more differently than ours will. Kind of having "railroad" dialogue choices, more of a "casual" laidback approach to get the cannon story. Where there are minor choices in dialogues and the dialogues pretty much run on their own railroad. "Slacker"-mode! The game becomes more like a movie in that sense, you are watching/reading the story unfold, rather than abruptly ending it. *idk* armchair suggestion. You're still playing the role of the PC. The ability to give orders to your friends doesn't mean you have some hive mind that persists through death. If you went a trip with some buddies in real life and then fell off a cliff you wouldn't continue the trip by taking over one of their bodies; you'd be dead. That could be pretty cool. Maybe the main character is a follower "Spirit", really, some spectral being who guides the party forward. The Event could be related to the "Soul" character and the character you create, maybe? And you'd be able to play good hive mind or bad hive mind (Black & White)

But there is no DM Osvir. This isn't D&D, we aren't at the tabletop, this story isn't about the party which is comprised of five real human beings with their own characters. This is a single player CRPG and the story is only about MY character because I am the only actual player. I am only saying this to reinforce the common sense reality of the game. Again your idea can work, but it would have to be highly scripted and the game would have to be designed around it happening from the ground up. Also it doesn't really work well in blank slate games like this one. Games where it is less about you role playing your character and more about you experiencing the story and the world through a character (again example: Mass Effect's Commander Shepard) it can work. But this isn't one of those games. If it were then there never would have been an Adventurers Hall in the first place. Obsidian is the DM, they create the world. But I see what you are saying I guess, they aren't active DMs but in a way more robotic representations of the developers creation. Still makes them the DMs. Developer Master by the way, if you were wondering xD I think Sacred_Path has some great points generally and I'm pretty much on page with that.

No no, you sold the items for a very low price and bought them at a very high price. Conceptual-realism I guess. You bought a longsword from the guy for 150 gold, you think he's going to take it back at the same price? Maybe if he is an honest fellow he'll buy it back at a more reasonable price (I think I could sell the Short Sword for some 20-30 gold to Winthrop). Here is where limited inventory comes into picture. If you just can't carry too much at once, disabling the player to be able to become practically this (what you are hinting at): Likewise, you have 5 Short Swords, the Blacksmith has 10 (and he can make more), selling the first Short Sword would perhaps yield some 30 gold if he's even interested in buying, the second Short Sword wouldn't sell as well as the other one either, because now the Blacksmith has 11 Short Swords, and he can make more so maybe 25 Gold. How interesting is it for him to have 20 Short Swords in his stock when no one is buying it? Why does he want to have all the crap your throwing at him and why should he pay more for it when he already has the supply himself? Who buys armor and weapons and who is allowed to do it? How? Why? Where? What's the supply and what is the demand? Who makes what and who wants what?

^Most definitely not, we are on the same page. But could realism be taken into account here somehow? The Fighter versus Fighter scenario, equal of size, on easier difficulties you'd chew right through him like tender meat, whilst on harder difficulties he'd be more your size, and mechanically fighting 6 bandits on Hardcore could almost feel like fighting a counter party (albeit way easier than an actual anti-hero party). They don't need to get more gear, but just act more viciously, deal more damage. Kind of like facing another player party, if they can manage to make the AI that good, that's on Hardcore though and this goes for all games. I think StarCraft 2 in Brutal is way more fun and way more immersible than Casual or Easy which is more of a slaughterfest. So I kind of expect P:E to adhere to something like that for Easy, where encounters are a light challenge, not challenging on Casual (story only, play the game like a book), Normal starting to get challenging, Hard to get more challenging and Hardcore to be "phew" or "wake up and rage!!" for good or bad. I almost want P:E to be Dark Souls difficulty at Hardcore but yeah, a bit too hardcore maybe? You pretty much insta-die, but so does the opponent. If the game can somehow link your [Character Level]+[Difficulty]=[Enemy Encounter Level] somehow I think level scaling might be easy. I don't even think the mobs necessarily have to have any "Level" either, but more of a "Hitpoints" statistic Encounter = Not necessarily facing a mob of enemies, but just facing that dungeon could be seen as an encounter. Also, if there is 1000 experience in total of what you can do in Chapter 1, then Obsidian probably has a good clue on what the possible max level you're at at that point and can scale the encounters from Chapter 1 to 2, or introduce new monsters. Perhaps not too often, but every 2nd-3rd chapter perhaps, depending on the amount of... basically 1/3rds. Same thing with Chapter 2 to 3 by the way. With factions, one might grow stronger if you do that thing and the other gets stronger if you do that other thing. Differing the type of soldiers that roam the land in a planned invasion or whatnot. The presentation needs to be good I think, "Why are there new [Combat Enemy] roaming about?". Or does the Tasloi actually bolster in revolt after your destructive path, bringing all their clansmen together to fight you in Chapter 2 IF you slew them in Chapter 1, which I suspect many will. Or they upgrade in Chapter 3 respectively if you take them out in Chapter 2 (or has something else taken them out and occupying?) For those who only follow the main story, I think it is within reason to say that getting the same amount of experience shouldn't be applicable to this. "Mary did 15 quests and gained 1500 experience, Rolf did the 2 required quests, gained 1500 experience". No. How does the enemies scale against the non-lethal path? Do they adapt to your style? Documenting how you are playing in Chapter 1, and slightly creates some sort of counter-evolution against the type of character you play? Likewise, with reputation, wouldn't people start to know more and more about your abilities, and many that would've challenged you before will not and some challenging you just because of the path you've taken? At the same time: Having a low profile could actually be a good thing?

Valid opinion, and I agree, I also want it to be harder which does change the game slightly. Still the same game, but harder difficulty imply that things will be harder, combat becomes more tactical, potions comes into the question, you'll have to think about skill points more carefully. I think, personally, that an oddball character has nothing to do in Hardcore as an example, but shouldn't be left out from Hard and down. Difficulty implies things being difficult. If your weapon is something that determines how difficult of a time you're going to have I think that should be accountable, otherwise I could just get that +3 Sword just like how I got it at Easy which will help me greatly on my journey. But without it, because you couldn't afford it, also implies difficulty. Hopefully, a tactics mod would be created akin to the mod I had in BG ("Iron Crisis = Gear breaks easily/Not Magical gear ofc", "Bandit Raids = Rough", "Iron Shortage = Supply & Demand").

Exactly, but having the control of your characters life and death adds even more story. It'd make mortality a bigger business for sure, whilst I did kind of present the idea as a "global" thing I kind of revisioned it a little bit. Something that could be more valid/legit at the end-game dungeon or at the final boss both mechanically and narratively. Maybe being able to make a mod of it, write some fanfic ending~ <- which is my fear xD

xD I asked for "a moment". Oh well, yes I know but yeah, see the edited post

Sorry bro, I am re-reading stuff because I saw this: And just thought "Wait what?"... give me a moment. Here you go, my answer to Sharp_One regarding the roleplaying stuff, my bad. And here is your post where you say I don't grasp the concept of playing a role. Which was true, granted, I provided the wrong wording. Does the DM allow your character to face perma-death? If so, does your DM allow you to re-roll with a new character that isn't the Bhaalspawn this time? Does the game end for the character or for the world? I don't want to ignore the DM's world, I want to explore it and if there is a point in the game where it could be possible (towards end portions of the game) that I can explore the world even if I lose the most vital character, I would want to continue exploring, if reasonable to do so. "That's roleplaying folks" was a merry joke I'm a sucker for that "bad humour" xD sorry haha Also, on board with you on roleplaying, I went theater school. You'll have to excuse my grammar/English sometimes, or get frustrated and I'll see if I can explain with other words I guess. It gets frustrating for me too, "That's not what I meant!" type of thing sometimes. Great post and thank you

Absolutely, but would it stop Han Solo & friends? Revenge? Cowardice? Honor? Struggle on? Common quest and goals? You've reached the final lair and your character dies, would that make the party run away like chickens or would they end what has been started and is at a climactic location? -edit: I am changing focus of this idea towards being either an "Option" (as a mod) or end-game possibility, when the other characters are so dug into "it" that they are devoted individually to finish "it". They are part of the "Rebellion" now, or maybe not but they've got a score to settle! This I think was good in DA:O, where at first you are helping the companions with their quest, then they help you with yours. Some, like Alistair & Morgana (specially Alistair) are woven into the plot from day one, or day two considering the prologue and also would have motivation to continue A.D. (which he does for all I know). When you've gotten to the point of the game where your relationships are established and bonds or whatnot have been created, I think there'd be lots of motivation for the companions to continue, unless the character is really really needed narratively for the end-boss. Like I said, end-game final dungeon (not Od Nua, unless, both of them are interwoven) or from a certain later game Chapter. Also, thanks for your understanding & intelligent post Karkarov

I disagree. I'm not talking "flashy" or "effectful" animations with lots of colors (probably all of them from that rainbow thing). Realistic movement. This is probably not going to happen buuut, it would be pretty cool. And it is hardly going to be a microscope, you're probably going to see (what we've seen from concept art thus far) your characters better than you see the marines in Starcraft 2. Man, Zerglings? SC2 is such a great example graphically where detail really adds a lot. I do agree about budget, but if they find time and/or resources in some way that allows them to organize models and animations effectively. Kind of: When your Fighter fights another Fighter they actually clash like 2 gladiators would, all decided by a dice roll with several outcomes. Stamina could be related to "Taking Action" (swinging/magic/fighting/blocking), Health to "Taking Damage". I understand that it is a lot of work but it would be sweeet!

If everyone can learn anything and get all the feats and learn all the abilities the whole class system is redundant. Why not use classless system like in Fallout and World of Darkness? Well... "Everything" you could of course have a pool of abilities and skills that are class exclusive, and a pool of skills and abilities that are more general. Not anyone can learn to read minds, but everyone can learn how to use weapons. Well, that depends on how you read minds. Do you use a tool as an apprentice, something a curious Fighter picks up and at a start it fizzles but at some point he finds the Super Saiyan within and upgrades his hairdo one level, and learns to use minor 0.009 Cipher abilities. These thoughts go into the "Wall of Text" thread in my signature. A Grimoire, what if my Fighter chooses to use it and my Wizard tutors some basis of projection. Would the Fighter be able to cast magic in this case? Honestly, that is exactly what I'd like. So in a sense it'd be a very loose classless system, but having all of the classes (almost like Final Fantasy Tactics) in a "Class Tree" where you can cycle different Class Trees and upgrade your character freely into whatever oddball composition you'd want. You could be Señor Vorpal Kickasso, being an 1/8th of a Level of everything. Basically, having all of the classes on a spread sheet in front of you in different brackets, so the classes (as a whole) are defined already. This way you can pursue your Fighter class honestly and purely, or you could direct your Fighter into a path of a Wizard. Innately as the Fighter is he wouldn't make a too good Wizard, but pursuing it would make him more Wizard than Fighter, obviously, or pursuing both of it and you get a Fighter/Wizard. Heck you could make a 1/11th Character as well If there are tools laying around providing knowledge (such as a Grimoire), learning to use it from scratch (non-Wizard) should be a steep upwards hill but not entirely fruitless, imo.

Curiosity: Then how JFSOCC? It's not that you wouldn't afford the stuff, you wouldn't afford the good stuff right off the bat. Personally, I see how it adds to the difficulty (Hardcore, maybe not on Hard), enemies are more difficult, you'd also be under-geared. It'd take more time to accumulate the gold for the good stuff, and by then you'd probably have found some trinkets already as well. I think, also a valid question to ask: Should the market stay unchanged through difficulty or is it affected as well? I thought the whole point with a high difficulty is the challenge and mechanical restrictions. How difficult can difficult be? Why?

-edit-forgot why I quoted, but yeah what started my train of thoughts I guess: To be honest, I'd like the bosses (specifically) to be level scaled above my level on higher difficulties and below my level on lower difficulties. They'd still be rough being lower level, just not as much. To be blunt, making the bosses & encounters as "realistic" as possible (statistically & "danger") and then just "down size" them is a good way to go? @Obsidian: Follow your vision first and foremost. In this way, it wouldn't matter how many side-quests I do, the boss I get too (and dungeon?) would be scaled above my level. Would this mean they get better loot or that they statistically are just stronger and more threatening? One Bandit actually becomes like a character in the party in terms of realistic strength/size/physique etc. etc. "You know that's a bear right?" on Hardcore difficulty and "Teddybear!?" on Easy. Now, the Bear is a bad example (as it probably would be a part of that "not scaled" section, unless and if tamed & trained). I can see interesting plots unwinding, a sense of urgency, some areas that you have visited and left scaling slightly in strength because you left, recruiting more members for your next offense or whatnot. With a possibility to intercept in a random encounter on Fast Travel? I think this goes in the "Difficulty"-bin though. Likewise, maybe a business begins to down-scale (go out of business) because you are buying up the market. Thought: Would that have consequences? Maybe by taking all the stones and doing some mysteric secretive hard side-quest stuff actually make some boss & dungeon weaker? I think Level scaling can be great for a narrative, just no no Final Fantasy 8 or Oblivion. No. What FF8 and Oblivion do is that they are trying to appeal to the farmfest, i.e. level grinding. You can get to level "45" fast in both games, and get good gear/upgrades for it. Just run around in a circle for a while, spin the hamster wheel~ Luckily! To shred some light, P:E won't be like that. Right? The Bandit Lord is level 5, by default @start of game. I am playing on Hardcore mode, as I reach level 2, the Bandit Lord scales to level 6 etc. etc. I might be level 4 when I face him which would make him... level 8. On the easiest difficulty, the Bandit Lord perhaps starts at level 1, and only scales +1 every other level. The Bandit Lord could still be rough on Easy & Hardcore durr, Normal, just has lesser hitpoints or something.

I think Dream said it best in another thread: IIRC "There is Easy, Normal, Hard, Hardcore, 'sh** for real!!!'" haha. I agree with you Darkpriest, but at the same time I'm kind of on the ground feeling that I don't want too much gameplay skills in Hardcore should overshadow potential "Only works in Hardcore"-Narration, such as "Mortality" where it really is a "big business" both mechanically and in the story at Ironman. Turn on Mortality mode on Casual? You're probably not going to notice it anyways, if casual/easy plays... casually. Some of the narration could matter lots more in Hardcore, that's what I'm flirting with. As for selling at a higher cost... true. That one is difficult. Unless you are a really bad trader. Making [speech] or [Trading] an important skill to invest in, if. Thus, you buy everything at a high price, and sell it at a low price. In many games your character rarely needs to invest much thought into "How much gold do I have?". Thought: You bought a Longsword from Merchant A for 150 gold, Merchant A has 10 Longswords in the back, selling it to him would yield little gold, maybe 10-15, as he has the stock he needs and as a handy blacksmith he can probably make more. Merchant B only has 5 Longswords, he might be a little bit more interested and will buy it for a bit more (25-30 gold?), to restock and skip some blacksmith work and be able to rival Merchant A even. Supply & Demand, kind of. Does Merchant C even buy Longswords or shun from it?