PK htiw klaw eriF

Plate of the Beast High Quality set of Plate Crafted by savages long dead, this predatory animal themed armor is of great value to collectors of artifacts. The enchantment on it grants the wearer the strength of a savage beast, but also clouds their judgement. Good bonus to AC(or whatever the PE analogue is) Bonus to strength and constitution. Small penalty to Will saving throws(or whatever the PE analogue is) PC cannot select the "diplomatic" dialogue options when worn.* *By this I mean anything that is a way to avoid violence.

You know, I never will understand how telling someone that your ignoring them is such a big threat. Anyways, I think that to make lock-picking more interesting, they could require the use of thieve's tools(which should not be a single use item like in NWN(2), but rather a relatively expensive item that can be used multiple times), and have a chance to destroy the tools and/or destroy the mechanism that allows the chest to be opened. It could function exactly as the hit system does, a "miss" would be something breaking, a "graze" would be failing to open the lock, and a "hit" would be opening the lock. That way, the result is still determined by a RNG, but the PC has to gamble against losing a valuable(and expensive!) tool if they repeatedly try to open a chest that is almost impossible with their skill level.

I just reinstalled NWN2. I'm doing an OC playthrough then going to enjoy MOTB.

Something of that nature. Didn't you have a several page "conversation" with him? Where instead of answering questions about the mechanics he wanted he would attack you or side-track you in to different territory?

Oh noes! A guy who struggles with basic English and can't prove this amazing system he came up with works or even exists is ignoring me!

I'm sure those papers are happily resting next to the unicorns that live in your attic. Hey you managed to do an entire post without one spelling mistake! This is like a first for you isn't it?

Agreed. As far as party AI goes, it is one of the best implemented(aside from the level determinant limitations and lack of certain options). However, I am also talking about behavior outside of combat. Being able to completely script the PC from the start of the game would be incredibly cool, because you could see how their personality influences combat tactics and what decisions they would make. You could use this to script more dynamic foes and NPCs in modules as well. However, until that option exists, the player should have absolute control of the PC.

Is there a "meh" option for this thread? I think that having a large chunk of games require steamworks is awful, but do appreciate some aspects of Steam(like not having to wade through the nexus).

I don't see why not. They shouldn't be as good at combat as the warrior classes or even the rogue classes, but they still should be able to use melee weapons.

I'm surprised you managed to spit out the sauerkraut long enough to post that. So you think that more reactive NPCs are good, but want to deprive people the ability to test how comprehensively they can script NPCs for modules? That sounds like a great idea.

Funny, I almost caught nonenglishspeakeritis from you. If I hadn't used protection I might be dropping periods, forgetting how to use spaces, and misspelling words. ITDS really suck balls don't they? Then you agree that comprehensive scripting is a good thing, and that allowing the player to test it out by using it on a PC is fine?

It is spelled "acuity". If you want to insult someones intellectual abilities, it generally helps to spell correctly. If it gets you off of here for a few weeks, please do. Go write "hunders" of pages on your system. Then come back, start a new thread, and present your "hunders" of pages there. Obviously you do, because watching you flail around in this thread for the past two weeks has been funny as hell. Have fun with your magical system that no one has seen a concrete example of and you refuse to show!

Well I did know what I was doing, but that is most likely due to the fact that I took half an hour to read the manual. You'd be surprised how much reading the manual makes things easier. Well, you could apply that comprehensive scripting to the toolset and create dynamic modules. Also how NPCs think could now apply to combat as well as dialogue. Hell, most areas of the game would improve by having comprehensive behavior scripting.

I'd like to get in to this, but I'm from Houston so........yeah. Astros are going to suck pretty damn bad.

When I apply for the position of "destroy", do you mind if I use you or noone as a reference?

Damn, that is a great idea.

I don't have a problem with them making a game and claiming it is the spiritual successor to PST. I think it has the potential to be an amazing game that will be remembered as fondly as PST is. I do think that the name choice sucks though. It doesn't roll of the tongue and feels quite awkward. Also, from what I have read, Numenera is a pretty cool setting, and I think that it can easily stand on it's own without trying to emulate another game.

No one accused you of being in to domination stuff bro. But hey whatever floats you and noone's boat.

Well there is some skill needed. Being able to read, knowing how to operate a PC, and being able to interpret basic directions are required to play them. But no special skills that take 200+ hours to master are required to perform well in IE combat. Hell I breezed through on my first playthrough and I had zero hours worth of 2E experience at that point. Yep. It also extends well beyond combat, to how likely the character will be to commit crimes and how they react to NPCs. Better yet, we can use the ability to comprehensively script character behavior to have more complex and dynamic AI, which could easily translate to better encounters and more NPC reactivity. I don't see how any one could be against that, especially since lack of reactivity and trash mobs seem to be the most reviled things in the world to some people.

So you accept that successfully walking has nothing to do with player skill? Good. I was beginning to think you couldn't understand anything but assembling Volkswagens, Sven. Sure. It isn't like combat relies on anyone's reflexes or has requires the player to master pressing a series of buttons in quick succession. I want the ability to completely script all aspects of a PC in a cRPG and have them accurately act as I designed them completely independent of any player input, because that would be a marvel of technology. Not only would one get to be able to put the game on "auto-pilot" if they wished, if they wanted to play someone whose tactical ability was far beyond the greatest generals in history or with a mindset completely alien to them, they no can. The genre can heavily benefit by now being able to create reliable AI for the party and foes, who will both be more dynamic and effective in combat.

Does any of that require you to press buttons so the character does not fall down? Thank you. So hitting someone with a sword requires player skill in the IE games? I must have missed that. I seem to recall that it used a RNG to determine a number 1-20 and used that to see if a hit was made. But it is a lessening of player control. And it is a trend. So the trend of "less player control in cRPGS" is already here.

No it depends on the player telling a character where to go. The player does not need to press a string of buttons so the character does not fall down. Have you ever had to press a button to keep them from falling down, or after you told them where to go, did they do it? Well some of us here have to know how to speak English. Can you explain what the **** fundamentil is? Is that some kind of lentil? If you meant "fundamental" the difference is that one is determined solely by the player's interpretation of what the character would do, while the other is determined by the player's ability to press buttons. So success would depend on what the character is able to do in a system that only utilizes character skill, and player skill in the other system. In ME and DA, the character talks and moves without input from the player. So yes, player control was lessened.

You obviously don't understand what "successfully" means. In what RPGs have you played where moving from point A to point B required the player to press a series of buttons so the character did not trip and fall with every step? By stupid decisions I obviously didn't mean "forgetting to let your character breathe" (unless you're underwater. In that case running out of oxygen is a dumb thing to do), but making bad decisions in combat, breaking&entering in broad daylight, casting Firebolt at the king, etc. All of which has negative consequences that you say you can live with, despite the fact that you claim a player's skills/ condition shouldn't have an influence on the character. Hey if you completely lose control of your mental faculties when you have a bit too drink don't blame me. Some of us are capable of holding our liquor enough to still make ration decisions even if we are a bit drunk. What if "drunk" was replaced with "sick" or "injured"? There would be no reason for the character to suddenly start sucking at picking locks or missing enemies in the game, but they would because the guy pressing the buttons would suddenly be unable to do so as effectively. Well I'm sorry that noone feels that way. I still don't see what noone has to do with this. Someone missed the last decade.

You don't even have an example of your system do you? LOL. Who would of thought that Trashman was full of ****. Have fun with your totally balanced system that works perfectly but you can't show one example of how it works!

Not at all. You don't need to press buttons so your character can breathe, eat, walk, ****, etc. successfully do you? I don't see why you keep bringing noone in to this. I wasn't arguing that someone was arguing for that. The deciding factor is the player's skill. Success hinges on the players ability to press buttons or click, even though the character skill may make it easier. 1. How is it outrageous? The technology clearly isn't available at this time. 2. Because it would make the character completely independent of player skill, which I said was my preference. 3. I did state that the character should act exactly within the character design the player created. Having the character act as someone designed them independent of further player input isn't a contradiction, unless you also think that dynamic AI is a contradiction.