PK htiw klaw eriF

Heroes Unlimited.

I don't think the reason PE was made was to be "anti-DA2", but rather "pro-Great RPG". Although Boware's obsession with creating a cinematic game rather than a RPG probably helped get some people to contribute. It got me to throw in $60 more than I originally intended.

They were "weak" romances as you could not get your hand in their pixel panties. How does not being able to have sex with them make them "weak" romances?

I lol'd.

Instead of "respec", how about any new party member starts out at level 1, and the player gets to level them up to the current level? This way, the player gets to build the party how they wish, without some metagame feature.

This is what I gather the positions are for the more reasonable of the pro and anti crowds. Pro- We want romance in PE because we believe that it can be done well and will enhance our experience. Anti- We don't want romance in PE because we don't believe that it can be done well, it won't enhance our experience, and can take away resources from other parts of the game that we find more important. About right? Both positions seem reasonable to me. The problem when this thread occurs when... Anti- You **** to pixels! Pro- You are a socially stunted ****head! Seriously guys, we aren't five year olds or politicians. We can have a calm, respectful debate about the value of romances(or any other feature) in PE without mudslinging if we just state our respective cases and let the other side state theirs. Also it would help if Obsidian could give us some idea of how much it would cost to implement romances, so we could all have some hard data. Anyways, I would like to see romances, because I see attraction to NPCs as something that quite a few of my PCs would have. Romances would enhance the game for me because it works well with my playstyle.

I think that would be an interesting experience(although I could see it working for all kinds of relationships, not just a marriage/romantic relationship). If possible I would like to see this done.

I think the bolded would occur if people would try to understand why people like or dislike a certain feature instead of lobbing attacks at each other.

Megaversal? Yes. From what I understand, the proposed system is quite similar to the SDC/HP system found there.

I would prefer "Structural Damage Capacity" TBH. Bonus points if you get the reference. It really doesn't matter much as I see it. If anything Vitality should replace Health.

Honestly, I don't like it very much. It seems to be much more complicated than 2-8 damage. Personally I love the idea of a damage range plus a static bonus, like 2-12+5. It shows the player the base range of damage the weapon will do and what bonus they will get to damage.

It should function exactly the same way it does for the party, unless there is a damn good lore reason why it does not.

I prefer the feat system like the one found in 3/3.5E to be better than talent trees.

I have two questions for those who don't like romances in games. 1. If you believe that romances between the PC and NPCs are simply fanservice, do you consider friendships between the PC and NPCs fanservice as well? 2. If the answer to the above is no, then why is a friendship not fanservice, but a romance is?

No. Consoles simply don't have enough input options to utilize the abilities that will be present in PE. Not trying to dig at consoles(they are better for certain types of games) PE simply wouldn't work on them. Hell DAO barely did, and it was pretty simple(seeing as it used a much smaller list of actions than NWN2).

Aren't options 1 and 2 pretty much the same? Anyways, I do like the damage to be in a range, rather than a flat number.

Shouldn't the player decide what the line means? A well written line in a Role-Playing game should be able to be delivered in a number of different ways. I find it more immersion breaking when the PC does something I don't explicitly consent to. I think that the [x]tags should only appear when the PC is utilizing some sort of skill. That way, if the PC is attempting to [heal], [persuade], [cast burning hands], the player will know that the PC is utilizing one of their skills/spells. I do agree that "ability determined"(by this I mean conversation options that are available by having x amount of a skill or attribute) conversation options don't need to have [x]tags, since the PC isn't attempting to use a skill, but is drawing upon knowledge that they have.

I could see something like this working.

And all threats should use the intimidate skill yes. I do not see how there could be any confusion unless the threatening is done using some horrible eufemisms (I could maybe take you out for dinner [dramatic score]). The Player is the one ho puts the "motive" behind the line spoken. So if the Player selects a line that they do not intend as a threat, but the intimidate skill is used, then that is a problem. [intimidate] should appear , so the Player doesn't unwillingly and/or unknowingly intimidate someone.

Not even then. It should be pretty much the opposite - every even remotely threatening response should check the characters intimidation skill without displaying any tags. How does the game know that the PC is trying to intimidate someone? The only one who should decide if a response is a threat is the player.

This is where I think that things get a bit muddy. I never consider the PC in a RPG to be me, so I don't view their romance and friendships to be my own. I think this makes the whole romance debate difficult because not every player sees their PCs the same way I do. I think that romances should be included if Obsidian wants to do them They focus character development/reaction rather than fanservice/ego stroking Every "romanceable" character can also be a good friend or other type of relationship

I don't think that they should show a [x] unless the PC is actively doing it. For example, if the PC is using the intimidate skill, the player should know that they are using it. I agree with OP in the cases of [attribute/certain other skills] where x amount of the said attribute or skill are required to even allow the option.

What If I wish to role-play a PC whose tactical prowess is far superior to my own? Having a tactics option could allow me to do that, assuming they are done well. If you prefer not to use tactics(for whatever reason) then you shouldn't have to. I'm not advocating for mandatory anything, just the options that let the player do as they wish.

I think that there should be basic ammunition for weapons it is appropriate for. Ammunition should be able to be enchanted and improved with materials.

They should have options to Micromanage the entire party Have tactics for NPCs and the PC That way, if you want to let the game play itself, you can do that. If you want to only control the PC and let the party act like NWN's henchmen or DAO's tactics system you can do that. If you want to micromange the party, you can do that. Giving the player many ways to play the game should be a goal.