PK htiw klaw eriF

What? I don't recall them stating that the only funds for PE will come from crowd-sourcing. There is no reason to believe that PE will not be funded in some part by Obsidian.

I agree. However, I think that how the character thinks should be the first thing that they consider. I don't either, however, it can be simpler since companions are already getting quite a bit of attention/fleshing out while that innkeeper might not be.

I wouldn't mind seeing powerful items that require a quest or boss fight to receive. I would also like to be able to craft powerful items that can compete with them.

Democrat states would be up to their necks in debt like they are now. Although this is 2 years old, graphs like this are cool to look at. http://www.ritholtz....-their-debt.png 14 of the top 20 are straight up Democratic states. Huh, that makes the democratic states look great, actually. Yep, I don't think that having less GDP is a bad thing. Also I think it is quite funny that some of the most Republican states get the most money from the federal government.

Is it possible to have a transcript posted?

While I agree with all of your questions, I have to modify your list a bit to what I believe it should be.... 1. How does the character think?(Personality) 2. How does the character act?(Presentation to others) 3. Where was I born? 4. Who are/were my family? 5. How did I grow up? 6. What led me to be here? 7. What do I value? 8. Who do I care about? 9. Am I susceptible to romance/seduction or try to romance/seduce others? 10. Why does the character do what they do?(motivation) I think that questions 2-9 should support 1. Where the character is born, how they grew up, their experiences, and what they care about should reinforce why they think the way they do. After all other questions are answered, then the answer to 10 becomes clear.

While I certainly agree that the BSN is incredibly romance-centric, I don't think that if a game includes romances, the forums associated with it will necessarily become saturated with creepy threads like the BSN. I'd argue how the romances are presented and executed may contribute to the BSN obsession with them. Since Bioware romances are often cinematic experiences that tend to focus on consummation and "love" scenes(on a side note, bio-drones are also generally against explicit sex and nudity, unless it is done "tastefully", whatever that means.) instead of exploring the character/personality of the NPC who the PC is involved with, they tend to focus on sex more than actual character development. If romances are done in PE, I would bet that they would focus more on NPC characterization and PC-NPC interaction than the Bioware romances. Just look at Obsidian's track record compared to Bioware, MotB and KOTOR2 romances are hardly comparable to those in ME and DA(especially 2). I don't see how character design would be negatively impacted if romance was one of the relationship options(yes I read your whole post, btw). A romance does not have to supersede any type of relationship to be believable or well written, in fact it can simply be an extension of them and give the same amount of content. For an example a romance could simply grow out of a friendship or rivalry, like quite a few do IRL. Like others have said, the NPC shouldn't be solely defined by being romanceable(or any other type of relationship), but if romance would fit the character design of the NPC then it shouldn't be avoided simply because it could be perceived that something else was sacrificed in order to make romance an option. I agree with Leo completely on that. However, his proposed solution to have different branches(representing different types of relationships) pretty much solves that problem. Not to mention it is a good idea in general, after all it would be terrible if the only way the PC could actually get to know their companions would be to be everyone's best friend.

You know what.....**** Bethesda. I wouldn't put it past them after the horrible way they treated Obsidian with FONV.

Shadowdancer is actually what I mostly had in mind as overpowered feat. It'd have been much better if every thief could "hide in plain sight", only less well or maybe with pooling multiple feats together. The other shadow-abilities as well, rather see them as a developement tree inside thief class than chopped into a prestige one. Maybe a PE Rogue(since they have soul powers) could have a shadow power tree, but in 3.x, the Rogue did not have any supernatural abilities so Shadow Dancer powers would have seemed strange. We won't really be able to argue about what a PE Rogue should be able to do until we find out what they can actually do.

I agreed with the first part of this statement, then screamed in horror at the thought of Gaider(current work) writing characters in PE.

I don't want rape to be explored in full detail or anything(like a cinematic or something), but it should be included/referenced/acknowledged. Bandits would probably rape their hostages, soldiers would probably rape villagers in conquered areas. It would just seem strange if the horrible bandits just abducted people and acted menacingly and really didn't do anything truly awful. I wouldn't worry about that. Bioware would probably rape your wallet though.....

I disagree. In the PE setting, people are still unsure what exactly a soul is and there is apparently some academic debate about what the gods are. Have you read the Hellblazer comic? I'm asking because the Heaven vs Hell conflict is how I think that the good-evil debate could be framed well.

I voted for "other', because I took mechanics to mean gameplay mechanics, and would heavily prefer a Pathfinder like ruleset to a 2E ruleset. I would be happy with NWN level of graphics, because any advancement beyond that hasn't really improved gameplay for party based cRPGs.

It can't be worse than the prequels.

I agree with your post quite a bit but wanted to reply to this line in particular. Every relationship should be pretty deep, and it can be reasonably accomplished in PE(since it will not have animated cut-scenes for conversations or voice much of them). I don't want to see any relationship with a character get an outrageous amount of attention compared to other types of relationships. I also don't want to see a type of relationship not be implemented simply because of the perception that it takes huge amounts of resources or because some believe that others will play them in a way that they don't like. On the other hand, I don't want to see a type of relationship included simply because people keep begging for them or to fill a quota. I want to see types of relationships included if the writers feel it would fit the character well, can contribute to the story, and add PC options. Absolutely. Every available relationship and dialogue option should be included with the intent to increase the amount of options that the PC has.

1000 years of darkness and the extinction of freedom, the 'merican way, and puppies will happen because Obama won! Run while you can! On a serious note, we will probably have to wait until at least January to see the effects of an Obama 2nd term. It is usually a good idea to wait until something starts to start critically dissecting it.

How the PC develops relationships with NPCs and what relationships they develop can define and diversify the character as well. Character interaction is just as much part of the story as combat or quest outcomes are.

The problem with defining prestige classes is that there are essentially three different kinds..... Enhancement: Gives one feat or ability that is either a replica or enhancement of another ability. Assassin, Weapon Master, and Red Wizard fall into this group. Reconciliation: Advances two different classes abilities. Cebremancer, Arcane Trickster, and Divine Fist fall into this group. Addition: These add unique abilities for several classes. Dragon Disciple, Shadow Dancer, and Bear Warrior call this group home. Of the three groups, I would argue that the first two could be easily accomplished with the addition of feats or tweaking how CL(caster level) is calculated, and can be generally rendered redundant. The last group is the kind of prestige class I would like to see in PE. If they don't want to include them, I would like to see an "archtype" option for classes that allow the player to tweak their characters in interesting ways. Preferably, these "archtypes" would be selected around level 8 or so, so that the players would have time to develop their character a certain way before making a commitment to certain abilities.

I would like there to be great mysteries in the world that have no clear answer. Here is a small list of examples.... What are the Gods? What is a Soul? Is Necromancy inherently evil? Is someone more than the sum of their parts? What is "love"? Is there "good" and "evil"? Is everything predetermined? If PE explored these questions without beating the player over the head with the "right" answer, then I would feel that it is a mature game. While rape, sex, and racism, should be included for the sake of realism, just slapping them on and declaring that PE is a mature game would feel like a cop out.

My problem with this system is that it might as well be a classless system(which I would enjoy). From what I take of your proposal, it seems that every class will have access to the other classes' abilities. While I think armored Mages and swashbuckling fighters should be an option(and even quite optimal), I wouldn't like it if Fighters could sling around wizard spells or Barbarians could use prayers with out training as a Wizard or Priest. I believe that in a good class system, each class should have unique abilities(like the Paladin's Aura of Courage or Druids Wildshape in 3.x) that are completely exclusive to that class, to make up for the loss of freedom due to being restricted to a specific class. With multiclassing, you could have characters that sacrifice exceptional mastery of their class abilities to dabble in another class to gain theirs. Not that I don't think that all classes should follow some set path or anything, but having class specific abilities is a huge advantage to using a class system.

How do you feel about Multiclassing and Prestige classes?

It is the internet. It is much easier to demonize your opponent than to have a respectful discussion about something.

Warrior classes should be far superior at combat than other classes simply because that is what the class trains for. Mages should be behind the warrior classes at combat because their class training involves using magic, not martial combat. With a class system, the goal should be to create classes that can fulfill different(and multiple) roles in combat through different means with their base abilities. It shouldn't be to create classes that are perfectly able to match each other at what they excel in, if it was, then a classless system would be far preferable. Not that classes shouldn't have plenty of customization options like skills and feats, I think that they should just have a base set of abilities that favor certain roles(like Fighters gaining combat abilities). Also Multiclassing should be included if possible.

If at the end of your playthrough, you are satisfied with the character development for the NPC and the options given the PC.

I think there was actually a poll out a while ago that showed democrats typically favored compromise and republicans did not. Who would have thought that compromise would have become a partisan issue?