PK htiw klaw eriF

I think that when making an RPG work, the designers need to allow the player to consistently role-play the PC how they see fit. What I mean by this is they need to avoid fleshing out the PC for the player or trying to tell the player what the PC's motives are, as these should be up to the player. The PC should never surprise the player, never have knowledge the player does not, and never do anything that the player does not consent to.

I agree, especially when you consider that Wisdom(in D&D terms) really should be split in to Willpower and Perception. As for the thread topic, I want attributes to increase slowly. I think that the 1 point every 4 levels in 3.XD&D/Pathfinder is probably a good rate. I hate it when attributes explode into 100+ totals.

I think they should start out at a fixed level and either gain enough XP to level to current PC level(or PC level-1) or just stay at the current level. While I think that quite a few "auto-builds" are awful, I think that the companion should have an ability set that matches them. I don't want to recruit a necromancer who I can build to have no necromancy spells available or something.

They haven't announced anything about it yet. I don't think that would stop the arguing seeing as how there were threads about turn-based combat popping up even though when PE was announced, it was stated that it would be a RTwP game.

While I would like a good story/theme-related/character-driven romance(instead of the **** and ass fanservice some equate all romance to) that isn't exactly what I want in PE. What I want is for romances to be included if they fit the character in question and are executed well. Obsidian has proven they can do this in MotB(their most praised title, IIRC) so I have confidence that they can do romances well if they choose to do them. What I do not want is romance to be slapped on a character to meet some sort of quota(like a certain Canadian studio likes to do) or some other form of half-assed crap.

Despite the fact that I hate that the idea of roles has become simplified to choices such as "DPS" and "tank" and "crowd control," it's excellent that PE's classes won't be confined to these roles. ^_^ I agree, I much prefer complex roles that cannot be described in simple phrases. I tend to use them as examples simply because they are a commonly understood benchmark however.

Typically lower income households only have access to highly processed foods that are very unhealthy. The region in the United States commonly referred to as "The South" is a very good example. Edit: Ninja'd by Calax EDIT2: Am I the only who thinks of this when I see the thread title?

I think there should just be a check to determine success. I do not want anything to be determined by player skill in PE.

I feel like I've gained 10 pounds just by looking at those.

From what I've taken, no class will have be forced in to any role. A fighter for example will be able to act as a DPS, Tank, Disabler, etc.

I like to be able to completely create a character design(personality, mannerisms, philosophy, abilities, etc.) and see how that character reacts to stimuli. The ability to create your own protagonist(s) is something that seems nearly unique to RPGs and I love having that ability. I think it is amazing how in BG(2) or NWN2 the Bhaalspawn or Kalach-Cha can be almost anyone that the player imagines. I think that letting the player define the PC and letting them bring that character to life is the biggest appeal of RPGs to me.

I laughed for about a minute.

I think most people just dislike the ridiculous hair he has. If he went bald or had something on top, it wouldn't look so bad.

I put my faith in reason and logic.

I voted yes. Some of the most powerful spells should require ingredients(looking at wish and timestop in particular), the majority of spells should not require them though.

Off topic, but I just realized what your profile pick is from. You have god-tier taste in graphic novels my friend. Now lets exterminatus this thread already before it fills up with more furry sockpuppets... Care to enlighten us?

I don't like the idea of having a unhappy ending just for the sake of having an unhappy ending. Now I wouldn't mind multiple possible endings, with varying tones and outcomes, but I don't want every ending to be painted black just to be different from other games.

1. I feel like eating a cheeseburger. I don't see what you feel like doing has to do with this argument. If you were trying to take a potshot, "I feel like I am speaking to a not very bright child" would have been the proper way to state it. 2. Strawman. You assume that if content X is included that receive the resources that were allocated to content X come from content Y. To use an example relevant to PE, just because the Endless Paths are included in PE, does not mean that if they were not included resources would have instead been allocated to provide new races and classes. 3. You failed to provide a counter argument. 4. Did you mean "Then they are friendships."? If so, then I would state that romances do not always involve sex, and friendships do not always not involve sex(see Platonic Love and Friends with Benefits). 5. If you have no evidence to support your argument just say so. Also "Going Iron Man in a debate shows stupidity rather than stamina" would be the proper way to put it. 1. I'm arguing against you making statements without any evidence to back them up, because I am a Fact Nazi. 2. Then provide proof. 3. That is not necessarily the case. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an assumption. You have made an assumption, therefore you have made a hypothesis. 4. Is that all the evidence you could muster? 1. Immersion does not equate to playing a self-insert. 2. No, I do not. I have never stated that I have. 3. I suggest going here before you post again. 4. ^

I wouldn't go for it. I dislike the integrated graphics quite a bit. This and This are what I would go for.

It all depends. I'm a bit tired of the standard "Human with animal heads, fur(or scales), and possibly a tail" that seems to result when these creatures are included. I wouldn't mind if Obsidian tried something different for bestial races, but I don't think that they should be humanoid. As far as it being "vain" to put Human in every fantasy setting, I don't think that they are complete analogues to humans IRL. How many people do you know that can shoot fireballs, wield a blade effectively enough to slay something several times their size, or are able to stand a blast of intense flame?

1. Strawman. Just because content A is included in a game, content B does not necessarily deteriorate was the point I made. I did not state that zots come from nowhere or that implementation of anything is resource free. 2. Did you mean "How can a story about getting into someone's panties be called interesting?"? Grammatical abortion besides, Romance =/= sex anymore than Friendship =/= fistbump or Rivalry =/= heated debate. 3. Where did you get this from? Sex was not mentioned in my entire post. 4. You still no evidence to support your statements. You haven't even argued against the points I made. 1. I was not arguing that the statistics were significant, I was arguing against your assumptions and conclusion. Were you arguing against a strawman, or is your English just awful? 2.Yet you have. You have also drawn a conclusion from no data. You can't prove that "most of the people have gave up on these threads and topics long ago". Silent Majority arguments fail because they are improvable. 3.That is making a Hypothesis. Do I need to explain what a "Hypothesis" is? 4. If you make a Hypothesis, then yes you do. 1. Strawman, again. This does not address your baseless assumption that everyone who wants romance play RPGs as self-inserts. 2. I don't. I don't exist in the game. I don't play a self-insert. Strawman. 3. You really missed the entire point, didn't you? Do you actually know what a self-insert is? Strawman. 4. Incoherent nonsense that has no bearing on the topic. Please tell me that English is not your native language. FFS, take a remedial course or stay the **** away from English forums.

I didn't realize that simply answering the question posted in the thread title "Should P:E have time limits?" is considered incompetence. Too bad you're comprehension abilities are not up to par.

That assumes that.... Having romance means that gameplay, C&C, story, and interesting relationships automatically suffer if romance is included in the game Obsidian is incapable of creating an interesting romance The sacrificed content in question was even being considered to be put in PE Assumption 1 is not provable, Assumption 2 is entirely subjective, and Assumption 3 is not known at the moment. If you're going to make a statement, please use facts instead of assumptions. You do realize that you've just made two statements without any evidence to support them up, right? The problem with making assumptions without evidence is that you are incapable of proving them. Also anyone can draw any conclusions they want from the incomplete data. One could postulate that the individuals who do not want romance are an extremely vocal minority, or that they did not donate as much to PE as those who would like to see romance in PE. Of course there is absolutely no evidence to support either of these claims, so they would be talking out their ass, as you are now. Here you assume that if someone wants romance in a game, they play a self-insert. You do realize that some of us are not under the assumption that the PC is the player, right? I would recommend that you stop assuming the motives of people. It beats making baseless statements that you cannot prove.

I personally don't enjoy time limits.

Well I just finished a character in Arcanum, I think I may reinstall NWN2 or KOTOR2 and play those. On TW2, mechanics are definitely the weaker aspects of that game.