[Adventurer's Hall]

I really hope that it truly is creating additional characters, and that they don't react or say anything on their own. That's what the NPCs are for. If I want to create another character, I want to create another character.

[Oversexualization of females in video games]

I certainly don't prefer "feminine-looking" armour, and of the small number of people I know who like to see that sort of armour, not one of them is female. I find it looks ridiculous, and also far more silly than attractive. I've got no problem at all with non-armour outfits being dresses or skimpy or what-have-you (although I'd still prefer if not all of them were), but I like armour and weapons to be realistic. I also have no problem with there being a few suits of such bizarre armour lying around, or a few NPCs wearing it (although I reserve the right to laugh at them).

 

The great majority of armour, however, should in my opinion be realistic; and the great majority of people wearing it would probably choose functional armour over "look guys I'm female so I'm wearing this weird armour to make sure everyone knows that always, just don't stab me in the more ill-protected areas okay!". I realise you can handwave the lesser protection value of the armour with magic, but I can never help but think it would be better still if the base armour was functional in that case...

 

Now, I don't really see this as being much of a potential problem in this game. The models won't be at large enough size to tell all that clearly. I'd certainly rather that armour looks realistic and reasonable in the inventory screen, but it seems likely enough that it will be all right that I'm not really worried about it. The recent concept art all looks fine.

 

I must admit I also fail to see why it would be a problem if you can't tell immediately from looking at the model (in armour) whether a character is male or female. You have a portrait to go by (at least if they're in the party), you have s name and likely some context if you're speaking with them, and in a combat situation I just don't see how it's that important. If you can't tell with non-armoured characters, yeah, maybe, but in armour? I don't get it.

 

im starting to think that half of you folks have never seen a woman in real life

 

man that is such a manly figure isn't it i can't tell it's a woman at all

 

I'm thinking that some of you have never seen actual platemail or don't quite understand its function or how it's worn. Its function being to deflect blows (which the shape one normally finds it in works quite well for), and a person wears a fair amount of padding underneath the armour, to cushion impact from blows that do connect. The armour does not exactly fit the form of the person wearing it, whether they are male or female.

 

[Adventurer's Hall]

There's a fairly good chance I'll make use of it every time. I still, all these years and many replays later, have never finished a game of Baldur's Gate where I didn't create the whole party (despite starting a few games with the intention of picking up the NPCs instead). I suppose I just prefer custom parties when the option is available.

 

Who can say for sure at this point, though? I might end up taking the NPCs the first time through if they seem particularly interesting, or if it seems to make a good deal of sense for my character to take them (at least for a time). I can't really see myself doing that more than once or twice, though, so I'm sure that overall I'll make heavy use of the Hall either way.

[Let's Fight --- a discussion of combat styles]

I definitely agree with speeding up two-handed weapons, particularly two-handed swords and axes. Longswords are slightly slower than a smaller sword such as a rapier or smallsword might be, yes, but they are still actually quite quick to use. I haven't much experience with axes, but as they aren't much heavier than a sword, I figure they should also be relatively quick. I know that two-handed hammers are quite heavy comparatively, so those I might expect to be a bit slower.

 

Also in the two-handed category, I would like to see polearms as being very useful from the second rank or at a slight distance, but also useful (though perhaps slightly less so) when right up close.

 

I'd love to see shields using seperate mechanics instead of just adding to armor, maybe something like "can block up to x attacks coming from a cone of y° in front of you, at a chance of z%". Always felt it was weird treating shields as just another layer of plate, as if the damn thing was bolted to my back.

 

Yes. I am very much in favour of something like this. Also of shield bashing. Shield bashing should be a possible and valid thing to do, resulting in either some bludgeoning-type damage or knocking your opponent off balance (perhaps both) if successful.

 

As for weapon sizes, I'd prefer them to be realistically sized -- although considering the isometric angle, I don't really care too much how large they look on the models. I would like them to be of realistic weights, though (no ten or twenty pound swords, please).

 

For bows, I would like to see them be a very good option at a distance, but not a viable option right up close. A slow rate of fire might help that, I suppose.

[HoF Mode and Non-Combat Solutions]

I think it could work, so long as all of the non-combat solutions are toughened up just as much as the combat solutions. If it is equally much harder to sneak or persuade your way through various situations and encounters, I think that would maintain the spirit of the thing. The penalty of failing to sneak or persuade would already be higher than normal, since that would tend to lead to the already much more difficult than normal combat.

[Game Masters & Dungeon Masters.]

I've been DMing for around ten years now. I tend to use the title of Dungeon Master no matter what system I'm actually referring to, because that's what sticks in my mind the most. I usually DM first and third edition D&D and MERP, but occasionally a few other systems as well.

 

There have been a few campaigns I've thought of but never got around to DMing. Often, though, I just end up recycling those ideas as parts of one of the two long-running games I'm in. I do also play, roughly as often as I DM.

 

Accounting for the players haring off and doing their own thing is something that I struggled with for years, but now I've finally become good enough at winging it that it generally isn't a problem. I plan out the basic plot, things for them to do, and the areas that they'll be in, and then I improvise if they dash off in a direction that I wasn't expecting.

[Walking background characters]

It would be kind of cool. If it doesn't take too much effort to implement, I'd be for it, but otherwise I wouldn't be. It's not something I find myself missing in games that don't have it. So, I suppose I'm somewhere between not caring, and "only if doesn't use too many resources".

[The Obsidian Order of Eternity wants YOU! part 6]

Welcome to all the new people!

[Should a Game restrict Us from Abusing it, or should We restrict Ourselves from Abusing it?]

I prefer the restrictions to be up to the player, rather than imposed by the game. I often play through various games with a good deal of restrictions on that playthrough, but I like to be able to also play through with no restrictions when I feel like it. It's not exactly difficult to restrict oneself, and I honestly don't see the problem with some people abusing various mechanics in their game if that's how they like to play.

[New Game +]

I think being able to export and then import characters would be good, with Path of the Damned. I know that, at least in Icewind Dale and Icewind Dale II's Heart of Fury, that kind of mode seems to assume that the characters are at more or less the level one normally ends the game at. I suppose it may be possible to complete the games that way starting at first level, but I have not tried.

[Arachnophobia, "no spiders", what should be important in P:E?]

If spiders work and make sense in the game, I think that they should be there. I certainly don't think that spiders are necessary to have in an RPG either, and I know that it's a relatively common phobia, but I expect the number of people who can't bring themselves to play the game because of it is relatively small. Most probably just find situations where their characters are facing spiders to be a bit more tense and frightening.

 

Now, this is not to say that I don't sympathise with you to some extent. I do. I also envy you slightly, because arachnophobia is one of those phobias that people often do take into account for various things. I myself have a fairly severe phobia of dogs. It's not bad enough that seeing them in an isometric game bothers me, although occasionally the sounds do, but it often bothers me a fair amount in 3d games. I don't expect people to stop putting dogs in games, though; it's just something I have to deal with.

 

I do think it would be nice if in some game your character ended up with an animal other than a dog following them around, partially because of my reaction to dogs, and partially just for variety; and usually, I just avoid those if I can. But in the whole game? I just don't think it's reasonable to expect to not see one type of creature because some people are afraid of it. If you had nothing in a game that anybody has a phobia of, you wouldn't have much left.

[Starting Equipment]

They can all work, and I don't have a strong preference on any one of them. I think that which one works best is determined entirely by the circumstances surrounding the very beginning of the game (buying things in a shop just before exiting a prison would be a bit odd, and so would having nothing but rags when just leaving your home).

[In favor of Repeatable Quests?]

No, I dislike quests like that. They are usually not interesting the first time, and they certainly are not by the third or fourth time. I can't think of any instance in which I think repeating the exact same quest would be a good thing.

 

Very similar quests, which are more of just 'things to do' than quests per say, that could be fine -- such as the arena example someone mentioned earlier. There are likely a few other exceptions that would work that I'm not thinking of, but in general, I think repeating quests have little to no value.

[If there was only one RPG to be saved in the world I would choose.....]

That would be quite a hard choice. If I could swing it, I'd claim that Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II (plus expansions) should count as one and go with that. If I couldn't do that, though... I'd be inclined towards Planescape: Torment on the one hand, but on the other hand, either Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale I would play more often.

 

In the end I would roll a d4 and take whichever of those four games came up, or else I'd run down any time limit I might have on the decision agonising over it.

[Where is everyone from]

North America here.

[Useless/Unnecessary Inventory Items]

I would prefer if the only time an item disappears is if it has been used up. Surely, if my character gave the item to the NPC or used it in some other fashion (poured water out, planted seeds, what have you) then those items should no longer be in the inventory. There's no reason a key wouldn't stay in the inventory, though. I actually like figuring out at what point it's safe to drop various former quest items; and I like deciding whether or not my character would drop them. I also like figuring out rather something I picked up actually is a quest item or if it's just something strange, even if that leads to some characters accidentally selling off quest items. Makes things a little bit more interesting, I think.

 

It seems that, with a house and stronghold, there should be plenty of room to store old quest items as souvenirs, so you could not carry them around but still know where to find them if you realise that you have need of them once again.

 

There should be a key ring, though--didn't BG2 have a key ring?

 

No, but it would be nice if it did. A key ring sure would come in handy.

[So, about replay value...]

I've found that how different I can make each new character from the last is the thing that has the single greatest effect on the replayability of a game for me. Even if the plot is completely linear, and you can't really choose what order you do things in, I'll still find it to have a high level of replayability if I can make a completely different party of characters each time (Icewind Dale and Icewind Dale II are the games I replay the most often, for instance; though that probably because they're shorter than Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II).

 

Things like mututally incompatible quests and storylines are also good. Also, just a very large number of quests and things, some being more difficult to find than others, can help. So can being able to do things in a different order, or the world reacting differently to those with high reputation or low reputation, that sort of thing. Also, though this may seem odd, I love finding strange hidden things of madness in out-of-the-way areas in games (such as all the madmen wandering around in the outdoors areas of Baldur's Gate, or some of the odd things in houses, that you might not find the first time).

 

As for what I'm hoping for -- well, replayability is something I value quite a bit, so I'm happier the higher it is. The first thing I mentioned is the most important to me, but each thing in addition to that is great.

[Randomness and non-combat skills]

Short of complete simulation, which is really not feasible, I believe that randomness is the best way.

 

This is a rather binary statement, and is an attitude I find to be rather counter-productive. No offence, but it reads like "We can't simulate the world perfectly, so there's no reason to even try."

 

A better solution likely lies somewhere in between, with variables you can control (accumulated actions and events throughout the game), combined with some randomness to give it flavour, without taking over completely. I'd like to go over some detailed design suggestions, but it's getting late, and this post is already getting far too long.

 

It would seem my words were ill-chosen, then, because that isn't what I meant. I believe it would be too complicated and time-consuming to implement a simulation of various factors that might cause a failed skill check to occur without any random factor, but that I think that randomness serves the same purpose so long as there are limits on it.

 

I'm not saying that any one of the various ways that random skills have been handled in the past are themselves the best thing, just that something with a base of randomness is. I do think that major environmental factors should be taken into account in a non-random fashion (things such as the surface you are attempting to balance on being icy, the character being drunk, the lock being slightly jammed, at cetera), but that all of the minor, difficult to perceive ones be respresented by a roll of the dice or similar.

 

It's a matter of opinion or belief whether or not luck plays a part in real-world interactions and skills, but it is an observable fact that things do not always go precisely the same way every time you try them. One could juggle four balls in the same pattern at three different times in the day, their agility not having changed, and their skill presumably not having changed in that short an amount of time. One of those times they might do it flawlessly, one of those times they might drop the balls. The randomness accounts for hundreds of little factors that it would be extremely tedious to take into account in a game -- many of which are things that it is somewhere between very difficult and effectively impossible to discern.

 

 

Indeed, we don't have to implement the butterfly effect, but these type of seemingly random events does not translate well to games. At least not if they are replaced by a random number generator.

 

Two things:

1. If a skilled person fumbles, he or she will likely know why. Maybe a sudden gust caused a loss of balance, or sleep deprivation caused a loss of focus. We don't get this with the way skill-based dialogue options are currently implemented; there's no feedback. No reason.
    
   
2. A skilled person will be able to recover in the face of failure. If a smooth talker says something inappropriate, he or she could quickly turn this around by making a joke about it, drawing attention away from it. Likewise, a juggler could counter an accidental stumble by throwing the balls higher, giving him/her time to catch the one s/he's about to drop, etc.
   

Both of these points are possible in pen and paper RPGs, because the DM can give detailed explanations, and adapt to allow players to recover from fatal mistakes if they are creative enough (and if it's appropriate).

 

I agree with those two things, but I disagree about how well they translate. I think that, with a few minor tweaks, it would work fine. Perhaps implementing several different levels of success and failure would help, so you could have complete success but also the barely-recovered-from sort of success (perhaps more similar to how it's handled in Rolemaster than it is in D&D).

 

Also, beyond that and personally, I find it more interesting to have a chance of failure at things that my character might be expected to succeed at, and a chance of success at things they might not be expected to succeed at -- to a point, of course.

 

Agreed, with emphasis on "to a point". It shouldn't feel as if the failure is out of character, or if it is, the game should provide a reason for it. Maybe the character is drunk, or is otherwise in a poor/awesome mental state. Though again, things like that could actually be used to replace randomness. Given enough of them, the outcome will still be variable, but you can also figure out why, after the facts. Especially if hints are dropped in the response to your attempt.

 

If my hypothetical bard, with a high success rate of persuading people, had one too many pints, and suddenly got rejected with a response of "Go home bard, you're drunk." I wouldn't even want to reload, because it's actually quite appropriate.

 

Sure, I think that adding things like that on would be great. I'd prefer it as a more additional sort of thing, but I think it would be a good thing. Specifically with the persuasion, a lot of that would also depend on the NPC that the character is trying to persuade -- things such as their mood at the time, how much they're ever inclined to do favours for people (or what have you), and all that. You could enter such data in for every single NPC no matter how minor, but that seems unnecessarily tedious to me, so I think it's best that that sort of thing be covered by the randomness.

 

Although, I suppose, you could also assign those values randomly to minor NPCs, which might come out to about the same thing.

 

Basically, I agree that randomness is something of a cheap substitute for simulation -- I'm just not sure of whether or not it would be worth devoting the time and effort to come up with a less cheap way. That would, I think, depend on how much time and effort was involved, and how much of a noticeable difference would occur in the end result. It could very well end up still looking random if you didn't know the system, and I'm not sure I'd want all of the factors that went into the failure to be listed every time a skill check was made... although, again, that could also end up being interesting; hard to say.

[Renaissance elements vs swords and sorcery]

So long as it's interesting and seems to fit in with everything else, I'm fine with whatever role guns end up playing. I don't think the setting had much to do with how good the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games were -- but then, I'm mostly not all that fond of the Forgotten Realms as a setting; I just am quite fond of some of the games set in that setting.

 

Also, as already pointed out, having firearms and plate armour and such around at the same time does have historical basis.

[Help me pick a cRPG to play.]

Planescape: Torment or Icewind Dale, depending whether you prefer more story and dialogue or more combat. Baldur's Gate also, especially since you've already played (and presumably liked) Baldur's Gate II. Icewind Dale II is also good.

 

Me, I'm finally getting around to playing Temple of Elemental Evil and the expansions of Neverwinter Nights 2, as well as finishing up a multiplayer game of Neverwinter Nights I've had going for a while.

[Who is brave enough for an Trial of Iron first playthrough?]

I'll stick with expert and hard to begin with, I think. I expect I'll be going with those every time. After the first playthrough, though... then I shall go for the Trial of Iron and Path of the Damned. At the same time. Should be fun.

 

Path of the Damned ... well if it's anything like Icewind Dale 1's HoF mode then you won't even be able to damage the first monster at level 1. I think IWD2 was different.

 

If anything, I've always found Icewind Dale II's to be harder. You'd be quite doomed at first level with either of them, I think.

[Starting The Game - Class obtaining, biography and circumstances]

Number three is likely fine, and is my preference -- the others, I think, would end up being a bit limiting at times. Number one would have your character learning their skills rather too quickly and suddenly for my taste. Two, while interesting the first time or so, I think would end up feeling too specific after several playthroughs (particularly with the family members and all, I didn't really like creating two characters of the same class/race combination in DA:O for that reason). And, as you say, four would probably not work well for all classes.

 

I have not encountered any problems with coming up with a reason for whatever class/race combination my character is in any game. Sometimes it's a little trickier, such as in NWN 2, but I still prefer the freedom of deciding.

 

Come to think of it, I actually think that some version of number four would be the second best option. Not necessarily a mentor, but rather some mention of how your character came to have their skills (whether they were always sent off for ten years in their childhood to learn them, but to a different place depending on class, or what). That assuming that the prologue is such that it needs any in-game explaining.

 

All of this of course largely depends on what the prologue of the game is like, and we really don't know anything about that yet. NWN 2's prologue was a bit tricky on the background because your character always was raised in West Harbor, and it was obvious that it was a very out-of-the-way sort of place with not much outside influence or even knowledge of the outside. I never had any sort of problem like Baldur's Gate, perhaps because I figured that there would be enough tomes of lore and what lying around for your character to educate themself in just about any class, or perhaps because there were at least a few examples of each primary class around. In both Icewind Dale games, I felt quite free to come up with whatever background I wanted, and it never seemed odd at all.

[Does anyone else still play the older stuff?]

First edition AD&D is still my favourite, and I keep trying to get together a group for it again but not enough people around here seem interested (though I may be DMing a one-shot game of it some time this month, if all goes well). I'd most like to get a Planescape game together. For D&D, these days I mostly play 3rd edition with a heavy dose of house rules. I expect that I'll continue to do so into the foreseeable future. Sadly, a significant chunk of people I know insist on always playing the newest edition, and so are currently playing 4th (which, while I gave it a fair shot, I just can't stand).

 

The other game I spend a good deal of time playing is MERP, which I suppose is getting to be an old game now, although I wouldn't consider it to be there yet.

[Are you for or against gaining experience points only for completing objectives?]

After some thought and realising that I likely misunderstood the intention to begin with -- thinking of "objective" and "quest" as the same thing -- I think I fall more into the "don't care" camp, at least until we get more information on it (at which point I could see myself going either way). It really doesn't effect how enjoyable combat is, and I can certainly see how it makes it easier to reward alternate methods of solving a problem such as stealth or diplomacy.

[How will Obsidian fit in the 100+ backer designed NPCs?]

I'm sure there will be plenty of space for them, especially with two large cities. Think back to Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate, and the sheer number of strange or interesting NPCs you would encounter in the cities, in buildings, or wandering around out in the wilderness in the case of Baldur's Gate; many of whom had associated quests or just a fascinating story to tell. I've never made any attempt at counting them in either game, but I wouldn't be surprised if the total number was well over a hundred. I'm not worried.