Hormalakh

I had made a thread a while ago (when I first joined the forums) about "always asking why." In it I wrote a poorly worded plea to the devs to always ask why any certain thing works a certain way. What I was trying to ask for was for the world - as others have put it - to have a certain "internal consistency." Scientists and students of science (as I am) know that our world consists of certain constants and laws that make the world act certain ways (gravity, Planck's constant, organic materials being carbon-based life-forms, etc). Thus, the current world we live is always internally constant. Once you understand why a certain thing works a certain way, you can understand the consequences of what that implies (through logical deduction, etc). Then scientists begin to imagine and hypothesize how our world would be different were these constants changed. What they describe isn't real, but because they start from a position of changing those unchanging constants, the logical implications are immediately accepted. Why? Because these is no actual reason why Planck's constant is so and why so-and-so law of science is a law: it just is. Therefore, if those constants were changed (in another universe, say), the world would become an actuality. Our brains would not try to fight it. A good example of this hypothesizing and what-if scenario is shown in the website xkcd.com (http://what-if.xkcd.com/) So what does this have to do with verisimilitude and realism? Well, whenever you take elements of history and the real-world and incorporate it into your fictional universe, you are effectively taking a short-cut in describing a big portion of that world with its own internal logic. Why? Because you have just taken what actually exists (which by definition already has internal consistency) and have supplanted it into your world. It helps to know that it is possible for such things to happen, because they already have happened. Then you can focus in on certain aspects of this world and tweak the internal constants to your liking. Once you have done that, the logical implications must once again be performed throughout the world and questions that would seem illogical must be answered for our minds to accept them. This internal consistency once again holds firm and we are able to accept these worlds as possibilities in the infinite universe. Our brains begin to imagine this world as existing and do not fight us against believing in them. So when good fantasy or science-fiction draws heavily from real-life history, it is allowing us to not have to develop a completely new (and invariably HUGE and extremely complex) world from scratch. A lot of the "leg-work" has already been done. We can then start to use this world as a sounding board for our own philosophical questions and what-if scenarios. What if magic truly existed? What would that mean for humanity? What if other sentient beings existed in our world? Like dwarves and elves. What would that mean to us as humans? What would it mean in regards to nature and how we interact with it? What is the nature of a man? What can change the nature of a man? These things matter because when we are thinking about the philosophical aspects of this new world and their implications through our "thought-experiments" we don't want our brains nagging at us, saying "this isn't believable." "This doesn't follow any sort of logical thought-process. Why should any conclusions made be accepted?" We can truly begin to immerse ourselves in these worlds and spend our time thinking about the actual questions posed in this fantasy world. So, yes. Versimilitude and realism matter. Only to the extent that it helps us with the internal consistency that would keep our brains from actually entertaining the more important questions that the setting and plot are asking us.

Then why stick with a historical time period? Just make it a mish-mash. Put in cowboys and aliens and dinosaurs and everything else that is fantastical. Take your inspirations from Salvador Dali and Picasso. Deal with it. That isn't how you write good fantasy. The closer fantasy is to feasibility, the better. It's better to imagine a world that truly exists with a few interesting ideas, than it is to completely make things up from nothing. The way I see fantasy is that it speaks to our own nature as human beings with a few changes that allow us to make interesting "thought-experiments" about mature, adult topics. This is exactly why I think Josh Sawyer and the rest of Obsidian are the right fit for the job. They care about history and try to integrate the human condition in a world where humans aren't everything. Then they create world where players can think deeply about those characters, and in fact about who they are as people themselves. Edit: This is what makes fantasy and science-fiction even remotely interesting to so many people.

https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/ByVPmsSeSEG A must read for this thread and the devs. When people like Linus Torvalds are arguing for a change in resolution (I know this is DPI not resolution but they are very related), then this is something that the devs should take very seriously.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61857-oversexualization-of-females-in-video-games/page__hl__%20female%20%20armor http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60868-the-boob-armor-and-the-whole-issue-of-objectification/page__hl__%2Bfemale+%2Barmor Search "female armor". You'll find more than three threads on this subject. Happy reading! I want paper armor in this game now! Josh, make it happen. Glanfanthan paper armor FTW!

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61857-oversexualization-of-females-in-video-games/page__hl__%20female%20%20armor http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60868-the-boob-armor-and-the-whole-issue-of-objectification/page__hl__%2Bfemale+%2Barmor Search "female armor". You'll find more than three threads on this subject. Happy reading!

From what I've read (and reread) from JESawyer's post on armor, I've started thinking of the armors in certain classes. You have your doublet class, your hide class, your scale class, your mail class, and your plate class. These classes "level-up" if you will into higher-tiers. Armor Classes: Doublet -> Gambeson -> Armored Jack Hide -> Cuirass -> Leather Armor Scale Vest -> Scale Armor -> Lamellar X -> Mail shirt -> Mail armor X->X->Half-Plate->? A lot of people have been discussing allowing for adjustments being made to the armor by adding enchantments and so forth to improve certain armors. Others discussed allowing certain classes to be beneficial against certain attacks/damage types. Well, what about "multi-classing" armor or crossing-over between armor? Say you started with a hide armor but as you went up in tier, you can switch over to a scale class instead. That way you get a partial benefit of the hide class but have now shifted over to the scale class. Perhaps this locks your armor out of the previous hide class and you can now only move down the scale armor tiers.

You can just tint the image as it approaches nighttime, shifting from a white to more orange to dark blue image before moving over to the new map for nighttime. Problem solved.

The issue I have with point buy is that you sometimes have to figure out your whole character's progression several 10's of levels ahead of time. The point-buy system in Arcanum while being very good, has me figuring out exactly what points I'll be purchasing until I hit level 50. I would need to know what the maximum level is for this game, and the costs of buying points (does each attribute cost the same at all levels?), how many points I get per level, and basically planning everything completely out from the beginning of the game. I did have to eventually restart my game several times as I tried to figure out what I was actually aiming for for my character and this was a little frustrating. Of course, it also allows you to "fix" any problems you have with the direction your character is going as you play the game. Say for example that dexterity is more important in-game than you actually thought. Well you don't have to start a new game now, because you can just shift and adjust your strategy to take that into consideration. They both have pro's and cons. I like fixed numbers. It reminds me of BG2. Arcanum's system was fun too - it was just really different than the AD&D rules I was used to. Edit: apologies about the double post.

This is a refinement of a post I had made earlier. The one thing I noticed with all of the different stats systems is that they worked really well for their worlds. I think ultimately that the developers should probably create something very similar to these systems, but to utilize some stats (strength, int, endurance, etc) as ways to define unchanging attributes of the people of this world (what I call "gene stats") and skills (barter, mechanics, steal, etc) as more flexible attributes that can change during the game ("skill stats"). Gene stats should define innate attributes of people that do not change with training or experience over time (your "genes"). Changeable "skill stats" can change with training/experience or distribution of points with increases in character level. The creators of the game should decide a few questions. One is "What aspects of the game world are we trying to highlight in this game system?" Secondly, "What attributes do we want to make unchanging/relatively stable in this world?" For example, would one's access to his soul be something highlighted and will it be changing or unchanging in this world? If unchanging, consider making it a stat. If changing, consider making it a skill (Access soul skill, for example). In regards to fixable stats, I agree with JE Sawyer in that rolling a dice for fixed stats should not occur. Instead, you should be given a fixed number of points to distribute across your "gene stats" and then any variation in these is through very specific and limited situations (a la BG2 when in you are in the Nether Planes).

Jan Jansen and Sarevok have some interesting banter in BG2. As does Haer'Dalis and Aerie.

I think Arcanum had some interesting aspects to armor that should be taken into account. Namely, noise as a mechanic (plate armor was loud and monsters would attack you because they could hear you). It seems that leather and animal hide was better for elemental damage in general whereas plate armor was better for weapon damage. e.g. Plate was also a good conductor so electrical damage was worse. Leather is an insulated material. Less electrical damage. Fire damage might heat up plate more whereas a more insulated material might be better. This is the material itself being worse, not due to any magical effects. Cold damage? Price should be a balancing mechanic. Even in these days weapons are chosen based on their costs. We don't send out B-2 bombers on routine flights because it costs like a $million per flight. Higher-tier armors should cost more upkeep. Armors should be damagable. In Arcanum, I hated fighting ore golems because they destroyed armor. I'd generally try to use a less important armor there that I would be willing to lose if it broke. I just want to reiterate that making different materials able to reach different levels in your tier system can overcome this problem of maximizing down the tier-tree. If a certain hide loses part of its qualities (troll hide armor losing its regeneration ability as it becomes troll leather armor), it makes moving up certain tiers more of a deliberate decision than a no-brainer.

I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe certain races or cultures (Vailians vs Glanfanthan Elves perhaps?) are rally good at workign with a certain type of armor, but there are types of materials they wouldn't touch. As an example, perhaps the Vailians are quite good at making doublets, and make the best doublets in the game world. However, they do not work (except that one rare armorer) with a certain animal hide because of the cultural significance of that animal. Thus while making armor from that animal would be quite the effective armor, you cannot get the best armorers to work with that hide because of cultural reasons. Perhaps the Glanfanthan elves make leather armors in that hide, but glanfanthans aren't renowned for their leather work.

I kind of like this idea. Your armor grows with you as you adventure in it. You can add enchantments to it. It's like making your armor "level up" as if it were another party member. The more you enchant or improve your armor (by adding mail or it or plates to it, changing the stitching, using new materials, dying it different colors, etc), the less likely you are in completely going for another new set of armor. Of course, it might be worthwhile to change into that new shiny mithril plate mail for your fighter and try to begin enchanting that, but the heavy gambeson with dexterity enchantments and plate add-ons still comes in handy when the fighter needs it.

Some materials (let's take the troll hide as the example) should not be able to increase in the tier system. That way you can only have troll hide armor, but not troll leather armor. It makes for an interesting option for the player: should my barbarian wear the troll hide armor or should I move him up to a higher tier leather armor but of poorer quality animal skin?

He said 10 lockpicks. But he also said marginal. I don't think he actually had the specifics worked out when he said 10. Perhaps, he was trying to make a bigger point: that marginal shortfalls can be made up with items that can be used up.

I loved how Arcanum kept magic and tech completely and absolutely separate. Just like this game isn't going to have huge ridiculous Final-fantasy swords and the like, I doubt there will be cigratte-bunched guns. It would make more sense to have a magically endued metal that the gun is made of, so it's less likely to misfire. Or maybe the gunpowder is more potent (magically) allowing longer ranges for these guns. Maybe the guns increase damage slightly. Something fairly subdued, just like their swords and other melee weapons. Envenomed arquebus. Gun has a poison spell on it that makes bullets poisonous as they hit creatures. that sort of thing. Inscribed with dwarven runes making the gun unbreakable, etc. Elven guns with a faster firing time.

He is a drug-abuser afterall. LOL

That looks like a cartoon image you'd see where the guy is smoking a whole bunch of cigarettes at the same time. Ridiculous.

Marginal! Marginal! Reading comprehension is key people. He said marginal. You don't use 99 lockpicks. That isn't marginal. You use 1 lockpick for a 1-5% increase. That's it. Marginal. MAR-GEEE-NAL.

Ugh you got my hopes up. Don't title your thread that way next time please.

As long as we agree stamina isn't a good term, I'm happy.

I do have that issue with intelligence not factoring in too. But then you need to give big dumb characters a way to "win" too. Especially if it's main-story driven. As for the slip of paper, you still have to realize that that slip of paper has to do with that certain puzzle and maybe still have to manipulate the words on the note befoer deriving the answer. "tak the first three letters of my name and add it to the last three letters of the season of the dead. -sunsarr" -> sunsarr + winter - sunter

Keep it optional - localizers and those with a poor grasp of English might need it. I won't. Everyone's happy.

If you take the xDy system, you can show it too. It just occurred to me that the normal distribution works with dice. So if you want a standard deviation that's more narrow, you use more dice. If you want "skilled weapons handler" to make a difference you just add an offset (without increasing the total to hit). 4d6, 3d8 and 2d12 are (almost) the same range but have different standard deviations. Add an offset like -2 or +3 (but no more than 24 or less than 0 to hit) and you'd get a skill adjustment. So I guess the dice system could work to describe that system after all.