JFSOCC

We must survive to get that far first.

I'm not sure what to think of this. Episode 7 slated for 2015... must that happen? and Disney behind the wheel? I guess it's better than George Lucas, but Disney isn't exactly known for high quality films that aren't targeted at kiddies. (barring some rather lame ass romantic comedies) I have some serious misgivings about this

If there's stuff to do, sure. else I wonder what the point is.

Sure there is love for arrested development, but I couldn't put everything on my list!

I'm curious, would that include a Alpha Protocol-like dialogue where you have a timer counting down so you have to quickly select your answer?

is that the vorpal panzerfaust? I don't see why high-tech weapons couldn't be enchanted. If I could enchant a gun it'd be so it would never need more ammo. permanent summon bullets spell.

season 3 is out!?I'll be back.

I'm a member of Population Matters (AKA Optimum Population Trust) of which David Attenborough (my biggest hero) is a patron. Fact is our numbers on this planet are the biggest mulitplier bonus to pollution there is. Practically ALL environmental issues could be mitigated with smaller populations. Population matters seeks to achieve this with non-coercive methods such as women's education, access to contraceptives, and alleviating poverty. You can sign their pledge to "Stop at two" indicating you don't plan on having more than two kids. getting children later is also better. (for them as well) In the last 300 years, we've seen more extinictions in nature than during any of the previous 5 great extinction events. (the last one when North and South America collided) and those each took between 3000 and 10000 years. Will we kill the planet? No. But we will harm its biodiversity to a point that the world will be all the poorer for it. Some species are Cornerstone species" problem is it's impossible to predict which species those will be. the extinction of one species could easily lead to the death of entire ecosystems. Would the world perish? No. But it would seriously harm our chances of spreading our planet's life throughout the universe. We only have 100.000 million years before the planet is uninhabitable for any but the most primitive forms of life hiding away in subterranean caves. (like extremophiles) And I'm not confident that in that time the planet would be able to evolve another intelligent species capable of spreading us beyond our planet. The question you should ask yourself is "What world do I want to live in?" an extremely impoverished world, or a rich and diverse one? Edit: and before you think this is all very distant. it isn't. Global warming is happening now. it is affecting people now. the fact that we've had 5 el niño years in the last 10 years (when it used to be so many in about 40 years) the fact that in 2011 russias grain harvest completely failed, and this year America's Corn harvest nearly entirely failed, is a direct consequence of this. You know how much products have corn in it? Hurricane Sandy is a direct consequence of warmer waters making more powerful and more frequent hurricanes. The drought in the Horn of Africa and subsequent civil war and genocide is a direct consequence of global warming. The Island nation of the Seychelles have already bought land in Ethiopia because by 2040 their landmass will be entirely submerged. This **** is real and it is here NOW. TL;DR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8 Edit 2: If you are interested there's some interesting documentaries on the subject. State of the Planet (with David Attenborough) is a 200...5 I think documentary, which was unfortunately pretty spot on on what we could expect. There's also a lecture on exponential growth that ties into this by Albert Bartlett (famous mathematician) Which is also on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ (this was 1990)

Firefly, because goddamn man that show was good! Sherlock, BBC knows what's up Star Trek: The Next Generation. Band of Brothers. War is hell? you have no idea, well, now you do. a little. Episode where they found the concentration camp still haunts me, very powerful. Scrubs, this series varied quite a bit in quality, but seasons 1-2, parts of season 5 and season 8 make it make the list. Helped me get over depression. Avatar the last Airbender. Television for kids that wasn't infantile. Also the decsion beforehand to make it 3 seasons no more meant an arc and not back to status quo after every episode, commendable. MacGyver, maybe not good enough, but nostalgia is a powerful force man. Our hero-spy who used his brain rather than a gun, what's not to love Yes, Minister. Deadpan British humour, the best. oops that's 8!

Except then you will have no idea whether it is utter stupidity or an extreme insight on the character's part. So they should indicated that some answer is due to high intelligence or wisdom or spot skill or what have you either by markers or by additional narrative in the dialogue box. Same goes for bluff. You can be sincere about your threat to rip off someone's face and eat it for breakfast or you can just say it for scaring them away. PST had lots of dialogue where you could be truthful or lying/bluffing and it seemed very fitting. Absolutely. I don't understand why some people consider this handholding. The point here is, that you may have the same answer four times with four different intentions, one could be "I'm going to rip your head off!" - Bluff "I'm going to rip your head off!" - Attack "I'm going to rip your head off!" - Intimidation "I'm going to rip your head off!" - Lie/Truth PS:T had loads of those dialogue options. It's not about handholding, it's about giving you the opportunity to actually rolePLAY with different dialogue options. You know this could easily be solved by having different dialogues right? You don't have to have the exact same words. in fact that seems a bit cheap.

no. Enlighten me?

Adventures are not vacations. to me they are.Edit, or rather, vacations are adventures. I'm enjoying an adventure when it goes to a culturally rich and beautiful location more than if I have to delve through pits of mud and sleet. Obviously a personal opinion, but one I hold dear.

What is there to think about? Nothing says be aware, like some heads on pikes. Exept big sign held by trained Ogre that says BE AWARE, but in this day and age, you can never rely on common folk's reading ability. People take you more serously whn you are more, eh graphic I guess that's what we should expect from red-robed wizards I do like the idea that the aesthetic you choose also has an effect. So building a gallows, or heads on spikes mean npc dialogue changes a little. think big! Why just a tower when you can make it a university for wizardry?

The problems with typing in answers are largely practical. Capitalisation, spelling errors, spaces, exact phrases. You can know the answer and still go wrogn while typing it in. These things are not insurmountable, I think, but it's interesting to see how to do it.

I don't think it has to be the one or the other. Niche and high quality vs dumbed down and for the masses. I do believe this game will be able to have a wide appeal while still being qualitatively superb. When I hear that the writers should be satisfied with not everyone seeing everything in their game, I do believe that means that people will be able to truly choose their own experience. A wide-range appeal can actually help bring in new blood who didn't yet know the pleasures of what RPG's could truly bring. So far in this thread the views I've seen seem to roughly fall in the following categories 1. tags break immersion 2. tags give the player extra information and that is(can be) bad 3. tags give the player extra information and that is(can be) essential in their decision making process. 4. Tags should only be present to clarify intent. even with well written dialogue we can never be certain the intent of the untagged dialogue matches the one we try to role-play 5. If tags are necessary to clarify intent, the dialogue is written poorly. 6. Why not make it optional? you don't have to bother me with it that way. 7. If you make them optional, at least make sure the dialogue is written before the clarifying tags are added, to avoid ambiguous dialogue using tags as crutches. 8. You can avoid the use of tags while still having clear skill/ability dependent results by adding a sort of investment system, ever available, if not ever effective. Aside from this the discussion has been about what we can expect from the players. 1. A certain level of comprehension vs everyone should be able to play and beat dialogue. 2. Not everyone cares (enough) about dialogue in an RPG, there should be some accommodation for sucking/not caring vs dialogue is part of what makes a game challenging and fun and the game would be pointless if dialogue largely had little consequence. I got to say, it's been a pretty interesting debate so far.

I like the idea of a tribe of cursebearers, known to be able to mitigate the negative effects of curses so that they actually value cursed items. (and be safe from theft to boot)

Actually, I don't see how the points contradict each other. One side (and you, presumably) is saying that tagged lines should not be the one and only "correct" choice in a conversation, while all others lead to bad results. Another (that would be me, for instance) says that coding should stay, because it makes sense, brings flavor, and facilitates roleplaying. We are not arguing that it should always be the best result. Different to be sure, maybe, unlocking additional content like Wisdom did for memories in PST, but not the best. So the argument doesn't really exist. The argument doesn't exist, at least not for that. My argument was against the tone some had taken in the topic. I'm quite happy with how this thread has turned out, with good arguments and suggestions everywhere.But a post mocking someone who (perhaps foolishly) posted his credentials as a way to lend weight to his argument is not very conducive to a good discussion, especially since aside from that comment the post is well thought out and while I disagree with in part, contributes to the discussion.

To be honest, if OE follows all the advice in this thread, there won't be much of a game... "Ok guys, we need a boss for this dungeon level." "No bosses, the community thinks they are cliche'd." "No bosses? Ok... How about... hmmm... what kind of game are we making again?" "We don't know." The End. Dungeons are also cliche. As are adventures, quests and dragons. But are these clichés you would hope to see avoided or mocked?

How do you know this? The map doesn't include wind and rainfall patterns. Heck, you don't even know which way the planet rotates, whether it has a similar axial tilt to the Earth, or what kind of sunspot cycle their Sun has, all of which radically change growth and rainfall patterns. There's nothing wrong with the map, only with your arrogant assumptions. The accusation of arrogance is one I've heard before so I guess there is merit to it, but it was never my intention to be pedantic. Maybe I poorly worded my argument. I'm hoping to see some consistency in the world map. I picked the map of Faerun as an example because to me it looks unrealistic, admittedly with my limited knowledge of geography, climatology and meteorology. While it's a field that I'm interested in, I won't claim to have superior knowledge of any kind. That said I believe there is enough on that map that doesn't make sense to me that it broke my suspension of disbelief. I disagree with you on that there is nothing wrong with the map, respectfully.

and if my willpower is strong enough instead of changing me I change the item

you're a troll, and no, I disagree. this forum is good despite the occasional terrible post.

I can see this going the wrong way. some of the people in this thread are getting carried away. Argue the point, not the person. We don't need this to devolve into taking sides and spitting vitriol. If you can't do that get the hell out of my thread.

Curses always have confounded me, why would you place a curse on an item you intend to use? Unless you clearly intend it to go into the hands of your enemies, which I suppose is entirely possible. But I reckon there's other ways in which something could be cursed. It could have a quality that you could both interpret as a blessing and as a curse. Like the "blessing" of foresight which turns out to be a curse when you find you can't change it (Cassandra) I like the idea that the reason an item is doing more harm than good is simply because it wasn't intended for you. These gloves of might amplify your strength, but were made for powerful warriors who had the strength to take them off after combat. You are cursed with them because you keep breaking everything you touch. It's not that the item is ineffective, it is doing exactly what it was made for, which is amplify strength in fierce warriors But since the one wearing it isn't qualified, it acts in a way he or she would interpret as a curse.

Name three. ooh! can I do one!?In Dragon Age origins I hadn't really gotten into a quest where I had to kill some guild leader. I went to my target and he convinced me that my quest giver (his son) was in fact the one to defeat. I went to him and got a story that was different from what his father told me. his words made a little sense, not much, but some. I was still planning to kill him, but he did have a point. so that's what I said "You have a point" Quest ended. no-no! I didn't want that, I was going to attack him, having a point didn't mean I agreed with him! darn it! But I blame that on bad writing, not the absence of a "This will end the quest with no outcome" marker next to it. Mind you this dialogue didn't allow for any stat-linked resolution. so maybe it's not applicable. --- As for the difference between bluff and intimidate; One is a plausible lie which should be apparent by what is in the dialogue ("We got this place surrounded" when you know it's just you and your party) Or "you stand no chance against us"when you're clearly outmatched. "Are you sure you want to do that" bluff is ambiguous. you're never voicing a direct threat, always something over the horizon. it works with suggestion. You stand no chance against us would be a stronger bluff than "are you sure" Intimidate I think is more along the lines of "If you walk away now you won't get hurt." the threat is direct. *I* *Will* do this unless you do what I say. I'm not talking about fairy tale help I could summon, I'm not politely suggesting it, I'm making clear that if you stand in my way there will be consequences and you'd best be ready to face them or leave. NOW. Intimidate is more imperative. Bluff is more about convincing.

I don't particularly care to give an entire species one trait that isn't physical. If we have the full spectrum of human existence in mankind, I expect to see it in Aumaua-kind too.