JFSOCC

got my laptop to work again, yay!

Threads shouldn't be necro'd because people might read the thread from the start things thinking it's a new thread. I certainly read the first 4 pages before accidently going to the last page and saw the comment about the necro. This is a (often) a waste of time for several reasons. Such as the fact that the discussion is based on out-of-date information, or that the people discussing the topic might not even have the same opinions (if they are even still around) or that the discussion may not be relevant anymore. A bit off topic but I think necroing threads is something to be discouraged. I disagree, if someone would start a new topic where an old one exists, he should first have a look at the old topic. If he then contributes new thoughts and views, it's perfectly ok to "necro" a thread. It's not OK to necro a thread by just bumping it, or otherwise adding nothing to the discussion it was having. That's really the difference. And I've seen a parcity of interesting and inspired topics lately. I miss the wild debates about a wide range of topics. Maybe I should make a "design your own quest" thread or something. anyway, ON TOPIC: I'm a firm believer that time limits are un-fun. I hate time limits in games, especially if they are arbitrary. RPG's are about exploration and I want to take my time doing that. That said, however, I do believe that there would certainly be quests in which time would be a real element. IF and only if, there is a good reason to assume a challenge for the player is time dependent, I'd be OK with having quest timers. For specific quests. They would be fair, challenging, limited, and clear. I want to know in advance how much time I'd have. In addition, I would not want to have more than one timed quest active at the same time, and I want to know before accepting the quest that time will be a factor.

those are both western shows, made for western audiences.

I believe I have strong ethics, I care about ethics a great deal. I also believe that absolutes get in the way of review, and as such, it is generally unethical to depend on categorical thinking. Morality is not something you have and then can sit on your laurels. It requires you think about it. Getting stuck on doctrine and saying abducting and eating children is always bad, while probably true, is not ethical. Deciding, every time, that it is unethical to abduct and eat children, that's ethical. And by reviewing your choices every single time, it allows you to bypass those ethical exceptions which might arise. (as unlikely as they are)

yeah, last time, it suddenly worked, after 2 days, I have no idea if I did something differently.

So yesterday, I was playing a game of Rome Total War 2 when one of my fights started experiencing some frame rate issues. I started the battle at 7pm and at 1.30 am I had 35 minutes left to go of the hour allotted. The Battle was a pretty important one (my capital) and I was winning, if excruciatingly slowly. I didn't have any saves from right nearby, but either way it was not a battle I care to repeat. So this morning I find that my mother had turned my laptop off. (Thankfully I may finally have a home for myself, I'll know Monday) "it was making a lot of noise, and was really hot" So, problem is, I got my OS on a Solid State Disk, and those aren't very happy with unexpected shutdowns. It happened once before and I was lucky when after 2 days I could boot up my computer again. So, I'm sending this message from a different computer, ready to drink my mother her blood.

Honestly, I am not sure what the next one will be yet. There are a few ideas running around right now. story update or attribute system?

these are my favourite movies of the last ten years, if not all time favourites. Go watch them, both.

Gefeliciteerd! Onwards and upwards!

I fear corridor maps and single solution obstacles. I fear character-class pigeon-holing. I fear time constraints end up downscoping the game.

likewise, I think it has to do with a small campaign map. All other games had a significantly larger map.

I think it's not a case of "all classes should be able to do everything" but rather a "Despite being asymmetrical, classes can be played in several ways" I hope that's true anyway. I don't want to make a DPS character of my rogue, I want her to be a stun-lock debuffer.

possibility Soul Strength: affects ability intensity (duration, power etc) affects some skills Soul Affinity: affects ability costs, recharge times. affects some skills Fitness: affects health and stamina levels, chance to hit. affects some skills (strength, dexterity, constitution all rolled into one) Intellect: high intellect adds a % modifier to all skills and a smaller % modifier to all abilities. Offers additional dialogue options. (intelligence, wisdom, charisma all rolled into one) each attribute would unlock special abilities if you are highly invested in them.

thanks kgambit for making the argument I was too lazy to make.

I watched Liberal Arts, and it surprised me. the plot is nothing special, but excellent script, and excellent acting.

There was a documentary on tv a while back here showing that false rape accusations had become part and parcel in some African nations where the UN has instated special courts in places where rape had been common. apparently it was a fairly easy way to get someone convicted, and it was used to deal with perceived sleights and old animosities.

Ah, tasty outrage will ensue from that. Hopefully at least I see one 'trembling with rage' though. so I read that, all of it. I got to say, what Miley Cyrus does is not wise, but it's not entirely her fault. I've found that child starlets pushed by Disney(Or Fox and Warner) have a notoriously poor track-record. Not one of them is undamaged. When you see Miley "twerk", Blame Disney's lacking care and education. When you see Lindsay Lohan battle a drug addiction, blame Disney. Christina Ricci acted in movies she was technically too young to watch. Macaulay Culkin and his drug troubles, another child starlet unprepared by those who were responsible for preparing him. Britney Spears, AND her sister, both left with no protection against those who would exploit them, one of them a teenage mother, the other one also cut her career short because of children. Disney tends to put forward a misogynist and old-fashioned world view in which women are objectified. This child starlets are as unprotected and exploited as any victim is. No wonder then that they help perpetuate such foolishness. I have trouble believing that it was Miley's own idea to "twerk", but she was surrounded by people who knew what she was going to do on stage, and no-one told her it was a bad idea. From a financial point of view, it wasn't a bad idea, sex sells, after all, and who cares that it exploits women in the process. I echo the sentiment Richard Cohen that Miley Cyrus could benefit from learning about the Steubenville rape case, I also believe it's not entirely her fault that she objectified herself so readily for the MTV (who also did nothing to stop it, and must have been present at rehearsals) performance. The greatest evils in this world are born from ignorance, not malice. People make mistakes in their lives, I believe mistakes are essential for learning, instead of ruthlessly punishing mistakes, we should change them into teachable moments. Let's not make definitive statements about someone's character, as character evolves over time, that's called growing up.

slightly off topic, but I like that there will be a different method to stats. I always found the DnD system broken. Wisdom scores cannot be high with a low intelligence score. I always felt that too few people realise this. Intelligence + mistakes+ reflection= Wisdom. A stupid man will not learn as much from his mistakes as a smart man. It follows that wisdom is easier learned by the intelligent. Often priests and druids are credited with wisdom in the DnD universe. But I find that following doctrine, no matter how wise, is not wisdom of the character. It's not earned, it's not understood and comprehended. Because you cannot teach wisdom just like you cannot teach what love is. A person will know it when it happens and not before. It's true that others who are wise can teach, but it is the knowledge, not the comprehension and insight that is taught. I can tell a person it is wise to travel light, but until that person makes the mistake of not travelling light, it will be meaningless for them, even if it is accepted from me that travelling light is wise, it is not wisdom but deference. Since I believe that insight and comprehension are key to wisdom, I've always found it strange to see them as separate statistics. There's a lot more wrong with the DnD stats, Strength is something you can train in a matter of months, perhaps if you wish a rather extreme change it would take a few years and a diet change, Intelligence is something you can stimulate and grow when you are young, but the return on investment becomes much smaller as you age, a stupid person is not likely to become intelligent even after putting in all effort into exercising the brain. Some improvement would happen, but Grognar the Headbutter will not be getting a university degree all of the sudden. Having statistics which ignore this and are perhaps more "gamey", I think, will respect the players enough to role-play their characters without being arbitrarily hampered by stats, while giving us core statistics which are always useful. In other words, let us find that our character is wise from the choices they make, not because we are told so by stat.

Yes, I want classes to be very asymmetrical. Yes, I want there to be a great diversity in how to play each class. A fighter should not only be able to tank (though if that's how you want to play him, go ahead) a rogue should be able to pick between being a high DPS character or a debuffer, or a troll, playing target while avoiding many blows. Ultimately, I don't want class differentiation to be limited to combat though. Asymmetrical solutions to quests based on class would be fantastic as well.

Not that I particularly care about this conversation, but if you bash someone with a tower shield, that person WILL be knocked down. It's a thrust, not a smack, so you'll push someone off balance, and the shield prevents arms from getting in between, so you'd have leverage. It has a good chance of knocking someone over.

as beautiful as I think it is to have multiple state portraits, I value the ability to load up my own portraits over this.

I think this is polish, and I hope a significant amount of energy is put into it. . The biggest problem I have with fluff like this aside from it needing more resources than it is worth(IMO) is that the people who want to add such a feature would never be happy anyways. They would complain that they kept hammering the same spot. That they didn't have a big enough stockpile of resources for the work. Where are the lodging for the workers? Why can't I have "deep immersive" conversations with handyman 13? Where are their daily schedules? Why aren't they getting delayed by the weather? Why didn't their clothing change with the seasons? I could go on but the point is people who want and love fluff are never satisfied with the current level of fluff and are always demanding more. They also tend to act rather cluelessly as to how much dev time would be needed to put in everything they want. I personally think that their time is much better served being put to use elsewhere. considering how fast things are going, I'm beginning to think it's a lot less work than you seem to think it is. And I rather have a little polish than no polish.

What have you done with Lephys?

I want to be surprised. I'd be very upset, truly one of the very few dealbreakers for my support of P:E, if the antagonist ended up as some terrible cliché. I want the player to suffer right up till the end, let the player lose, a lot, to this superior foe. Otherwise it's not a superior foe. Give a player too many fires to put out and whichever they fail to put out, THAT's where the antagonist gets what he or she (or they) wants. And let the antagonist cast (real) suspicion on a dupe, whether a puppet or otherwise. Let the player run around being not one, but three steps behind. The ultimate antagonist will be memorable Because you hate him/her so much, because your are constantly frustrated by the antagonist, and because you truly suffer from their actions. That's how you'll end up with an antagonist that you will remember, and one you will feel all the more gleeful about when you do finally score a victory. You want a memorable adversary? Make them not suck, make them smart, efficient, collected, and most of all, active. - The antagonist lets others do the dirty work, no, they do not share information with the goons executing the plans. No, they hire professionals, not idiots who are easily beaten and talk when pressed. The antagonist "real" life is filled with virtue and little fame or ambition. The antagonist has friends and allies, who help him for other reasons than fear or coercion. The antagonist has a real base of power, both public and secret. The antagonist is ruthless, but not needlessly cruel. The antagonist accurately gauges the threat you pose to him or her, and provides you with serious obstacles. obstacles anyone would reasonably think would be enough to stop you. The antagonist doesn't stick to one tactic. If force doesn't work, persuasion, distraction or evasion might.