JFSOCC

likewise. I've also argued before that I think it'd be an interesting idea to have some sort of benefit to hoarding wealth over spending it. Wealth levels, say having a high wealth level allows for different interactions with The high and mighty, or encounters with those who may target you for your wealth. When your wealth exceeds your spending, at least it would have some alternative use. And I love the idea of prestige collectibles to display in your stronghold. Whether that's an art collection, a library, Unique armour/weapon stands, a treasury with gemstones and other precious materials, an bestiary/garden with rare animals and plants or a vault with dangerous artefacts. Maybe decking out your stronghold in that way may attract the interest of fellow art aficionados/students in need of patronage, learned men, armourers, entrepreneurs, horticulturists/druids or powerful wizards respectively. Alternatively, it may attract the attention of art critics/cat-burglars, spies, mercenaries, robbers, drug lords or powerful wizards seeking to use the artefacts to their own ends, respectively.

If I could have afforded it (which is not the same as being able to pay it) I absolutely would have paid the big bucks, being able to design something that will actually get played by a large audience? Count me in! It'd be so cool! I'd design and name an NPC, an artifact, a portrait, design a tavern (hell yeah!) AND design an enemy adventure company (badass!) Perhaps its good that I'm poor then. But man, having something go from my brain to your screen, and (hopefully) see it appreciated, I completely understand it if someone wealthy enough would pay for the privilege.

yeah, but when people are suspicious you want their behaviour to reflect it, patrolling, searching, or calling it out to their allies.

Absolutely agreed. You're right, the risk is irrelevancy. But that's a question of what topics to focus your research on. If you give importance to the societies depicted in your game/film/book, then you research societies, or language, or both. Not Geography.

You seem to be under the impression that research is only done for realism, and that realism is the ultimate goal that the developers are trying to achieve. I don't think that's the case. Research is done so you have a solid basis, which you can diverge from. It's like an anchor point. You can't build a house on quicksand, no matter how solid the house, it'll sink. Doing research gives the designer real world knowledge to draw from. In no way does this force a strict adherence to reality at the cost of gameplay or engagement.

The balance would have to be determined by the game designer, but generally, the more you get right, the less problems you can expect. I don't know what the threads after release would say, but since they're now flowing the right way, I guess it won't come up. I don't know if the 'average' gamer will notice x or y, but if you get it right, then if they do notice, I imagine it'll be appreciated. But that's not why I think research is good for game design, I think research is good for game design because the more you learn, the more you have to draw from for inspiration. That's really the core of my argument. There is no such thing as too much knowledge. Based on the time constraints, there might be "too much research", but you do what you can in the time allotted to you.

Not to nit-pick, but I am curious as to your opinion on how a game could accomplish retaining the ability to be engaging without being fun; if said game isn't enjoyable, are you still going to play it? A game like Spec-Ops the line, or Papers, please, is decidedly unfun. they are bleak, dystopian, and confronting. Yet these games are engaging because of it. Games as a medium for art are beginning to grow up. But if you look at a different medium, Film, you can clearly see that a film does not have to be fun to be engaging. Some films are downright horrifying. You have thrillers, tragedies, film-noire, horror, you have films in which you see people suffer the way through, and it doesn't put a smile on your face. Yet many of these films are decidedly engaging. We need to move away from the childish notion that games are just for children, are just a means of entertainment and that fun is the only way to engage the player. Luckily the medium is, slowly but steadily, growing up. No, you don't need something to be fun to be engaging.

/thread. Nobody is arguing for a hyper-realistic simulation game. Some in this thread believe Josh Sawyer is going overboard with the realism, some, myself included, do not. I agree with Mcmanusaur that realism is not the opposite of fun, it can be, at times, in which case I don't think I'd opt for realism. Or rather, the game doesn't always have to be fun, but it has to be engaging. I believe that research of your subject will allow game designers to make a more engaging game. En verder wil ik er geen woorden meer over vuil maken.

oh that is a flaw in the system I hadn't considered. Perhaps investigation could be based on a counter-skill. If a stealth character enters your sight range, no matter what, the NPC alert state changes one level to "suspicious" or for every 5 ticks spent in NPC observation range, there is a x chance of a change in alert state (base 10%) to suspicious. the perception/observation/guard skill would add 1% per level. So base 10% after 5 ticks, 20% after 10 ticks and so on. Whereas a character with 7 levels in perception would have 17% after 5 ticks, 34% after 10 ticks, 51% after 15 ticks and so on. Obviously if the number of ticks runs out before suspicious state is triggered it would still trigger auto-discovery. No hiding 10 minutes right behind someone. I suppose "dead zone" could be a special rogue ability where "up close" does become a safe spot as long as the rogue doesn't move, as per his specialisation in stealth. -- Another alternative approach is to have the suspicious state activated when you run out of ticks, instead of auto-discovery. A suspicious NPC will usually (unless he or she has specific orders to hold his or her post.) look about, making discovery likely. In that case the distant vision cone would also yield instant discovery. --- I sincerely hope that lighting will have influence on npc vision, aiding or foiling stealth attempts.

I'm very curious what these smaller quests and NPC's look like. I hope no 'rats in the basement' or 'fetch me three orc skulls' and the like. I hope every quest, even the small ones, have a proper amount of attention spent on them. when you mention smaller quests, do you mean that these are quests with little to no world reactivity upon completion?

When you hear about some doomsday preppers, you think they are nuts, they spend their life in service to the sad hope that doom strikes, BUT it pays to be prepared, and if it's just a small effort so you have 'something, just in case' then brilliant. Besides, if I ever become a rich eccentric millionaire, you bet your ass I'll have some crazy ass doomsday fort in the basement

Sometimes I wonder if people are deliberately obtuse just to **** with me. Gromnir mostly ignores the valid points others make because it doesn't fit his narrative. And historical fiction is one of the examples, but there are many reasons to research your subject matter. And yes, I sincerely hope a great deal of fantasy, imagination and completely new things will find their way into P:E, but I am glad, no, happy, that people like Josh Sawyer take their job seriously and research before they produce. Because all those things that annoy so many of the fanbase, like boobplate/"naked armour" or fake "ye olde English" won't find themselves in P:E because the devs did their due diligence. I seriously don't understand how you guys don't get this. And let me get one thing clear: Knowledge does not limit the imagination, it does the opposite, it frees the imagination. It is a pre-requisite for creativity and originality. A five year old child will NEVER be able to imagine a beautiful architectural building into its smallest detail, and while many architects are less than special, those who created true beauty were the experts, not amateurs. The argument that shakespeare didn't research his subject matter ignores his experience and training as a playwright, his knowledge of plot devices, and his mastery of the English language. He had to learn these things. You simply cannot create something from nothing. Like the Mitchell and Webb skit I posted earlier: sure you can write your fantasy about being a doctor into a series, but it's not going to be particularly good unless you can make it convincing. "We need to bring this man medicine" - Even IF you somehow could produce something without any research at all, something quite good, people are not going to connect with your story or setting if they cannot emphasize or understand it.

Avellone's forum account is stuck on a very small postcount, I don't think he frequents these forums very often, I'm sorry to say. He does seem active on other places on the web, including twitter, maybe you should try it there. http://forums.obsidian.net/user/13-chris-avellone/ Last Active Dec 20 2012 01:15 AM

Not no, Yes. Project Eternity is said to be comparable to around the 16th century of our world, technology wise, and for some of the societies. With some differences, because the developers are NOT trying to make an exact realism simulator, as you seem to suggest. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/palooka.htm http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The whole thing were was largely inane, and as we I said, the wacky reply/quote attempt made it largely nonsensical as you weren't actually to us wasn't to you, or was, it's not exactly clear what you mean to say. You realize how absolutely ridiculous it gets if Gromnir were to actual respond to each o' your silly Unduly dismissive. reply/quote responses? Not gonna do it. Oh yes, so silly that you don't actually want to respond to it. Except my arguments are not inane, just inconvenient to you as they challenge your held beliefs and you rather not face challenges like the **** you are. Dont (strike the don't, it doesn't belong here. Unless you want me to write inanely to make you respond.) want us to respond to inane parts? Advice: don't write/post/say inanely, or "inane things". That's funny coming from a guy who doesn't know how to write properly, has half-backed ideas unsupported by good arguments. Duh. Back on topic. Real world knowledge can be helpful where developer can add details to make <something, I'm going with the narrative> more compelling or evocative, but actual real world knowledge necessary is often very small to nil <is often unnecessary>. A repetition of your previous opinion, still unsupported, and conveniently ignoring all the counter-arguments made. You've made up your mind and aren't willing to listen to others, what a shocker Write what you know? we I got a reply: "Nothing can be more limiting to the imagination than only writing about what you know" Maybe if you know nothing. But here's the deal, the argument I and others have made; You don't ONLY write about what you know, but you need a solid basis to work from, you can move from there and explore the unknown. Write about what is or was? That is what journalists and/or historians is paid to do. Writer of fiction...or developer of a game with a fantasy setting? seriously? Right, because the Historical fiction genre doesn't exist; Because these subjects are somehow off limits to writers of fiction. Right. HA! Good Fun! You are an idiot.

I love how you cherry pick the most inane and irrelevant part of my post to respond to, while completely ignoring my arguments.

GAH,, I frikking hate this bbcode sometimes let's try this again This post is so terrible that I will go over it piece by piece. I'll ignore the terrible grammar and punctuation. platitudes and anecdotal evidence? Platitudes are meaningless words, but knowing your subject is hardly meaningless, it is essential to write well. If you want to to look real, yes, you need to research it well. The clothing styles, the writing systems, the social hierarchies and political systems. You need to know what used technologies were. Did you know they had a system of writing with knots? This information is out there, accessible. I don't know what Shakespeare(shakes? really) had access too, but it doesn't compare. That's like, just an opinion man. And just as anecdotal and the post you're criticising. That's a great piece of ignorance. Star Wars draws heavily on Eastern (Japanese) influences. Particularly Bushido and Zen-Buddhism. The style of the movies is fairly common east Asian method of story telling and pays homage to older East Asian movies. So while the "science" aspect is certainly under-represented, you cannot say that George Lucas didn't first research his subject. You are squarely, perhaps deliberately missing the point. You don't do research on your subject matter to make it exactly like the real world, you do it for inspiration. Not only is the real world far stranger than fiction, it enriches your imagination to know more of it. This is what makes for great writers, they have a wide range to draw from. Anyway, MRStark wasn't supplying anecdotal evidence, he was supplying an example. I can give you another one: James Clavell, author of the book King Rat(amongst others), about someone surviving in a Japanese prison camp. James Clavell survived as a Prisoner of War in Changi, one of the worst, if not the worst, of the Japanese WWII prison camps. As such, he has got much more knowledge about the workings of a prison camp, so we learn more about the types of risks, the means of survival, the mindset of the guards and their culture, than we would of say, David Mitchell writing a skit about cricket. How you don't get this baffles me. You're contradicting yourself, and making the point you're trying to disagree with. We do groan when a cop tastes drugs, because we know it generally doesn't happen. It DOES break suspension of disbelief. Not a dichotomy we were trying to argue. Never did we say that reality was a goal, realism is, or "Verisimilitude". two words: Anecdotal evidence Besides, I sincerely doubt that Josh wants to copy reality, at no point do I hear him say that, or do his words imply it. I don't want to speak for him, but I believe knowledge is meant as a basis for inspiration and creativity, not as a blueprint not to be diverted from I would love an Inca, Mayan or Aztec setting btw, that is absolutely something I'd love to see. These are rich untapped cultures which would make for great fantasy material.

Now I kind of wish Karranthain would write for P:E because I'm digging your Vailians.

When the monkey cult of the distant jungles of Shee found themselves owned by the dragoling trading empire for being on their colonial lands, they unwillingly made their way to Dyrwood. This is where they escaped captivity and built their jungle shrine by one of the old greenhouses of the horticulturists. While devoid of monkeys, the cult holds on to the lessons of the jungle, the lessons learned Dark Monkey token. Equipped in a hand slot, not a weapon. While touched, the token envelops any player standing in the daylight in shadows, decreasing the line of sight of enemies. Cold sweat appears if held longer than ten minutes.

5. "I hope you're not giving me a mug cleaned with that"

in typical adhd fashion I've been unstructured dividing my attention on several interests and failing to pay any of them enough attention. I need to start making choices. I think I'll borrow a page from Calax's book and start medicating again.

Hear! Hear! Quasi-permanent summons is a terrible idea. Summons are a spell, not a meaningful character interaction or plot device. There is absolutely no reason to develop an entire set of mechanics to give a spell superflous aspects of an NPC. In most games, summons don't even actually die. Anything conjured from another plane is simply expelled back to its home plane. Well that's appealing to tradition. Summoning traditionally has had balance problems leading to summons either being underwhelming or broken. I do like the idea of summoning spells you have to be careful with, tactically. it adds to depth of play in combat, without adding much complexity. So what that summons used to go differently. I'm not advocating we get rid of it entirely, rather that there is an alternative of higher level allies which are stronger but also a limited resource. I'd balance it so you'd hate to lose it, but not so much that you don't want to go on. A useful but not required ally lost. There would be enough summons and other abilities (including more frequent low-level summons) to not make the summoner completely useless as soon as his favourite summon is gone. Also, losing 712 summons or more than 80% of them shows a severe lack of skill in combat. If you play that poorly with summons, you deserve to lose them and suffer for it gameplay wise.

Limber monkey amulet This amulet looks like a fairly plain woodcarving of a climbing monkey on a string. While worn the amulet generates stamina over time, confers immunity to slow effects, and grants the ability to climb and scale certain obstacles. removing the amulet drains all stamina and gives a permanent reduction to speed. It cannot be worn by the same person again.(possibly the universe would explode)

As Lephys has just said, the outright and permanent death of a minion begs for reload... but I think there is a potential solution. What if the death didn't bring about the loss of a summon, but its change? Fine idea! every time a summon dies he gets permanently weakened, until after say 5 times when it actually dies. that way, losing a summon is not an instant reload, but you're still at risk of losing it over time. By the time it finally dies, it may not be significantly strong enough for the player to be overly upset anyway.