illathid

We were trying to balance what I saw as competing desires among backers for per-character inventories, reduced hassle in picking up items over the long haul, and some nod toward realism/strategic decision making in personal carrying capacity. The last element has always seemed like the least important to me, but that is what the Stash restrictions were meant to accomplish. If the overwhelming vibe from people is that they don't like the Stash access restrictions, I am a-ok with removing them entirely. E: Except for in combat, of course. I'd rather just have the stash and quick slots myself. I really only used Individual inventories (Edwin carries all the scrolls, etc.) for organization in IE games myself. And with the loot interface as it is, I'd rather it all go in the stash.

I've suggested something similar on the game mechanics board. It's mainly just. A cosmetic change, but I think it might help people view health, RPG, or whatever as a strategic resource, rather than something to keep topped off at all times.

Mansions of Madness is not an RPG. It's a board game with RPG elements, in the same way that Call. Of Duty is not an RPG. I've never played fire emblem, so I can't comment on that.

Ok, then what about the CRPGs medium requires simulationism to prevent crappy MMO combat? I mean it's not like there's some insurmountable divide between tabletop and computer RPG mechanics.

Dogs in the Vineyard, Fate, Doctor Who, Dread, and WFRP 3e are the main systems. Most of the actual RPGs themselves would be the various incarnations of the Fate system (Fate Core, Fate Accelerated, Spirit of the Century, Atomic Robo, the Dresden Files, etc.) EDIT: Also I haven't had a chance to play Fiasco myself, but I hear it's quite good.

yeah, like I keep saying Simulationism can die in a fire. A healthy dose of Simulationism is the only thing that separates good games from MMORPG bull**** combat. Um... What? I've played many RPGs that are not simulationist in the slightest and they don't have MMO combat.

yeah, like I keep saying Simulationism can die in a fire.

FIghters could do TRIP, Knockdown and Power attack in NWN2. just saying. That did not help. At all. I wonder why... :D Trip and Knockdown I'll give you, but power attack was amazing.

Yeah, but they were much bigger, and took a lot longer to explorer. combat encounters were much more spaced out as well. At least I think that's what people who complain about exploration find to be lacking. For the record, I detested wilderness maps in BG1, and would be absolutely thrilled if the two areas we have are representative of wilderness areas in PoE.

Per encounter abilities could be more fun if they were made into a choice. Use X or Y, but not both once per encounter.

A good idea for the expansion then.

Uhhhh, what? Nothing makes you recover from effects faster ... I think he's saying that with a high interrupt, you'll interrupt enemies more often which will reduce the duration of hostile effects they create. I think.

Actually, by having balanced stats under this system it will lead to better role playing characters. Basically it'll mean you'll never have to say "I have this really cool character concept, but I'm not doing it because it would be mechanically useless."

Nice! Was wondering if something like this would be moddable.

It's longer than either the Orlan or Dragon Egg quest. Also, I'm not talking about length in absolute terms. I could have said very short, short, medium, and long and the point would be the same.

The backer beta has 4 quests right now. In my opinion these are a short one (find the orlan), a medium one (bring me the dragon egg), a long one (defeat the ogre), and a very long one (find the nobles daughter). Assuming that quest lengths are similar to these in the full game, I don't think a character who has only done several short quests should level at the same rate as a character who has done the same number of very long quests. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Eh, wasn't trying to prove you wrong. Educate is maybe a better way to look at it. A lot of people in RPG circles have this idea that making competent characters, or playing the game well, is somehow opposed to role playing (I.e. Roll play v. Role play). I try to enlighten anyone I find who may have those notions.

It's a wizard from the show Fairy Tail that compulsively strips. It seemed relevant to the discussion.

There, fixed that for you Did someone say naked muscle wizard?

I think the only way rolling could be included is if the max possible roll was equivalent (or maybe even lower than) to the points you get normally. That way there'd be no incentive to reroll endlessly. Plus, all people in favor rolling are doing so because of the additional challenge and role play opportunities, right?

Well the reason I set it up as I did was to incentivize in combat healing, which has been been identified as a problem in the Beta.

You need to read up on the stormwind fallacy. @Waterd Where does diminishing returns factor into your optimal play structure? As I see it, pausing several times a second is not optimal as it only gives marginal benefit over pausing several times a minute.

Bah, yeah, if you could PM all the companions as well, I'd appreciate it/

Isn't just a card game?

I agree, I have no problem with purely defensive stats.