DreamDancer

I think this is an interesting proposal and kinda ties in with their seperation of combat and non-combat skills. In a typical game where you have just one pool you can indeed do a lot of side quests and/or main quests that involve mostly leg work or social skills and gain 1 or 2 levels, then spend all points in a fighting skill and suddenly youre a veteran fighter without having drawn your weapon once. I admit, I have always hoped for a seperation of social exp and combat exp, social in this case meaning everything from quest objective exp, to solving puzzles and succeeding in dialogue skill checks. With a system like this it would also finally pay off to be more of a diplomat and focus on social exp and skills.

I don't understand where people get the notion that having a character that isn't super powerful or even god like is equal to him being weak or average. Its right there in the poll choice you selected: Yes, but that's what I don't understand. Power does not need to be tied to combat performance, and I assume that is what the OP means when he talks about characters being weak or average. As I explained before, power can be expressed in different ways but when people talk about powerful they usually only mean combat. I picked that choice because I don't have a problem with "realistic" levels of combat prowess, but only if there is a power progression elsewhere, in the way I described.

Hm, I think I usually encounter exactly the problem sacred describes when it comes to cheap/RP skills vs "good"/useful skills. For example there is always one character in my party, who is completely specialized in all the fluff skills that do nothing for combat but a whole lot for lore and dialogue/Rp scenarios. Guess what, that character is always my own. So when I gather a party around me it is nice to imagine they are there to protect me. All the great gear goes to my companions and compared to my PC they are way above my league. And I am totally fine with it, because I can play exactly the role I want within a game like this: that of a diplomat, a counselor, a scholar and explorer. So yeah, bring on the cheap skills please! I'll pick them all and be happy with it :D

I don't understand where people get the notion that having a character that isn't super powerful or even god like is equal to him being weak or average. I assume we are talking power visible in game mechanics, right? Like typically in combat situations where the fighter can later on slice through half a dozen ogres simultaneously or the mage levels whole buildings with his spells. While I admit that it can be fun to be able to do that, the true power rise I want to see is usually a bit more subtle and hidden. I could care less for godlike spells or abilities if my character's power is visible in the reaction of the people he deals with. Seeing how much weight his words carry, how many he can influence with a rousing speech. Or the way people may cower based on the reputation for an especially nefarious deed he did some time ago, or maybe the other way around when people shed heartfelt tears of gratitude for a good deed. I will agree that there need to be some sort of power progression to a point where the character can truly shine, but you can keep this entirely within the realm of "realism" without the need to resort to ridiculously powerful abilities. Think of something like the Godfather. Physically a bit frail but emanating power like crazy. But yeah, knowing these kind of game chances are that the devs will go for flashy. Not that it's wrong or anything. Anyone remember that late end game spell from PS:T with its own animation sequence where that huge meteor crashed down on the planet? Hilarious. And Lina would have been jealous

First of all: Excellent thread. Definitely going into the Meta-Gaming here, because it basically comes down to the question: How do you approach a game? It's about style and personal preference really. I bet you can ask a dozen people how they play a game and come up with 12 different answers. How we play a game, how we engage with its mechanics and the game world it presents is less of a technical issue and more of an emotional one. Why? Because we play games to have a good time and enjoy ourselves, don't we? If we don't like certain game mechanics (like the excessive buffing prior to any combat) we will try to avoid it and find a way that we do enjoy (like the rogue approach or luring enemies into traps). In any case, what happens is that we try to make the game bend to our will and personal preference, and a good game gives lots of options to play the game "right", right being the way that fits a player's individual, unique approach to gaming. Considering the nature of the issue there is no way to make it "right" for everyone, so the only way to still appeal to a bigger crowd is to offer as many option as possible for overcoming challenges. Granted, this is of course mostly combat/dungeon crawling related, but as these are common elements of this particular genre, it is important that they are designed well, dynamically and in a flexible way. At least appeal to the three categories the OP mentioned so people falling into those categories can all have a good time with the game. Now for closure my personal take on this. I pretty much shifted from one extreme to another when it comes to how I play games. A few years ago I was pretty much a power gamer, min/maxing like crazy and trying to squeeze the absolute optimum performance out of my character and his party. I cared a lot about game mechanics and the math behind it. I also tried to get all the gear in a game so I could create a ridiculously powerful character. Ah...those were the days. Nowadays it's all about the story for me. The experience, the immersion. I am approachng it more from a writer's perspective and as someone who enjoys a good story being told. That being said, game mechanics and all the InGame preparation needed for combat encounters, are getting in the way. If possible I put the game difficulty on the easiest setting and try to get to the story (or RP centric) parts as fast as possible. And I am having one hell of a good time, although I do occasionally still enjoy a well made combat mechanic and some number crunching. So I hope the devs will offer a broad range of ways to proceed through their game, because we all enjoy our games for different reasons

I really would love to have different outcomes of battles other than the usual Game Over/Reload Save Game or Victory/Loot Dead Bodies. And it should definitely go both ways, meaning that it would be pretty cool if you had some options what to do with foes you defeat, like sending them to prison, selling them off to slavers, offering them a job in your stronghold, etc. Not having death and only death at the end of a conflict means giving the game world more depth in general, because the victory or death approach shouldn't be the only solution in an otherwise complex narrative setting. It works well for some of the dumbed down action heavy "RPGs" because there the killing and fighting is pretty much the only focus, but it wouldn't be appropriate for the spiritual successor of games like PS:T. That being said, I'd love to see RP scenarios like Prison escapes, breaking out of a slave pen, being dragged to a foreign kingdom, abandoned in the desert, etc. All those scenarios can usually only happen if they are planned for the main story line anyway or...your character is defeated. And lives to tell the tale.

Just listened to the Interview from Total Biscuit with Adam and they talked abot the Megadungeon and confirmed a few important things. So it seems that the dungeon will be optional and it is meant to be for those who love dungeon crawling. I am happy for those who enjoy this activity but personally I will just skip this and leave it for the end maybe, when I feel I have nothing else to do.

I had such a situation in my playthrough of DA:O where I played as a rogue and later on got Leliana and Zevran joining my entourage of companions. We pretty much had the same expertise when it came to rogue related tasks, so going purely by game mechanics they were dead weight. But that's where personality comes into the equation. I liked the way they were written enough that I thought they were fun to hang out with, so I could hear their comments and sometimes snide remarks which usually made me chuckle. In other words, they were good company, so I had them in my party when I set out to do quests. 3 rogues in the same party is of course far from the optimal or efficient way to do things, but that's the point where you gotta ask yourself what is more important to you as a gamer. So to answer your question: I'd do what I do regardless whether they are more awesome, equally awesome or plain suck at what they do: I'd pick them based on their personality

It makes a lot of sense if companions are a lot more experienced or better than your character, although only in their respective areas of expertise. I mean, that's what a traditional adventure group is after all: a team of highly specialized individuals that combine all their strengths to create a very powerful force. Beyond pragmatic reasons though there is also the social and emotional aspect of why people group up. On the most basic level it is because they like each other enough to be willing to travel together and feel safer than if they were alone. Now when I pick the members of my party I don't want to make a choice based on their stats or what they can bring in terms of game mechanics. I'd very much like to do it like I would in RL; based on whether I like their personality or not. And if I choose based on personality, it doesn't really matter if they are more awesome than me in game mechanic terms. I think it s fairly safe to assume that my own PC is also a specialist in one or more skills or skill set, so I needn't worry that my PC is useless or just tagging along. He will contribute to the overall success, even if there are other team members who might occupy the same specialisation. Now what makes a leader great or awesome, is the ability to manage the individual personalities of a group and forge them into a team spirit. That requires a certain empathy and charisma and diplomatic skills. A game usually conveys that in dialogue or scenes where you have to make decisions. It's basically the RP part of an RPG. And as long as the game allows me to be (or feel) awesome in that particular part, I am happy and don't mind if my companions are more awesome in other aspects of the game.

I would be very happy if the mega dungeon holds any meaning except an opportunity for XP and loot. I'll admit it right here: I dont like dungeons or dungeon crawling. Those passages where you stumble through endless caverns or catacombs are my least favorite part of an RPG. There is a reason for that though, aside from preferences. Dungeons usually serve no other purpose than making a quest last a lot longer than necessary. Need to go talk to that bandit leader? Great, but would you please first fight through his extensive cellar hideout, then his secret underground lair and then his even more secret fortress? It is different if you add meaningful content to those huge networks of corridors and rooms. Maybe the underground lair and fortress are part of a hidden city below the ground where fugitives and exiles from the other kingdoms have built a place to call home. Maybe there is all sorts of activity going on down there, from gambling to secret societies meeting and forbidden cults practicing their faith. I'd really like the mega dungeon to not become the standard monster line up waiting for you to clear one level after the other but indeed something like a secret city for interesting factions. It would certainly be a waste of resources to turn 15 levels into a mere loot and xp dispenser.

I thnk we can all agree that the perception of concepts like good and evil are subjective and relative. That being said I would side with the people here who don't want the game to judge your decisions at all. No artificial moral meter, no alignment scale, no renegade or paragon points. Because good and evil wll always be in the eye of the beholder. Personally I always found it silly, that certain professions automatically assume that you are evil. Think black mages, necromancers, warlocks, demonologist, etc. If you weren't of an Something Evil Alignment you couldn't even pick those professions. What was great though, was the fact that the game world sometimes reacted to your class/profession choice. Usually with scepticism and fear, but then you had the great opportunity to prove that just because you commune with dead spirits and dine with demons you don't necessarily need to be an evil bastard. So I'd like to see getting rid of those artificial moral mechanics and have the game world only react to your deeds. I dont want the game to judge my actions based on a rigid mechanic but rather relative to the context it happened in. What I mean by that is that I want it to be like in ME, but without the Paragon/Renegade mechanic. Having NPCs react and comment on your deeds is great, but don't tell me what I did was "good" or "evil". 'll decide that for myself. Oh and while we are at it... alignment specific gear. That concept is so bad that it is hilariously funny at the same time. So you just found that cloak of awesomeness +1 but you cant use it because it somehow detects that you have been a bad boy and refuses to be worn? I mean, seriously. Are there some mysterious evil particles floating around my character? Will the cloak try to strangle me if I try to wear it? This is just another example of why good/evil mechanics are usually not such a good idea :D

I agree, an "evil" person usually doesn't travel with a band of merry companions saving the world. He is in it for himself. A game that really played well with a concept of "evil" was imo ME and ME2. Going renegade didn't mean you went overboard with stupid-evil actions. It meant you were less likely to grant mercy. It meant caring less for the well being of others. It meant having an overall darker perception of the universe reflected in your actions and what you said. There was that great scene with that evil scientist in ME1 where you and Garus finally caught him and then the game presented you with a nice moral dilemma. Adhere to laws and higher moral principles or just execute that bastard. The game made me think, and I love it when a game does that and also challenges my perception of morality. We can only hope we will get something similar in PE

Granted, but some of us may see no point in missions where we are not rewarded. I suppose that's were good and evil comes in. The good guy helps the beggar just because, the evil guy demands the last shirt off his back so his time isn't wasted. True, but in reality games rarely make sense in that regard. The good guy helping the beggar would indeed do so without expecting any kind of reward and the game should not reward that action beyond a heartfelt thank you from the beggar. Now what happens in most games in the case of an evil guy, is this: He also agrees to help the beggar, does the quest and then demands his shirt or coin. And that is, for me at least, complete and utter nonsense. An evil guy would never even accept that quest or even talk to the beggar. It would make much more sense for that evil guy to walk right up to the beggar, beat him up and then take his belongings. Or just refuse the quest and instead force him right away to give up his stuff. That is my major gripe with how evil is portrayed in most games. You put in all the effort for that NPC guy, even if you knew it would put you through hell, then come back with his precious stamp collection that he somehow lost, and THEN suddenly decide to go all Mwahaha, I am evil, so I will not only take the promised reward, but also your stamp collection. Because I am mean! What I am getting at is: to really have a distinguishable good and evil approach you need to alter the events more than just have different quest flavour text. In my example, a selfish/evil person wouldn't even bother to come back in order to hand in the quest. That person would probably not be interested in the stamp collection to start with. Or that person wouldn't even bother with the quest and just threaten the guy to hand him some loot. It just makes no sense that no matter what kind of person you are, you will do the same quests in usually the same way, just with a slightly different final dialogue/reward.

Now come to think of it...it is also pretty weird that we have come to always expect some sort of reward in these kind of games. I mean, even the poorest beggar will eagerly hand you his last shirt if you did him a favor. That is of course an exxageration but you know what I mean. It feels too contrived sometimes if you get a material reward every time you do someone a favor. At the very least you usually get a small amount of coins. I don't think it has to be that way and rewards should usually be consistent with the situation at hand. And I agree, rewards shouldn't be tied to some artificial morality system, although purely based om difficulty isn't always right either. If it makes sense that those you helped reward you with something very valuable, ok fine, but dont give out artifacts like candy, just because the quest required a bit more effort to complete.

Indeed, the reward already comes from being consistent in your character and roleplay it in a believable manner. Just going by the loot a quest or NPC might reward you with is more likely a power gamer or min/maxer approach. Which is totally fine, have done that myself in the past, but it's not as fun as staying true to a character concept and sometimes suffer the consequences for it. Like being very altrustic and usually leave empty handed. I really like situations where it's not clearly a good or evil choice but generally just a mess and you understand both sides. Like in ME2 when deciding whether you let Garus shoot that guy who betrayed his squad or convince your friend to just let it go. I really had to take a moment there and ponder it. Then I let him kill the guy :D

Yes, that's indeed what I'd love to see in the game. Judging from their past games where companions even went for each others throat it is probably safe to assume that they will have a rather sophisticated companion mechanic that allows for shifts in personality and also gives them room to grow as a person. While I hope there won't be any of that simplistic nonsense in place that is the Alignment system of DnD, I do hope we will get companions with believable backgrounds and agendas, that try to tempt, persuade and manipulate other members of the party, the PC included of course. Also, the themes of corruption and especially redemption, are among the strongest from a storytelling point of view, so it would be great if they were featured in the game in some way or form.

Now when I brought up the examples of chess or poker, it was just that, examples. Of course you shouldn't make a game where outside knowledge is required in order to participate or even complete a game. That being said, it can still work if the game allows for some meta-gaming. Like TSW where you are supposed to use the internet to find out about clues. Also, having a few optional side quests where specific knowledge is required, wouldn't hurt in the greater picture, as long as it doesn't happen in the important, main story quests or events. Just because not everyone profits from the inclusion of a certain quest or feature, doesn't mean it should never be considered adding it to the game. Personally I don't like crafting and consider it a waste of time. I will never make use of that feature, but I sure am happy for those who enjoy it. So why not have a few quests where mini-games come into play, just as added fluff for those who like them. Of course they would still need to be done in a way that is consistent with the world they are set in. Speaking of which...if you don't want to rely on outside knowledge or player knowledge, introduce new mechanics within the world through lore like books, conversations, etc. Pazaak, the Caravan Game from FO, they all did it. In a world like PE what I could imagine as a mini-game is something like pet battles in a pit/arena. Trained beasts and monsters fighting it out, controlled by mind mages or some sort of magi-technical device maybe? Could easily do a mini-game out of that and it would still fit with the setting.

Well my favorite mini-game implementation would be that classic scene, where the hero of the story sits face to face with the villain over a game of chess. While they make their moves they comment on events or make snide remarks about the opponent. In such a scenario it wouldn't even matter if you win or lose the mini-game, because it already serves as a story telling device. Or imagine a world like FO:NV where it would make perfect sense for you to have a seat at a poker table, engaging in a friendly poker game with NPCs you want information from or make contact with, etc. As I said, if done right and tastefully I could see mini-games as a good addition to the game world.

I like minigames but only if they fit the world and belong to that RP setting. I vaguely remember Fable Fable 3? having a mini game where you shot waves of Undead wth a ballista from the wall of a besieged fort. First time you had to do it as part of the main story line, but afterwards it was an optional event that you could repeat. Then there were the KotoR RPGs and in one of them you had to play Pazaak with someone to get information or favors out of him. That worked quite well because it felt like a natural part of the world and I really would like to see something like that added to PE to enhance the world and the immersion. It is certainly tricky to pull off right, but imo it isnt impossible to add minigames in a lore fitting, tasteful way that doesnt make them stand out like sore thumbs.

I think the good option is usually rewarded "better" because games make you put in a lot more effort in order to achieve that good result. Like trying to rescue a hostage when you have a time critical mission and does not need to rescue that hostage to fnish the mission. Also, some games do make you pay or sacrifice something in order to gain a benefit or solve a situation in a "good" way. But I agree, it would be much better if there were less good/bad and more shades of gray. Lesser of two evils kind of stuff

Abhorrent mutants, eh? :D I really don't understand where all that hate is coming from but it kinda scares me. There will always be certain individuals in any group or (sub-)culture that act like total jerks, but that's just the way it is and the rest usually suffers due to the action of a few. If I met some of those that were described previously, I too wouldn't want anything to do with them. I don't want to know what they do in private and neither do I care to know. So yes, in that regard you are right, those are total idiots. Now I've been part of that certain community you all hate so much for about 15 years, and I can say that it has been a great time and met lots of fun people you could party and enjoy life with. Of course there also has been people I despised and loathed, but as I said, that's bound to happen and you find them everywhere, no matter what their interests are. On the whole though there were lots of decent people that are fun to hang out with and who happen to enjoy the same art and life style. Do we differ from the norm? Well, certainly, but that A doesn't harm anyone who isn't interested in it and B is for the most part, quite frankly, none of your damn business. Why would I constantly hate on things that I neither care about nor even like? There are lots of things in a game like PE that I don't like but do I hate on the people who ask for them? Of course not, I am glad they find their enjoyment in it and that's pretty much all I expect in return. Ironically this thread and how some derail it with hateful posts reminds me of a similar thread on the SWTOR forums some time ago. There a similar wave of nauseating hate and intolerance swept over the boards, just that it wasnt furries that were the target, but gay people. Some of the "arguments" against anthro races here are worded almost exactly like the ones coming from those fanatical bigoted posters. It's pretty sad really. Why do people feel the need to hate on something so much, something that just happens to be different from a perceived norm but doesn't hurt anyone. Ok, that's all I am going to say about this topic, and hopefully we can continue to have a civilised discussion about the original topic without the constant trolling and flaming. If you feel that you absolutely have to hate something, then please do so where noone else has to witness it. Thank you.

Indeed. The latter style (though it is pretty cute ) has no place in a game like PE. I'd really love to see something like the Skaven in PE but there are other options too. Take for example Rakshasa, demonic entities that can very much be described as anthro felines. Also a very commonly used antagonist in DnD settings. I even remember a comic set in the planescape universe that showed various demonic races, among them a wolf like anthro race. Or think about the Eternal Hunting Grounds in Planescape. A whole dimension with animal and animal like beings. What I am getting at is this: the only limit is really imagination. Adding some anthro races can only enrich a world, not because it is a beast race, but because it adds variety to the usual cast of dwarves and elves.I am not even talking about having them as playable races, although that would be sweet, but NPC races that add to the cultural diversity of the world by featuring characteristics that differ from human society whle at the same time retaining some relatable traits. Personally I am playing mostly human characters because I can relate best to them, for obvious reasons :D I don't think humans are boring at all. You can make them interesting and different from the norm by giving them a culture and behavioral patterns that feature strange concepts or play with common ones in a new and exciting way. That being said, you don't even need any other race except humans to make a world interesting, but it sure doesn't hurt to have entities that also differ from humans on the outside.

I think the reason behind making them more like humans, mimicking certain patterns of known behaviour, is to be able to relate to them better. If a race is presented to you that is completely alien your options of interacting with them are rather limited. Beast races usually draw from a pool of commonly shared knowledge, like Gnolls featuring a wolf like pack structure, more acute senses and a very simple human intelligence. It is mostly about expectations and how much you stay true to them. Like having the Khajiit as the prime candidate for rogues and hunters, because you relate them to cats, who are predatory, smart and manipulative. Its quite a lot of fun to play with these concepts and contradict them sometimes, so there are ways to make your average beast race more interesting than just adhering to the expected standards.

I like your explanation and I am sure it does explain the strong ties to nature and specific animals that was common for certain cultures. I was coming from a more mythological and psychological angle. Assigning human traits to certain animals and then again assigning them back to human personalities is something uniquely human. It is a fascinating topic and studying ancient history and cultures is one of my hobbies anyway. There are a few examples that show how strongly the bond between human and animal was. Don't have the time to write an essay right now, so I'll just mention my favorites. The Egyptian pantheon, cats held in high regard, gods like Anubis, Jackal headed god of Death Rites and Burial. Jackals and canines in general were seen as Guardians of the West which was considered the Realm of the Dead. The Greek Pantheon and Mythology. Zeus constantly morphing into animal form to create a mess, or gods turning humans into animal/human hybrids. Actually, most staple creatures in nowadays fantasy settings stem from Greek mythology. It's just that rich. In regards to this topic, all I am saying is that it would be a shame not to draw from our rich history with animal spirits or races.

It really depends on what kind or type of game PE wants to be. In an open world game that emphasizes exploration and freedom to do pretty much anything you want, time limits usually don't work that well. As someone already mentioned, the water issue in Fallout made exploring always feeling like under pressure which wasn't really enjoyable. I am one of those players that want total freedom when it comes to how they approach a game world and who wouldl ike to decide when and where they get engaged in the main story line and certan key events of the game. Of course, there can also be time limited quests and events happening in such an open world, but only in places where it makes sense and doesn't distract from the exploration and freedom of choice. You could argue that events that happen in the world and feature some sort of progression are also time limited quests, like a raiding party moving fromt heir camp to a village, then besieging it, then taking over and killing most of the villagers. Something like that should definitely happen in an open world with dynamic content and you could label it as a time limited quest. On the other hand, games with a very strict path that use time limits to induce a sense of urgency, are also totally fine if done right. And with right I mean that they shouldn't try to be a hybrid between an open world free form exploration game and a more linear quest driven game. It pretty much comes down to: either you tell the story yourself or the devs/writers tell the story that features you. Both approaches work, but mixing them is usually tricky and can lead to a very unsatisfying experience.