DreamDancer

@ijusten You bring up some interesting points. I also don't like the fact that most animal based races are just humans with an animal head and fur. They should differ enough in behaviour to distinguish them clearly as nonhuman. Now about history...if you look back the fascination and sometimes worship of animal spirits and gods is deeply rooted within mankind. Even today we like to attribute certain animal characteristics and traits to another human. Clever like a fox, lone wolf, etc. That's why I don't understand the issues some people seem to have with beastlike races in a fantasy setting. It gives opportunity for fun and engaging stories that very much resemble the ancient myths and lore, once told by shamans and priests. Just look at some of the ancient pantheons like the Egyptian for example. Anthropomorphic deities galore. Also, we already have gnolls as a common staple of fantasy settings. Basically hyena anthros. Oh, and Minotaurs. If they don't make them playable races at least have a variety of them in the game as NPC races with diverse and interesting cultures.

Yep. *shrugs* So what? I know I am a decent person and I know a lot of amazing people in that community, so whenever I see all this hatemongering going on I can't help myself and feel the need to at least speak up a bit. You quoted it yourself: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Peace

You sure? Can't say I've encountered anyone like that. Or could it be that you are making wild assumptions and use broad generalization?

From what I've read they're people who like to dress up as humanoid-animals and in some instances have sex with one another. Not my thing but so long as they're not harming anyone I don't see the big deal. Actually the Furry Fandom features a very broad range of people interested in anthropomorphic art, literature and movies. Some are in it only for the pr0n, others follow a more neo-shamanistic approach to the whole animal/human theme. There are a lot of different reasons why you would be into Furry related stuff and it doesn't have to do with sex all the time. I don't know where all the hate and contempt comes from that is leveled towards Furries, but then it is human nature to hate and fear anything that is not considered the norm or safe. On topic though: Yes, I very much would love to see anthropomorphic races in PE, but I dont care if they aren't included. There are other games already that feature them, some MMOs, some single player RPGs like TES. I just think that beast races always add something exotic and excitng to a world, if done right of course and with enough difference from a human society and culture. In the end, as it is with most things, it is a matter of taste and preference.

I agree that sometimes pacifism isn't a viable solution and would probably border ont he absurd, but what I'd like to see is at least having more of those nonlethal options when dealing with potentially hostile NPCs. I think the main problem is how willing people are to just kill someone because we are used to slaughter hundreds of creatures in those games as a daily routine. It completely sucks all the meaning out of combat and there is also usually no consequences attached to going that route. I mean, who would mourn a group of gnolls you stumbled across your journeys? Or a whole outpost of them? Or maybe their entire tribe? It's a bit sad that we have come to expect killing as the only logical choice and approach in most siutations and I really would like to see a bit of change here. At least add consequences to all the killing your PC and his companions do. If you wipe out enough members of a specific race/tribe/faction you will be known and hunted by every surviving member of that tribe and also their allies. I know it is probably wishful thinking, but imagine for a moment that you spared the group of gnolls that you crossed paths with. You defeated them but at the end decided to let them live, stating that you generally have no quarrel with them unless attacked first. It might make an impression that later on could lead to sidequests with that particual tribe of gnolls and maybe even earn you somewhere along the way the title of PC the Friend of Gnolls. Of course, as someone already said, there are also sometimes those moments, where you just gotta kill 'em all. But, please...it does not always have to be the only choice.

I am definitely for the pacifist non-lethal approach, although it will probably only work outside of combat mechanics in a game like PE. Usually through dialogue choices or using certain ablities to convince or pacify hostile NPCs. Also I'd like to have combat and especially killing remain meaningful and kind of rare, because slaughtering dozens of people isn't exactly what I'd call immersive or authentic, and very far from realistic. Just because this game has roots in DnD doesn't mean it has to be a boring grindfest or hack'n slay. Bring back the roleplaying element and I don't mean by roleplaying managing stats and leveling up your character.

For some choices it is kind of necessary to have NPCs react immediately, of course very dependent on the particular situation. But, let's say, you do something that may influence a larger area or maybe a whole region, like securing a new trade route for a city, then it makes sense of having a certain delay on the changes to the game world. I am also hoping for more natural and authentic behaviour from the NPCs and the world in general. It should not feel scripted or contrived, and I agree, this can be done by allowing some ingame time to pass before the changes happen.

Guys, I think you are both right. If you are good at bluffing there is of course a good chance that you will convince the guard that you intend to shove him aside should he refuse to let you pass. You just won't do it if your bluff skill check fails. You just used a bluff in an intimidating way. Intimidation on the other hand, when it is clearly not meant as a bluff, will either make the guard step aside or make your PC push him away if the intimidation skill check fails.

Hm, I see it like this: A bluff is something you say you'll do but you don't actually follow through with it when called on it. In order to have the bluff work at all, in this case "intimidation", you need to have the stature, menacing aura, etc. to be able to pull it off. You can't bluff if it isn't at least somehow backed up by some supporting circumstances. Of course, then you cold just replace "bluff" with "lie" and have something like: [Truth] I am gonna kill you and [Lie] I am gonna kill you. Not sure which game used this, but that's how it was done already. Worked fine imo although I would have preferred [Truth] [bluff].

I do like the OPs line of thought as it reflects my own regarding the role of my PC in a group or in the game world in general. I too am a bit tired of always having my character be the central focus in every scene and conversation. I also don't want to always be the one guy that can save the world. As someone mentioned already in this thread, why not just have your good old traditional group of adventurers who happen to get entangled in the main story line of the world. Or not, if they choose to just stick with the side quests and exploring the world. Best example for me is my "playthrough" of Fallout NV. I had tons of fun and kinda crafted my own story by creating my own caravan, hiring companions to protect me while I went exploring the world. I completed the whole map and did most of the side quests, but I did not touch the main story line. Why? Because there came a point where I felt I was forced to do things I'd never consider doing in order to progress the story line. Neither did I want to stand in the limelight, nor did I want to be the one responsible for deciding the fate of a whole region. I just wanted to be a caravan trader. With his own agenda, sure, but not special in any way or form. Now the matter of my PC being the spokesperson of the group is something where I'd also like to see change. Of course I don't mind if the game revolves mostly around my player character and his actions, but not to the extent that is so common in heroic epic fantasy settings. My PC is part of a group of very capable and I am sure charismatic people. He can be their go-to person, the counselor of the party who holds the group together and who they often look up to for advice. But he doesn't need to be their spokesperson on every single occasion. Why not give the PC the same options that only NPCs had before? Let's say there is this group of soldiers my group happens to come across on their travels. My PC usually being a mage/scholar would certainly look to the warrior of his group to initate and lead a conversation with them. The PC doesn't have to be completely locked out of that convo though. Why not give the PC the same option to chime in and comment, or getting asked by his companions for his opinion etc. Have a pool of appropriate answers based on the characters background and various other flags that identify him as a unique charcater. If the PC absolutely has to be the leader of the group, let the spokesperson leading the conversation refer to him at the end of it, awaiting a final decision on how to proceed. Dont get me wrong though. I have no issues with leading a group of people, but it would be so refreshing to be given the option to be more of a silent advisor/counselor to the group than the one always in charge.

I am in favor of no tags while still having your skills influence the amount of dialogue options and actions. If you have a high wisdom score one or two additional dialogue lines are added to the standard selection. If you are also intelligent add another 1 or 2 options to the conversaton tree.That way you dont immediately see what the game (devs) think would be a wise response but instead choose your answer depending on what comes closest to something you would say in a particular situation. In short: No tags, just let the additional dialogue options appear without clearly indicating them. Of course, there are skills where it is a bit more tricky to do without tags, like bluffing and lying, but stuff like intimidation and seduction should be fairly obvious without the need for tags.

@Heresiarch DA2 is indeed a prime example on how not to do it. I still weep for the lost potential they had with the theme of that game. If you played as a mage using blood magic no less, it should have had serious consequences and people should have reacted to it. I mean, it's basically like being involved in a murder case trying to prove your innocence and then running around in a blood soaked shirt while wielding a big rusty cleaver. Breaks immersion so much that you can't buy into the world anymore. If it is a major issue that is also related to the underlying theme of the game, it should have a major impact on the game world, maybe being one of two very dfferent paths along with unique quests and events. Of course they can't do that for every choice you make, but at least acknowledge it in the form of floating text above people's head. Would have worked wonders for DA2 if there had been at least some minor recognition of the fact that you are a blood mage yourself and also have a bunch of other very obvious mages in your team, strolling through the town as if it were Magic Central :D

Yes, I also believe that this would be a fantastic idea and add a lot to the reactivity of the game world. 'll admit I have no clue about database programming and managing, but if such a system could be created that checks various flags that are constantly added and modified by the player's actions throughout the game and makes the world recognize them, then I believe the fictional world would feel a lot more immersive and "authentic". Your example with the face tattoo is really what I've been thinking of in terms of recognition of the unique features the player's character has. I mean, how cool would it be if you choose an option like that at char creation and later on people in the world whisper about that stranger with the dragon tattoo who has done deed X and is supposed to have done deed Y. Basically building a legend on the recognition of that prominent cosmetic feature. Again an example of making small things that usually are just fluff an important factor in the game. Definitely gives the feel of playing YOUR story. I very much agree on the points you made. Especially the part of conversations and dialogue choices feeling too contrived. Again it is probably considered "just" fluff but having conversations that aren't always related to the quest at hand or the recent events would certainly help in making the companions or other NPCs become more than just witty one-liner dispensers whenever someone pushes their button. This very much touches upon another gripe of mine I have and that is how uninteresting your companions are if the only time the game allows them to flesh out their personality is during major (quest or main story line related) events. I think DA:O already went in the right direction by having the camp where you could socialize with them, but usually it had to be you who initiated the conversation and the dialogue choices were only related to that NPCs specific role or background. No idle chatter about the world in general, what they liked doing when they weren't out saving the world, what they always wanted to know about the player's character, etc. I think in those moments between the major epic events and quests those companions could really start to grow on you by talking about general stuff that still shows their unique approach to everything based on their specific personality, but isn't limited to just Companion Quests and during major events. Now if you add the aforementioned reactivity to them as well, t would be pretty awesome I think. I fondly remember the moments in Mount and Blade when I would travel n the proximity of a particular city or region and suddenly one of my companions would approach me and tell me why this city or region had a special meaning to them, also giving me more insight into the culture and history of the people living there. Basically a very well done, immersive lore exposition. One last thing I wanted to comment on is what you said about VO and the referral to your character using generic terms like "the hero". Because I also prefer the much more personal use of my character's name I am in favor of dropping VO all together and just have it text based. I create their voices n my head anyway when I read their lines, so I am not really missing anything. And if you consider that especially in very personal situations the NPCs/Companions can't address you with your first name or nickname or anything of a more intmate nature because it couldn't possibly have been recorded before, then having it just text based becoems much more appealing. At least for me.

I read the post by Josh and I am a bit more hopeful now that they will indeed spend a good amount of resources on reactivity/recognition of player choices. I agree that it doesnt need to be a huge out branching quest series for every choice. Sometimes some floating text above townsfolk commenting on one of your deeds or any other dominant feature of your character (race, gender, profession, etc.) will do just fine. Just have lots of it all over the world, because it adds immensely to the immersion you can give some locations to truly make them unique. Yeah, places also are characters in a story. And you can make them stand out by having reactions unique to that certain place. People in village A may be very welcoming to the traveling paladin stopping by for a nights rest, but village B may slam the door into his face because they had bad experiences with the holy crowd. Ofc, if you do that for a huge amount of choices you end up writing a dozen novels worth of text, but maybe it would justify the effort if the result makes the world you create that much more alive?

For me the main reason I would like to see way more non-combat options in the game is closely related to another gripe of mine: the degenerated meaning of combat and killing. I am aware that this is just a personal thing, but I really hate how meaningless combat and killing has become in games. So much that it is kind of expected to have tons of monsters rushing at you at every opportunity or having combat as the set and fixed outcome in 80% of the main story line encounters. Jut because you are a fighter does not mean drawing your sword and attacking someone should be your usual routine. Even worse with the killing. Obviously all our characters are used to killing dozens, nay hundreds of people, over the course of the game. And they shrug it off. It isn't even mentioned in any way or form that you just did somethng really terrble that at the very least should bother you greatly, especially if it happens to be the first time you killed someone or witnessed someone being killed. Of course, I am pretty sure the usual reaction to this is "D'uh, this is a fantasy game with fantasy violence, it's not supposed to be realistic like that." Well, on that we are just going to disagree. I like my fantasy games with a sort of "realistic" and authentic feel to it, because then the roleplayng experience becomes much more enjoyable, at least for me. So...I would really like to see them reward non-combat options a lot more than the combat approach no matter what powergamers might exploit out of that system. If that's their thing, great, let them have fun. But please give optons for others to also have fun.

I really prefer having the game freeze and allowing me to ponder my decisions. I gives me opportunity to think about the situation at hand, how I would probably feel about it were I really there as my character and what would be an appropriate response staying true to my character's personality and motivations. I can't do that while a countdown is running. As we will most likely have to read descriptions of situations, NPCs involved and also what they are telling us, it makes only sense to have time to let all the information sink in before reacting. So yes, please a lot of dialogue choices and no time limits.

This is indeed what I am hoping for. If a team can pull it off, I am sure it is Obisidian. It's just that I have become carefully optimistic when it comes to reactivity in modern RPGs. You know, most of the time all we hear about is how great the combat mechanic is and how visually stunning the world looks. That's all great and enhances the experience, but this is not where the meat of a RPG game is, at least for me. It's in these "little" things, like that elven archer greeting you in their native language and making some snide remarks about your dwarven companion, all because you are one of their own. This is what I'd like to see, not being treated like "random human dude" by the world, because then charcaters become interchangeable and that kinda kills the immersion for me. Once again, I know this is Obsidian, but you may understand that I've become a bit guarded when it comes to games delivering on depths and reactivity opposed to just presenting a beautiful but hollow shell *cough* Skyrim* *cough*.

Hey guys, I'd like to write a bit about something that is most important to me when it comes to enjoying a game and the world it presents to us in its many different ways. Now that Project Eternity is in a very early development state I thought I'd take the chance and add my suggestions about what the game should probably focus on. Maybe my PoV is shared by many, maybe I am alone with this, but I would like to at least explain where I am coming from. So here it goes... For me the main source of enjoyment comes from being drawn into a world of fantasy and trying to imagine what it would be and feel like to actually live there. This is usually achieved by experiencing an expertly crafted story, convincing NPCs that you meet on your journeys and of course also the visual representation of that world. Most games I've played do a solid job but I always felt like there is something missing, something that could have made the experience much more intense and unforgettable. For me it is all about recognition. Recognition of the player's race, class, reputation, special perks and powers, personality, the things he says and the things he does, his looks, the stuff he wears, and so on and so forth. All these things that allow you to express yourself, to be uniquely you. For me there comes so much joy and immersion from this simple game mechanic, that I really wonder why it isn't done more often and in much greater depth so far. DA: Origins did a great job at the beginning of each Origin Story to make that story feel distinct and unique with your choices having a great impact on your future. Much to my disappointment the recognition of my character's traits and background became less and less the more the game progressed. That's why it always gave me such a warm fuzzy feeling when I saw it rarely emerge once again. For example the moment when you meet that tribe of elves and you -being one yourself- are welcomed like one of their own and you share race specific lore and rituals, is one of the greatest moments I had in that game. There was recognition of my choices, of all those things that made my character unique. So much immersion came along with that recognition, it made me want to stay in that camp forever and forget about the rest of the game. Because the game world became suddenly that much more meaningful and authentic it also sparked my interest in its lore so that I would take the chance to talk with everyone involved and do all the fluff that wasn't important to the main story but added to the overall experience of really being an elf amongst kin. Why the sudden peak in interest? Because the game made me care. About the world it presented, its lore and its people. All achieved by adding recognition. So...what I am asking for is to treat recognition and reaction to the player's character as a major focus for development. Not some nice bonus or sidenote, but a fully fledged feature being right up there with all the other core game mechanics. Of course, here opinions will differ. It's just that for me this is what RPG is all about. Playing a role and experiencing a fictional life in a fictional world. Only works though if that world recognizes me and the role I play. Now I know that you can't create thousands of reactive, dynamic paths for each and every choice the player makes. What would be nice though, and I think that might be achievable with a writing team working on it for a few months, is writing different dialogue and additional dialogue choices for a lot of the features that make the player's character unique. Even if its just for the major ones, like race, class and gender. I'd really like to see a certain level of recognition that is held throughout the entire game and not sparsely distributed here and there. This also makes replaying the game much much more enjoyable, because if people are already willing to do another playthrough just to see a dozen of different dialogue and events -usually either at the start or at the very end-, how thrilled would they be if it were a few hundred from start to finish, no matter what part of the world they choose to explore? Oh, and I believe focusing on recognition would also enhance the exploration part a lot. Because I would be so much more motivated to go explore the whole world once again with a different character because I will get -sometimes vastly- different reactions from the people I thought I'd know. Ok, this concludes my little rant about recognition. Feel free to add your thoughts about it. Thanks for reading