Sacred_Path

A 15 level dungeon without any combat would be a standalone adventure game put into an RPG. I'd simply question the reasons for that. Of course, a megadungeon with more puzzles and interactivity and less trash combat would be great.

"you must gather your wits before venturing forth." teehehehehe well maybe not.

My point is that if we compare "flexible single class" vs. "multiclass" characters, we have to look at how much sense it makes in a specific game, and there the first will usually trump the latter. I can imagine games where multiclassing makes sense in ingame terms, i.e. a game where many monsters are resistant to magic or where there are areas where magic doesn't work at all. Or a world where magic is outlawed.

o rly? All 15 levels of it?

I guess this means no potions in ancient treasure chests mirite

That's not what Chris wrote. Hmm. "while conversations and stealth can help set you up in a favorable position when hostilities erupt, talk-intensive encounters are likely to be left for communities, towns, and other areas where it makes more sense" So I guess those positions you can get into i.e. via stealth are really really favorable? K. Didn't mean to misrepresent his position.

so conversation and stealth won't do much for you in dungeons... did Sawyer get overruled or was it his doing also?

Anyonce can LARP as much as they want to, but you can't call an approach equally strong if it relies on LARPing to make any sense.

it's old info AFAIK. Also I think it's necessary to make the presence of healers in the party not mandatory.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum, I fear taking companions could be overpowered because they come with personal quests or items. But I can see where you're coming from. FWIW, Sawyer has said that there will be no dump stats, so creating an INT 3, STR 20 fighter either won't be possible or it won't be inherently better than other fighter builds. The example is somewhat flawed, because no individual ranger needs to tank as well as a fighter (since they all can take some damage) and none needs to heal as well as a priest (since you have stamina replenishing abilities on all characters, and you have no squishies like mages). The point of diversity is employing different strategies, i.e. with 6 rangers I can imagine both ranged attacks and stealthy movement would be more frequent than with other parties. Also, within the party, you might still want to customize them to some extent, i.e. two of them are stronger melee fighters than the rest and one could be a superior scout. So, this "one sided" party is probably better used by experienced players who have an idea of how they'll build them stat and skill wise, while the classic F/T/C/M party is easier to round out just by pumping each individual's core stats.

You say that providing the player the means to generate his own characters is "inelegant". I say that this isn't true, if there's no alternative ways of giving you the same amount of options. Of course I suggest here, and I think you'll have to agree, that giving the player more options is inherently better. That seems more like a gripe you have with the game at large... I think the die has been cast in this matter, and it seems it goes in favor of a variety of party builds, so it's useless to grieve about it now. Personally I love the flexibility that we're promised, and of course, no one says that the 6 ranger party will be exactly as powerful as a more diverse one. We'll see about that.

Different priorities for different people I guess, but there are so many components of an RPG that take time to do well that I can think of, and think that spending that time on hordes of party members isn't advisable. My point is that if you want to give the player the same amount of party building options w/o the Adventurer's Hall, you need to make 60+ NPC's. How exactly is this a strawman? (btw 12+ falls within 60 so I don't see the contradiction) No, it's neither an exaggeration nor a strawman... though using the universally loathed paladin may have given that impression. Might I suggest 6 rangers instead? AFAWK this could be very possible in P:E. Personally I've even asked if most class abilities will stack, because I fully intend to test a good many parties on different playthroughs. Eh, giving the player the option to have an effective party or otherwise shoot himself in the foot has nothing to do with good roleplaying IMO. This has to do with the limitations of CRPGs more than anything.

Will we ever see a game with realistic magic mechanics? *stabs doll*

I can't agree there. Reactive NPC's take time and ressources to do well. With a party of 6, if you wanted to offer the same possibilities for party building without user created characters, you're looking at 60 characters; and that's without taking races into account. Considering the alternative, giving the player the option to create own characters doesn't seem inelegant. Not from the beginning though, as you'll start with one character and gradually recruit more. Also P:E won't be a herp-a-derp DnD "take one of every class" game. You can make a party with 6 paladins and roll with it. Personally, I find it pretty horrible if these two things are mixed up; for example, having to sweet talk a character because he's the most effective fighter is p. awful, both roleplaying-wise and as an exercise in self-restraint for the player. Not being able to recruit the most effective mage in the game because your reputation is too good is also pretty bad because it limits your party building options even more, but at least that doesn't require you to do anything.

I ain't gunna read all dat **** I think it is. If you were already an accomplished mage, would you suddenly feel the urge to put on greasy heavy armor, swing a heavy warhammer, crawl through puddles of mud and sleep in cold field beds to learn how to live the life of a fighter? I don't think so. I think most explanations of multiclassing outside of game terms fall flat.

You'll be able to roll up your own characters instead.

I think that's not really what I said, but then I'm late and it's tired

Maybe, but one seems superior. People who aren't into complexity will find multiclassing off putting (yes people I knew were irritated over BG's multiclasses). People who like complexity will prefer a classless system. The lack of elegance of multiclassing seems instantly recognizable, and I'd guess that's why it's rarely advertised. "Here, we have the Pacifist. Great healing abilities and may wear heavy armor. Over there, we have the lethal Berserker (may use all weapons). And of course, if you can't choose, why not go with a Pacifist Berserker!".

Except you don't really lose anything. Allowing for multiclassing means more work for the devs foremost, for not much gain. I haven't seen any game being advertised with "NOW WITH 200% MORE MULTICLASSING!". A very flexible class system OTOH, oh boy, that's sure to attract several types of gamers at once.

which is rather rare though, since the solution is kind of obvious - don't tell the player that it works. What's more frequent is an established rule that gets violated just a very few times, usually to impede the player's progress... but unless overly punishing, this tends to be more like bumps in the road for me. edit: can I change your inconsistently to consistently? Thanks

I'm p. sure it's easier to do it the other way round. As in, we have this class based system, does it allow for a variety of builds? If so, does it lack anything we want to accomplish? If not, multiclassing is probably not necessary.

Fortunately, since none of us knows how a foray into a fantasy world would unfold in reality, nothing of the above applies. Which makes me want to support the OP; more skeptical players simply need assume that the whimsical god of playwrights, scribes and... uhm... record keeping occasionally takes over the main character when he's in the process of perusing his journal.

what's subjective is if you feel a given game does a good job of creating immersion, and wether certain elements can break that feeling for you or not (like said gorillas). If someone is completely not bothered by the presence of gorillas at that supposed altitude, that probably says something about this person, but you can't fault him for still feeling immersed in controlling his little "aircraft". Josh has explicitly said he'd rather not use dialogue skills.

In real life, people (/animals) mate. I don't think that's how the Godlike procreate; that's one less compelling reason for them to mingle with each other. I can't remember if there were any specifics given on this in the updates though so I may be wrong.

I wouldn't exactly call that a subculture? And yes persecution would be a possible cause for them to band together. But AFAIK we haven't heard anything about the standing of the Godlike yet. They may even be revered. And one other thing, while they may even be summarily persecuted, the differences of their heritage may prevent them from banding together; i.e. they may be the offspring of very different gods.