BetrayTheWorld

I don't feel like this poll includes all available options, so I've abstained from voting. There is no reason you can't have a good number of weapon types and subsets that all have unique behaviors/features to them.

Let me preface my opinion by saying I haven't read this entire thread, but I have an opinion on the system I'd like to share nonetheless. I think armors should have several values. Among them should be damage reduction vs. each weapon type (Cutting, Piercing, Blunt), and a penalty to avoid being hit based on the weight and construction of the armor. So heavy armor wearers are more likely to get hit, while taking less damage from each blow. You have the greatest chances to avoid being hit while being completely unarmored, and all armor types in between should be trading off one way or the other looking for the ideal spot for your particular skill set. Just my opinion.

Ditto.

I remember when games came with beefy manuals that were enjoyable to read, and had accurate mechanics that didn't change immediately upon release of the game(rendering the manual obsolete). Back then, during the super-long install times, I'd look forward to spending an hour or so perusing the game manual during loading, and I'd thoroughly read the manual during free time. Those were the days....

First off, who says they don't? In 99% of the circumstances that lead to a character being a member of your party, they'd be under no obligation to give you their personal gold towards the "party fund". And if you leave them behind to fend for themselves, and they strike out on their own, levelling up, making money, etc, why would you get some of their gold when you come back? You only give them portions of the party gold to further your own agenda anyhow. Mercenaries are notorious for making lots of money, and spending lots of money. If you think about Isabella from DA:2, did you ever see her hanging about waiting for you without a drink in her hand? Same with Verric. Characters hanging around with nothing to do spend money on food, lodging, drinks, hookers, donating to their church, esoteric non-beneficial(mechanically) books, etc. When not with you, money made by companions would be made and spent on a variety of things based on the character. Anything left likely wouldn't be shared with you. There are plenty of ways to explain characters levelling up without you being around. The inconvenience of them not doing so isn't worth any percieved value of suspending your disbelief. If this was considered at all, I'd prefer that it be a toggleable option. If you don't want them to gain experience, toggle it off.

Yes, it would. It is ABSOLUTELY the definition of a bluff. I don't understand how you could even write that sentence and be ok with yourself afterwards. It's like saying, "Even if you were running as fast as you could, it wouldn't be running." The point is, you can use different skills while delivering the same message, even in the same circumstances if you're playing a different style of character. I'll rephrase my previous example(anything in ((THESE)) is not actually in the game text. It is helper description only, to help you imagine the scenario): [bluff] Don't make me whip out mah piece and pop a cap. (Has a piece, afraid to use it.) [intimidate] Don't make me whip out mah piece and pop a cap. (Has a piece, itchin to use it.) Assuming both the bluffer and intimidator are equally skilled at their craft, the message would be delivered identically, because the bluffer's objective is to make you think he's the intimidator.

These are all bluffs, simply delivered by 3 different characters with varying degrees of the bluff skill. Everyone knows Lord Whathisname's daughter is attrocious.

Just to play devil's advocate...here, I'll give you one: [bluff] Don't make me whip out mah piece and pop a cap. (Don't have a piece) [intimidate] Don't make me whip out mah piece and pop a cap. (Has a piece, and might do it.) Now, I understand your perspective, and that is: Both of these are intimidating statements. However, many times, a bluff is intimidating. A bluff is deceit backed by the fear that what you're saying is true. Think of poker. If you "Bluff", you're working on your opponent's fear that you're not bluffing, and are, in fact, betting because you have a hand. Same deal with the above phrase. Just because a bluff provokes fear doesn't make it no longer a bluff. The defining attribute isn't the emotion the statement provokes or the method of delivery. It is simply the intent behind it. An effective bluff SHOULD sound exactly the same as a legitimate threat. That's what makes a bluff effective.

I'm sorry sir, but I'm going to have to see your invitation.

Well, the thread seems to be trending away from this idea OP, but I'm not one for going with the grain, so I'll speak up. I actually like your idea, but I think it would need to be implemented properly, and in the reverse of the example you gave. For instance, I DO think you should be rewarded for using studded leather armor from start to finish, even though through in-game happenings your stats later came to a point where wearing regular leather would have been more statistically beneficial. But I think if this were done, more weight should be placed on the "type" familiarity than on the "individual item" familiarity. Though, both certainly have a place in this idea. Obviously this wouldn't be the case with spells. I'm all for having spells weighted to the individual spell itself. You're a magic-missile happy mage? Great, you get REALLY good at flinging those things. Doesn't mean you're going to get that much more familiar with throwing a big fireball, even though both are evocation. Anyhow, good initial idea. If handled and adjusted properly on a situational basis, I'd like to see it in game.

No do-overs. Of course EQ can be changed, unless it's cursed and sticks to your hands. But even that might be a temporary problem if you can find someone to lift the curse. Basically, if it is part of the identity of your character, you shouldn't be able to change it later. If it's an item, you should be able to toss it aside like any other. P.S. Please, please introduce cursed items. Down with the leet loot free-for-all!

The harem. Or maybe that's just me. Opium dens, cathouses, gambling halls, bars...I'd like to be able to turn my stronghold into the city of vice if I wanted to.

In a word, options. I think a stronghold should be mid-late game content that makes the entire journey more epic, similar to the original idea of strongholds in pnp D&D. What you do with it, how you manage it, what you build in it, these should all be options that the player directs. Do you WANT to raise an army and expand your territory by force? Do it. Do you WANT to grow your stronghold into a staple of the regional economy? Do it. Do you WANT to become the cultural envy of the surrounding lands, inspiring awe at the architectural achievements you develop? Do it. Do you WANT to be the pinnacle of cutting edge technology? Do it. Do you WANT to live in a run-down, neglected village where the huts smell like pig feces? DO IT! Options are where it's at. Like a city management game within an RPG, I think you should be able to control lots of aspects of the stronghold: Building lots of structures Setting Trade Policies Setting Laws Setting the Stronghold Religion(Or lack thereof) Setting the Tax rate Setting aside funds/resources for special projects/research Setting Foreign Policy Hiring/Training Guards Hiring/Training Soldiers Hiring/Training Officers & Seargents Influencing how "seedy" and underhanded you allow your stronghold to become by the choices you make. Commanding Guards/Soldiers on what to do. (ex: Patrol roads, patrol outlying villages, raid caravans, raid villages, extort our citizens, prepare for war, etc) Being ABLE to pursue war and expansion, should you desire it.(But not necessarily making it part of some main storyline) Being able to rebel against your liege lord, if you have one. I'd also like to see far more npcs being "recruitable" to become citizens within your stronghold than was done in NWN2. It would actually be awesome if the -majority- of NPCs in the game could at least be approached about it, having the conversation options become available once you had the stronghold, even if you don't have the space to support them. It'd be cool to see the results of over-recruiting with gilded promises, only to have a huge homelessness problem in your stronghold. The results could be rebellion, starvation, mass exodus, etc. Wow, long rant. Strongholds could be AMAZING in a game if enough attention was given to them. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone is willing to take that idea and run with it, as it would have to be built in as an integral part of the game from the start, and not just an afterthought that was added in as a "hmm, this'll be neato." P.S. Lots of great ideas in this thread already. If half of them were implemented, the strongholds in PE would make this game an instant classic.

I'm actually in favor of a feat system rather than tree system. While it's true that you could arrange D&D feats into a tree with very loose branches, I've never seen such a tree made in an RPG. Rather, most RPGs who go the "tree" route basically pigeonhole players into choosing one of three branches to advance in at a time. If the tree had 20-50 branches, I'd be happy with it. And that is really the only way I'd support the tree idea. I am, however, a big fan of feats/perks such as in D&D or FO games. As far as those go, the more, the better. I'd like to see so many options available that it makes the customization of the various "classes" incredible and diverse. You don't need a lot of "classes" if you can customize your character with lots of individual feat/perk choices.

This comment should be the end of the thread, but I like typing. I'm pretty sure you're incorrect on two of those. I think both FO and FO:2 had tags in the games, or some other indication that you were using a skill. I seem to recall [speech] tags, and FO/FO:2 are likely my favorite RPGs ever. Also, I believe I saw a screenshot recently where someone showed text options in torment, and [lie] was certainly one of them, but there were like 18 conversational options to choose from, and like 4 of them had tags.

I'm not arguing for "all these little streamlining changes" such as DA:2's giving you 3 options in dialogue. That is not my intent at all, and taking it to that extreme is childish. I want it to maintain the complexity and depth that we all expect from the spiritual successor of the grand games of old(i.e. games prior to the commercialized "ruination" of the genre, as you say.) We agree that these "oldies but goodies" were challenging, engaging, and overall the exact type of game we expect Obsidian to create and improve upon using modern technology, right? But the grand games of old DID have these tags that you're so adamantly arguing against.

The term narcissist has wide and varied meanings depending on whether you're talking about the clinical term or the pop culture usage. Without narrowing it down a bit, I would posit that the majority of people with genius-level IQs probably display a touch of narcissism as well. In either case, I only posted that in response to a post questioning my personal intelligence/ability to cope with the game, should it be designed on one side of the perverbial fence. I should know better than to reveal my credentials to the drooling masses on an internet forum. For that, I appologize to the OP. My original argument wasn't solely posted for my benefit, but as someone looking at the bigger picture. Basically, I was playing devil's advocate, and I still feel that an RPG shouldn't force the player to be as smart as their character is supposed to be. RPGs are about fantasy, about playing someone other than yourself. I'm in it for the long game, and many here think that the money from kickstarter is it. They seem to think Obsidian doesn't need more or expect more earnings out of the game than what their goals were in the kickstarter project. That money was just to get the project started. That wasn't all they needed/wanted out of this in the end. And if the only people who get this game are people who participated in the Project Eternity kickstarter, there probably won't be a PE:2. I don't think they should dumb down the game to appeal to a wider audience. I think they should create their vision, but still make the game accessible to a wider audience by including these "hand-holding" options as just that, options.

This was my entire point of registering to post in this thread. Thank you for speaking up as well. I am personally not threatened by having to "figure out" conversation options. I might even play with tags off if things are written well. But I'd like the option to be there, if for no other reason than to appeal to a broader audience who might not be capable of coping with such a system. I want this game to be great, yes. But I also want it to appeal to enough people so that it proves to companies that games like this can be successful, and -should- still be made. I am all for this.

Good post OP. Nice to see other people who appreciate engrossing story/fluff that doesn't seem entirely contrived. I recall in previous RPGs I've played, there were fledgling reputation systems in place that ranked your reputation with various groups of people. Such a system could actually be highly developed with minimal effort on an excel chart to make an entire RPG world far more reactive and engaging. I'm sure anyone with database knowledge will understand what I'm getting at. The chart could be checked at the beginning of relevent conversations, and updated appropriately when triggered conversation texts are chosen, or actions are taken that had witnesses. If all witnesses are killed before leaving the area, reputation doesn't change. Perhaps you could even silence witnesses to actions in other ways. Perhaps these attempts to stop rumors of your exploits from effecting your reputation will actually generate more. It could be a really awesome system to create and maintain a dynamic, reactive world. I almost didn't want to post this idea, because it'd work so well in an RPG and I'm giving my ideas away for free. But on the other hand, I'd like this to be a great game, and I doubt I'll have the financial backing to make my own any time soon. P.S. If anyone at Obsidian is listening, I'll work cheap. lol

Be nice. That goes to everyone. No offense taken here. I knew what bag of worms I was opening when I made the comment. I'm just happy he knows what Mensa is. Makes me feel better about continuing the conversation. :D Either way, I suppose if the entire system was more fluid than has been seen in any game ever, and responses were -very- well written, behind-the-scenes skill-checks wouldn't be attrocious. However, it would need to be done in such a manner that things like "tone" were noted. Example: [growling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off. [chuckling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off. The above sentence, without any emotion behind it appears to be malicious in nature, but it -could- be seen as joking, playful, or even flirtatious coming from the right person in the right circumstances. These are the concerns that many here have brought up. Basically, context and tone can widely vary the meaning of a single sentence in several directions. Ease or challenge aside, the issue of tone would still need to be addressed. And if it isn't, then I doubt the conversations will be very fulfilling anyhow. Who wants to live in a world where no one uses sarcasm? P.S. One further example. Without contextual coding, I would have found myself unwittingly initiating gay relationships several times in dragon age. Seemingly innocent lines of text with a little romantic heart next to them were nice in leading me away from directions I didn't intend to go.

I agree with this. As a long-time tabletop RPer, I find this to be unnecessary in cRPGs. Tabletop rpgs would use a better system than this if they could. And since they aren't using D&D or any other table-top license for this game, it makes sense that they simply make any numbers that have to be in the game as succinct as possible. Longsword, Damage: 3-7. Stepping away from the dice systems of the past will also allow them to create differences between weapons that were represented in d&d licensed games as statistically equal. Like short swords and rapiers, daggers and kukris...it would be great if there were more meaningful differences between weapons aside from aesthetic style. Using a non-dice system, in my opinion, better facilitates that.

Pretty much my thoughts. For it's time, the combat system of fallout was awesome, and I really enjoyed it. I do prefer the turn-based system rather than RTwP, especially when the RTwP system is using behind the scenes turns anyhow. It would allow you to consider more elements in your tactical decision-making, such as movespeed of the character in question. But, as you say, nwn and nwn2 were good, so either way works. Turn-based is just better. :D

That's true. To score higher than 7.5 I'd probably have to adjust my difficulty settings, which I don't do.

7.5? I'll try harder next time. No. I meant what I said. Been playing RPGs for over 20 years. This isn't new to me.

Why? Do you think that every person who likes these styles of RPGs is exactly like you, or fits into a nice, neat little package that you can point at and say "Yep, that's a roleplayer." ??? I'm a former college athlete, and also a certified genius. I don't look like what you'd expect the stereotypical roleplayer to look like, nor do I act like it. However, I've played RPGs for about 20 years. I enjoy them. And earlier in life, I enjoyed more difficult games. But I have a job, a house, car payments, etc. I don't have as much time to dedicate to gaming as I used to. I don't mind more challenging aspects being available, but gaming isn't just something children with no responsibilities do these days. There are plenty of people with more demands on their time who enjoy playing games. Options. Options is where it's at. Let players customize their experience to the difficulty level they feel is appropriate. And for the record, adding "No offense" to the beginning of a sentence does nothing to mitigate an offensive comment. For example: "No offense, but you're a moron. No offense, but you're a fat, ugly slob who lives in his mother's basement." You see? It makes no difference. If anything, it makes it worse. Your comment leads me to believe that you think you know what people should play what games, and that certain people simply -shouldn't- play them. But the fact is, companies make games because they want people to play them. They want a LOT of people to play them. And while the jumpstarter project has allowed them to create a game that is not wholly constricted by the projected financial earnings of the evil empire's accountants, I assure you that they still want to make money. So telling people, or insinuating to people that they -should not- play this game because they don't share the same opinions as you is not only short-sighted, but likely unwelcome by the devs themselves.