PieSnatcher

I think that the decision to make these racial differences significant is arbitrary. Well, because it is. That said, we are all aware of the precedent for it. And it really only stops making sense if you decide that it doesn't yourself. Those stat modifiers can be representative of a fundamental physical difference or predisposition of a race (or mental or whatever- I'm sure as heck not trying to explain it thoroughly). In that case, they most definitely can be inherent. Someone brought up the halfling example. Sure, one can be stronger than... well, any other person I suppose. But they are predisposed toward a smaller stature and leaner build. These differences are inherent. Obviously the circumstance of the individual is crucial in determining how it develops, I'd wager any other race in the same position would likely be stronger. I'll admit that I think it is somewhat crude; I think that any quantification of one's mental aptitude, charisma, or strength is questionable. But that's what it seems we have to work with. So I would disagree that any of it is nonsensical. But, that's my arbitrary opinion

I'm a fan of fairly gratuitous summons- a guilty pleasure perhaps. Maaaybe it is imbalanced- nevertheless, it was just plain fun to save up spells/scrolls in BGII and let loose an army of elementals/wyverns/djinis/toy-spiders-that-come-to-life/simulcrum'd party member clones/undead/dominated enemies. There were weaknesses though that made them somewhat less useful (I believe a limit of 6? and the right spells could get rid of them immediately). And as fun as it was to have those abilities, I definitely wanted to keep a balanced party all the same. I think balance should be maintained- but I definitely would like to see the opportunity to have fun and go nuts with summons fit within that balance. If that makes sense.

Heh, I see- though my favorite ones were when Carlton Lassiter spoke (I believe he voiced the Onderon guards?). 'Cause then it felt like I already knew 'em. Though I couldn't take them seriously at that point. Oh Lassy. Anyway, I'm ok if they use generic NPCs as vehicles for exposition- it's a quick way to get a feel for whatever is supposed to be happening (and i've never been really jarred by an npc conversation in an Obsidian game, those aren't conversations I'm invested in). And I don't know what else to really expect to hear from every average joe in the game. But I think the point that's being made to have a focus on more organic conversations with everyone is a cool one to keep in mind. I would rather have standard Obsidian dialogues though than, say, a Morrowind type system where you essentially have one massive/boring dialogue pool for pretty much everyone in town. PS: @H Hunter I literally just finished TSLRCM yesterday, good job!

Sorry for the double post, but I like your argument. I'm still for, but I like that you are actually addressing what people are actually saying. I still think that it is easier to balance objective xp though- I imagine the biggest xp earners are going to be the main ones, and I don't think it would be too hard to design a bottom line there with (very) limited scaling for side stuff. Much of which could be made semi-mandatory (a la chapter 2 of BGII- you had a main goal and to accomplish it you chose from many, many, smaller goals). And it wouldn't encourage repeating a ton of small mundane tasks. I do see your point with the balancing though- for a big BGII-esque game, even with objective xp it can be hard to account for a huge range of objectives.

You really haven't been paying attention (or don't care). Has anyone said they wanted to force people to play the game their way? Once? I think the closest anyone has ever come to saying that (directly or in between the lines) is when HHunter said: Which isn't at all the impression I got when I read his post. You are constantly ignoring the real reason why we want to see this game mechanic. A result of objective xp does limit everyone's ability to farm xp- but that is not the goal. The goal is to make the game easier to design and balance. Feel free to disagree and to attack the position- it is debatable how effective it is at accomplishing this goal. But the more I read your arguments, the less convincing you are because you aren't very good at acknowledging what HHunter/jethro/anyone actually say. It's pretty easy to label something convoluted when you make up the example yourself. Sure, objective-xp can be convoluted- but it can be simple. Just like some of the compromise solutions that have been suggested. Objective based xp doesn't need to be any more intricate than kill based- but it can be, depending on how deep the devs feel they can go. If they could design each mission/side-quest/errand with a gazillion booleans without bugs great (I guess). But I think it will be much simpler than that (how 'bout just finishing the objective- and you can do it in whatever way suits you?). In fact, it can be less complicated. We already have both kill and objective based xp in the IE games to some extent. Some missions are more complicated than others and have their fair share of globals. By limiting xp to mostly objectives (again, they can make killing certain things an objective), they are actually removing some variables they have to account for in game design- again, this is an argument for streamlined game design and balance. Most of us don't get our jollies from "controlling" other players (who, as you mentioned, we'll never see). I laughed when I read this.

I think this is what I was trying to say. With objective based xp, the game design is more streamlined. As has been mentioned, this can include objectives big and small-including defeating (whether by killing or otherwise) notable opponents. Also, it doesn't bother me in the least if others power/meta-game. I don't care if they use cheats, trainers, or save game editors. I just think the game ought to be designed with a vision in mind of how the user experience unfolds- in terms of game-play and narrative. The more simple and predictable some game mechanics are, the easier it is to design an experience around them. I'm not married to this idea (exactly zero tears will be shed if I get xp for kills), but I'm lovin' it.

I like the argument that you are presenting, but try harder to understand their counter-argument. Nobody would logically advocate xp farming on these forums (well, probably not). I think jethro added the bit about you not having fun while fighting for xp, but when they bring up xp farming I think it didn't really have anything to do with your personal thoughts on xp farming (not that I'm in any position to speak for them or that i have any more knowledge/authority than you- I probably have less to be honest). They weren't saying that you advocate farming- rather, the system where experience is rewarded for killing monsters will pretty much always lead to people feeling compelled to xp farm. You're argument was over-simplified when it was attacked, but now you are doing the same thing. They aren't making a radical jump from a logical game-play mechanic to a fabricated foible in its design; they (I think) are pointing out a well-known aspect of a system that, while functional, isn't perfect. This isn't fun for (perhaps) most people, but I'm sure there are some that enjoy doing it to the point of grinding to be as powerful as the game will let them (I guess for them it IS perfect). Which may have been your point here: Since I generally love as much freedom as possible without complicating or compromising excellent game design, I too think that this is a terrible reason to implement a system. But that simply isn't the case here. Just like you aren't advocating xp farming, do you really think jethro/hhunter/etc are really out to limit how other people play this game? I don't think so. PE needs a consistent design. If we are expected to kill hordes of monsters or be able to (for character progression), the game will be designed with that in mind. This very much impacts how each of us experiences the game. If we only get xp for objectives, we kind of have a guarentee that we wont be expected to go out into the wilderness for a couple hours to farm so that we can continue a quest (though we'd be in a pickle if we NEEDED to get more xp and ran out of quests...). I hope this makes sense- I'm often long-winded and inarticulate when I try to explain my thoughts. I think PE is a golden opportunity, with a new IP, to improve on the mechanics we were given in the IE games. The devs are free to stray as far as they want from DnD rules and the mechanics we've seen before. I hope they don't stray far- but I'd like to see them change things up to address the weakness that may have existed before. Honestly, I'd be happy with another BG-like game, but I'd be happier with something that has evolved a bit.

Of course we have free will- but that's not the point . Is it really so hard to understand? I can easily see why people would want quest markers- I want 'em too if directions are a little vague. In fact, most times I'd probably appreciate them, and even if there was a situation that would have been more fun without them, I probably wouldn't complain about it. I just remember that, for the most part, the BG series worked great and don't think I was ever lost- the journal pointed me in the right direction and that was enough. I enjoyed a little searching from time to time. Just not too much. And I dunno about "optional" markers- "make it an option" seems to be the default fall-back decision (everyone's happy! ). If the quests/game world are designed with them in mind, then just put them in. There are just some situations where it wouldn't be hard to find your way and better experienced by letting you reach your objective with a bit of poking around. Agreed. I think the game will (hopefully) be designed so that we're not simply lost. That's no fun. And I don't think I've ever kept written/typed notes for any game. Nor have I used custom map markers- I can be lazy and I like that to be taken care of for me. I'd like the journal to be clear/easy to navigate- I don't even really care whether or not it's written "in character"- I just want to keep track of everything that's going on. And by all means, let's use the decade or so of improvements. I'm not especially attached to "old school". Just whatever works.

Honestly, I wouldn't want quest markers. Just map markers (general non-quest specific) and handy journal entries. Wonderful, wonderful journal entries. I want to have enough resources so I'm not blindly shooting in the dark, but I don't want to be deprived of exploration. If I'm really having problems, online faqs are always available to hold my hand.

I think it's a novel idea, but I don't want it to be implemented. I'm all for manually adjusting speed though. And maybe I just like crutches, but I like coordinating my party efficiently, and perhaps unrealistically well; I'm kind of addicted to pausing.

Agreed I'd rather only have direct control of the PC during a conversation. I love to see party participation- if another party member is the most appropriate spokesperson, then I would rather have that person simply do the talking (perhaps at my request)- maybe I could interject my own thoughts (kind of a role reversal) or take control (or try), but I don't want to dictate what this other character says (who I'm pretending is a person with his/her own mind). Even as a party, I don't envision a collective mind, I picture the character I create at the helm of independent thinkers (or at least among them). If we are having a group conversation, then I want to know what is being said. If another character is more charismatic or intelligent, I'd rather the NPC use that skill as he/she sees fit. Having direct group control in other situations (battle/travel/ i suppose every other situation other than talking) is a matter of convenience- I don't mind explaining it away (I don't even think about it, actually) since the alternative would be complex and (for me) would detract from the fun of the game. My reasoning certainly has its exceptions (I doubt Minsc would go on a citizen-murdering rampage no matter how politely I asked or commanded him- and yet my mouse can certainly make that happen). But as far as conversations go, I think the PC ought to be the primary speaker, with appropriate (coordinated perhaps, but independent) participation of party members. Hope I make sense.

I think that the system that was in the IE games worked fine, but I voted for. Not for realism's sake- I wouldn't want to practice lockpicking for an hour to be more proficient at it (I feel that's more elder scrolls territory). I do like the idea of growing at a pace that is fairly predictable; it might make it easier to design a well-paced game (not that the BG series wasn't). Although, if we were given xp only for completing objectives, it might make it somewhat harder for new/rejoined party members to be on equal footing with the rest of the gang. Meh. And I do like the idea of being encouraged to keep moving with objectives rather than be tempted to search for random encounters for xp. But I wont cry either way.

I think that it should be one or the other; either they grow in experience consistent with the other members of the party, or remain where you leave them. I'm not against a compromise per se, but many suggestions in forums seem rather convoluted- and to the average player (or at least myself), needlessly confusing/arbitrary. Personally, I'm all for a KOTOR-esque system. It may have been more of a necessity in that game (you could only have two companions at a time and you couldn't xp farm as much as IE games), but regardless, I loved that I was free to choose whatever party members I wanted without having to worry about grinding to keep them on par with my regulars. And I hate grinding purely to bring other characters up to speed. For me, it is more of a chore than an enjoyable experience. Realism in this area was never a concern for me- so it never disrupted my experience in the least. Probably because I get more immersed in the story of the game rather than in its realism- and while they are often the same, sometimes one does disrupt the other. That said, I hardly ever switched out companions that I wanted to keep to the end. In KOTOR/ME that wasn't a big issue- they were still "with" you even if they weren't out and about. And in IE games, 5 companions was usually enough for me in a single playthrough. Lastly, I'm often against the "well, just make it optional" suggestion... usually. Each of our concepts for the "perfect" P:E is going to be a little different, and if there was an on/off option for every little tweak and personal preference, we would have pages and pages of options in the game for trivial things.

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I think it largely depends on the narrative. An after-game in PS:T, for example, wouldn't make much sense to me . The most powerful stories I have experienced have had a definite ending. After the epic finale of the BG series, what more would you have done in the old areas of the game? I'm a sucker for a good story, and once the tale has been told, I generally leave what may happen afterwards to my imagination of what could be. And hopefully the game has been meaningful enough for me to really enjoy that part. On the other hand, enjoyable games such as Fable provide an unending game of sorts- I can continue playing forever, and some missions are only available after the story has been told. But without much of a purpose, I don't spend too much time with it. I'm open-minded though. I'm confident there are and can be playable epilogues that add more closure to the story.