Mikaw

Actually, rpg like you describe here is the best definition of "paper" rpg, but it can't be applied to video games, for several reasons. As you say roleplaying is best defined by conversation. But the conversation itself require an intelligent being to interact with the player, and though I do not doubt the intelligence of video games writers, they do not interact directly with the player, everything is scripted and it result in limited outcomes for every situation which are already decided. They're no room for improvisation and a situation unexpected by the writer will never be handled as a DM would handle it by improvising during a paper rpg session. Because of this huge limitation inherent to the support, comparisons between video game rpg and paper rpg is hardly relevant. That being said, I understand your point about meaningless fight and all. I didn't remember playing a rpg in which the fights where most annoying and meaningless. My principal reference is Baldur's Gate. And yes, there were some bandits attacking randomly, and it would seems like they just went out of nowhere. So what? Is this so absurd that there are some bandit attacking travellers? Does that really need to have any sense? A world isn't build over pure consistency and not everything have to happen for a reason and if someone attacks your team without letting a chance to speak. That can just happen and after all it's just normal. Even when I'm playing paper rpg and I'm the DM I sometimes introduce enemies that have no intention to speak with PCs (some sort of zealous warrior which doesn't give a damn about anything they say) and will eventually reluctantly say few words if they are captured alive. Sometime it's relevant, sometime not and they will be forgotten as they are no longer useful for my scenario, but they are still part of the setting, highlighting how dangerous this area is. Players continue to play and travel, fighting various monster, bandit and all, and much of them have no real meaning other than telling players "that's what happen when you spend most of your time on the roads and wild lands" common people just stay at home especially to avoid being in danger. Because the danger exists, as the villain does, whether there's a reason or not. If the bandits motivations are to something in the scenario which make you understand at a certain point "ah, so that's why those bandits attacked me in the 1st chapter..." it would be pretty cool. But what they are just forgotten? I mean... I would like to know why they attack me, why now, why here, etc... But then should I have the same explanation for every event in the game as I would want to justify a fight encounter? The world and characters exist beyond the PCs understanding, and sometimes, as contradictory as it can appear, consistency can rely on the lack of explanation. And I'm not saying this as a lazy DM, I too often write pages and pages of dialog, different outcomes to so many situations and trying to justify a lot things, but sometimes I just realises that, if we are thinking in terms of pure roleplay, avoiding any metagame, NPCs will never have the chance or means to discover those justification. Well I have to go back to my work and that's a pretty messy addition to that topic, I will probably edit it later

Death spells are great in my opinion. Really. I don't mean I want them spammed at every encounters, but they really add something, that element of danger which makes you want to investigate more before you enter a dungeon, and more carefully when you're in it. Instant kill spells can be devastating, but they must be easily countered. In BG2, a simple protection from death allowed me to avoid the problem of death spells. And past a certain level the protection from death was as necessary as were other pieces of equipment. Just be prepared. But I would have liked even more a system where you can use counterspells to avoid such deadly effect. A combination of preparation and reactivity would be the best one. I know counterspells sounds like something reserved for spellcasters, but I think also of other ways to counter or negate a spell. like going out of reach of a spellcaster, by putting an obstacle (terrain, corner, magical wall, whatever...) between the spellcaster and the target before the casting time ends. One other way would be to interrupt the spellcaster before he finishes casting his death spell (blind him, attack him, whatever you can do to make him stop). With such options, death spells would become interesting events which will test you preparation and reactivity, not absolute doom for whoever aren't prepared enough. Actually it's as it should be in every games. Some obstacle just reduces your resources ( hp, mp, potions, ...etc) and some, more serious, are more like "be smart or die". And in the worst case where you're not prepared enough and don't manage to escape the spell in time you still have the saving throw as a last chance to survive. In my opinion if you missed your preparations, your reactions and your saving throws, maybe you just deserve to die... no?

As you say, "disconnect" implies that a connection has been established between the spell and its target. If this connection doesn't exist you can actually "dodge" by walking out of the spell's path. And I agree with the fact that dodging a spell shouldn't be different from dodging a physical projectile of melee attack. In a game like Baldur's Gate, there's no action to dodge : the attack hit or not, that's all, melee or ranged. It shouldn't be different for magic. If you you want to avoid being hit by movement, so as for melee or ranged attack, just stay out of range or have a cover. Beside, spells which are "disconnected" already exist : any AOE is disconnected and for that reason you can try to get outside the area of effect, because you're not targeted directly.

Clearly no. It's like having 2 protections against spells ( saving throw + dodge) making them more less efficient in the game. Would you like physical attacks to require 2 rolls? One to overcome dodge ability and a second to overcome armor? A feat like "spell-dodge" should only add a bonus on saving throw if we're talking about a d&d based system.

BG system is a good one I think but to avoid "rest spam" there should be something like a fatigue gauge which prevent you from rest if your party members are not ired enough. It doesn't make sense to sleep every 20mn to progress. But characters should be able to partially regain some resources (stamina for example) using a short rest. The healing surge system of D&D4 is pretty good for this I think but maybe it heals a bit too much.

Critical hits should go straight to HP, without multiplier. In addition to that, I think that damages applied to hp should be localized (randomly?) and have particular effects depending on the body part : movement penalty for legs, attack penalty for arms for examples... Those kind of injuries heals very slowly. I take exemples based on D&D 3.5 to illutrate this : a character can have an amount of HP equal to his constitution and vitality/stamina based on his class level. In a system like this HP value won't increase or very slowly and will be a pretty low value during all the game. As your character grows in experience and level, he has more and more vitality which give him more chance to avoid being really hurt. Each hit applied directly to HP will have bad consequences for the player, and if he doesn't have any magical healing, such wounds will take days or weeks to fully heal with all the penalty remaining until the healing is complete (1hp/day for example in a d&d based system)

What you say about weapons is very interesting and without going so far in the "realism" I think it's important ton consider offensive AND defensive properties of a weapon. About armors, they are passive, indeed, but they're still a part of your equipment which define your character : light :swift and agile; heavy :more predictable moves but difficult to damage; medium :the more impredictable I would say but if the game is well balanced every armor should allow a viable an interesting build and (for me at least) this choice is almost as interesting as the choice of a weapon. But at last I must admit that, like you, I'd prior the weapon as it's indeed the "active" tool.

I get your point and sorry if my ideas are so badly expressed here, but I'l make an effort to improve my english. I remember my first power armor in fallout 2 and as you say "hell yeah" But honestly, the armor you equip in fallout was not a real choice. It's a good example to illustrate what I mean. In fallout there's one ultimate armor. And in the end of the game no one wear another armor than this one. I'm not saying that I hadn't fun playing fallout or I didn't feel the new armor as a reward, but ultimately I didn't choose armor because it granted me specific advanage compared to another but because it was better than others. There was no matter of " what kind of character I want to play" involved in the choice of armor. But maybe I'm wrong, so many years have passed since I last played this awesome game that I should probably reinstall it to check if what I'm saying is really valid And of course I think we can balance weapons, we must balance weapons. I was just trying to say that if there was one ultimate weapon as there can be an ultimate armor or an ultimate anything-else, it would ruin the game by making choices pointless.

I agree with timw03878 even if I'm not that categoric. I'd like to have a system where you'd really try to avoid death and have a minimum wound. If every party member just wake up at the end of the fight without having to be healed I think it would be lame. For example think about the last fight in throne of baal. You had 3 or 4 fight in a row to defeat the final boss if I remember. That fight would have been so pointless if every "dead/unconscious" just woke up between each fight. And that's without mentioning that it wouldn't make any sense. having to manage my healing spells and potions to get through this fight was so interesting and hope I'll have this kind of experience in PE. Besides I don't think it's a good idea to have a character unconscious when he has no more stamina/vitality. He should be tired or suffer for any other bad condition for pushing its limits so far, but I don't think it should fall unconscious without having been really injured ( I'm talking about magical effects here)

Well I voted "no" only because they're was no option saying " I'd support it, but I really prefer realtime with active pause"

And again... What you're saying works only if every options are balanced. Why would I consider grappling or other combat option if I have much more chance to One shot every character facing me with ONE build unless they choose the same build as me. They're something you don't understand with the "BY FAR" thing. It makes all the other options you talking about useless. Then as you seems to focus on the plate. Why creating other armor if everyone will equip the plate anyway. Every other armor will just be a transition until the character get the so-unavoidable-plate-which-is-the-best-option-of-all. Putting some thought in the weapon system implies that there is something to thing about. if one option reveals itself as a "no-brainer" why would I think further? I'm talking about balance here. What you said is exactly what I want in a game. A system which let me think about the different options, ponder their respective pros and cons and let me choose which one I prefer. And the reasoning I'm criticize is one that lead me to abandon all the fun build I would like to try because "yeah but this option is so much powerful BY FAR, why would I play a weak character when such power lies beneath that ultimate and unique build"

mmmh... Maybe because a critical hit would be an attack so well placed that it ignores armor? like hitting between armor joints? Or because the blow is so powerful it passes through armor, piercing or slashing through it so the body is hit directly and damages or not lessened.

A very slow increase would be my choice. Like in d&d 3.5, +1 every four level is quite good I think At least it was good for this system, but I'd like to see something similar in PE.

I was just highlighting the fact that if some options are made "so better than others" there's no point to take the "others" and it will result in identical characters. It's not just the plate armor, it's the reasoning leading to sentences like "Seriously. Plate is the best armor one can have. Period. It should be the best armor in the game BY FAR. Period." that make the various "other" options abandoned because they're not interesting compared to the "better(only viable?)" option. I totally agree with the fact that wearing full plate isn't enough to make clone of two characters. But if I wear plate because it's the better option BY FAR, then choose to equip 2 vorpal spoon+5 as weapons because it's the better option BY FAR, then max strength because again it's the better option BY FAR... this leads to identical characters. I'm conscious that optimising IS looking for the better option. Bet when the better option is better "BY FAR" it makes others options pointless. Such and option shouldn't exist in a well-balanced game mechanic. If you have played Diablo 3 you surely remembered how imbalanced was the speed property on equipment. It increased damages so much compared to other characteristic that it was pointless to look for a magic item without the "attack speed" property and that's a real nuisance for the game especially if designers worked a lot to offer us a huge array of option to choose from.

I don't really care about the realism about the game so I won't speak about real wounds and real healing here, but only the game mechanics I'd like to see in PE. Like many, I prefer a system where health and vitality/stamina are 2 different resources. The first measuring the actual integrity of the character's body, the second, his capacity to turn a severe blow to a scratch or absorb a dangerous hit in a way they won't really damage his body, but it still hurt and the character will have to rest to recover from vitality loss. Health loss should have more impact and should take much more time to heal. I'd suggest several days of even few weeks to fully recover without magical healing. Magical healing is also something we shouldn't be able to use too often, or at least not easily during a fight. I'm not against a powerful spell that invigorates characters by "healing" vitality. But being really hit and having his body suffering from real damages should not be as easy to deal with. Maybe a healing spell could have a very long casting time to make it difficult to use during fight. I think I should write it in another topic, but the distinction between health and vitality can be a good tool to determine the mechanics of critical hits or the equivalent of a sneak attack : damage inflicted directly to health or passing through damage reductions... Sorry for my english ><