forgottenlor

Yes. That's the first thing that popped into my head when I saw 1-h spears: TOEE, which had a staggering list of weapon choices - including semi rare weapons that you don't often see anymore in RPGs. Spiked chains, Ranseurs, Cleavers, Glaives, Staves and Rods that you can actually use as melee weapons.... I actually made a party in TOEE where all of my characters except my sorcerer had reach weapons. You could do it in that game, because of the enchant weapon feats and the fact that in turn based combat reach actually mattered.

I find this the problem with many alignment based games. It seems like the developers want some sort of result "it makes the character more chaotic." and tries to write a response to fit this. Choices you make should have logical consequences and you should be given multiple choices that are legitimate and understandable. The results should also be a realistic result of that choice. Whether choices make a character more "good" or "eviil" should be secondary.

Obviously there are individuals who are selfish or selfless (though unfortunately more of the former), but when you come to an organization, this isn't so. Some of the knights in the Witcher were racists, others were people trying to protect their community. Some members of the Sco'etal were embittered murderers, others were freedom fighters. I think D&D has orders of Paladins and churches which are almost all good, or all evil, simply because of the alignment system. Look at real life churches though. There are people who dedicate their lives to helping others and those who embezzle money, making a profit from the fears of others. There are probably also a lot of people who do good things when presented wth one choice, and are selfish when another choice is presented. For that reason I find a lack of absolute good and evil is more realistic than a system where you have to choose between good or evil.

I think one needs to differentiate "pychotic" evil from "selfish" evil. I played a selfish character in KOTOR and not a psychotic one. I never butchered people just so, I never went out of my way to hurt another character with no benefit to myself. But by the end of the game my character had maximum dark side points, and I think had alot more money than my light side character did from my first playthrough. I think Psychotic behavior should be punished, because let's face it, it normally is. Even your evil mastermind is not going to want some random psycho or sociopath running around. They can't be controlled, and they might destroy some of his valuable resources. On the other hand selfish behavior is quite another matter. Selfish people, especially those who are intellegent enough to mask it and manipulate others, are unfortunately often those who proft in conflicts.

Say what else you want about Dragon Age: Origins, but your companions were less good/evil than in a lot of other games. I did like the moral ambiguity of those characters. Everyone has their good sides and their demons, and situations can bring out one or the other. So it would be nice to see complex characters who can be influenced (redeemed maybe to strong of a word) by the main character's decisions. I have to admit though, that I did not like Mask of the Betrayer, where after every dialogue you were allowed to see your influence total, and that you got some sort of mechanical benefit for racking up points this way. I much preferred the system in Balder's gate 2, where you were led through a number of conversations which would end some way or the other. It made characters like Jaheira much more interesing and your relationship with her much more complicated.

I think this is an interesting thread. In a one character game or even an MMO, its important that a class can fill a lot of roles, because people are either adventuring solo some or all the time. Party based games are different. In party based games you want to create a well balanced group to survive and it is fun making your characters work together. If everyone can do everything you are robbed of important choices in party creation. Well thought out class systems have multiple classes that con do something necessary, but each one is different. Wizardry 8 was an example of such a game. Three classes could deal with annoying locks and traps. They were the rogue, who was also a decent damage dealer in close combat, the Gageteer, who was basically a ranged fighter who could build things, and the Bard, who was sort of a support caster (he had limited spells provided by musical items). That way you can say I need X things done and have a choice of three guys. Guy 1 can do x&a, guy two can do x&b, guy three can do x&c, if I take guy 3, I can avoid other guys who can do c, but if I take guy 1 instead, I need another guy who can do C, but not one who can do a. This allows for a whole bunch of interesting choices a replayability.

I liked Arcomage in Might and Magic 7&8, It was just another quest. Beat an Arcomage player in every tavern for extra xp, it was one of the funner minigames too. It makes me think how difficult it is to make a decent minigame. I did not like any of the minigames in KOTOR or Jade Empire. I haven't played New Vegas so I can't comment there. I also did not like the Lock or Persuasion minigames in Oblivion.

In a pen and paper roll playing game, classes tend to spend a lot of time out of combat and be able to make use of their flavour more. Rangers can help the players find where they are going, avoid dangerous areas and the like. Druid's control of animals and shapechange adds a lot of possibilities. I find that is CRPGS alot of this is missing,mostly because combat is predominant, and noncombat situations and options limited. In the Icewind Dale games, for example, you spend most of your time in tactical combat, and don't use your skills so much. This makes the combat role much more important and the differences between a druid and a cleric much less than they would be in a pen & paper game. I'd really like to see each class offer more than a cosmetic difference.

Looks like the races are already defined and we aren't getting any. I loved the animal races in the Wizardry series and the Elder Scrolls.

I love games with lots of classes and pen & paper as well as CRPGS have taken alot of approaches. Someone has already mentioned the Elder Scrolls Approach. One way is to have a lot of skills and allow some classes to advance more (or quicker) in some skills than others (Elder Scrolls, Later Might & Magic games). Another approach is that each class has a few trademark abilities which let it fill a specific role. Often, however, there are multiple classes that can fulfill the same role. For example in early D&D games, the Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin pretty much did the same thing, but with slight variation. In the older Might and Magic Games the Ninja and Thief did the same thing, but one was better at disarming traps and opening locks ans the other better at fighting- A game with lots of classes should allow lots of different possiblities that are equally effective.

If P:E allows very flexable classes, the question is if any of these classes are necessary or desirable. D&D has rather static classes. In fact the newested edition has 4 "real classes" the Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender, and everything else is simply a variation thereof. If a Rogue or Warrior can be made into a sneaky archer, do you need a ranger? What can the Druid offer that a Wizard or Priest cannot? Or can you simply choose something like that in one of the other classes? Or do you makes these classes into what they were in the MIGHT and MAGIC series, namely the Druid was a mage/cleric, and the archer a fighter/mage?

This is a very interesting thread, and I actually made it through ALL 13 pages. I am very different from the OP. I used Rogues in games like MIGHT & MAGIC because it was annoying to have my low hit point characters all die when I opened a chest. In games like Balder's gate, I always used a dual or multiclassed thief, because I didn't want to be disadvantaged in combat, but needed to be able to disarm traps. In modern RPGS (Dragon age, and Neverwinter Nights 2) I didn't bother to use a rogue at all, and just was satisified with taking the minor disadvantage of not opening all chests, but being better in combat. Unlike the original poster who obviously values realism, I enjoyed computer RPGS, especially the old ones, because different classes had different abilities. Rogues should be able to do something different. Give them critical hits, poison, backstabs, better archery, taunts, or mobility(like the 4th edition D&D Monk or Ranger) or make them so useful out of combat, so that you must have one. Unfortunately the latter (which the original poster prefers) will probably lead everyone to have one and only one rogue in their group. Give them something they can do in combat, and it might justify the use of mulitple rogues.