Lephys

Scientific method, FTW!

I apologize. What happened was, I missed this post: So, I was just sort of re-brainstorming a bunch of stuff, but it seemed like I was responding directly to that post that I had missed. Which was not the case, and I didn't mean to ignore that post. I just missed it in catching up with my unread posts. Sorry about that. I'm not at all familiar with KOTOR's system (never played it), but it sounds pretty awesome, based on what you've said thus far. Just a few tidbits to contribute regarding those ideas: - If the system has depth, and crafting allows unique opportunities (such as the ability to modify via socketed/installed items), I'm game. However, I am also interested in the possibility of making the crafting process, itself, fun. Not a requirement, just an interest. - As per that Age of Decadence example... yes, that's the problem with "you can craft this list of stuff, but you can also find/procure functionally the same stuff and/or better stuff elsewhere." Which is why I've been crazily ranting about making sure crafting isn't just something you can do if you like pretending you made most stuff in the game instead of finding most stuff in the game. (Not that you've been saying otherwise... just clarifying my constant emphasis on that point.) - Regarding a research system (which could easily manage crafting progression without having a point-based crafting skill), that could work. Although, I honestly don't see a need for failure in crafting research. It's a bit like lockpicking: You don't need to fail and retry it... you just need the process (duration, materials used, specific outcome, etc.) to dynamically represent variance. Maybe it's as simple as "spending" your mithril chainmail to research Mithril (for example) providing a lot more/faster progress in Mithril research than the "spending" of a mithril amulet or helmet or something. Thus, a significant decision is born: Do I make use of this good-quality chainmail and have to spend more numerous smaller/different items in order to uncover new techniques in Mithril-working? Or do I give up this chainmail (I may not find another suit of armor like this for an hour or so) in order to expand my abilities in Mithril-crafting? That last one is one of the main reasons I brought up Thaumcraft. In it, the materials all had two uses: crafting production, and crafting progression. You'd find rare items that could either make something you could use right now OR allow you to discover some new things you can make or crafting technique you could employ. You did technically have fail chances in research, but you also had don't-actually-use-up-the-materials chances. So, that was kind of unnecessary, if you ask me. Almost the same exact results could've been achieved (averaging out the hits on both those chances) if the system had neither chance, with just material A contributing fewer points to research than material B. And, on the note of chance, while I just seemed to speak ill of it, I don't think it's useless. I just think it's not best to allow it to determine such a drastic switch as success/failure. I think it's better to give it reign over a modifier range, whether it's from 0-20%, or from a detriment to a bonus (something like -10% to +10%). Little things that help make the product of your efforts unique are nice. Kind of like how that fireball animation and burn chance make you feel all "Yeah, I'm a Wizard!" as opposed to that awesome bleed-inducing sword flurry making you feel all "Yeah, I'm a Warrior!", even though both are basically contributing to the death of a foe. Getting to make a sword that's a little bit different from anything you can possibly find (even if it's not necessarily better than anything you can find of the same type, etc.) is a nice touch. Maybe that's just me. *shrug*

That's kind of exactly my point. Regardless of whether or not it's indicated (the attribute source for the option), the specific dialogue option was spawned out of the Nameless One's virtual mind, and not from your own. Therefore, HE knew it was intelligent, because he had high intelligence, even if you did not. What I was saying was, if the game wanted to allow you to say something smart because of his high intelligence, AND say something false as well as smart, then you wouldn't know which was which, unless the game first went out of its way to explain to you all the specifics of why, exactly, that was a smart thing to say, and why it was true, THEN presented you with both options and said "You should be able to tell which one's false, now." Example: Because of Knowledge: Nature, your character can say "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are blue, with triangle-shaped leaves," OR "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are yellow, and grow in squarish clumps." How do you, the character, know which is false? Your character already knows; that's what Knowledge: Nature already represents... his inherent knowledge of such things. It's not some clever puzzle to figure out. Just something he knows. So, why shouldn't the game just say "[lie]" on the option that isn't true? Now, you know what he applicably knows about Nature in this scenario (that there are berries that can treat that person's condition, and that they grow nearby, and what they look like), AND you know that the game's allowing you to lie about it. All from two brackets and three little letters. The only way to do it with-OUT that tag would be to expect the player to read some encyclopedia entry on berries and what they can treat, then have them match up the descriptions in order to figure out something their character simply knows off the top of his head, right then and there. For the record, this isn't a counter-argument to something you've said. Just an elaboration/clarification on my example that you seem to have possibly misunderstood (or maybe you were simply making sure I understood that the attribute tag next to the dialogue option wasn't necessary? In which case, I do, and thanks for making sure I do. Seriously.)

Well, simply put, here's what I agree with: At a certain point on the "amount of stuff we're obfuscating" scale, there is a "too much." Not because someone says so, but because logic. Some of that feedback is a key component to the tactical combat system, and integral to the significance of choices and decision-making. So, I intuitively comprehend (and am fine with) not being able to point at that Ogre at the beginning of combat and see its armor rating (or even an approximation of it). Never ever seeing that Ogre's armor rating is not problematic. Never being able to see any information that would allow me to make a decision such as "who should probably try to perform what action on that Ogre?" is problematic. So, again, without a specific, official description of exactly what will be shown and what will not as a result of Expert Mode, I can't really say "OMG, EXPERT MODE IS NONSENSICAL!" And I'm not demanding that breakdown here and now or anything. I mean, we'll find out eventually. But, for this whole "who's right and who's wrong?" argument going on... there is such a thing as too much obfuscation, in that it begins negating the very strength of the decision-making process of combat tactics. Most likely? It's just that the specific values of things aren't telegraphed to you in any shape or form, ever. But, if you see an Ogre wearing plate, he's still going to have roughly the same armor as any other Ogre wearing plate. So, you're going to be able to figure out how effective your equipment/characters will be against a plate-clad Ogre when you see one. You just won't have SPECIFICS without sitting down and doing the math yourself. But, as long as you've actually got enough feedback and info to be able to determine such a thing (should you choose to -- and I believe you will have this amount of feedback in P:E's Expert Mode), then everything should be fine. As to whether or not to use that mode? To each their own. But there's no need to go around telling anyone that there's absolutely no such thing as too much obfuscation. Maybe P:E won't use too much, but too much definitely exists/is possible. That's all I have to say about that.

Not at all. I wasn't trying to imply anything of the sort. I've seen games like that in which those last points spent in Crafting basically just unlock some higher tier of items, and that's it. Then you run into that whole "Why do crafters get to get those, and we don't?!" thing, etc.... It's just all-around bland, methinks. It was a good example. Regarding the way to handle the application of the skill to a crafting goal (such as high-level meteorite stuff or some other such high-tier material/quality weapons), that's a fine way of handling it. I will say, though, that I still prefer a system with multiple factors to one with only a single factor (regarding the product of success). What I mean is, you've got a DC, and therefore a skill-check-style chance of success, but, if you succeed, you make the same sword as if you were a pro and succeeded. For that to matter, that meteorite sword has to be like... UBER compared to other equipment. So, at LvL 1, you have a chance to produce equipment of a quality that's essentially going to function as a cheat code as far as the game's design is concerned. It undermines the entire concept and balance of progression. OR, it's not really all that great, and we're back to "then why do I have to spend so many points in crafting to be able to make it?" Etc. The other problem is, what happens when you fail? Do you just burn up all your materials, and have to go find more to attempt again? Or do you just try again (in which case the consequences for failure are really just delay)? Anywho... Sorry, I'm getting a little lost on the specifics of the example, here, but, I'm just trying to touch all the possibilities of a system that would handle that, and how we'd go about setting up a system to handle a scenario like that. Basically, I'd like for there to be SOME other factor there. Less emphasis on chance of complete success or complete failure, and more emphasis on the extent of the success or failure. Maybe you can make the sword, but it's brittle(if the game has durability in). Or, maybe the only thing using meteorite DEFINITELY does for the weapon is make it a lot more durable, so that you can still make a sword out of meteorite that's comparable to whatever you could make out of iron, but it would be quite durable no matter what. Either one, really. Or, as I mentioned before (even though it would be a bit abstract, in terms of how it really works), maybe instead of just a chance to succeed or a chance to fail, it takes more material to make an item with low crafting skill than it does to make the same item with greater crafting skill, and meteorite is limited? So, you could maybe make a pretty awesome meteorite sword at a lower crafting level, if you wanted, but it's going to be a trade-off: one better sword now and nothing later, or multiple awesome meteorite things later? I realize these are simplistic, single-factor examples, and I'm not saying these are the only things that should be in place. I mean, maybe JUST the "one better thing now or lots of better stuff later" thing, by itself, isn't an adequate design for the whole system. It could be any combination of any similar factors, is what I'm getting at. Whatever's not too complex, and not too simplistic. I just really prefer for the choice to really be more than just "try it while you're less lucky, or try it while you're more lucky?"And for the actual amount of points/time/effort/what-have-you that you've invested into crafting to actually directly play more of a part in the crafting result and/or options available to you. Not just tier-access options, either (as we've established), but, options that apply to things you could already do. Kind of like combat abilities. At level 10, you might gain some Talent that affects all your level 1/2 spells, etc. You can apply the same method to almost anything with a skill check and/or difficulty progression. Take lockpicking. Maybe instead of JUST being able to pick higher DC locks, more points in lockpicking leads to things such as silent lockpicking on lower-level locks (the threshold raises as you put more points into the skill). Or, like I think Josh has mentioned way back when, specifically with lockpicking, an increased skill could result in the need for fewer lockpicks to pick a lock of a given difficulty. Instead of having to retry and fail (which is boring and lame), you could simply have it always succeed, but take varying amounts o time and/or varying amounts of lockpicks (representing failures, broken lockpicks, etc. all in the same action). Anywho, it's hard to come up with a specific example that would fit P:E, without knowing all the factors that are going to be in place in the game's design. I mean, I know they're not using a crafting skill anymore (so probably no spent-points will be occurring to improve it), but, that doesn't mean you can't still have a crafting progression. There are just a lot of different ways of doing it. @jamoecw: I am sorry for being confusing. It is not my intention. It's possible my comparison of crafting to a glorified "shopping list" is unclear, and that that's part of the issue (as you pointed out how everything's going to amount to a list of possible craftables). The fact that it is a list is not my issue. When I say "shopping list," I am intending to compare the crafting process directly to the shopping process, in-game. You go to a merchant, there are things, you procure one. You go to a crafting station, there are often the same things, and you procure them, pretending that they were made instead of purchased. Functionally, they are almost identical, though. Then, often, most of the customization you get comes in after-crafting socketing and such; plugging gemstones and/or runes into pieces of equipment with slots. So that's not really crafting, because you don't need any crafting skill or crafting process to do so. It's like drinking a potion, or equipping armor to a character. So, I'm not upset with the crafting process involving choosing things from a list. I'm specifically wanting it to go beyond choosing things from a list of goods to purchase at a merchant, in-game. Does that help? Also, I realize I'm kind of putting feelers out all over the place and touching on a bunch of various possibilities and examples for crafting system designs. As I said above to Neo, my interest is more in brainstorming than in saying "see, this is how to fix the system," because I really don't know what the exact system will be in P:E, or what it even COULD be, as I don't have enough info to really focus the scope of my ideas and examples. I'm simply trying to point out ways in which given crafting systems can be expanded upon in interesting ways. Not "I need a crafting system with all this, or nothing at all" or anything. I welcome criticisms of the ideas and examples, each in their own context, as they are not intended to all work together to produce some uber Voltron crafting system. However, some of them might work together. I figured, as verbose as I already am, it wouldn't be a very good idea to take the time to try to match up all the possible combinations of all the brainstorming I've had thus far in here, and evaluate each and every combination to try to present a complete crafting system that may or may not fit into any specific game.

The thing is, I was literally as prepared as I could've been. Well, without taking on the two crazy evil dudes, but, I didn't trust them. Anywho, I don't attribute having to get lucky in a randomized system to difficulty. Having to figure out the best tactics to use to get the job done... THAT'S difficulty. In other words, what was the strategy for taking down Tarnesh? Don't let him cast Mirror Image (and, subsequently, like level 5 Magic Missile or whatever). But, even if you opt to "not let" him do that, you can just get a bunch of crappy rolls that completely negate any amount of effort you put into affecting the situation. I'd much rather have a tough fight that's tough because of what you have to figure out with what you're able to do, rather than tough because of factors beyond your control that you have to hope cause planetary alignment. Which is one reason I look forward, so much, to P:E's hit system and mechanics. I'll take a "Man, that guy REALLY keeps you on your toes!" boss/baddie over a "Man, that guy does like 1,000 damage!/that guy resists everything!" boss/baddie, any day.

I don't think he's so much saying that the sheer existence of "please tell me info here" options is a problem, as he is saying that it's a bit ridiculous just how plentiful and readily available those options are. You're never like "I need to go rescue this girl who was taken by some men? Who are they, and who is she?", only to be met with "I don't really know much." Someone's always conveniently standing around to be a living codex entry on that girl and her whole life, and that faction of Bandits and their relationship with the nearby towns. You've got a dossier on pretty much anyone at any time, always just at the right moment. Not-choosing the options does nothing for the fact that they're infeasibly numerous and convenient in the first place. Like you said, though, it really has to do with storytelling and writing in general. That NPC is only there to inform you of everything at the opportune moment because he was written into that role. Different writing will make the information available in a more believable way, not always at a convenient time, and sometimes not at all. I think this... ... is an excellent example. And no, it doesn't mean that nothing should ever be explained or available to be read about. But, having everything described/explained to you is not the only way to present the player with information. And I think that, again, is where good writers and good lore/information management domes in. It takes advantage of all available methods, and uses the right ones at the right times to make a much more compelling story, and a much more interesting exposure to the lore.

Fair enough. But your character is not you. He does plenty of things that you have no control over. Like attacking, or casting a spell, or coming up with dialogue options for you to choose from based upon his own Intellect/knowledge. If your character has Knowledge:Arcana, for example, then the game has to tell YOU what your character knows involving Arcana, in a given situation. I'm not saying you can't play it that way ("If I forgot it, so did my character"), but I'm simply pointing out, for what it's worth, that that 1:1 relationship between your knowledge and the character's doesn't hold up throughout the system. In fact, Knowledge skills (and/or anything resembling them) are a good example of when a lie tag is quite useful. Sure, the game COULD just tell me, the player, the detailed information I need to know about a particular field of knowledge, then have me have to use my own brain power to figure out what's true and what isn't when trying to choose between lies and truths in dialogue regarding that topic. But, why use such a roundabout method for every single field of knowledge in the entire game, when I could just be told what's true and what isn't right then and there in the dialogue, in-context? *shrug*. Anywho, I realize some people just plain prefer to do without them. And, I know you're not contesting my claims to their usefulness, now. I just thought Knowledge skills were an excellent example, and thusly shared.

There does appear to be an axe head in front of the character's right knee region, now that you mention it. It's very hard to tell, though. Also, even if that's not a wand, I DO hope wands will be more like scepters (though maybe not QUITE as big as that possibly-axe-haft?), and less like tiny, fragile twigs. I really couldn't say why, but I don't like the idea of wands being magical, so it doesn't matter if they're just a strand of hair in your hand or something. I don't want to point at people like a fact on a chalkboard. I wand to brandish a friggin' magical conduit at people like it's a roman candle on steroids. Like there's real power coming out of it, and it actually requires a good grip to hold steady against that discharge.

Really? Mine's 32oz. It's not so big as to be cumbersome, and yet I only have to fill it about twice in a given work day to stay well hydrated. Wait... are we talking about the same cups here?

*ahem*. I believe the correct term is "rural." u_u

I kinda get what CaptainMace is saying, I think. It's one thing to have a lot of information and historical accounts and such available to read somewhere in the world, if you seek it out, but it's another thing, entirely, to have a ton of info readily available about everyone and everything you ever bump into. Bump into a temple? You now know everything about that temple, ever, because of some companion of yours, or because some person at the temple explains it all (whether you want them to or not), or because (the worst one) the game literally just tells you all about it in a very "Hey, you're a floating player up in the heavens of this game! Have some info!". Granted, I don't know of many games that do it that last way, luckily. But, I think things should be a lot more mysterious, for lack of a better word. A much more natural acquisition of lore and info. You know, someone briefly answers your "Who are they?" when you ask about that temple/order, with common misconceptions and oversimplification and everything. You know as much as the average person about them, rather than automatically being an expert and having a bunch of research on the subject as if you're always performing a heist or something. Info delivery/availability often comes across as either completely arbitrary, or conveniently focused to support a specific quest/dilemma that involves some twist on that specific information.

^ The people who want to overcome the single-save file approach are just going to find a mod and do it anyway, and/or just not even buy/play the game. Then, the people who have no interest in save-scumming to hand-pick outcomes are forced to hope that one file gets corrupted, and/or never use previous/multiple save files for anything else, ever. It's pretty much a lose-lose.

Yeah, and when "equally viable" starts getting tossed around, people often think "Oh, great... they're going to just bring the long swords down to where the bastard swords are," instead of imagining the bastard swords brought up to where the long swords are. Both methods result in equal viability of a given weapon type, but the latter leaves you with no lacking types, rather than two lacking types. 8P But yeah... sometimes it's not really the system's fault; it's the content's. Much more easily fixable than when it's the system's fault.

Precisely. Yet all declarations are not regarding future actions. Also, honestly? A lot of the time it's just helpful to the player to keep information organized. If your player learned some specific bit of info 2 Chapters ago, and you want to lie about it to someone now, I'd rather just have the friggin' interface tell me which one's the truth and which one's the lie, rather than having to look it up in the journal or something. The character intuitively knows that in like... a millisecond of thought, so why should I have to go "wait a minute... which is accurate, and which isn't accurate?" just because I don't possess the character's virtual brain but otherwise control him nonetheless. It differentiates between your character's knowledge of something's inaccuracy, and his obliviousness to that fact. You can say inaccurate things to people without lying. I know there functionally isn't a lot of difference, in the actual game world. But, since a player is interacting with this game world, it's nice to have the information. We're going to have all those spiffy Expert Mode-style options, to toggle indicators on/off, so you can always do that if it doesn't float your boat. But, it's not as if there's literally no reason, ever, to have [lie] displayed.

I agree, on the skill-point thing (about level 10 being mostly useless for meteorite, etc.). I think, in a crafting system, some additional expenditure into crafting skill (be it some accumulation of research/effort/experience, or actual spent-points gained from level-ups) should actually provide some manner of benefit across the board, and not JUST serve as an unlock for a higher tier. Just like with combat skills. Putting 10 more points in Swordsmanship might allow you access to a more elite Sword technique, but it should also just-plain make you better with swords. A littler faster, or more accurate, etc. Maybe your previous abilities gain some extra effect? Anything representing the exact extent of your character's abilities in an entire range of a given ability should impact all the things you do with that ability accordingly. As long as that's what the scale's representing, I mean. Or, rather, if the same points would represent skill extent if spent in one skill's scale, and mere tier-access if spent in another, there's a problem. I guess basically what I'm getting at is that investing more time/effort/resources into Crafting should allow you to produce better swords, and not just give you access to the production of swords that are better. Heck, In Fallout, couldn't someone with like 10% Energy Weapons skill use all Energy Weapons? Sure, you sucked with them, but you could use them. You didn't just boost it up to 80%, then suddenly gain the ability to attempt to fire a Plasma Rifle. So, while I could see Meteorite possibly being more difficult to work than Iron (maybe it's just got more complex Physics going on with it in the forging process? *Shrug*), I don't see why you'd just get better and better and better and better at making swords out of various metals, then, suddenly, because of how good you are, gain the ability to work meteorite. I'd rather see those extra 10 points spent in Crafting (just using a "spend points in crafting instead of swordplay" system as an example) lead to the EXTENT to which you can use meteorite, rather than just tripping a binary switch. For example, someone who only makes it to 50 crafting might be able to make plenty of stuff out of meteorite, but there's only so much meteorite to be found in the world. (For example's sake, you only find one crashed-to-"Earth" meteorite in the entire game.) So, someone with 50 crafting might be able to make 1 or 2 pretty decent things out of it. While, someone with 100 crafting might be able to make 3 entire suits of armor out of it, and a few weapons. The person who's more skilled at crafting knows how to more efficiently use the materials he's got (make armor thinner and lighter, but still just as strong... how to not waste materials in the forging process, etc.), while the lesser-skilled person can make functional stuff, but not as well. That, again, is what I think should be at the heart of a crafting system. Even one without durability and the like. Or without points being spent on Crafting as part of the skill pool. *shrug*. However it's handled, I think Crafting needs to be about what makes your level of skill/effort different from simply purchasing the "same" item and/or finding the "same" item. Your hand-making something should be more than just an alternative method of procurement. And an entire crafting "system" needs to provide more than just a giant list of things to alternatively procure. Something about the process should be different. Just like fighting a really tough fight to pry the awesome sword from that Orc King's cold, dead fingers is different from undergoing that elaborate quest chain to talk your way past people and get information out of them to ultimately uncover some secret resting place for some ancient blade. It's a far greater difference than simply having appropriate skill numbers and clicking "Kill Orc King" instead of clicking "Uncover Resting Place of Blade."

^ I could very much be wrong. Anywho, even if it is somehow possible, it's gotta be the rarest thing in any game, ever. Either way, I suppose if one wanted to, one could use the BG map-travel system while still accounting for multiple potential encounters along a given travel, is all, even if BG didn't do it.

So... Expert Mode obfuscates all the specific combat data... until you hover over an entry in the combat log? You have access to all the same information, only when hovering over a different thing (log entry instead of on-screen foe sprite)?

Hahaha. Ahhh, Tarnesh, on the steps of the Friendly Arm Inn. I was a...Level 2 Wizard? And Imoen was Lvl 2 as well, maybe? Gave her a +1 shortsword, Hid her In Shadows just out of sight of Tarnesh (after, you know... 73 attempts to Hide In Shadows), then saved (so as not to repeat those 73 attempts). What followed were about 20+ consecutive reloaded attempts to have Imoen the Invisible leap from the shadows (right behind Tarnesh), backstabbing him for ludicrous amounts of damage, while my Wizard attempted to actually connect with either Color Spray or some other such incapacitating spell. Miss, resist, death... Reload. Miss, resist, death... Reload. Hit (but not enough to kill), resist, death... 20+ attempts later, Imoen scores a backstab critical, and Tarnesh drops like a sack of potatoes before he can even start his Latin-ish, reverberative (reverberatory?) chanting. Those were the good old days.

I suspect it's not about the heavily-used "nerfing" of "too good" options to bring them down to the other options' levels, but, rather, to simply quality-check the "obviously not too good" options and make sure they're at least in the same ballpark as the blatantly-good options, or aren't in the game at all. A lot of times, the builds themselves are mechanically sound and comparable to one another, but the game's content renders them unviable. Like... a Speech skill that costs the same points as a Swordsmanship skill. If there are only about 6 times you ever need to use the Speech skill, and/or you get some of the same rewards as you would with the Swordsmanship skill (even if it's "You get THIS +1 sword as a reward for being so persuasive in instance X, and you get THIS +1 sword from killing that guy you could've diplomacized), then it's blatantly an inferior build. You already know (for this style of game) that roughly 60+% of the game is going to benefit from combat. So, if MAYBE 10% of it offers you any use of Speech, whatsoever, then spending 10 points on Speech in lieu of Swordsmanship is objectively less viable. You're getting less for your point-money. Or, not even straying out of pure-combat skills... you take a weapon proficiency, and there are only 3 of that weapon in the entire game available to you. Versus some other weapon proficiency, of which weapon there are 30 different variants. Less viable. It's not about making sure Speech plays EXACTLY the same amount of a part in the game as Swordsmanship, or making sure there are 30 of every weapon... it's just about making sure they're comparable. You should be able to feel like you've gotten your money's worth out of either option, throughout a given playthrough.

Ohhhhhhh!!! Sorry. Text... made it look super sincere (the reason I typically put smileys at the end of my sarcastic/serious-looking joke comments... not that you have to. Just explaining how I handle that). That, and I'm blond. 8P Good one! 8D

That would be awesome! It seems (from my noobish standpoint) that, if they can do that whole dynamic lighting thing to 2D environment art, a 2D portrait wouldn't be that much different. Then again, you'd be translating lighting onto a little character model into lighting on a completely separate portrait from a different angle... But then, it doesn't have to be super-accurate 1:1 lighting or anything. Just simple effects. In a dark corridor with torches? Dark portraits with flickering orangey-yellow light on the faces, and that awesome eye-shine effect you get from dancing lights on eyes. Out in the moonlight? Moonlit portraits. I think some manner of that would be pretty incredible. Agreed. There were a number of portraits in the games of old that prompted "Ooooh! That's what I want my character to look like! Except... darnit... that guy's clearly a Dwarf instead of a Human." Then, there were some that you kinda suspected were supposed to be a specific race (or even class), but they still fit YOUR selected race/class without any fuss. Good times.

So we don't need lie tags on every single thing that could potentially be intentionally false? Splendid. So that means lie tags are completely and utterly pointless and never useful, because of one example? Really? How's about dialogue lines associated with actions? Such as "Here, I'll totally give you this artifact."? How do you, the player (who isn't performing the action" know whether or not you're actually giving the actual artifact, or are giving a faux artifact? The [lie] tag differentiates between what the character knows (that the player should) and what the character doesn't know. So, if there's ever a situation in which the player isn't in direct control of what action their character actually takes with respect to what action the character claimed he would take (or, if there's not really a distinct delay between the action and the claim, so that they make since to be chosen simultaneously... or if the "action" and claim are one -- simply the delivery of true or false information right then and there), then [lie] (or other appropriate tags) would be extremely welcome. On a related note... I think those "You've just breathed your last breath (ATTACK!)" options could use an update. I think that, at least sometimes, they should provide you with some kind of initiative boost/ambush opportunity. I mean, you're talking, and then BOOM! Attacking is occurring. Sure, if it was tense already, and everyone was expecting an attack anyway, then no bonus. But, if not? Why shouldn't you get to choose a skill to use or something? Or an attack/action to take? And you get to perform that FIRST, before everyone else gets to react? Or, I mean... at least if they're not super reflexive. Maybe a skill check is involved. *shrug*. I just happened to think about that, with all this talk of specific dialogue options indicating what you're doing as opposed to what you're saying. Also, the lie tag is not the only one that would be useful at times. Often, you run into one of those lines that, in text form, COULD be polite and sincere, or COULD be terribly derisive. I just think the player should never have to guess what's actually going on. If that means that sometimes the game needs to inform you, via the dialogue interface, of what exactly it is you should know about what's going on, then so be it.

SEXIST! Some people are an idea lady. u_u

If it's metaphorical wine, cheese, and caviar, then absolutely. +10% chance to cause bleeding. Plus... NO one suspects weaponized cheese! Okay okay, serious face: Honestly? I'd have to say my favorite thing about the game so far is the approach they're taking in its development. I think it's the reason all the little facets of the game are going to be so amazing. And major props go to the crowdfunding, and the absolute freedom for them to take this on as almost a professional artwork, instead of merely a product for revenue. So, best thing? The engine. Not the technical, software engine. But the people engine. The greatest feature is the source of all the features.