Lephys

Seems like a pretty roundabout method, in comparison to simply having money drop directly as opposed to scoopable heaps of random objects that then must be sold. I will say that I like the option of being able to sort of "check" things in your inventory that will then be sold with a "Sell all marked-for-sale objects" button. I still prefer the ridiculousness of naming it "FeebleGrasp Keep."

Freudian slip? I never even considered BG as I wrote. My subconscious is showing ... Haha. I wasn't meaning to suggest any kind of slip (Freudian or otherwise) on your part. I just thought it was a funny connection. HUMOR!

I agree with you. It seems that, more often than not, feats trespass into trait territory rather than traits trespassing into feat turf. "You're Level 7 now! Want to choose to suddenly develop an unnatural steadiness of the hands that grants you a bonus to your aiming with ranged weapons?! 8D!" Or "You suddenly gain tougher skin, resisting 10% of damage!" I'm all for gaining some type of damage resistance, but there's no need to attribute that gain to some kind of inherent bonus you develop that mimics something that would set someone apart from the rest of the populous from birth. Feats should really handle developable things, like skills and abilities, and various paths one can take in the specialization of that development, not mutations to the very nature of your being. Granted, in P:E, we'll have the ever-abstract soul factors. However, I still don't want to spontaneously develop anything that seems to be an inherently distinguishing characteristic. The worst is when a feat overlaps directly with a trait. You can start out as Heavy-Handed for increased unarmed damage, OR you can simply take Dense Fists every three levels (for example). Sure, you could do both, but what's the point in the trait if you can spontaneously develop better fists as you gain experience? That's on TOP of getting better at USING your fists, as well as on top of a potential trait. "The effectiveness of your fists improve each level, AND the inherent effectiveness of your fists improves every few levels with this feat you take, AND your fists were inherently a bit more effective from the get-go." Kinda dilutes that whole "choosing this trait makes me distinct" notion.

Methinks I have been misunderstood. I was kinda vague with that quoted bit. That's my bad. All I meant was, specifically in the context of my example of the "You can't bring yourself to turn down poor folks asking for money" trait, the ability to say no would literally break the trait. The point of that being that, I think that a trait can essentially "take over" a small enough subset of your decision-making capabilities without intruding too much on player choice. So, things like "OCD" and such -- psychological traits, if you will -- are, I believe, an interesting category for traits. But, just plain "personality/alignment traits" are definitely venturing too far. I'd hate to see a trait that decides I'm nice, and therefore cannot choose mean/hostile options or become angered ever. However, much like low-intelligence/high-intelligence dialogue options, I'm all for certain things affecting your character's inherent ability to react to certain things in a variety of ways. Here's a good example of something else: In a lot of games, you get to make bluffs and such, but the mechanics don't really account for much on the part of OTHER people bluffing against you. I think that IF your character can make an "offensive" skill check against someone to result in their belief of a lie, that other people should be able to do the same to your character. So, maybe you have a trait like "Naive," and all your Sense Motive/"defensive" bluff checks suffer a 10-point penalty on the roll or something. That, I would be okay with, really. Sure, it CAN be handled by just picking whatever the player deems fit. You know, "My characters have ABSOLUTELY no reason to doubt any of this information, but I suspect possible treachery, so I'm going to choose to act really paranoid and shady!" *shrug* Granted, a lot of these types of traits would require a lot of additional/alternate dialogue. So, I get that, and I'm not saying "OMG, MAKE SURE THESE ARE IN THE GAME! LOTS OF THEM! OR IT'LL SUCK!". I simply think that they aren't actually problematic, in terms of flawing the mechanics of the game or the ruleset or anything, and that it's interesting to analyze the possibilities of such traits, and figure out what works, and what's going too far on that scale of decision/reaction "hijacking."

That makes the comparison all the better.

You know... I picked up Dragon's Crown recently (for PS3), and it does something simple-yet-interesting with potions. You buy essentially a specific size of potions (listed as "number of uses: X"). The number of uses is per-"dungeon" (in that game, you're either in town, where you have no need of potions, or you're in a dungeon). Then, each potion has a certain number of "replenishment" charges. So, it might have 3 uses, but 30 replenishment charges. So, in total, you can use it 30 times, but you can only use it 3 times per dungeon. Anywho, I just kinda like this, because it fits with 2 things: 1) The idea that, much like a flask of alcohol, you could probably EASILY carry around more potion than you'd down in a single swig, and thus would get multiple "uses" out of the same potion (think medicine doses). Well, that AND the idea that you can only pour so much of a substance down your gullet in a given amount of time (especially something specialized, like medicine/potions). 2) The idea of pseudo-Vancian abstraction we're getting with abilities and such in P:E: Uses per day and uses per encounter. Merely as a potential option for P:E (if it's even applicable amid the specific context of the health and healing system that we don't yet know about), the "uses per dungeon" could be translated into "uses per encounter" or "uses per day," and the replenishment factor could simply represent the actual remaining potion in the bottle. You could even have different qualities of potions in the mix, with two different factors: concentration, and potency. Maybe a weaker healing potion is simply more diluted, because the potion mixture itself is the expensive part. So, you'd have to drink MORE liquid at a time to get an actual dose, resulting in fewer uses per abstracted amount of time. Also, you could have one potion mixture that's just-plain better/more potent than another mixture, so that 3 uses of Super Healing Potion would be better than 3 uses of Regular Healing Potion. But, then, 7 uses of Regular Healing Potion (more concentrated form, costs more) might be better for enduring a lot of encounters than 3 uses of Super Healing Potion. But then, 7 uses of Super Healing Potion would obviously be the best, out of these example options, but would probably cost the most. Then, you've still got the Replenishment factor (the size of the actual potion you're getting.) Do you buy in bulk for more money now, and get a larger potion that you can use for a longer period of time, or do you get one that's got 7 uses per day (or encounter) but that only has 10 charges, total? *shrug* I just thought it was an interesting way to go about potionry, is all.

I kind of like reading them, sometimes. I always say I'll go back and read all of them, but I hardly ever get around to doing quite that. I think brevity is important. I mean, I read some 20-or-so page stories in Oblivion/Skyrim, but those really didn't have very much text per page. Also, personally, I tend to prefer the ones that are written in actual story form. The ones that just recount a bunch of history (like an entire history book compressed into 5 paragraphs), though concise, are hardly interesting. Example: "In 103 E.N., a group of nomads known as the Kelgash came upon a sizeable Oasis in the heart of the desert. They established their first permanent settlement there, and called it Kelgatha. However, other groups soon discovered this place, and coveted the resources for themselves. In 106 E.N., a warlord known as Rhazilk attempted to claim the settlement and purge the Kelgash. Though casualties were terrible, Rhazilk was repelled, and was ritually executed in front of the remaining populous, so that the goddess Sheiza could claim his soul and bathe it in punishment. A statue was erected of Sheiza, there in the center of town, for it was believed she allowed for the Kelgashan victory." Despite my efforts, I couldn't even get that as cramped as what I'm thinking of. The kind in which each sentence gives you about 5 new names, 3 new plots, and 4 new dates. And it's 5+ paragraphs of that. "And that's the story of this city, from the dawn of time, until now! 8D!" It's like they're trying to give you the short version, but simultaneously sparing no details. If they want to give all the details, then awesome. Just go ahead and make a long version, so I can either read thewhole thing at a normal pace, or skim it, etc. Annnnywho, I also think it's best when at least SOME (and by some, I mean more than like 1%) of these books/writings are more than just "flavor." Examples that come to mind are sort of discovered things, like ancient ruins, or "mythical" beasts, etc. Things that no living people really know that much about. You could read things such as folktales and legends, as well as historical accounts, in order to gleam some information that may help you in an investigation into something like this. Maybe if you're trying to find out what's killing people in some forest, you can ultimately discover (through diligent though not-necessarily-tedious research) the actual nature of this creature, and can actually dispatch the creature more easily (you know its weaknesses/how to bait it, etc.), or figure out what caused it to wander into this forest or come to hunt in this region and can get it to return to a different area, and/or uncover a poaching ring. Just as examples. As opposed to simply "there's a thing killing people, and you can poke around, find it, and kill it." I mean, knowledge is power, right?

The soul's name seems to be... "Bhaal." . I joke. I like it.

Haha. "You thought you ended my life? I ANIMANCED MYSELF INTO A STATUE OF ME!!! MUAHAHAHA!!!"

Yup yup. Especially with things like Illusion magic in the mix.

I think it'd be pretty cool to have a "bad guy" who no one actually knows, personally, is behind anything. Orders come from some capitol in some city, because this guy's pulling the strings, but no one's got any reason to believe it isn't just that council/leader making those decisions. Maybe the bad guy actually appears throughout the game, in various disguises, or even just as the same person, and seems completely innocuous. Maybe he even helps your party through certain situations (because your success at some specific task is integral to his plans). Then, when you finally find out who's behind it, at the end of the game, it's actually quite a shock. I think that type of villain is much more frightening than one who's all "LOOK HOW BIG MY ARMY IS! I'M OBVIOUSLY BAD! EVERYONE, GO AHEAD AND OPPOSE ME!" Because, despite your best efforts, you don't even know who it is you're fighting. Even if you think you do. Heck, even the people/army doing the conquering/villaining might end up having been duped into their current stance, by this crafty, crafty baddie.

And yet, it can be thought of as an array of side quests, since you don't just click a button and either spend the maximum amount of time, money and resources on it or none at all. Don't care about interrogating/holding prisoners? Don't build a prison. Don't care about any other particular facet of the stronghold? Don't do it. It's just a collection of optional things that are interrelated. Umm... I think the "when" factor is an advantage if you're choosing between pumping 20,000 gold into the 3-week construction of a Library (and having to progress through the next area with just what you've got on your person) and spending that 20,000 gold better outfitting your party before they travel through the scary forest. If we're assuming you can just max out the stronghold in 10 seconds, then yeah, I guess the "when" factor would be pointless, then. But, since they've described it as an actual time-based investment, I'm pretty sure that would be a silly assumption. Not to mention that if you need, say, 10,000 gold to purchase the very first upgrade to your stronghold, to even get it generating any decent amount of revenue (as it's described as basically starting out as all but a still-in-tact ruin), that means you must forego any lesser expenditures until you've saved up a full 10,000, then drop that on the upgrade, STILL going without any other purchases until you're able to get back up to an adequate amount of money for their purchase.

It doesn't have to knock them down. I'm just saying, in games, it generates an effect beyond a regular weapon strike. Why? Because, in real life, it tends to do so, as well. Sure, there's more than JUST "shield bash to stun" when it comes to shield usefulness, but I'm just using that as a single example ability. IF you want 15 distinct shield abilities in the game, then awesome. Seriously, that would be great. I'm not against that at all. But, the point is, without actually simulating all the factors involved in the timing of something like a shield strike, it's going to be abstracted. Simplified. When you shield bash (in a game) and you generate a stun-type effect (or a chance at one, at least), it's assumed that, when you click "shield bash," your character intentionally does all the things necessary to make that shield bash effective. Strikes at the right time during the opponent's swing, maybe jukes with his weapon hand THEN shield bashes, etc. This is why the stun (or whatever) can also fail, via mechanics. Just like it could if it was automated. In the face of abstraction, the only thing automating something like shield bash into passiveness does is limit your tactical interaction with the situation. Sure, we could make it passive, just like we could make it passive for any character using any ability to automatically attack at the opportune time. Wizards! You ONLY launch a fireball, automatically, whenever 4 or 5 enemies are clustered. Archers! ONLY fire your arrows whenever you know you're not going to hit a shield. What's this? Now we have no tactics left. The characters take care of everything, and we just hope the odds were in our favor from the get-go. Next we'll have them automatically positioning themselves for the best shots and defenses, etc. So, at least as far as things such as shield bash being active and not passive abilities, I fully get that. You can still have AI behaviors that "passively" utilize active abilities without your direct input, but they're still not going to be shield-bashing a foe every 2-3 seconds. They might be using their shield in combat -- knocking a weapon strike aside, catching arrows and blows with it, etc. -- but you're not going to simply swing your shield at someone with a particularly forceful might with the specific intent of delivering an effectively stunning blow with it, every single chance you get simply to swing it thusly. That's going to be tiring, and easy to dodge/compensate for if you don't do it properly and time it right, etc. So, again, in the midst of the abstraction, which is there even if it's made into a passive ability and used at all the "opportune moments" (they're just abstractly estimated, since you're not actually representing all the specific motions and factors like in a 1st-person boxing game or something), the player's timing of the active ability, and his limitation in how often/many times he can use it in a given amount of time directly represents the estimated number of times (and frequency of these times) that the opportunity will arise for the character to effectively deliver this particular blow as intended, as something beyond a normal strike.

Sure, but to what effect? "You literally need to travel across this map to this other city, in order to progress the game in any capacity, and yet, there's a 50/50 chance you'll confront something that you have no chance of beating or even fleeing from." I think there's not much point in conveying the danger in such a manner if the game doesn't also afford you a "be careful" option, to either take or neglect. For example, if there was a guarded wagon to take between the first few cities, for a cost, versus just huffing it for free but being exposed to scary, deadly things, that would make a lot of sense. But, to just have a 50/50 chance of basically wasting your time, and nothing you can really do about it (except, as jamoecw pointed out, avoiding the map's fast travel and spending 7,000 years traveling), that' s a bit silly. You might as well just have the characters roll dice every 5 minutes, to see if lightning strikes everyone dead, even inside of buildings. "HAH! The world is a dangerous place! No matter what! MUAHAHAHAHAHA! I don't know what the lesson is here, except FRUSTRATION!"

My enemy's hesitation in wondering just what in the hell the designer of my armor was thinking affords me JUST enough time to take them down before the fight even begins! The helmet faces are a bit strange. I'm sure it can be attributed to some potent ideal/theme at the time, that people decided should overrule practical helmet design. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. They just thought it was important enough, at least, to go beyond mere practical helmet design, and toward... whatever that is.

I'll agree that certain things being tied to the stronghold don't necessarily make sense. But, then again, there're a lot of factors being abstracted all at once. I mean, with the imprisonment, who's to say you can't capture people, stronghold or no, but you don't actually have a secure facility in which to hold them unless you have the stronghold? With the resting and training and studying, that's in addition to whatever you can do out in the world. In other words, even if there's not a specific representation of your bringing each and every book you find, building a library can represent your ability to now store all the documents and books that you'd LIKE to have collected in one place, in one place, and that now you can actually sit there and access it all, together, and cross-reference things, etc., you may partake in a significantly improved session of study. Same with training. The facilities for training would constitute an advantage in the ability to effectively train. Therefore, it can be assumed that you "train" in places other than the stronghold, from time to time, but that the bonus comes from the increased effectiveness of your training, which you cannot obtain without the proper facilities, which I suppose you could simply build elsewhere, but then... that would be a little silly. Just being able to build single components of the stronghold, wherever you'd like. *shrug* Anywho, the only bonuses they mention (from the Training Grounds -- STR -- and the Library -- Lore) are temporary. So, how is insisting that you should be able to acquire those same temporary bonuses without spending money on a stronghold Training Grounds and Library any different from insisting that you should be able to get the effects of a potion without actually buying that potion and managing its use? As for the rare merchants/item opportunities, how is that any different from, say... a black market? If you have to meet certain criteria to get access to a black market, then you'd get unique things, would you not? It'd be a little silly if they only sold stuff you could just get everywhere else throughout the land. So, all-in-all, let me make this comparison: How is the stronghold unlike a piece of armor? You can get all the other pieces of armor, and get armor bonuses and such, but if you don't buy the helmet, you don't get the bonus from that helmet. Why should you be able to get the bonus from that helmet without buying that helmet? It's not like you don't get armor bonuses unless you buy a helmet. You just don't get that particular armor bonus unless you get that helmet. If you shouldn't have to go through a stronghold to get offered rare wares, then why should you have to do anything specific, at all, to procure a rare item? What's the difference between only being able to acquire a unicorn horn from a specific merchant, who happens to only sell his prized item in a prestigious enough establishment, and only being able to acquire a unicorn horn if you go on a very tough quest to hunt down and kill a unicorn? Or, better yet, what if the only unicorn horn in existence is locked away in a masterwork, magical chest, and you need 100 lockpick skill to open it? Or you can only get it through extreme diplomacy. Someone has it, and if they owe you a huge debt of gratitude because you prevented a ton of bloodshed, they present it to you as a token of their appreciation? Are all of these things wrongly exclusive situations in which to be able to procure a rare/unique object/item/option?

I don't understand. At all. Why does not providing an alternative have to do with whether or not something is optional? The alternative is "don't do it." Which makes it optional. You can do everything in the entire game that isn't managing the stronghold, and get all the great stuff you get for all that, and NOT DO the stronghold management, and you simply miss what the stronghold provides, which is stuff you don't actually need to do any of the other stuff in the game. If you DO manage the stronghold, you get EXTRA stuff. Extra, unnecessary stuff. That, and in your suggestion to provide an "alternative" quest for the Old Lady's Ring quest, all you're doing is doubling the optional content that people are missing out on if they don't do that. The idea that it's an "alternative" is a bit silly. You can do the Old Lady's Ring quest, because you like helping people, or because you just want the ring; whatever reason, really. OR you can not-do it, because you feel it's a waste of time, or because you don't like helping people, whatever... Separately, you can either do the evil quest that gets you an item, or you can not-do the evil quest that gets you an item. You've failed to point out any factor to this that makes the problem anything more than "Why should there be a task available that I don't like that gives people something I DO like?" And that's just silly. As was said earlier in the thread, if the reward for a particular task/effort wasn't desirable or applicable to the rest of the game, then it wouldn't be significant at all. "One right way to play"? Well, yeah, in a sense, there is. Being able to kill things is the right way to play. Why? Because, if you can't kill anything, you can't make it through combat encounters, which are integral to the game. But, getting more stuff just 'cause it exists, even though it's unnecessary? That's not labeling something the "right way to play." If you happen to feel the need to get all the unique items in the game, then you have to do all the different stuff in the game to do that. It's not the obligation of the game's design to make sure you don't have to do anything you don't want to in order to get things you might feel the personal need to acquire. How would they even figure that out? And, again, how significant would any of the options be if all they provided was completely pointless stuff? "What do you get for managing the stronghold? Pretty much nothing that's really going to affect your playthrough any differently than anything else in the game." Yeah, that'd be great. I mean, are we going to attack lockpicking next? "Hey, wait, what if I don't want to put points into lockpicking with any of my characters, because I just like to max out everyone's combat capabilities." Well, then you don't get the spiffy things that are locked away behind stuff. And, since the stronghold comes with a heavy expenditure of both effort AND actual money/resources (for the upgrades and such), the direct "alternative" is simply keeping all that money and all those resources, right off the bat. The simple act of not spending them on the stronghold equals the reward of being able to spend them on other things that the person who spent them all on the stronghold can't spend them on.

Yes, by that token, if some exorbitant amount of HP on playable characters bothers us, we can have our party characters attack each other while we play. Because, it's not the game design's responsibility to make sure the HP amounts are reasonable, and the player can always go out of his way to make it so.

For the record, this is an excellent example of something that affects your character's interactions without deciding them for you. You can't help that you're inherently more perverted than the average person, but you can still decide whether or not to even flirt.

True, but, in the context of that example, the sheer ability to say "no" would break that. I mean, you could make-believe your own traits by playing the game a certain way: "My guy is super angry all the time, so I'll always pick the hostile dialogue." "My guy is far-sighted, so I'll just never let him attack with his bow within a range of 30 feet." In terms of mechanics and not lore, it's the game's hard-coding of some sort of limitation that actually makes a trait a trait. I agree that there are things that don't need to be hard-coded, but it's not because you could simply happen to end up with the same results voluntarily, without the limitation. That example was given as an iffy thing. It's purpose was more to point out how you can affect things that are a bit delicate without being quite so heavy-handed. I'm not advocating the "you can't help but give people money when they ask for it" trait from a "I just sat down and thought a lot about it, and this would be a really good trait, all things considered" perspective. It was only in response to the "I don't want traits affecting my character's decisions" sentiment. I simply think traits can affect your actual decisions/options without going so far as to just make all the decisions for you. In other words, even if a trait prevented you from NOT-giving people money when they happened to outright ask for it, that wouldn't exclude other options. It wouldn't be a choice between 5 different options, and you HAVE to pick the "give them money" one in lieu of any other option. Maybe if you kill them before they ask you for money, you don't give them money. Again, having to give money when asked, not necessarily a fantastic trait. It's just an example versus "You must always pick the "give them money" option in any situation, excluding other options" on how to handle traits that affect your character's reactions/decision-making. I just don't think that small aspects of your character's feelings/reactions are off-limits. The game already limits you in choice. You COULD burn down every village you see, but the game won't let you. You could donate everything you own to some random peasant, but the game won't let you. And it already decides things that you can and cannot do (including actions such as intimidate, or whether or not your character comprehends something) based on stats such as Intelligence, etc. A trait shouldn't dictate your overall attitude toward everything, but it could always dictate how a small subset of interactions/factors affects your character, limiting you to different dialogue options (for example) than another character without that trait in that same situation.

I think the intent is for there to be plenty of ways in which to shift the variations around, just not through base points-gained-per-level. It's sort of the spine, and all the other things you can do (equipment, abilities, talents, others?) will present the array of various builds you can have (in regard to the 4 defenses), even for the exact same character.

I don't understand why something needs an alternative. If you did that with side quests, then we'd have an infinite number of side quests. "Don't want to help this old lady find her cat to get this Ring Of The Old Lady? Well, don't worry, there's SOME OTHER way to get the Ring of the Old Lady! 8D!" Great, and what if you don't want to do the other thing you have to do to get that ring? Well, then you should be able to do something ELSE to get it. And so on, and so forth, until literally everyone in the universe who COULD potentially desire the benefits of that ring gets what they're entitled to. If it was something like "Having the stronghold lets you FAST TRAVEL! And if you don't take it, you can't!", I could see the problem. That's removed functionality. But, if you get unique ingredients that let you make a special cloak, and there are other cloaks in the game, and other items that also impart the same type of properties (armor/stat boosts/effects/etc.) that the cloak in question does, then I don't see why you can't exclude those who didn't go through the stronghold effort from getting the cloak. I don't see what about stronghold "rewards" is inherently destined to be gained separately from the stronghold management. Not that that means there isn't anything, but could anyone give an example of something that's we know that only the stronghold will give us that we should get elsewhere?

I believe the design is already to have very little (if any) Health replenishment, on-the-fly. You can heal up at rest spots spaced throughout "dungeons" (and wilderness areas), and at towns and such, but, there won't be much beyond that. Keep in mind, P:E has both Health (actually how dead you are) and Stamina (how immediately capable of doing things you are). So, if you "die" in combat by running out of Stamina, you will collapse and be unable to do anything, but can be revived in-combat. Also, there be much more numerous abilities/items for replenishing Stamina. I'm not sure exactly what replenishment items will be in the game and how they will work, exactly, but I'm fairly certain you won't have any issues with P:E's design, in terms of the problem you've emphasized.

Indeed. A very good example is collectible things in an open-city game (GTA, Assassin's Creed, etc.). "Collect all 100 of these thingies hidden throughout, and get... A SPIFFY IN-GAME BADGE THAT SAYS YOU COLLECTED THEM! YAY!" is pointless. That basically says "If you happen to like collecting things for collecting things's sake, then this will yield value to YOU, while no one else will have any problem ignoring it." Whereas, when you have something like "collect the 10 pieces to this map," and that map actually leads to something useful (some kind of upgrade or accessory, etc.), then you're "missing out" if you don't do that. But that just makes it significant. I only mention that because in a lot of those types of games, for a while now, the designers have been putting in all this "side content" that pretty much has no impact on the game, but doesn't indicate as much until you do it all (being the curious explorer that you might be), then find out you don't actually get anything useful or beneficial in any way. And, recently, it seems like they've been discovering that optional-yet-significant content, that actually has an impact on the non-optional gameplay, is much more fulfulling and is no longer pointless. It's kind of funny. Game says "Hey, you can do this if you want." Certain players say "Nah, that just sounds lame and I don't want to do it." Game says "Hmm... well, if you do it, you'll get this nifty thing." Suddenly, players say "OMG! How DARE you give the people who do that a nifty thing, when I don't want to do that, but I WANT a nifty thing! You should give those people something no one else would want, just so we don't feel left out, u_u!"

I realize that "restriction" isn't the most accurate word, as it covers things I don't necessarily want to avoid. But, for the most part, I think traits should affect how you do things or how things happen, rather than whether or not they do. I don't think you should have an inherent trait that strips you of the ability to haggle or persuade, for example. Even if it gives you a different ability and, all things considered, balances out. I just think those are awfully drastic changes for something like a trait. Now, if it was something like "You can't haggle with women" or something, because you're really shy or whatever, or simply that you have difficulty haggling or persuading females... that's different. You're not stripping something like haggling/persuasion from the entire playthrough. You're just affecting it, overall. You're providing limitations/shortcomings. Basically, I wouldn't want to remove restrict anything just as much as I wouldn't want to do away with an existing restriction. i.e. "Because of this trait, you can now throw your sword as a ranged attack, like a boomerang." I wouldn't want that, and I wouldn't want "You can't use swords." The Druid stuff in D&D (I'm sure it changed throughout various versions, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to point out all the specific changes) is a good example; how they "couldn't" use metal equipment. I mean, metal is even already a part of nature. We just shape it. But, they even had spiffy metal-like wood (in 3.5 and Pathfinder, I think?) that essentially took the place of metal armor (and weapons?) for Druids. Annnnywho, the point of that is that I don't think a trait that read "You grew up among naturey folk, so the game is going to actually prevent you from using metal swords" would be nearly as effective as a trait that simply affected how you use swords, or gave you a detriment for certain cultural/factional equipment designs, and a bonus for others. Etc. I honestly wasn't trying to direct that at your proposal. Their similarity is merely a coincidence. Alignment-type stuff (such as being "good") was just something that popped into my mind as something I wouldn't want to restrict with a trait. I'd much rather see a trait that has you sympathetic toward orphans because you grew up an orphan, even while allowing you to be generally pretty "evil." I'd rather see that struggle than "You can only offer to help people, all the time." I'm not sure exactly what to say about the "Honor the Dead" one. I don't dislike it, personally, but I can see how factors of P:E being the game that it is causing problems in conjunction with such a trait, as loot is a pretty integral part of adventurers' ability to acquire funds. Sure, in the lore, there are plenty of other ways to get money. But, in the gameplay, and in the context of the player's role in the narrative, you don't really have time to operate trade caravans and work at a smithy during the week to procure funds, so it's almost more like a necessary survival tactic. "Hey, we just killed a bunch of bandits who stole from everyone all the time. I don't like looting the dead, but they were bastards, and they have stuff, and we needstuff... so...". Ya know? Now, maybe you feel bad about looting the dead, so you insist on atoning for that, so you always donate 15% of your earned gold to charities? That would be a bit abstracted (since it would pretty much have to automatically deduct 15% from any and all gold you pick up or receive), but altering the way looting is performed and/or affects your character is much more reasonable, in my book, than preventing the looting the dead, at all. That's just me, though, I suppose. I agree. I just think traits, by default, should generally constitute some distinctive difference about your character that you cannot change. The more something like this affects things like decisions or philosophy, the less it really fits as a trait, I think. How my character inherently feels about something? Sure. What he's allowed to decide? Not so sure. That's one reason I think background-type things might need to be a different category, UNLESS they all simply affect inherent, unchangeable qualities of your character (you're tougher 'cause you grew up a soldier's son, you're more knowledgeable in [category] because you read a lot as a child, etc.). I wouldn't even be against something like "If people ask you for money, you can't say no." Because the number of times people ask you for money (and the amounts they ask for) is something that's balanceably hard-coded into the game. So, again, this comes back to simply an affect on your monetary flow, and not a complete restriction on something. It wouldn't just make you give money to all people you see, and it wouldn't prevent you from attempting to get money out of people, when you saw fit. In other words, it doesn't restrict you to JUST giving money to people. It simply causes you to give money away in times when other people wouldn't. Or, you could even have something like "versus females of Beauty X or higher, you cannot help but flirt with them." And instead of restricting your dialogue options to date requests and innuendo, you'd simply have to supplement whatever questions you're asking or things you're saying with flirtatious things. Almost like a more delayed/segmented reaction modifier. Heck, maybe you even get to choose from a couple of different flirt-type options. You know... flattery versus innuendo? Etc. Maybe one works better on some people, and another works better on others. The only choice taken away from you is, in these specific situations (not all females are going to be above a certain Beauty level), the choice of completely avoiding any and all risk of flirting. It's not like you have to choose between flirting, and something else. Of course, having said that, you could pretty much do that with a lot of things. Although... things like Goodness? I don't know that you can be good, as the result of a trait, without excluding non-good choices. *shrug* Starting to get overly analytical (STARTING?! Haha), so I'm gonna shutup now.