Lephys

I fail to see how it's a silly comparison. A racing game demands constant attention to forward momentum. too much interruption, and everything starts falling apart. But, you're totally free to think it's silly, I suppose. Also, I was referring to specific games that just take the non-timed system of dialogue, WITH full sentences, then slap in a timer, to "make it more realistic," as if the actual character, in the game, would have to take the time to visually read his choices on a screen and try to figure out how well the game is going to represent the effects of them. An RPG just isn't really beholden to constant forward momentum, is all. Not unless it's extremely linear (like the static journey of characters through a book's story). So, yes, if the whole thing were timed, it'd be a little like adding exploration into a racing game. "Well, you COULD keep up with those cars over there, OR you could just pull over, get out, and check out this rock formation up-close, and maybe find some cool stuff behind it." It's one thing to have various choices and consequences and outcomes throughout a game, and another thing entirely to split up the gameplay features of that game, themselves. It's not about having no mutually-exclusive content. It's about not having mutually exclusive gameplay elements. "You could take the time to explore and find some really nice ancient equipment in some crypts, but, by the time you do that, all those combat encounters you would've used such equipment in are already over, as they happened without you." That sort of thing. That's why I said time-sensitive content is fine, but it's extremely unlikely that having 90% of the game content be time-sensitive wouldn't be problematic in that respect. I dunno. We could come up with a math problem. "If the mine is 200 miles away from the village, and your party moves at an average pace of 17.3 miles per day, and the child is kidnapped at such-and-such a time..." ... OR, we could just imagine the possibility that you coincidentally go explore a mine that's far enough away from a town to have you gone from that town for several days, and for a world that doesn't wait for you to have a child kidnapped on its own time, rather than on YOUR time, and for the whole thing to be resolved before you even knew it existed. "But what if the mine's NOT that far away, and DOESN'T take you that long, and the kid DOESN'T get kidnapped during your trip?" Well, then that wouldn't really be a problematic situation, now would it? So it would do me little good to point out THAT possibility when expressing my concern for potential problems with the timing of things, now wouldn't it? *nods* Missing a quest isn't a big deal. Missing a quest when you don't even know how to NOT miss a quest, IS a big deal. If you decide to kill Stinky Sam because he's a scumbag, you're well-aware that anything he might have ever wanted you to do is no longer do-able for him. You're aware that's a consequence of your choice. If nothing's going on around you, and you say "I think I'll go check out this mine the people in town have been talking about... see what's up there," and, it just so happens that on the game-world day that you're gone, the whole town is attacked by bandits and ransacked, and everyone's dead, then you spend the whole game going "Well, crap, should I just walk around town and try to be there when things happen, never leaving to go investigate caverns and ruins and mines? Or, should I instead go out and investigate such things, and just hope that things don't happen while I'm gone?" Again, it's one thing to know a kid was kidnapped, and simply ignore this and leave town, and another thing entirely to have the game proc situations whose sole purpose is to be interacted with by the player at random points that the player can't really figure out without completely forgoing other aspects of gameplay to figure out the chance.

^ Definitely. I was only emphasizing, since it seemed some here were thinking of any game with so much as static story pivot points as "linear." All I'm saying is, you can have as many paths as you want, criss-crossing and leading leagues to the north and south, but, ultimately, you've gotta start on one side of the proverbial mountain range and end up on the other. Just because the game has a definite, consistent "forward" direction doesn't mean that it's restrictively linear. Granted, every single step of the game doesn't need to be "you have to go here... then you have to go here... then you have to go here...". But, at the same time, you can't just let the path go anywhere, in whatever order and direction the player chooses. That leaves the story with little coherence.

I am terribly sorry to disappoint you so, but I am quite confused now. You literally said "I don't mind the mechanic, I mind the label." So, I asked what made the label so inaccurate, then pointed out how I felt the label effectively portrayed a reasonable amount of what it is to be a Monk. I honestly am not grasping how I've not read what you wrote, or have just come up with an arbitrary argument. The fact that aspects of the P:E Monk have a "match in the real world" was not a line of reasoning I was trying to convey as being the basis for anything. You're argument is that a Monk -- a title from the real world -- is not accurately portrayed by P:E's design that they're labeling a "Monk," correct? So, I simply pointed out what I see as a connection between the real-world Monk concept and the P:E one. If I'm wrong or have missed something, please tell me how, if you would be so kind. There's no need to say that I'm ignoring you and arguing stuff that's not even pertinent. I don't even think my response would make any sense at all if it were a standalone argument, and not simply a direct response to your concerns with the Monk label. Also, again I'm going to have to disagree on the whole flagellation thing, as I don't see the P:E Monk as someone who "seeks out pain," any more than a Monk is seeking out pain via flagellation. Self-flagellation is completely voluntary, whereas one cannot face physical conflicts (combat) without inevitably suffering physical trauma. It's a little bit like one soldier fighting another soldier. They're both just doing their job. Neither seeks the death of the other. They have nothing against one another. But, two powerful men are leading armies, and they are each sworn to fight on behalf of one or the other. And thus they kill. They don't just run around killing people because they enjoy it. Which is why, when a Monk enters is faced with combat, he'll convert portions of the inevitable damage he receives into some form of boosted retaliation. He is diverting damage to not-damage. A cut becomes a not-cut. It would be quite different if Monks just went about getting sliced up, and flagellated themselves mid-combat, licked daggers and all that jazz... Not to say there won't be any insane Monks in P:E. But, I would bet that many in the Monk order proper would say that those individuals are not truly Monks. *shrug*

I will also say that, for what it's worth, the difficulty adjustments in the DA games (specifically 2) were preposterous. I played a Mage, and most of the time, on Hard, 70% of the enemies were immune, IMMUNE, to 90% of magic. I don't even think those numbers are exaggerated, either. You're fighting 17 Qunari warriors, and the only thing that hurts them is lightning. You can get about 3 lightning spells, each of which has about a 30-second cooldown, and each of which only does about 300 damage (in conjunction) to the group of foes around you, when that group of foes has about 1000 HP. Also, you're out of mana... 8P But, back to the particular topic at hand, I don't think it's about having your AI take care of literally everything. It's about having your party's AI be adjustable and viable to prevent everyone from dying simply because you're not performing 73 commands per second, and/or pausing every second. It's not about slaughtering all things with maximum efficiency, with little-to-no effort. It's about AI/behavior keeping to a mean, so that your party effectiveness isn't going from 100% while you're constantly micromanaging them down to 0% while you're not. Settings like "Defensive" in a game with tactical combat get a little silly. Defensive how? If something comes near enough to you, do you move? If something's firing at you from a distance, do you attempt to break line of sight? If things are firing missiles at you from a distance AND some melee guys are charging you, which is a priority for defensive reaction? That's what it's all about. In a given situation, when you could've micromanaged your character to avoid a horrible threat, then counter-attack AND be set up for another effective attack while supporting another character, the AI behavior settings should at least be sufficient to have that character avoid dying stupidly to that horrible threat, and possibly at least do one of the other three things (counterattack, support another character, strategically relocate/engage a particular target, etc.). When it's turn-based, it's not so bad, 'cause it's just a matter of taking longer to control your whole party, but nothing happens until you do so. When it's real-time, customizable behaviors can make all the difference in the world. All the while, there's STILL plenty of room for manual micromanagement of your party to maximize their effectiveness.

Come now... couldn't we just settle for little-otry?

To be honest, I'm not sure it's really possible to make such an objective assessment from a first-peek video, in which the extent of the character design we see is merely a few characters in some arbitrary gear walking for a few seconds, then standing around while a little pixie lights them dynamically.

Yeah, I think they've done quite a good job with what we've seen thus far. And, in response to its perceived dullness, I'd just like to say that what's been shown so far is plain, methinks, rather than dull. I'm sure there will be plenty of embellishment for the armor and equipment (that's optional), but I don't foresee an inherent world full of people who all look like Ronin Warriors (from the anime cartoon... although I wouldn't want to see the entire world be made out of people who ALL look like actual ronin warriors, either, heh).

Oh, definitely. I didn't know how to label Stage 4. Basically, if you were in dialogue directly with someone who now either became hostile with you, or with whom YOU became hostile, you'd already be "in" conflict. Essentially, your weapons are "at-the-ready," and/or are physically being "brandished" (maybe not literally brandished, but maybe) at the person, as you are either about to attack them in a moment, or are simply awaiting the attack of theirs that you expect to come as soon as they can make it, to parry and/or counter, etc. If it were a turn-based game, combat would begin at this point. Whereas, when you're entering, you're in the same state, only you don't have an immediate target. You know things are hostile to you, and will attack as soon as they can. The only difference is that you weren't just in dialogue with them, then transitioned into combat, and they are currently nowhere in sight, as they have not yet been encountered. I just think there's enough of a potential difference between feeling the need to actually draw your weapon simply to hold it (so you won't need to spend the time drawing your weapon when the poop hits the fan) and holding your weapon at-the-ready. The best way I can illustrate this is with a bow: You may have the bow drawn and even nock an arrow, but you may have that nocked arrow pointing at the ground while speaking to someone, indicating that you're prepared for hostility, but don't intend it to be toward or stem from them. OR, you could have that bow upright and aimed at them. Both are states of "weapons drawn," but each is different from the other. I was merely worried that if the game says "Wait, your weapons are drawn? THAT'S A HOSTILE GESTURE!," things would get a bit silly in situations in which it would make a lot of sense to go ahead and draw your weapons, yet you would in no way be directly threatening nearby people with them. Of course, who's to say you might not NEED to threaten nearby people with them? You're holed up in a tavern, windows boarded up, against some orc attack on a town. Then, you find out someone inside the tavern is in cahoots with the orcish invaders. Well, now you need to go from "My weapons are prepared for those orcs outside, but I have no qualms with anyone in here" to "I now have qualms with someone in here." It's a matter of helping the player know exactly what it is his characters are conveying, in regard to their interaction with their weapons, to nearby characters.

^ You speak as if choice answers to nothing else first. Along that line of thought are things like "If the player wants no one in the game to ever die, or nothing bad to ever happen, shouldn't he have the choice to do that?", or "shouldn't the player get to choose whether or not his party is invincible?" Choice is governed by the structure of the game, and resting, being something that affects (and is affected by) the actual structure and limitations of the game's confines, cannot simply be thrown to the wind. If you're talking about having a full-spectrum color wheel for color selections in character creation, as opposed to like 8 different colors to choose from, then yes... more choice is better. But, if you're talking "I dunno, guys, what if the player just never wants to fight anything, ever? Should we really REQUIRE that combat be taken part in, at some point during the game?", then no. More choice is not better. If I wanted to choose that P:E become a first-person shooter, rather than an RPG, my choice would be moot, since it doesn't even fall within the confines of P:E already being an RPG. Besides, the choice to implement limitations on healing/recovery via something like resting, then turning around and making that thing unlimited (rest anytime, anywhere) is self-defeating. You might as well just automatically heal up to full immediately at the end of every combat, at that point (like you do in several turn-based JRPGs). Limitations are a part of a game for a reason. Not just because some of us are weird, limitation nerds, and we love the fact that limitations are in the game, so the developer must appease our sheer opinions about limitations.

Zomg, yes! It becomes ESPECIALLY confusing when SOMETIMES your character can actually be (as far as the game code is concerned) threatening people, and other times you're not, but you have absolutely no visual cue, as your characters always look like they're about to attack. Some town guard's all like "Hey, you look like you could cause trouble around here!", and you have to unequip your weapons just to get him to calm down, if that even works. Besides... Not only is it immersive, but it also provides a nice bit of layering to the hostility/tension level of a given situation. Stage 1: Calm, weapons sheathed. Stage 2: Wary/aggravated -- Hands on hilts. Stage 3: Expecting impending conflict/furious -- Weapons drawn Stage 4: Considers conflict initiated -- Weapons at the ready. Stage 3 and 4 are VERY close, but would be different in that 3 wouldn't necessarily stop a dialogue situation and begin conflict. But, this would be a nice touch on things. Some people you bump into might lay their hands on their weapon hilts/grips, and some might outright draw their weapons. You could get a visual idea of how tense/hostile they are from things like this. If someone removes their hand from their sheathed weapon, completely, then you can almost bet they're pretty calm and trusting at that point.

Whether or not the game uses chance rolls has absolutely nothing to do with how in-control of the character's actions you are. For what it's worth...

They should probably be forced to wear a scarlet letter-I on their person at all times (for "Indecent"), to really reinforce the game's themes. u_u

I love quest timers, in moderation. When everything's rush-requiring, you've just made a game that's one huge push-level. When only certain things are rush-requiring, those situations become that much more tense/dire feeling, in contrast to the usual "we're simply not lollygagging around, but we don't really need to sprint" pace of the rest of the game. I just don't really want to feel like I'm playing a racing game, with +15 minutes added on at every checkpoint the party makes it to. If the game were to do that, it might as well go ahead and have all the dialogues be those "If you don't answer within a reasonable 5 seconds like a normal person would, the conversation automatically advances, and you can never say what you were going to say with the effect it would have had at that point in the conversation" types. And quests and events should actually take place only at specific times, like festivals in Harvest Moon. Little kid got kidnapped at 3PM, but you were out exploring a mine? Well, you just completely miss that quest without even knowing about it, because it wasn't even a situation until you were already not-present, and by the time you got back to town, time was up on the ransom, and the bandits slit the kid's throat. But, yes, in moderation, they rock,

I'm actually just angry that she doesn't have a form-fitting breastplate on. Let no female torso go unplated! *begins making picket signs*

I like to think their main promise to deliver a quality cRPG supercedes their promises to put specific components into it. It's kind of like this: If I say, "I promise I'll give you some ice cream." Then, it turns out that you've got some kind of health condition you didn't previously know about, and ice cream, though delicious, would actually kill you. Then, I decide not to give you ice cream. I wouldn't expect you to say "BUT YOU PROMISED! I WANT THE ICE CREAM!" We're all limited, as humans, by the existence of the unknown. Once the unknown becomes known, sometimes this causes plans to change. Understandably so. Demanding that they don't when it only makes sense that they should isn't very reasonable. Nor is demanding that we know the unknown before we find it out. So, I say, if they need to not deliver on some promise, for a good reason, then that's fine by me. If they were to, for some reason, simply say "To hell with you backers! We just decided we don't want that in the game, because it makes us happier to not put it in, and we don't care that we told you we'd do it," then that would be maximum uncoolness. But, I don't see that happening. 8P

Well, I wasn't super clear about the player "being" the party (since that wasn't the main topic of the thread at the time), but, you're right. I don't think you're the party, always and completely, like you are (almost) with the main character (there are a few specific little details/aspects of actions and decisions that you don't control directly, but that's beside the point, here). Only that, because of the nature of the tactical combat, the player kind of "jacks into" the minds of the entire party and fully controls their actions/decisions just as much as he does for the main character, temporarily and within certain confines (usually just combat, and other things like equipment selection, etc.). Annnnywho. I'm not trying to argue against you there. Just trying to clarify my cloudy, cloudy words and takes on things. But, back to the more relevant stuff, you're absolutely right, and I hadn't really thought about it specifically that way. That's exactly how I'm thinking of it; the whole "combining plans" thing. I'm not in favor of deciding the future. That's why I tried to separate things into dynamic and static situations. Basically, to me, "there's going to be an assassination attempt at the courtyard" is a static situation. There's not going to NOT be one, or the assassin isn't going to change his mind and just hug everyone or something. It's not as if just anything could be attempted at the courtyard (or even at any location). If that were the case, it wouldn't fit the "let's come up with a decently specific plan" design. Or... vice versa: that design wouldn't fit that context. But, yes, what I'm thinking is that, with such a specific, "static" situation, you might well come up with one of a handful of feasible plans for it. But, it's like battle. What is it they say? Something like "Even the best battle plans are only good until the first arrow falls"? I don't remember the wording. Basically, adaptation is key. So, you're basically deciding how to approach the situation. Not how to handle it, if that makes sense. I think all the handling and adaptation should be done manually, by the player. I agree that that's much more free, and I don't like it when there are PERFECTLY feasible measures to be taken in a situation, yet the game forces you into a scripted dialogue choice-tree and fails to provide such choices. I can't think of a good example of that at the moment, but I KNOW I've seen it while playing previous cRPGs, here and there. Here's basically what led me to think of the whole example, and why I thought some scripted planning might be a good idea, in the first place: I was thinking "Okay, if we're going to do this ambush thing, then I'm going to waltz out and talk to this lord in the courtyard. So, that's probably gonna be scripted, so I can't just jog around and cast things and react, mid-dialogue, because it seems like people would know something was up if I did that during this formal/public courtyard meeting. And the attempt is probably going to be made mid-dialogue, while we're 'distracted' (or so the assassin believes). So, how do I know when I should cast the spell, so that people don't see me cast it (maybe the assassin's watching the courtyard right now), and when I should/can position people? It seems like an awful lot of details and manual control that doesn't really benefit me, when, for the characters, having decided 'We'll have someone up in the balcony, and someone in the corner, and someone at the back entrance, and I'll cast Missile Protection in secret before entering the courtyard,' etc. would be ultra easy. But, for the player, the game would have to convey an awful lot of info to me that's already ridiculously simple knowledge to the characters." So, I dunno if that makes a lot of sense to any brain but my weird one, but it just seems like, in that particular situation, it's pure convolution to have to manually set up a waiting plan. Seems like it would be completely fine for any and all dynamic reactions to take place, once the situation actually changes (the attempt is made, something occurs that you've been waiting to react to, etc.). Also, I just want to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying that the exact placement of the characters should be left up to dialogue options. Just the general idea. It just seems like good reactivity on the characters' parts to say "wait, why don't we have anyone upstairs? If this guy is on the roof, he's probably going to be fleeing from a high point." And it seems like an awful lot of trouble to have the game detect purely your manual placement of people, and have characters react to your flawed plan. It seems like that type of group communication and planning might best be left to dialogue and scripting. *shrug* To be clear, though, I think the level of detail in your plan should be optional. If you decide "we're not even gonna try and catch this guy, because I'm worried we won't be able to, so we're just gonna warn the guards to clear out the courtyard," then you should be able to do that. Or if you decide "You know what, we're just gonna see what happens, and react to it." You can decide that, too. Really, the whole point is reactivity. It's hard for your Ranger to say "this is preposterous... I'm going upstairs to keep an eye out" if he doesn't know that you've vocally communicated that you don't want anyone upstairs keeping an eye out. I don't see a team of people just being cool with there being absolutely no plan whatsoever. And I don't think "Yes, okay, everyone make preparations!" is going to fly. Everyone would just make their own random preparations, unbeknownst to the rest of the team, and things would go terribly. (I sincerely apologize for the text wall. I realize that a normal person could convey what I'm trying to convey with probably 1/3 of the words, but I play with the hand I'm dealt. 8P)

This is true, but, as a result you had a world populated by copies of about, what... 60 books? (Well, in Skyrim, at least). So, you kinda trade one thing for another. I love when books are fully hashed out and readable, but I worry that it would be impossible to have even ONE small library full of actually-unique books that are all fully readable (without costing the game development quality in other areas), much less several libraries, etc. That's why I think it might be a good idea to have it be abstracted and understood that your character can read many of the books, but that there's not enough relevance in them to convey it first-hand to the player (that way, you can have oodles of believable books in the world, without having to write oodles of full, believable books). Also, you could have things like grammar books, and philosophy books. You know, things that aren't even really lore-related (aren't informative to the player about the game world, so much as they are a layer of depth, themselves, to the game world) without having to take the time to invent and write 100 pages of thoughts on existentialism by some philosopher in the P:E world. Annnnnywho, I'm typing way too much here for the "small suggestions/quickfire thoughts" thread, haha. I stop now.

Yes! That was pretty great. And, that COULD actually work for, say, random encounters that load from some kind of world map travel screen (if such a thing/implementation is in the game). I mean, formation's got us covered pretty much everywhere else (@Hormalakh: methinks he's already provided us some nice tidbits on the niceness of formation function in P:E... I'd have to go find it, which I'm unable to do at the moment). But, if your party formation isn't represented in World Map travel, then you'd essentially "load into battle," very similarly to how you did in FF Tactics. You could have some fun with that. Ambushed? You get fewer potential placements for your characters, and you can't change their facing. And I know you said that's not really a solution for forced positioning, but it is kind of along the lines of what I was getting at with my giant wall of text up there (I need to learn to type less). Basically, I think if you're going to be preparing for a dynamic encounter that springs forth from a "static", scripted event/scenario (like walking into a "cutscene" dialogue event when you know it's a trap), I think it's not a bad idea to provide a limited number of preparation options. Either that, or make the whole thing SO unbelievably reactive that the assassin literally changes his plans according to the exact manual placement of all your party members before entering the find-the-assassin ambush. Which seems like an awfully time-and-resource-consuming thing. At least that was a short wall of text that can easily be hopped over with minimal effort,

Yeah, it most certainly depends on a lot of factors. And you're right that you're restricted, but nothing says you have to be restricted beyond what's reasonable, you know? It would depend on the situation, and the factors involved, but, in the "We found out an assassin is going to try and take us out in the courtyard" scenario, perhaps you don't have time to run around town and do anything, because you're due to meet the guy in the courtyard in like 10 minutes. At that point, your party is going to try and come up with a plan. Also, when I'm talking about restriction moderation, what I mean is that they don't have to come up with the entire second-by-second plan all the way through to the assassin's death. Take the scripted choice of casting missile protection (again, I agree that it's not really a big deal, because the likelihood that you'll somehow mistime the spell or something is EXTREMELY slim, but, at the same time, it's kind of a "Why not" thing, since the situation is not dynamic in this example, so there's absolutely no benefit to manually timing the spell, anyway. *shrug*... It's hard to argue specifically for either method, really): That's just the plan to set up for something that's going to take place during dialogue. The point of that is how to set up a dynamic situation, i.e. the assassin taking his shot, going "What the HELL?!", and giving away his position (with the shot, and possibly the surprised reaction), then probably trying to flee. From that point, it doesn't just keep scripting it. You didn't pick "And when he runs off, you tackle him, Steve. And Suzy, you cast Animate Rope to tie him up. And then we'll take him to the chancellor at approximately noon," etc. Also, like I said, the plan wouldn't automatically be a good one. I mean, the "Okay, we'll just proceed as if we DON'T know he's here, and see if we can't find him once he fails to assassinate me" plan is a pretty simple setup, and you're right that it would probably only work if you didn't really have much other choice (because of time constraints, etc.). Anywho, there might be various options, some of which provide a MUCH worse setup for actually catching the assassin. I mean, you can't just post people all over the roof (if you want to catch him), or the assassin will see them and say "that's weird," and abort before you even do anything. Maybe you have the option of posting people on the roof, though as the "we're gonna make sure this guy doesn't get away with this, in case we're wrong about his target," etc. Basically, I'm envisioning that, ideally, your information is dependent upon how well you've collected info, what you've previously done up to this point, and how well you can figure out details of the assassin's plan based on what you know. Your characters don't just automatically figure everything out. But, they would probably provide suggestions for what you should attempt to do, overall. In other words, the plan is more "Let's just go ahead with this courtyard event and try to use the element of surprise to catch this guy," or "let's just alert the guards to call off the courtyard event and to be on the lookout for an assassin," or maybe "Let's try to figure out more details of this plan, if we can." Maybe if you warn the guards, it turns out one of them was in on it, and the target was actually Lord Blargle, and he's simply assassinated back in his bedchamber that night because of how you approached the situation. Maybe the assassin's using an enchanted arrow that can actually ignore your protection from missiles spell. These are things your characters don't automatically know. So, they come up with good ideas (because you can't just literally do infinite things... there are only so many plans that are feasible). That's all I'm trying to get at. I realize I'm dealing with a rather crude example, but it's the best I can do without sitting down and hashing out all the specific details for a quest scenario I'd actually want to see in the game, complete with backstory and character specifics for everyone involved, THEN trying to figure out how best to address the scripted/dialogue choices in the matter. The example is only meant to make "I think sometimes you should get to pick plans in dialogue" actually make sense in context, rather than just being a vague thing floating around in my head. Agreed. I'm trying to get rid of the "ifs" for now, with a very specific scenario (I realize I wasn't quite specific enough, though, and that's my bad), because... well, we can only really design a specific choice set for a given scenario with given factors. If the factors are different, then it is a different scenario and would need a different choice set. I do apologize for not being the best at hashing out my examples as much as I need to. You're bringing up very valid concerns/points. No no, you can't. You're right. I didn't mean it to be a train of thought to be followed. I merely meant that, since some things are obviously handled by the characters and not the player, I believe this has a place in dialogue/scripted choices. Ehh, to put it simply, I'd love to be able to just attack a random person, for whatever reason I choose (completely manual control, non-scripted), but I would expect my party to express disbelief, and/or attempt to disarm me and check on the person, etc. This translates into the courtyard assassin scenario as, if I just manually run around in circles until the assassin strikes, I don't see that as a valid enough plan for my party not to say "Uhmm... you go be an idiot... I'm gonna try to do my best here without your input," and simply telling the guards or something. In other words, I'm all for restriction in what the player is allowed to make happen, when there is a decent enough set of things that are COMPLETELY and utterly infeasible. Basically, you can choose to do nothing, or to do something really stupid, and your party just isn't going to go along with it. So, a minimum-feasibility outcome is still going to occur. Granted, this could be different in different situations, as we've agreed. If an assassin's striking in the next 15 minutes in a courtyard, and the life of Lord Blargle is important to the story and your party, then they're not going to just shrug it off and go shopping while he gets assassinated. BUT, if there's some time-sensitive situation in a town, and you have to go off somewhere else to do something imperative, but you expect to be back at that town in time to handle the time-sensitive problem, your party might be much more likely to do things that inadvertently cause you to be too late. They might voice their concern as time passes, suggesting that you get back very soon, but they're not going to just throw all their stuff down and flee back to that town. (Who knows... one of them might. Maybe it's their hometown, or the situation is particularly personal for them in another way. *shrug*) Glad I could help you meet your daily laughter quota, ^_^

Great... Now we've got flying Monks. -___-... Seriously though, good call. It's the little cracks that make the game brittle. Things like the lack of that option, in other games, just make things unnecessarily complex. "My party are all masters of movement and combat, yet I'm literally having to juggle them across the screen in an attempt to keep them together. o_o". ^_^

I kinda like how in old-school turn-based RPGs, sometimes you'd be able to read about 50-60 books in a library, but your character would basically open it up and skim it for some tidbit. Usually it would be something informative about a creature, or place in the world, or some hint as to the location of some ruins, etc. This was overly simplified, as these were much simpler games, but I think it wouldn't be preposterous to be able to read many, many books in a book-lined room, but have most of them only provide small glints of information. Think of it like a Skill check. "Your character read through this book for an hour, and this is what they managed to find that was of any use or relevance to anything that they know of."

Ahh, but are there not already multiple types of monks in reality that are rather different from one another? Why not a new variant that simply doesn't exist in reality? A little creativity is all that is. Monks of any kind are typically quite devoted to rigorous forms of self-discipline and ideals. You're telling me that people who meditate on the embracement of suffering in life bear absolutely no resemblance to monks of the real world? I find this hard to believe. Calling a table a chair might be confusing, but calling it a stool might just make it an ogre's stool, even though they're different things. 8P

What I will say regarding this topic is that Dragon Age (I suppose both games, since they both used the same system) did have the right idea with party-character AI/behavior. I wouldn't quite say they "got it right", though. Kind of like saying "what we'll need in this desert is water!", but only taking a 16oz water skin with you into the desert.

'Tis a cheery little update. I will say that I'd love to hear as much elaboration as any of the dev team would ever like to provide in an update, but I hardly think we're entitled to some specific quota of information in each update, or that this one was in some way bad because it was less elaborate. Keep up the good work! Er... please? If you wouldn't mind. (Also, thanks a lot for pointing out YET ANOTHER project to aim my funding rifle at. *siiiigh*. Hehe)

Oh yeah. Sorry... 8P. I got that wrong. Then, they could use them to parry in combat. 8D! See, we've already got variety going in Were-Beaver Druid builds!