Lephys

Guys, only awarding XP when certain things die would mean that XP never gets awarded when things die. That would mean people who don't prefer combat in all possible scenarios might get gipped! In the quest for equality amongst playstyles, the solution is obvious: Make sure killing always gets more rewards, always. u_u Yeah, that would make you make the hard decisions. Like "Play my preferred playstyle, even though it doesn't always involve killing, and therefore I'll always lose out." That IS a tough choice. Too bad the combat-lovers won't ever get to make it. That seems a little unfair. Shouldn't they get tough choices, too?

So is health management, yet you see ways of regaining all your HP in a timely fashion, rather than recovering 10HP-per-hour (of actual playtime.) Also, there wasn't an issue in previously cited games because the inventory was big enough that you didn't have to make lots of trips, so therefore a design choice that makes sure the inventory is always big enoughso you don't have to make lots of trips is stupid and a problem?

^ Yes, but powergaming is still operating within the constraints of a system. If you cannot fly, then powergaming doesn't ever involve flying. You can't say "But I want to kill the birds, too! You hate powergamers because I can't fly and reach the birds!!!" You obviously shouldn't be able to kill every single living thing you ever come across, so that's already an understandable limitation on what you should and shouldn't be able to get XP for the death of. So, it doesn't make any sense to say "You can't not-give XP for that thing's death, because that's one fewer option for powergamers to gain XP with!" Again I say, whether or not you make various optional objectives mutually exclusive has NOTHING to do with not wanting people to get to do all three of them because they'll get too much XP. It's about all three of them each awarding XP, in conjunction, not making any sense. You're going to have some scenarios where it makes sense, in which case the powergamer CAN do all three, if he so chooses, because they're all optional and don't exclude any others. And in SOME scenarios, it's going to make sense that they're mutually exclusive (you can't save a village AND destroy it; the second you destroy it, you haven't saved it, and you've only saved it when you never, ever destroy it), so the powergamer has to pick one or the other. There's a difference between wanting to choose all available options, and being unhappy with the number of options available.

So, if I can't prove it's possible, is it impossible? You "there's a problem with this system" lot keep saying, over and over again, "Here's the problem that definitely exists with that system." And since all my "Okay, that's a concern, but not a definite problem" talk has been met with "How is it not a definite problem?", I have to assume that you're opting to say that it isn't merely a concern to be dealt with in the design, but rather a "this will always be a problem because of the system being used." But I keep showing how that's only a problem under certain circumstances, more specific than "we're awarding XP only for indefinite things called objectives." Why do you get to argue "what you say is always impossible," then respond to my "no, it's actually entirely possible" with "Okay, prove that it's DEFINITELY never going to happen like that!"? When did I ever say that I can predict the future? If you give a man a car, he CAN travel way farther than he could on foot, in a day's time. How the hell do I know if he's GOING to use the car or not? Maybe he drives it into a tree, a mile before the maximum on-foot range. If you're going to argue an inherent problem with the objective-only XP system, then I dare say you have yet to prove anything. My argument is "I have yet to see an inherent problem that exists no matter how you use the system," so I'd say it stands until someone proves otherwise. I'm not trying to be an arse, here. That's just how things are. Why do I feel I'm right and you're wrong? Because I'm saying "We can't be sure of that," and you're saying "Yes, we can totally be sure of this." And you were just talking about absolutes. Also to note, a game is, quite literally, a set of boundaries and options. Everything in every game is only possible if the developers code it in. So, that's not something that can be attributed to how you decide to structure your XP system. That's just a thing to consider whenever making any game, ever, much less an RPG that happens to be Project:Eternity and happens to be using an objective-based XP system. So, you see? I'm not saying "Every word you typed is wrong." You're quite right, but all the things you're bringing up are valid concerns worth considering in the design process, rather than reasons to not use an objective-based XP system. Feel free to present scenarios you feel cannot be tackled properly by the proposed system, and I will gladly do my best to point out how they can, all day long. If I cannot, then we will both be all the wiser. And if I always can, we still will be all the wiser. This is the purpose of discussion. Incidentally, if you want to hunt basilisks, then I'd imagine the portions of the game in which the developers specifically placed basilisks (since the game code didn't create basilisks without their knowledge) would have been designed accordingly. Maybe I should put it this way... Will there be basilisks in the game that are huntable for XP PURELY because people might want to hunt basilisks in the game for XP? I would hope not. SHOULD the basilisks give you something? Probably so, but it really depends. A better question is this: Should the basilisks just be randomly strewn about the land for no reason other than for you to optionally kill them? Should they arbitrarily not constitute any portion of any other objective in any way, shape, or fashion? How hard would it be to make them an objective? Pretty easy, right? So, there's no reason they couldn't be an objective, and give you XP. Whether or not they SHOULD depends entirely on how the rest of the game, around them, is designed.

EDIT: @TRX (this was unclear to whom I was replying, since I missed Razsius's reply... sorry about that) ^ That's precisely why games typically handle that within the confines of scripted dialogue events. In fact, that's a very good use for the (Lie) option, when there are two identical options. One suggests you intend to do more within this "quest" (such as go tell someone where the guy whom you just assured was totally safe is), so you don't get awarded XP for "completing" it. If you're going to betray the guy, you should get credit for that, but to design the system to award you credit for two exclusive things (not-betraying someone AND betraying them) is silly. Once again, objective XP shines. The ultimate outcomes will have, beneath them, possible sub-objectives. If you choose to deliver the artifact straight to Frederick (who is a crooked guy who wants it, even though Reginald is its rightful owner), you can go straight to him with it, getting a reward for the artifact quest (we'll assume you can't do anything with the artifact, yourself.) OR, maybe you give it to Reginald, lie to him ("Yeah, don't worry about Frederick") so the game knows you intend to not go for the Reginald Lives Happily Ever After With His Artifact outcome, and then go tell Frederick where he is. Boom, Frederick gets the artifact, and maybe Reginald dies. It doesn't matter, because Reginald wasn't a combat challenge. He's simply something that CAN die, and his death only changes what you can accomplish. Obviously if you or Frederick goes and kills him, you can no longer change your mind and say "Nevermind, I want to help Reginald get his artifact, and live happily ever after." BUT, you could lie to Reginald (implying you're going to see Frederick), then go double-cross Frederick. Hell, maybe even set up an ambush with Reginald, so that he lures them into your deathtrap. Either way, you get an award based on what you ultimately accomplish, in what manner. Kill Reginald? You get an XP award (once you take the artifact to Frederick), plus maybe some loot from Reginald's lifeless corpse, plus probably some effect to your reputation (at the very least with Frederick). Kill Frederick? You get an XP award (probably just for dealing with him, if he's a criminal bastard who affects more than just Reginald), plus loot from him and his lackeys, plus reputation change (in a different way.) It's all in how you design the objectives. Not in whether or not you use kill-based XP or objective-only XP. If you design the objectives poorly, then you wind up with oodles of options being way better than other options (or some options not even being available at all.) In a kill-based XP system, any option to kill something is ALWAYS going to give you more XP than choosing a different option. You either have to award a similar amount (it doesn't always have to be perfectly the same for all options in a given scenario, and I wouldn't expect it to. It's all about balance in the long haul) for the non-combat options and arbitrarily exclude the option to kill something after that, OR you have to remove the XP award from the death of that thing you could kill because you've already done a non-combat solution, OR everyone who kills ALWAYS gets more XP. Always. Those are the only three options. And guess what? 1 and 2 are both perfectly doable in an objective-only XP system, via objective pre-requisities. Objectives are conditional. That's the beauty of them. If 2 armies are battling, one in a city, one attacking that city, and you ask them "What's the objective here?", The army inside the city is going to say "To defend this city from these attackers!". Meanwhile, the army outside will say "To defeat these defenders and take the city!" What point would there be in awarding someone XP who successfully defends the city, THEN kills everyone in the city? You can't be on BOTH sides of the battle.

This! Methinks at least 99.9% of the problems that people have with the proposed XP system stem from the false assumption regarding what an objective can or cannot be.

Firstly, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to present such a detailed example. It's quite lovely. I am, though, curious as to the purpose of the "Quest completion" xp, since you seem to be awarding XP for the actual route taken/outcome achieved in each scenario, then tacking on an additional amount of "completion" XP that changes with each method of completion (even though the method awards are already separate and already change between them.) This sparks the question: What's the difference between "You always get kill XP, except for sometimes when it obviously wouldn't be appropriate (like when a group of people worships you and you simply slaughter them all for no reason, even after they were no longer a threat)", and "You only get XP when we, the designers, deem the elimination of things an objective, and some bouts of slaying will not be objectives."? The fact that VtM:B slapped you in the face so hard has nothing to do with not awarding XP for every single kill. It has to do with bad design decisions within the system they were using. If I create a game that uses per-kill-XP awardment, rather than objective-based XP awardment, and I only put 3 combat scenarios in the entire game, while there are 9,000 non-combat scenarios in the game, is it the system's fault that you got screwed? Did how I chose to decide to award XP fail you? No... my terrible decision after the fact is what failed you. You should get credit for what you accomplish, not what you do (unless the system ALWAYS awards you for whatever you do, a la Elder Scrolls). And sometimes, the exclusive combat option is going to be tougher/more involved than the non-combat option, and you should probably get more XP for that. And sometimes, the exclusive non-combat option is going to be tougher/more involved than the straight-up combat option, in which case you should get more XP for THAT. Any options that AREN'T mutually exclusive should be viewed as individual, optional things (You can either kill these things or not, and you can either sneak past this or not, etc.), and don't warrant a potential problem, because they aren't related. That being said, killing something and sneaking past it should only be mutually exclusive options when they both effect a solution to the same problem. Avoiding combat is not a sneak objective. Sneaking to some end that is different from simply killing everyone should prevent you from gaining any XP from going back and killing everything (if the game even lets you), as, if you kill everything in sight, then you were obviously detected by all those things and therefore didn't sneak past them. Again, if being detected means you can't accomplish something that you COULD'VE accomplished (cutting off some courier, or stealing a map before it's destroyed, etc.) before you were detected (via stealth), then that's once again in the realm of "optional stealthy things to do." One of the main problems in this entire topic (across multiple threads) is that people keep bringing up examples that don't even warrant a "this-vs-this" dilemma to begin with, or saying things like "YOU MEAN NOTHING I EVER FIGHT OR KILL WILL EVER ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING FOR MY PROGRESSION?!" There's a VAST ocean of possibility between "sometimes, you'll have to do more than simply reduce health bars to zero to gain XP," and "Gaining XP or accomplishing things will NEVER involve reducing health bars to zero in OUR game, MUAHAHAHAHAHA!" Last time I checked, assuming the worst case scenario and ignoring the potential best-case scenario was pretty much the definition of "over-reaction." I dare say that's because you're inadvertently imagining ONLY scenarios which do exactly as you say. Do this: Think up one of those scenarios, and try to figure out how to use objective-based XP structuring fit the scenario without screwing anyone over. I bet you can do it. It's not so much that it allows players to "go against the system." It's just a terrible system when your game isn't SOLELY about killing things (Like Diablo.) In that game, you could technically just run through most of the levels only killing about 5 out of 1,000 things (just the key ones). But, of course, you'd be horrendously under-powered. But, the ENTIRE XP system relies upon kill XP, pretty much. P:E is not designed that way. It will have a lot of mandatory combat, sure. But it's structured into an actual story, not "here's a level filled with baddies. Clear it out. By the time you get to the end of the level, you should also have killed enough things to level up appropriately." You've said it yourself: Reputation (amongst other things) can exact a LOT of changes and outcomes, and killing folk at "random" and poisoning the well (and oodles of other options) can allow you to gain a ferocious reputation, which can present even MORE combat (that's part of objectives for "evil" bastards only, even. And what do objectives do? Grant you XP. Voila. There's simply nothing PREVENTING the system from accomodating all playstyles. Whereas, in the "always kill all things for more XP than whatever you would've gotten" system, you're ALWAYS missing out if you're not a rabid slaying machine, OR you bump down the XP rewards on all kills so much (so that mass-slayers aren't 73 levels ahead of the people who only do the 70% of the combat in the game that's an integral part of the story) that the XP gained hardly matters anymore and people are STILL upset.

We could always downgrade them to Lieutenant Colonel fantasies. *shrug* TALON rings!!! 8D

Try'nna catch me cod-in' DIR-tehhh...

I think it's possible, in some capacity. I'm not sure I want every single thing to cause noticeable/significant motion (Like in Little Big Planet, where taking off running actually moves the blocks upon which you're standing and sometimes flips them and screws you over, all because of the game's constant, global physics). BUT, I would like to see something more interesting than "these weapons/abilities have knockback, and these weapons/abilities don't." On that note, I've always kinda hated how knock"back" and knock-down are two COMPLETELY separate things. The enemy either electric slides backwards like 15 feet (in an instant), OR it prostrates itself upon the ground with such force that you'd think a magnetic strip were covering its back, and the ground just powered up a giant electromagnet. And on THAT note (subnotes, FTW!), can we get something less annoying than distance between the foe on EVERY attack? How useful is that, really? "Oh, my weapon speed is 1 att/sec, but every time I hit you, it takes 3 seconds for me to walk back to you, thereby DELAYING my attacks." I want control over when and how I knock an enemy about, and I want it to be useful in more than .02% of scenarios. What if Barbarians had a lot of knock-about-type attacks and abilities? You could play croquet with foes! 8D

I'm kinda hoping we don't see any portraits. I would prefer the trait system to be quite rich, rather than por.

Yeah, it's not gonna be so much gonna be a dichotomous alignment as it's going to be an adherence to A moral code (rather than "the" moral code). And yeah, the whole "but that person was innocent! Just the wrong place at the wrong time! HOW DARE YOU KILL THEM?!" thing is a bit weird. I liked how Samara (aka Asari justicars) worked in Mass Effect. She was basically all "Look, I'm on a holy mission, and your innocent life is but a speck compared to that. If I can help it, I won't harm any innocent people, ever. But, if you impede my mission, I am not only AUTHORIZED to kill you, I'm REQUIRED to. u_u" I think Paladins should be brimming with zeal. 8P

Yet another reason I think weapons should have effects, and different enemy types should have various reactions to those effects Trolls being incapable of regeneration while burning is a good, simple example. This design gives you a reason to use a fire weapon (as opposed to some other type of weapon) against a Troll, but your weapon isn't a "Blade of TrollHarm" that's just a chunk of metal versus everything else in the world. You make fire damage (if you're going to have common elemental weapon effects) do DIFFERENT things against different enemies, rather than "be good" against some and "be bad" against others, and you've got yourself an awesome system.

A. who would mummify a spider? ... A person from a culture that practices mummification, who was magically cursed and turned into a spider, along with his spouse/family, and who mummified them when they died, using spider silk instead of cloth bandages? And, and... maybe he took this mummified spider-person to some other sorcerer/magic person (or used some relic/artifact/device) to put a curse on all the maggots he stuffed them with, so that people who were strolling along and bumped into the mummified spider-person would, IF they successfully bested it in combat, say "Oh hey! Maggots! I was almost out of these!" and take them back home where they practice medicine in their village, and utilize them in the treatment of a variety of appropriate wounds/infections, unknowingly spreading a petulent, mummified-spider-person disease! O_O

I must respectfully suggest that I am not missing the point. In that exact scenario, I, the player, need to know where or not my character really thinks there is a way to raise the dead (and some goal of his is attempting to find/use it) or if he knows there isn't and is purely trying to lead someone on. Whether or not it's a lie has almost nothing to do with whether or not raising the dead is possible or isn't, and everything to do with whether or not my character knows that. We make choices with our characters (at least our main character) based upon their knowledge and skills. I wouldn't want to assume he knows or doesn't know, without any absolute indicators, any more than I'd want to assume he can use an ability that's available as a combat command. Are there oodles of scenarios in which the player already has enough info to determine on his own whether or not a dialogue choice is a lie? Sure. Are there some scenarios in which it would be really confusing without some form of indication (unless you arbitrarily remove the option to lie in a given scenario, solving the problem while pointlessly shallowing the game content)? You betcha. There are plenty of points, but that's every bit the point in this whole "should there be an indicator or not?" discussion. Yeah, I feel ya on that. But, like I said, there might be a reason to do it that way, depending on how you're representing the bluff check. If you've got a bluff check in at all, then it wouldn't make sense not to use it any time you're lying (despite however high or low the difficulty of getting away with the lie is). So, that would mean you were the PERFECT liar, OR you were getting bluff checks on things you didn't know you there was a check for. Either way, a pointless hurdle for the player. But, that's pretty much the only thing I can think of that in any way justifies the hardcoding/indication of intent between two otherwise-identical dialogue choices. UNLESS they're doing it like that, they should just let those particular choices be regular choices, and let us decide with our actions what our intent is (we either end up sticking to our word, or we do something that goes against it.)

That, and to intentionally control enemy movement in any capacity (lure, turn, reposition, etc.). I think 99% of the typical systems have basically assumed one only two things: A) You wish to get away from the enemy, specifically for the purposes of avoiding damage. B) You wish to move towards/to an enemy, specifically for the purposes of attacking or direct engagement. RPGs typically don't like to give us ways for our characters to INTENTIONALLY block/relocate/lure enemies. Spontaneous, slightly-relevant thought: I want a fear spell/effect that actually lets me herd enemies into a field of traps, or a corridor/corner of a room or something. Not just "run sort of maybe away from me, and maybe just in whatever direction. The main point is that you're not doing damage to me or my party, so this is a stun, only more annoying." But, yeah, I know spells typically give you roots and paralysis, but I want to see stuff that can easily be done with weapons/physical-combat be available. I'm with Diagoras. I know we don't have all the info yet, but I got a REALLY good feeling when I read about the Fighter's Defender modal ability, and the Rogue's Reversal. Not to mention simple strategic things, such as the Wizard's familiar's ability to serve as the source of spell targeting.

Ehhh... adding weight CAN have a purpose. Let's assume you're abstractly fitting 2 claymores into a bag or chest or something (or just strapping them upon your person.) However you're carrying them, unless you have a container shaped EXACTLY like the claymores, you've pretty much got tons of extra space in there, in between the claymores and the walls of the container (or, if you strapped 'em onto your belt/pack, then you've still got space IN your pack for smaller things. You were going to strap some herbs and potions onto your pack where those claymores went.) Human Revolution is a good example, but you're abstractly carrying around a large case in that, and everything you find is designed to fit neatly inside that case (weapons basically take up rectangles, ammo and clips take up little squares, etc.). In a historical fantasy setting, if I put a claymore in my pack (and it takes up 10 squares out of 30), then I should be able to pick up WELL more than 20 gemstones. That's why things stack in individual spaces sometimes. It's representative of their being smaller than an actual single square of abstractly represented inventory space. But, anywho, I should be able to carry 200 herb clippings in however few spaces they'll stack, but not necessarily 200 iron sling pellets. That's where weight comes in. On the other hand, you might have some piece of insect carapace that's 3 feet by 3 feet, curved, and rigid, so it takes up a lot of space. But, it may only weigh 5lbs. So, while you could only carry 2 claymores, realistically, you might only be able to carry ONE of those carapace pieces. But, you're nowhere NEAR in trouble with weight there. So, you should get to carry that much more small stuff. If you simply use space, then you've got to abstractly alter the size/stackability of something simply to make the already-abstracted size/tetris interface represent the change in weight. Is it necessary to use both? Not at all. But they do serve individual purposes, as far as representing actual factors goes.

A person of average height can easily walk two feet in one stride. That they can. Which is why all naturally occurring pits/gaps are typically not 2 feet wide. It was the unjumpable 2-foot gaps that happened to spark the idea in my head, or at least the basis for it. I never said we need a jump skill for 2-foot gaps that I want specifically coded into the game everywhere. o_o If that's the case, then they should get rid of the lockpicking skill and just make all chests instantly unlockable with a suitable animation. The use of the skills I'm suggesting would have the game designed around the idea that some characters, if built correctly, would have a high enough jump/climb skill to overcome a given obstacle (exactly like lockpicking works). Why is there a need for failure, or even any uncertainty for that matter? Your character knows how far he can jump. The range on your jump ability would be the pass/fail indicator. "Oh, look, this gap is 7 feet, but I can only jump 5 feet. Guess I won't be jumping that anytime soon." It's the same as when you go to cast a spell in combat, and the targeting indicator says "Out of range" on an enemy (or visually shows the range). Your Wizard isn't like "Man, I have ABSOLUTELY no idea how far this spell travels before dissipating, or how far away I'm able to summon a ring of fire. Trial-and-error time!" The only thing I see accomplished by a chance of failure in jumping/climbing is an unnecessarily delayed version of "Your skill is not high enough" in the form of an attempt, death, and (best case scenario) reload from right before the attempt. It would be like if failure with lockpicks could cause your character to stab himself in the heart accidentally. "Well, the good news is, the REST of your party can now access the contents of the chest..."

It's psychometry, reading "imprints" left by the user(s) of an object. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometry_%28paranormal%29 Ways in which to impede Ciphers' ability to track you: Hold your weapon out to every stray cat you come across. Make sure you allow the cat time to first satiate its curiosity at the scents on your weapon (preferrably the hilt where you most come into contact with it), then rub its cheek gratuitously upon it. The Cipher now has to sort your imprint out of 300+ other imprints. ^_^

I think the whole grid bit is useful, to an extent. I mean, weight is one factor, but what if you're dealing with claymores? Should one person really be able to carry around 15 claymores, just because they only weigh 12lbs a piece? Probably not. I'm not saying "Just use reality as your ruler! Only 2 claymores would be carriable at once, so NEVER ANY MORE THAN 2!!! >_<" I mean, let's assume 2 was the realistic limit (you could still carry more small things, but would have no more room for things that are the length/size of claymores). Well, if the game abstracts it a bit and you can carry 3, or maybe even 4 before you run out of item space (rather than weight), then okay. But if you can carry FIFTEEN?! That's a little much. Clearly, 1,000 claymores would be ridiculous, so that means at SOME point (well before 1,000), believability just goes out the window. I think whatever point that is, it's an important factor. It's not an exact, nitpick-worthy thing. It's like filling a glass halfway. If it's only filled 44%, then meh, that's pretty close. If it's 60%, then, yeah, that's about half the bottle. If it's 20% full, or 90% full, then it's CLEARLY not very close to the halfway point. Anywho, I think the bit of the inventory that IS limited should be intelligently limited (otherwise not at all). Space and weight are pretty feasible factors to base it on. As for the bit that might not be limited (the stash for which this thread began), well, as long as its handled properly, I'm fine with it (see previous posts in this thread.)

I see what you mean, but that's not actually a lie. If I built a building for someone, and designed it and everything... knew all the blueprints, the works, and that person later had a secret tunnel added in, then you could ask me "Hey, how do we get into this building?". I would probably say "Through here, here, or here. Those are the only ways in." Since I don't know about the secret tunnel, I'm actually not lying. I'm simply mistaken. But I'm telling you what I know. Some might call it technicality, but it's simply a detail that does effect things. A lie is an INENTIONAL, voluntary deception. Being wrong is just being wrong. So, if my character were to say "There are no dragons left. They were killed off ages ago. Everyone knows that.", I wouldn't expect a "(lie)" tag or any indicator UNLESS he knew of a still-living dragon and was intentionally stating otherwise. So, all lies (and not simple falsehoods) should be marked as lies, lest certain lines be unclear as to whether or not my character is simply mistaken or KNOWS that what he's saying is false. Those are usually used when conveying intent. It's really only for the player, I suppose. You know, "I'll make sure nothing happens to the chest." vs "I'll make sure nothing happens to the chest (lie)." Whether or not it has any necessity really depends on how the game is coded, I suppose. If the lie locks you into a certain subset of decisions (deception/backstabbing/robbery) down the line, then I suppose that's the function it serves in terms of game programming. Is it necessary to code a game like that? Maybe not. I can't say off the top of my head that there's absolutely NO reason for the intent to ever matter in your actual dialogue choice. I'd have to think about it a while. *Scratches head*... Maybe they're trying to represent the fact that, if you're sincere, you don't have to worry about a bluff check (you're not faking facial expressions and all the nuance that comes with actual sincerity), and if you're lying then you do? Because, in the PnP games, there generally wasn't any kind of skill check unless you were lying. *Le shrugs*

And spells/abilities such as Fire Shield/Thornskin/Immolate could serve a much greater function than simply adding passive damage to an equation. Wizard wielding a Tome and can't 1-on-1 melee that beast's gut open to rescue his friend inside? *CASTS IMMOLATE ON FRIEND*. Suck it, foul beast! AND... If, say, certain characters had enough STR, maybe some planty/tenticley creature doesn't KNOW they are super strong, and tries to grab them and pull them in. *STR check...*. What's this? Your character's actually strong enough to not only NOT get pulled in, but to prevent the creature from even performing a tentacle retreat, so to speak. Now your other party members can easily run in (while he/she is holding it) and hack away at the creature/plant/thingy, or at the very least sever that tentacle. Critical hits for all!!!

*Watches video clip* ... HAHAHAHahaha! Splend-TAS-tic, man! ^_^

CURSE my inability to watch Youtube videos from this computerrrrrr!!! *shakes fist* I shall check this out at home, when I get the chance.

^ Just your two... scents?