Lephys

But if they're super-hostile when you're simply casually strolling around in their village/habitat and invading their privacy, it's self-defense, right? Like those robbers in the news every now and again who fall through the roof of someone's house that they're attempting to rob, injure themselves, then sue for their victimization.

I kind of like the idea of actually filling it in as you go. In other words, you'd always start at the same spot with every character you make. Perhaps it's some hub-location you got sent to, and so all of the possible places you came from lead here anyway (to whatever supernatural "event" you witness to kinda get things rolling in the P:E storyline, from the updates/wikia). Anywho, How you got there is, as far as the game is concerned, pointless, UNTIL it needs to know. So, you, the player, are controlling your character about, and BOOM! Something crazy happens, and fighting breaks out (simplistic example), and someone says something like "Hey, can you hold your own in combat? We're going to need to fight our way out of here! They'll break through that door soon enough." And that's when you're presented with pertinent dialogue options that simultaneously CHOOSE your background (regarding your capability to fight/the situation at hand, in general) AND inform the other person of it. You know, like "I used to have to defend the herds from wolves, and the occasional brigand, so maybe I won't be com-PLETE-ly useless...", or "I've been surviving the streets on my own since I was 10... this is barely worse than a rainy day for me." Etc. Anywho, the only difference is that you're choosing what happened in the past, rather than choosing it PRIOR to it happening, then playing through it (and/or 5-20 other little "background" segments, a la Dragon Age). The game still takes that into account throughout the rest of the playthrough (and you even get whatever background bonuses when you pick it.) The only difference is the picking. And it doesn't have to happen all at once. Clever design/writing can have you in a handful of scenarios with wildly branching options that cover the application of all possible backgrounds/bonuses. You could even possibly get your starting equipment somehow. Maybe people in a market are slain, and you manage to hide from the oncoming assault (perhaps even frantically locking yourself inside the nearest building, as suggested in the dialogue examples above), only to emerge where there are now freely "stealable" weapons. Maybe when you pick your "How well can you handle yourself?" option for your combatty background, you can grab whichever starting gear you'd like from the market stall debris (Like a staff and padded armor, or a 2-handed sword and plate, etc.). It would, of course, be piddly, basic equipment, valuable more for it's function (over nothing) than the price it would fetch at another market. *shrug*. That could be pretty awesome, if it's worked in so well it just seems like you're playing through a story, and your character was already different from the start, and you simply didn't know your own character's background until you had him divulge it to others when the situation demanded it.

Unless, of course, saying something IS the action. i.e. "No need to go look for your father... he was torn apart by wolves, last time I saw him." When, really, you know he's still alive somewhere. 8P

So, you wish LOTR had said "And then, Sarumon sent 200 level 1 bandits at Aragorn and his group, and they all died because they were so normal and not OP. The end!"? Also, if LOTR is such a good example, then how come they can fight 8 billion orcs at once and come out of it just a bit bloody and fatigued? Isn't that a bit inconsistent? More strawmen? So are you saying you want your party of 5-6 to totally wipe the floor with 200 opponents? That's almost 40:1 odds. I like how you accuse me of strawmannery for simply asking what you had to say about an example that seemingly followed your "Skilled adventurers should be easily slain by 5 or 6 Lvl 1 foes" line of reasoning, THEN you immediately pretend I said "You should regularly fight hundreds upon hundreds of foes at once in P:E and EASILY dispatch them! *jovial laughter*" But, since you brought it up? Yes... I believe 200 rats (who are OFTEN represented as Lvl 1 foes) should be easily dispatched by a party of 6 people, some of whom can summon fire with their minds. So, I believe it is possible. Of course, that isn't to say 200 of anything should be taken on, or that I even think you should ever be confronted with 200 rats. Also, Aragorn and the other heroes of Middle Earth fought in the middle of giant battles (such as Helm's Deep), and never took an axe to the back or an arrow through the neck or arm, much less died. Are they so skilled that they can literally track 50 different archers all around them, and 10-15 orcs/uruk-hai within 5-10 feet of them? For hours on end? Also, even fighting against mythologically stronger/fiercer-than-men beasts, they simply fought on without fatigue stopping them. *shrug*. Just things worth considering, methinks. It's either relevant or it isn't. If it isn't, then simply correct me. I'll be happy to have a better understanding of the matter at hand.

Way too small. This is better. ... That's no moon! It's a BACKpack!!! But yeah, the very nature of the "degenerate gameplay" that keeps popping up (or the only legitimate stuff... people can slap the label on whatever they want) has almost nothing to do with players doing stuff wrong. It's about the fact that players shouldn't HAVE to perform certain actions in order to accomplish what they want. Imagine a hallway filled with traps, with a big shiny treasure chest at the end. A player hates traps. He just wants the chest. Well, normally he'd either have to get past the traps and get the chest, or not get past the traps and do without the chest. Big deal. We all like loot, but we're not toddlers. It's an optional chest. Other players who can get past the traps and get the chest will lack high enough OTHER skills to get other cool stuff, and they'll have to deal with it to. Annnnywho, imagine it's not binary. The game will allow you to get that chest, IF you have all your characters run in circles for 47 minutes straight. You just suddenly teleport to the chest. The people who are fine with the traps as an obstacle will either say "Okay, I'll just not worry about it," or they'll get through the traps and get the chest. There shouldn't be any other option (in this specific example) that doesn't involve somehow getting past the traps. That's the entire purpose of a hallway filled with traps. It's a barrier. You either CAN get past it, or you can't. But, running in circles for 47 minutes is LITERALLY just a waste of people's time, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. You might as well have to write a 500 word essay on why you think you should get that chest without going through the traps, and then instantly gain all the loot. It doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't even be able to do that. Not because "Oh no, you ran in circles for 47 minutes and got the chest o' loot, and I didn't." No, it's because it's horrendous game design. Everyone always wants to make it about "So what... that player is bad because he CAN get to the loot, no matter how stupid it is, and he wants to get to the loot?". But it's not about that. It's not the player's fault. It's the design's fault. Now, if a player pitched a fit and said "This is crap! There are traps, and I don't want to have to get past traps! I should be able to run around in circles for 47 minutes, and then instantly get all the loot in the chest somehow!", THEN I'd say that's degenerate... I dunno, toddler tantrum? That's about as reasonable as "THIS GAME SHOULD GIVE ME ICE CREAM! AND MAGIC POWERS! AND IT DOESN'T! >_<" Getting to shiny loot... not degenerate. Wanting all the shiny loot... not degenerate. Getting to shiny loot simply because you wasted your own time? Degenerate.

The problem isn't how well or poorly written the dialogue options were in other games that happened to use visual indicators to make the tone of those dialogue options distinct... The problem is that, sometimes, with purely written language, the player has NO idea how the line is being delivered by the character. This isn't quite the same thing, but is a good example along the lines of how many different ways text can be misconstrued: The sentence "I never said she stole my money" can have up to 7 different specific meanings (when only emphasizing a single word), depending on which word is emphasized. "I never said she stole my money." "I never said she stole my money." "I never said she stole my money." "I never said she stole my money." "I never said she stole my money." "I never said she stole my money." "I never said she stole my money." So, if we left off the italics (the visual indicator, in this case), you wouldn't know what specific meaning was being stressed, if any. See, the example further above was about a fact. Either Anna was dead, or she wasn't. So, if you know whether or not Anna was dead (you're paying attention to information available to you, the player), you know which is a lie. However, let's try a subjective statement: "I think that's a fantastic idea!" Is that a lie, or is it the truth? If you pick that, are you telling the game that your character REALLY does support the idea, or does he simply wish for someone to BELIEVE he supports the idea when he really doesn't? Why leave it up to guessing, when it takes about another calorie's worth of effort to add in a visual indicator? *shrug* (This response was solely to inform the "I don't even see the problem" posters.)

Both for the sake of humor AND the sake of seriousness, I want to see astonished/disbelieving characters say things like "Dear GODS...!", and extremely desperate/thankful people say things like "You are a gods-send!"

This was touched upon in several other threads, but I felt its own thread would do it some good... The thought that started it was this: Remember those games in which you couldn't jump? So, you came to terms with that, but then you got to some place where it became excrutiatingly frustrating that you couldn't jump, because another part of the level was 2 feet away. Well, isometric cRPGs tend to follow this "no active jumping" trend, and sometimes the level design has something you COULD easily jump (hell, probably even step) across to, but you can't. And yeah, the terrain and areas should probably just be designed differently IF you can't jump. BUT, what if you could? A realistic kind of jump. You know, a distance jump, not so much a 10-foot vertical leap or anything. But, what if you could have an agile, acrobatic character who was better at jumping, and that allowed you to get to certain plateaus (jump across small cliff gaps or raging rapids, etc.)? The Jump ability, for example, could be ground-targeted, and the higher the skill (and/or stat), the longer the range (just like targeting an AoE spell/ability). You could even jump across gaps, carrying one end of some rope, and tie it off on the other end to construct a makeshift "bridge" for the not-so-jumptastic members of your party to get across. That's just one potential use for it. You could also have some quest with the goal of figuring out what so-and-so is up to, in the upper portion of some building, and jumping could provide one of your characters access to the rooftop of that building (from an adjacent rooftop of an accessible building), so you wouldn't have to talk your way in or get to it by other means. *shrug*. Again, just an example option. The same could go for Climbing, really. Climbing certain walls and such. *shrug*. 'Twas just a kind of mental image I had, that lead to some thoughts, that led to a thread.

Yeah. I don't think they've provided all the details yet (or made it clear, if they have), but I got the idea that your non-combat skill points and your combat skill points would be separate. So you wouldn't run into that whole "I gained 5 levels, and upped my Frog-Catching skill by 50, but now I suck at combattery!!!" scenario. 8P

^ I've always loved Tenser's Floating Disc. And whenever we played D&D, I always tried to figure out how to use spells like that in a variety of ways, haha. I think I mentioned it before, but I once used Disguise Self (I think that's the spell name) to make myself appear to be a skeleton, then Mirror Image to make myself appear to be a bunch of skeletons. I proceeded to confuse the hell out of some necromancers. In a lot of cRPGs, stuff like Mirror Image gets reduced to the purely-combat-oriented effect of "There's now a chance for the enemy to attack not-you, increasing your chances of avoiding damage." And with the floating disc, it tends to be simplified to "Now you can carry more stuff." I also love how it was always parallel to the ground, so everyone would slide off if you took it up stairs, ^_^

Stretch kilometerstones!

Oh, it's totally understandable. It just happens. I work at a computer, and I often have to wait on lots of other computers/machines/printers/tape-storage-units as part of my job, so I have a lot of downtime (and these forums are like a bug-zapper in that downtime.) But, yeah, I do the same thing. We're just human. If only we had telepathy... Also, it's really just a matter of perspective. I mean, if we're discussing to solve problems, then the more misunderstandings we accidentally create, the more problems we have to solve! We're creating jobs... volunteer jobs, but still jobs! 8D

Really? I'd go with "Get up out of that! You've got conversation all over your new coat!" as the sequel thread.

^ Even then, they're not really BS, unless you can prove a complete lack of effort. I mean, they're called stretch "goals," not stretch "prophecies" or stretch "legally-binding contracts."

Oh, I assure you I see it. I won't say "I always know and understand EVERYTHING you've ever said, ever!", haha. I'm only human. But, I mean, you've got very good points. Always. It's why I so much enjoy discussing things with you, even in the midst of disagreement, . I would say that "tends" is the key word, though. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to discriminate. It doesn't inherently discriminate, I don't think. I have yet to see a way in which it does. Every example has been dependent upon more conditions than simply the method of designating certain things as XP-awarding, and other things as not (kills included). It is a valid concern. Very much so. But not a valid, inherent truth. The concern can (and should) still be addressed, though. That is what I was talking about in all my "but then it's a matter of balancing" talk. Haha. I would simply specify the exact nature of that need for kill XP as 2 separate parts: 1) Aggressive objective options to kill things (when available) should produce XP, just like any other options toward objectives (whenever available.) 2) The aggressive objective options should be just as plentiful (however many there are and whatever they may be) as the non-aggressive (non-combat) objective options. There should be no trends, in the scope of an entire playthrough of the game, towards one single playstyle or another. Does that suffice? Because, as you've said, sometimes the option to kill should be there, but it shouldn't necessarily reward XP (CR 0 example.) Of course, the only concern I'll add with the decision on who you should be able to kill (regardless of XP) is that certain people HAVE to be integral to the story. If some guy is the only person who can lead you through the mountain, and you need to get through the mountain (no matter what path you take on the other side), then killing him would essentially end your playthrough. And basically being a murderous crazyman in his presence should cause him to flee in terror at the sight of you (thus preventing him from ever leading you through the mountain, no matter what you do, and prematurely ending your playthrough.) That's a very simplistic example, but the control of some things is ALWAYS going to be in the hands of others, and you're only going to be able to go on SO much of a murdering rampage before they know of your actions. People who need things constructive things done (no matter HOW they're done) are not going to trust people who do purely unconstructive things all day long to do what they need. Reasonability always produces limitations, is all.

Sorry... I'm a slowpoke (hence the avatar), and I was typing a bunch of stuff whilst you posted. But, yes! I think we are! *HIGH FIVE* Seriously. I'm not meaning this as "YAY, YOU'RE AGREEING WITH ME NOW!" or anything, haha. I just... don't think it was abundantly clear that what I was advocating didn't actually clash with what you were advocating. My brain tends to compartmentalize aspects of ideas rather quickly, so I tend to have trouble conveying only the minimum amount of information for my point. Hence the ludicrously long posts, which I seriously feel bad for sometimes. You work with what you've got... *shrug* Yes, in your example, where everything that can die gets a CR, every single thing shouldn't get a CR worthy of XP. Things with a CR of 0 COULD still give you XP, but they wouldn't necessarily. If someone gave you a quest to, for some reason, go kill a bunch of squirrels in the forest (maybe they want to piss off a group of environmentalists and pin the blame on another faction?), then you would probably get XP for killing the squirrels, as it just so happens you're accomplishing something beyond the death of squirrels (which, in and of itself, should not offer enough challenge to grant you any XP). See? Flexible, no? ^_^

I see what you're saying. That's a valid concern. I just wasn't really attempting to address that. I feel that it's separate from "what should and shouldn't grant XP?" I think the "character" of your character should be determined by your choices. And I think that's what they're aiming for with the current reputation system. So, I don't think that being "good" (to use the common term applied to such choices) should mean you're restricted to future good choices. But, at the same time, you probably shouldn't be allowed to flip-flop 73 times throughout the course of your adventures. People would basically not trust you after learning that you did super good noble things, AND super crazy depraved things, back-to-back. Your reputation would simply be psycho, and you'd then be restricted to all that people trusted you with (probably just killing and such). Still, though, that has nothing to do with how XP is awarded and its restrictions/effects on things, which is all I was addressing. Restricting access to XP-earning objectives, based on ANY criteria, is completely separate from the decision of what is or isn't an XP-earning objective. If it should grant XP, it should grant XP. If it shouldn't, it shouldn't. If you can do it, you should get whatever it provides. If you can't, you shouldn't. Again, I fully support your points about that kind of restriction and how the reputation system should work in. But, alas, the optimal function of the reputation system, the objective-XP system, and the playstyle spectrum are not mutually exclusive things. EDIT (didn't see your last post before I posted): I might. The term "powergame" still seems really vague to me, so I'm not sure exactly what to say regarding it. Here's an example I'll give, though: At the beginning of Fallout 2, in the little temple test, you could actually disarm every single trap (for individual XP), kill every single thing (for individual XP), and perform some kind of speech action to talk your way out of the fight with your friend at the end of the temple (also for XP). You could also just fight him, and you gained XP. I'm really not sure if one or the other gained you more, but you couldn't do both. ANNNYwho, I personally disabled every trap, killed every thing, and tried to talk my way out of the fight. I designed a character who was actually a bit worse at fighting, specifically to do these things. I also enjoyed these things (within the context of what was presented to me in the game.) In other words, that's pretty much my playstyle. If there are traps to be disarmed, I see it as my own personal challenge to disarm them all. And, while it's nice to gain XP for each, or trap parts (or a whole usable trap), I wouldn't mind if they didn't do that. In the same way, killing all the scorpions was kinda difficult (with limited resources/healing and such, since you couldn't get any more until you got outside the temple). Sure, it was nice that things granted me XP as I went. If I remember correctly, I actually gained a level before confronting the final guy (and therefore was able to raise my Speech skill a bit, to be able to talk him out of the fight.) But, some things to note here are that, in Fallout 2, all your skill points were spent on a single pool of skills (combat AND non-combat), so that level didn't really improve my combat much, simply because I chose for it to improve my non-combat, specifically because I wanted to do the speech option, because of my playstyle preference. It wasn't because fighting the guy got me any LESS experience. Also, fighting him, in that instance, didn't get you anything BUT experience, I don't think, because you didn't actually kill him. So, you got XP for combat, but you also got SOME amount of XP for Speech (which I think is perfectly reasonable, since the skill points I put into my speech skill are dependent upon XP). Also, I finished killing all previous groups of enemies/creatures before I even got to the last guy (for whom I "needed" the level up for the purposes of my playstyle). And, actually, now that I think about it, Fallout and Fallout 2 already didn't award XP until the combat encounter was over. Either way, you didn't gain a level unless you killed all the things (because of XP amounts), so if you opted to only kill portions of them, it wouldn't have helped you anyway. So, I don't know if my getting all the XP that was available to me was powergaming or not, but I did it. I did it not JUST for the XP, though. So, again, I don't know if that means I was powergaming or not. My point being that, if I didn't get XP for disarming each individual trap, I would've been fine with that AND probably still disarmed the traps. Also, I would guess that the traps probably would've been designed differently or maybe even provided different rewards (some kind of trap components or materials or something), if the game was designed to where those traps DIDN'T grant you XP per trap. Also, being able to find the traps (to disarm them) was dependent upon your Perception. And your starting health and fundamental combat competency were decided by Strength and Endurance. Speech was affected by both skill points AND Intelligence, I think. So, it was the developers' decision to allow all three of those things to be high enough for all the traps to be disarmed, all the creatures to be killed, and the final guy to be talked past, meaning that they accounted for the possibility of ALL those things to be able to be done. They could have easily required the traps to require higher Perception, or the creatures you fought to require higher Endurance or Strength to kill all of them, or the Speech option to require higher Intelligence (base Speech skill). If they had, I would expect the amount of XP to be gained to be rebalanced with that in mind, in regard to how prepared for the rest of the game I should be upon leaving the temple. I certainly wouldn't have said "HEY, WAIT A MINUTE! I should've been able to do all three things! And they all should've granted me XP, too, on an individual basis!" So, I don't really see powergaming as the demand that a certain amount of reward opportunities be available to you purely to appease the amount of rewards you want. I see it as "regardless of whatever rewards are available, I want to get as many of them as possible on my playthrough." If that means saving this orphanage, and burning down this other one, and you're able to do that, then cool. But once you start saying "Wait, I once burned a building down, and I gained XP... all buildings in the game should be burnable for XP! Better yet, I should be able to BUILD buildings, THEN burn them down for XP!", that's when you're being ridiculous.

Haha. For what it's worth, I think that "make a better game" "stretch goal" was essentially just a guarantee/promise that they'll reserve that bit of money for extra QA testing and any other lower-priority additions or improvements they can think of, once the core game has been completed. Which, even if they WERE lying about, it'd be kinda hard to tell, without going back in time, denying them that last stretch-goal's worth of funding, then seeing how much testing and improvement went into the game, then comparing the two. That might be about the only valid point the article ACCIDENTALLY grazed. Of course, if anything, that simply means less certainty, not MORE certainty (that stretch goals are lies.) 8P

No, the termininology has not been around since the beginning, even though it fits. Let me get this straight... They made a change to old, "classic" D&D rules, and you're admitting it was an improvement. And yet, Josh Sawyer wants to make changes to old, "classic" gameplay mechanics, and they're INCAPABLE of being improvements because change = dumbing down? He hates old games because he would change them? I like to change the clothes I wear on a daily basis. OBVIOUSLY I HATE ALL MY PREVIOUSLY-WORN CLOTHES! u_u And yet once more, wow... 1) No xp for any combat, ever? ... Really? Next you'll be saying "You actually LOSE XP every time you fight things!" It is a FACT that at least SOME amount of combat will grant XP, since some objectives will be combat only. 2) Define "substantial," Captain Exaggeration. 3) Once again, absolutely no basis for this. They've clearly stated that avoiding combat will have you lose out on things, but that magic chest full of goodies that enemies are protecting isn't going to phase into another dimension JUST because you got to it without killing all the people in the room. Just like sometimes you're going to have optional loot that you can only obtain by fighting (there will be no other way to get it.) Over the span of the entire game, you will not be utterly screwed one way or the other. i.e. "I snuck a lot, and now, at the last boss, I still just have this paper knife, T_T", OR, "I fought everything, but that other guy totally talked his way out of that situation, and he got a WAYYYYYYY better sword than I EVER got from any dead thing in the entire game!" 4) Now you're quite literally just making things up. You're not even misconstruing a quote or legitimate reference or anything here. They've NEVER ever said anything besides "The vast majority of the game will require combat." 5) This is just a culimination/summary of all the figments of your imagination. You, sir, are paranoid. You won't believe or even CONSIDER anything other than your own "reality." Things are the way they are simply because you've decided they are. You can respond with allllllll the words you like, and until you address reality and all examples from it, it's going to be meaningless.

Powergaming is perfectly fine. But it's simply a decision based on factors. You either want to kill everything because the virtual killing is fun, or you want to kill everything BECAUSE it gives you a reward (i.e. powergaming.) Having lots of optional XP already accomodates powergaming. And it's perfectly rational to say "I want to kill these things because they give me XP." What is not in any way rational (and should in no way be accomodated) is the following notion: "I SHOULD want to kill these things, and therefore they SHOULD give me XP!" Is that a clear distinction? I am in no way stating that you're suggesting that should be accommodated, but I know of no option other than further clarification when I specify the exact problem to which I'm referring, and you respond defending a scope that is broader than that to which I was referring. It has absolutely nothing to do with liking XP, or liking killing. It has everything to do with irrationality. I'm suggesting that that's possibly been the discrepancy throughout this whole debate (amongst multiple threads). If you want XP, you're going to make sure you meet the requirements for it. If you just want to kill, you're going to do that regardless of the rewards. If you want neither, then you don't even want to play the game. There is no "None of the above." It's irrational to demand that something you dislike give you a reason to like it (in spite of disliking it), rather than simply choosing some other thing that you actually like from the start. Anything that doesn't fall under those criteria should already give you XP (and is fully able to in the objective-only system.) If someone wants to speculate as to whether or not they'll end up granting XP for all the appropriate actions/scenarios, then that's a whole 'nother story (and something we'll only be able to guess at until we see the final product.)

^ If the problem you've got, though, is "there's CLEARLY too much money to be had," then the easier way to balance it would be to better moderate the amount of wealth to be had. Not "let's add more things in to make this money go away in the event you've got too much." Not that I think temple donations are a bad idea or anything, . I just think that, in a well-designed system, you no longer need money sinks. You simply have money (or things of monetary value; potential money), and you have uses for that money. If the player can specifically go out of his way to wind up with plenty of money lying about, that's not inherently a bad thing. If a player has to go out of his way NOT to wind up with plenty of money lying about, that's probably indicative of a balance issue in your game economy.

I understand that it's not going to be equal XP for every single scenario/instance. But the fact remains that the only time kills already won't provide XP is when they are in no way designated a part of any objective or accomplishment in the entire game. And I still haven't seen any examples brought to light that indicate that is inherently going to be a problem (that there will NEED to be oodles of living things just drifting about with no purpose to their existence other than to provide XP, essentially...). Purely evaluating the mechanics I don't see the system, at its core, restricting anything beyond a reasonable fashion when you DO factor in playstyle preferences. Unless they balance the game wrong, of course (like killing these 50 orcs gets you 100XP, but sneaking around gets you 7,000 XP, or simply never factoring kills and CR into XP rewards WHENEVER you grant them). Assuming they're doing their job in designing around the given system, wanting to kill all the things you possibly can without actually finishing off whole groups and/or completing any objectives or sub-objectives (really just lesser objectives) should not even be a viable playstyle. The only reason you would even desire to do such a thing is if you didn't care about the meat-and-potatoes of the game at all and simply cared about gaining XP on a kill-by-kill basis just because it pleases you. So, it makes no sense. "Those things I completely voluntarily killed even though the game established the fact that their deaths didn't offer any form of progress in the story, a quest, or character progression SHOULD have given me character progression points so that I would've had a reason to kill them in the first place!" If taking the XP award away from a given creature death makes a player say "Then what's the point in killing it?", then no matter what else that creature's death provides, the player doesn't value it at all. So, how silly is it to accomodate that player with XP when nothing but his desire for an XP reward provides any reason whatsoever to do so? "I hate eating asparagus, but I like eating asparagus when I ride a rollercoaster afterwards!". That would mean I don't like asparagus, no matter what, and I DO like rollercoasters. If you enjoy combat, and/or you're going to tackle entire groups/objectives no matter what, then it literally doesn't matter whether or not individual enemies always grant you XP. The only time that matters (via process of elimination) is when you place zero value on the objectives and/or combat and only wish to gain XP points for the sake of gaining XP points. Again, assuming things are balanced well. If they aren't the complaint still doesn't apply to the system, but rather to the specific balancing values/decisions. If I am somehow mistaken, PLEASE, please correct me.

Oh, not at all, not at all. I didn't mean that it's random. I just meant that certain factors can change what was feasible. You know... places it "never" rains, people aren't likely to carry umbrellas. Go back in time and change that climate, and I bet now people there would have umbrellas. You know... mutually exclusive historical circumstances. 8P. Also, the human decision factor. Look at warfare around the Revolutionary War. Even though marching toward each other and standing about forming ranks wasn't the absolute BEST strategy for being victorious, it was deemed "civil," and preference overruled practicality, to a degree. Go back in time and replace the top brass who demanded "civil" combat, and you'd see people choosing drastically different tactics during the same era, with the same weapons and technology. I've always thought things like that would be interesting. Like... imagine if the Roman empire never fell. But it was now the year 2013. I wonder how our technology and designs would differ. I realize that's a lot more factors and ripples than we can even fathom. But, it would be incredibly interesting to see how that affected things, in reality rather than fiction. The things I ponder...

Well, I was not aware of that. So thank you. However, my notion of limitation still potentially applies to any instance in which class skills can overlap, even if it's not technically a full-on multi/dual-class sytem. Just for what it's worth. 8P

So, you wish LOTR had said "And then, Sarumon sent 200 level 1 bandits at Aragorn and his group, and they all died because they were so normal and not OP. The end!"? Also, if LOTR is such a good example, then how come they can fight 8 billion orcs at once and come out of it just a bit bloody and fatigued? Isn't that a bit inconsistent? Also, maybe people don't die instantly when they become impaled with a plethora of arrows, but their muscles tend to stop working when all their oxygenated blood begins flowing out into their torso cavity (not to mention lungs) instead of to their muscle tissue. Not to mention shock... *shrug*