Lephys

A system that doesn't require it? What system requires it?

I think that perhaps the problem some of you are having with the Health/Stamina system is that you're automatically equating "Health" to the very same health in other games that don't use this dual system. So, you're taking an entire game's worth of context and sort of thinking, "Okay, it's like this previous game, but now you've taken away all my healing spells and POTIONS?!" Which is a little understandable, I suppose, given that the word "health" is still used, and it's still a pool of points. But don't think of it like that. Think of it like this: Your health is now called "Stamina," and all the healing spells and potions you would've had in common RPG games are now called "Health," and are sort of a surplus of keeping on. So, in previous games, where you would've NOT had automatically regenerating health, it would get low in combat, and you'd say "TIME OUT! I've gotta have this dedicated healer person over here spend their time and mana -- that they COULD be spending on doing cool, strategic things in combat -- to cause Warrior Will's health to climb back in the opposite direction a certain amount, lest he collapse upon yonder ground." In other words, mathematically, in the games we're used to, you can only mitigate/reverse SOME total amount of damage in a given amount of time before you're out of mana/spells/potions, etc. Well, in P:E's system, all (or most) of that is consolidated into a collective well. Not getting into the difference in realistic representation, it's essentially the same thing as before, only with less micromanagement, especially between combat. Sure, you can apparently affect Stamina regeneration, but it sounds as though (with the "No dedicated healers" bits) that will be more limited than the constant healing of yesteryear. And the reason there has to be some amount of "Health" in this system is that, since your Stamina regenerates rather quickly all by itself, something has to prevent you from having indefinite Endurance in combat. I.e. You're down to one character, and there's one foe left, and you keep making sure you avoid the foe enough to let your Stamina regenerate whatever amount for which you keep getting thwacked by him, in between having your character thwack him. Yes, it's a fairly different system, alltogether, but, obviously the game will be built around it, and it will be tested and tweaked, so all the factors in question (rate of battle damage, rest point locations/distances, armor effects, etc) are going to be integral to exactly how well this works, and all those things are being created from scratch for the purposes of supporting this system. So, please don't simply imagine previous IE games with taverns as the only way to regain health. They are in no way constrained to the already-established underlying math and factor settings of any other game here. That being said, I'm highly favoring the idea of Health only decreasing below a certain Stamina threshold. Whether or not it gets factored in, it's a pretty intriguing idea.

What if you tried to pair up all the stats, so that each 2 affected one effect in different ways? Example: Higher DEX would increase your critical chance, whilst higher INT would increase your critical hit multiplier. The reason being that DEX allows you to more easily strike in certain places, and INT allows you to figure out to a greater degree where will be most damaging to strike. Another would be that maybe CON affects your stamina pool, but DEX affects your stamina regeneration? That one probably needs some work, but I wanted to provide more than one example. Then, perhaps you could simply have each stat affect bonuses to a select group of non-combat skills (STR might affect smithing, throwing, intimidate), and have these groups overlap slightly (some skills are affected by more than a single stat.) On a slightly separate note, regarding things like Intimidate, you could even have class determine the effecting stat. Perhaps if you're a Mage, you intimidate with magic, rather than with physique, so INT (using standard D&D-type stats as an example) would boost it rather than STR. Or, as a Rogue or Ranger, DEX might do it (you elaborately twirl a dagger, or ridiculously-swiftly nock an arrow). Just a possibility of how various stats could be given more uses.

This is true, . And I wasn't trying to be hostile or anything. I was just trying to alleviate worry for those expressing it.

I understand your concern, but you pretty much either trust their ability to coherently make a game, or you worry about their ability to coherently make a game. If they had already made thew hole rest of the game, THEN said "Okay, we're gonna toss a dungeon in," then I might be worried that no consideration was given to making the dungeon work with any other part of the game (loot tables, leveling, etc.). But, since they are still working out the details of the game, as a whole, and already they have announced and planned for this dungeon, I don't see a reason to worry that it the whole rest of the game will rock, but this dungeon will be simply an afterthought that's terrible and doesn't fit at all. There are plenty of weapons and classes and caves to explore in plenty of RPGs that were in from the start, and yet the game can be played without ever using some of them. Yet, they aren't automatically afterthoughts. So, I see hoping it's done as well as it can be. But, I don't see any reason to have cause for worry about this dungeon, purely because it was a stretch goal (introduced, what... 20-or-so days after the "initial pitch"?) rather than an initially-announced part of the game. Dungeons were already part of the game. More money = their decision for more dungeon. Project Eternity - now with 10% more dungeon! It's not as if they announced that this dungeon is going to be programmed and implemented solely by their caterer or something.

Considering that they were planning this dungeon before the conclusion of the period during which the brunt of the funding was collected for the game's development, I think it's safe to say that we probably don't have to worry about it being an afterthought.

I'm not really against the ability to escape combat. I don't want to see it implemented with that weird, artificially coded "flee" mechanic. Bandits: "We've totally got you surrounded, and half your party's toast. FINISH HIM OFF!" Player: "Oh crap." *clicks "Flee"* Bandit Leader: "Wait, hold up guys! I know he only went 25 feet away, but he has invoked the holy rite of Flee!" Bandits: *GASP*... *Fearfully all make attoning/defensive holy gestures*. "Crap, I didn't realize! We almost acted like we would have were he simply still moving within combat... you know, 'cause he's kinda still inside our outpost and all." Bandit Leader: "I know, I know... look, just pretend there was a good reason for us to not chase him around that corner, all right? The rules are the rules!" Heh. As long as it's more along the lines of "Oh good, I managed to misdirect them enough to lose them. We should be okay under these stairs for a few minutes to briefly regroup, but they'll be looking for us now," I'm cool with it. It should just be well-done like that, not a magic mulligan. Hell, you could even have some pretty cool scenarios arise out of that. Maybe you're down to two party members, a Rogue and a Mage. The Rogue is wounded and Feigns Death, convincingly (because he's awesome). The Mage runs off down a corridor, leading the rest of the attackers away from the defeated party majority (and the perfectly-okay Rogue), turns a corner, then renders himself invisible. After the attackers pour into the room and become baffled at its "emptiness," the Mage quietly makes his way back out of the room and back to the rest of the party, where the Rogue has gotten back up and begun bandaging folk and nursing them back to consciousness. Now the Mage joins in. Queue regroup. The attackers would probably perform some kind of search around the area where the Mage vanished for a few minutes, but they wouldn't just stay there for as long as you like. Therefore, it's not quite an "Okay, we're totally out of combat, and can try again at our leisure," but you can still regroup, even if it's not with the entire party back to completely undamaged status.

^ He kind of said it was his opinion. He basically just said "I hope they don't put timers on the act of making your way down through the levels of the dungeon, because, personally, I will not enjoy that." I don't think he was suggesting anything contrary to the fact that it was his opinon. In fact, he literally ended that paragraph, of which you quoted only the first part, with "This is just my preference though."

Correct. I'm merely saying that if someone says "Hey, if we raise $100 more, everyone gets a free lollipop!", and you decide to give them money towards that end, you can't THEN say "But wait, I actually wanted an M&M. I like those better than lollipops." Also, if they've simply said "Here're all the details we've got so far, but there's definitely more to the game," and you decide to fund them (i.e. without any specific mention of any stretch goals, etc.), then you've already agreed to fund their idea based purely on what they've said so far. If they decide to put in Apache helicopters, they still haven't broken any kind funding agreement. They've just broken your soul at that point. Of course, if they said "Just kidding... that Megadungeon stretch goal money is going to go towards the implementation of Apache helicopters in the game," then there's at least be a reasonable right to complain. There might not be any establishment-backed action you can take there, but that would just plain be an untrustworthy move on their part.

^ Well put. It might cost a wee bit o' realism, but your choice of class or your stat allocation for the purposes of combat shouldn't be tied so closely with your non-combat skills. I like the idea of Intelligence contributing to combat for non-casters in some way. I mean, it would definitely affect your precision with weapons, and, in turn, possibly also your critical chance? High strength means higher damage, but not necessarily higher critical chance (you're not necessarily going to be any more strategic with your strikes just because you hit hard.) And, sometimes Dexterity is brought in for things like that, but that doesn't really affect your judgement of distances and wind calculations and such, so I've always wondered how much sense it made for it to improve your ranged weapon damage, for example. I know that's partially in place oftentimes to distribute the importance of the various stats throughout the class lineup, but, still... *shrug*. I think finding a way to make all the stats be more important (most likely in different ways) to all classes would be a good start for the stat system, regardless of how the affects on non-combat skills are handled. I've definitely always hated that huge discrepancy in rather-necessary things like skill points, though, when based upon a stat like Intelligence.

I see what you're getting at, but I'm not really sure just how it would be fixed. Maybe instead of separate stats to pull from, there could be sort of a set of non-combat perks/feats (to use common terms) that you get to choose? Maybe your main stats could still give bonuses (Like INT to crafting and such), but lesser ones. That way, you have a third layer in the mix. You could have, for example a super strong warrior who was fairly dexterous and could have a crafting affinity or something, so you'd get a bonus to the crafting group of skills (purely for example). You still couldn't have 9 Intelligence without taking a decent hit to your crafting cap, but you wouldn't have to have 14 Intelligence JUST because you wanted to craft (if the skill's bonuses were based solely off of Intelligence, which may not provide much else to your Warrior besides crafting competency.) I dunno. There are a lot of specifics to work out there, and I'm only using D&D game system examples. There definitely need to be more skill-cap ranges for all skill groups than "Awesome" and "Teh suck." Just because you're a lumbering, flat-footed Warrior doesn't mean you should be incapable of hiding, should you so choose to improve your stealth skills. You should just be way worse at it than a masterfully nimble thief. And there should still be an overall cap, essentially. If you're more deadly in combat with a sword than 3 Mages of the same Level, you should really have to take a bit of a hit in speech and social skills, stealth skills, crafting, etc. To put it overly simply, you shouldn't be able to master everything. But, you shouldn't have to take a hit in combat effectiveness just to take up some non-combat skills, which is why I think something like a separate group of traits might be in order specifically for non-combat skills (at least as far as the more commonly implemented systems go.) Separate stats could work, I suppose. As I said, though, I'm not sure exactly how.

I don't understand the argument for the extreme precision balancing of the rewards of the megadungeon. If the rest of your game experience remains completely unchanged regardless of whether or not the megadungeon is implemented (if you choose not to partake in it), then I don't understand why it even matters whether the reward for the dungeon is inconsequential or phenomenal. To the people who actually want to do that, it matters. Obviously, if loot rewards are more important to you than gameplay, then you're not even choosing what to do and what not to do based on its gameplay value to you anymore, so there's no point in complaining about it being a grind just to get to the loot you happen to want. Even if completing the megadungeon gives you the Sword Of You Instantly Win The Game, would it suddenly become mandatory to get that sword? Also, I partially understand the "I'm funding this thing, so I should have a say in what the stretch goals were." However, this game is Obsidian's baby, and they presented their ideas to us and asked us to please help fund it. While they probably want to take into account our thoughts and ideas, they never said "Hey, we want to make a game. Give us money, and then we'll decide what game to make." By funding the game, you're supporting their game idea. You're not claiming some guaranteed stake in the game's development, and they never guaranteed they wouldn't spend resources on something that every single person didn't love and want in the game. So, I just don't see a reason to act like they're doing something wrong, or wasting resources.

Whoa whoa whoa... I know you want to equip those boots, but let's not get hasty...

Of course it can be integral to the story. Unless you need to have some kind of completely linear story that your actions have no impact on. Lol, moron. I'll never understand how people can be so comically false. *shrug*. When in Rome, u_u...

Avoiding/"losing" enemy attention should definitely be an option, I think. Especially in stealthy scenarios, such as sneaking into or out-of a hostile-controlled structure or space. I hate that, despite your mastery of stealth, once someone's caught a glimpse of your Rogue, they somehow know where you are forever (in a lot of RPGs). Also, the aggro range of all other hostiles is suddenly tripled, even when you're not even in sense-range of the spotters. It just seems like, no matter how its handled, the enemies become superhumanly skilled at hunting you down or continuing to detect you, rather than a more balanced "Everyone's on alert, so it's more difficult to avoid all of their completely-normal sense ranges" approach. So, "Oh crap, a bear! Do not want!" is totally fine, and it should definitely be feasible to "escape" in that scenario. I don't know how worried I am about being able to give that bear the worst day of its life, then decide that after 5 minutes of battle you just want to get away. That should be pretty tough, methinks. I think even a primal animal is going to be driven into "It's me or you now" mode at that point, rather than "Well, I'm just trying to get you away from my cubs."

Only real purpose it could serve, being digitally recorded and all, would be to provide a basis for effecting the actions of deities or something. Of course, even then, you've almost ALWAYS got deities who can't really be placed on the "Good" or "Bad" sides of the playground team-pick. 8P The only other thing alignment does is that it ensures that objects in the game world aren't crooked. u_u And @AGX-17... Some of us were simply born with defective brains, and the only approach we can manage in expressing our ideas is the "Save your questions 'til after the presentation, please" approach. If I cloned myself, and I were telling myself #2 something, and I KNOW myself #2 would say "But what about..." in response to a tidbit, I feel COMPELLED to attempt to address that tidbit. Especially since one can only be on the forums for so long in a day. Sometimes you log back in, finding that you either need to address 37 replies or start ignoring people. Again... that bothers my defective brain.

You got my joke. Splendid, ^_^ SOMEhow it's torical again? I don't understand how it was ever torical once before. u_u You're right. I forgot... when you don't get that water chip for Vault 13 in Fallout, the story just takes a different path. Called restart. Man, I really like the other path better, though. The one where you keep playing. Crap, man. Every time I've been setting my alarm to wake up in the morning, it's been waking up everyone else in the entire world! Why did no one tell me before now! Also, thanks for not actually disagreeing with me here. I'm pretty sure it was unintentional, but it makes me feel better. ^_^ See Fallout epiphany above. Totally got it. Thanks again! Yes! That! Sorry, I couldn't find the words before, but I was trying to say that I just can't comprehend how having multiple outcomes to anything in the game could be beneficial! I don't even understand the concept of having more than one weapon in the whole game. I mean, if you equipped an axe instead of a sword, shouldn't the game be over? *sigh*... It was worth a shot. I mean, I just wake up every day hoping that ONE day I'll make it to the Forum National Finals. Coach is gonna have me running drills 'til I'm 50... -___-

There's a guy who runs an automotive repair shop down the street. He's a Wizard, and he's always cantrip-ing his tools through the air, and making people's cars glow. He's pretty annoying. Oh... oh GAME mechanics? Sorry. I'm definitely on board against the redundant spells. You'd think that if a child can punch something and generate a little force, and a large man can punch something and generate more force (with the same effect), then magic would sort of work the same way, however you decide it actually generates the force in the first place. Otherwise everyone would be equally as strong in magic. So, it just doesn't seem to make much sense to need a different spell just to make a faster, larger fireball. OR, take what Skyrim did. You've got Ice Spike that hurls an ice spike (go figure) at stuff, for 25 base damage. Want to do more damage than that? Well, you progress a little, and CONGRATULATIONS! You now get ICE STORM! But I don't want to spend more mana to be able to affect more targets every time. I just want to icily spike people, but harder! Nope, too bad, it's the AOE ice storm spell, or the wussier ice spike spell. They sort of half-grazed the issue of spell redundancy, while, at the same time, creating the new issue of spell type restriction. "Want to do more damage? You're going to have to do it to a 1,000 square-foot area, because there's no possible way to more powerfully affect just a single spot using a power which was literally created by human imagination. u_u" So, yeah, I definitely want to see my Mage's spells (and really, this goes for other classes' ability systems, as well) develop alongside my Mage's level of magical ability. Maybe they gain effects as you go (knockback, burning, etc.), and the radii on fireballs and other such AOE effects increase, etc. I'd really love to see actual utility changes, though. The trend in games seems to be that each spell can only do one thing. Oh, it's a fireball? Then it can ignite/burn things. What? NO it cannot knock people down! It already burns things! You need some other knockdown spell for another spell effect! I'd love some manner of spell customization as you level/progress. KIND of like the runes in Diablo 3 (but, you know, without the rest of Diablo 3.) The idea is good there, even if all the runes aren't... Some of the D&D spells kinda did this well, I suppose. Like magic missile gaining missiles every other level. Of course, if the only effect of the spell is damage, then the additional missiles could have been just an increase in damage, only now the spell has a more visually interesting animation. I'd like that depth of choice, though. Perhaps, for the sake of example, the missiles could gain a chance to daze your opponent. Well, when you level up, you could choose to add missiles, OR you could choose to make the single missile larger and more damaging, or perhaps you could add a different effect such as heavy armor reduction or piercing (the missile will damage anything else in its path whilst traveling to its target). Etc. Such things give the player different ways of using spells, rather than simply having every spell effect/damage tier basically be divided into a different spell. Something should definitely be done about buffs, too. The "I obviously want all the buffs all the time, because they just boost numbers" thing is a little silly. I mean... would you have a cooldown on plate armor? "This gives my warrior +5 AC, but it keeps de-equipping every 20 seconds, and I have to go back in and equip it." Again, I think spell effects here would be better than simple number changes; giving the character some effect or status that they didn't already have, rather than simply boosting things. An example would be the common Barkskin-type spell. Make it turn their skin to wood, changing how things affect them. The damage from piercing arrows might not be stopped much, but slashing blades might get stuck in the thick bark. Also, fire would most likely do MORE damage, as the character's skin would now be MORE flammable, etc. As opposed to simply "You look like a tree, but really it's like you just gained a breastplate temporarily."

The only romance I want to see in my RPG is the kind that starts with "nec" and ends with the sound that pirates make. Just kidding. But, in all seriousness, I'm not so much in favor of romance, specifically, being included in RPGs as I am with personal relationships being in there. I don't care if it's just the main character's relationship with party members, or if it reaches outside of that. But, it should definitely be woven into the game at large. Whether or not you're more personally involved with any character should directly affect other aspects of the game in a natural fashion, and I don't mean become your puppet simply because you've befriended them (i.e. This ruler of this kingdom who previously favored slavery suddenly loathes it because you poisoned them with the words of righteousness.)

^ A sprinting/charging system would probably have to be tied to some sort of stamina system, which would have to impact other things as well. But, at the very least, sprinting or charging could provide the benefits of closing distance on a ranged foe much more quickly, maybe increasing the effects of the attack or action due to momentum (tackling, severing limbs or disarming [no pun intended, but pun appreciated], etc.). There would have to be some detriment, though, like I said. It could totally work, though.

Synchronized running. It could be well-choreographed. Problem solved. Sport created, u_u

As opposed to intelligent BS. Thanks for clarifying, . I'm sorry I answered your obviously rhetorical question on a discussion forum. I guess I should have listened to the screen harder to determine your tone. Again, totally my mistake. The problem with what you're saying lies in the fact that this is a video game, designed to achieve goals beyond the simulation of the impact of time limits in reality on our decisions in reality. A game is meant to be enjoyed, and an RPG is meant to be enjoyed in innumerable ways, compared to other games. If you place a time limit on the whole game, you basically place every single player on the same schedule. If you design the whole game around that schedule, you've basically got a linear RPG with a whole bunch of branches. Because, if a city falling to a siege can happen just because you didn't even go to that city in time, then it CAN'T have been integral to the over-arching story that you be at that siege. You'd either have to make everything basically inconsequential to any kind of coherent plot, or you'd have to have people fail every time they didn't make it somewhere on time (Fallout water chip example). The only USEFUL impact of a global timer like that is that it makes your choices have consequences. This is an impact that can be achieved by other means without the unintentional negative consequences. In other words, with the city siege example, the intended GOAL of the timer is to make the player's choice of how to handle the situation a significant one, rather than just "something you can do when you feel like it." If everyone in the city dies and your enemies now inhabit the city because you didn't get to it before the siege occurred or simply ignored the siege, then either: A) It doesn't really matter, things are just different now, OR B) It mattered a lot, and now you've failed. If it's A, then you keep going until something else in the game is eventually B. It's just like character death. You can't just make it "Oh well, you're a spirit now, and you keep going, and can never attack anything or speak to anyone again." No, you literally are incapable of finishing the game at that point, so you HAVE to retry. Eventually, something's got to be failable, and force you to retry, and if you know that's the case, then you KNOW that with a hard global timer, you're making players re-do 20 hours of gameplay to correct their timing issues. It's not "Oh well, you'll get different outcomes on a different playthrough." It's "Oh man, maybe you'll actually get to finish the GAME this time!" Which is about as enjoyable as a blade coming out of the PC and stabbing my arm every time my character takes damage from a dagger.

I'm with you regarding current games' aggro systems. I realize it was a simplistic mathematical method of keeping track of how much of a threat your party members pose based on position, actions so far, and circumstances, etc. However, games started basing everything off of it, completely disregarding that it's overly simplistic. Just like you said, "Taunt" isn't always going to work. Just because your warrior becomes a better warrior, doesn't mean his effort at drawing the attention of an opponent automatically makes them completely ignore tactics. The other problem you run into for this is when the system tries to make the AI system ALWAYS use the "best" tactics. This causes predictability, which is sort of contrary to the proper use of tactics. For example... if it's OBVIOUS that the warrior should always go knock the mage around to keep him from tossing spells left and right, then it's automatically obvious that a goal should be preventing the warrior from getting to the mage. But, now, the goal back on the other side of the battle is to prevent the party from preventing your warrior from getting to the mage. Etc. etc. It comes down to choices. You have to pick SOMEthing out of many options, then go from there and adapt as you go. There are always multiple options, based on what options you want to eliminate for your opponent. For this reason, I think it wouldn't be horrible for a chance dice roll to choose enemy tactics (out of a pool of reasonable choices, obviously). And, for things like taunt, I think there should be a CHANCE that that bandit just gets overcome with rage at your taunt and charges you without considering the intelligence of such an action, rather than some aggro number that definitely gains a certain amount every time you taunt (that's basically an automatic success every time, even if the number doesn't increase enough for him to change targets.) Much like your ancient dragon example, the options and chances would be different for different enemies. But, I think running into a group of goblins and having them fight COMPLETELY differently than another group of goblins you fought would be amazing. Instead of the "Oh yeah, it's this enemy, so it's definitely going to do this, every single time." It'd be nice to "know" the enemy's warriors are going to come after your mage, only to see them team up on your warrior. And, what's this? Their mage is attacking YOUR mage? But, a mage doesn't have an advantage against a mage! Well, too bad, it's happening, and now you've got to react accordingly.

I did, actually. I apologize; I sort of stuck to clarifying my argument regarding the global timer/proper usage of timers in general, rather than trying to do that AND respond to your whole previous post. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but I'm already wordy enough as it is, haha. Seriously, though, I'm sorry about that confusion. For what it's worth, your soft timer example makes perfect sense as one way of getting around the problems I'm posing with the hard clock-timer. Well, it goes along with what you were saying about pausing time during re-outfitting/dialogue, etc. I'm merely trying to illustrate from a strictly logical breakdown that, if you're going to pause time for anything, then you're not really dealing with a static, active timer. If you're going to acknowledge that certain processes (such as reading and choosing items to purchase) are going to lose all accuracy in the real-world-to-game-world time translation (which one should, and you, personally, are), then you have only 2 options: Break up the static, active timer (freeze time) in order to account for this time discrepancy, OR keep it going, thereby applying the timer directly to player processes which gain nothing from being timed other than inconvenience. And I wasn't trying to say that you were advocating anything and everything that I wasn't. I'm only trying to illustrate the problem with a global, always-ticking, everything-in-the-game-happens-at-certain-times-no-matter-what timer. The benefit of tension comes only in the situations in which the player is directly dealing with a problem. So, in that way, what you do in the hours leading up to a city siege is irrelevant, so long as it isn't something that would understandably have you missing the city siege (leaving the city to explore a cave, sleeping for a day, etc.). Once the player is allowed to affect the siege in any way, a timer provides a strategic tension, and all choices from there on out gain added significance. So, whether or not you do it via the commonly-used "Okay, we should go to the walls to start prepping for the attack" dialogue option that then queues time to skip to some starting point for the siege, or via some other means, there is literally no point in ticking down a clock during any period of time during which the player is partaking in any other game mechanics which are understood to require little to no time on the characters' parts. As for specifically how this should be applied in P:E, we'd obviously have to know the exact setup of the entire game's story and all its quests, so all we can really do here is theory-craft to determine what type of equation works best with what sorts of factors. And, for the record, I'm very much in favor of having certain choices/occurrences that cannot be experienced during the same playthrough as others. I LOVE replayability, and find a lot of games unnecessarily lacking in it. You just don't want a timing system intended to meaningfully support player choices under appropriately tense circumstances to HAPPEN to make a bunch of content unintentionally require another playthrough. Another way to look at it is, if EVERYTHING in the game becomes tense, then the benefit of the contrast between tense and non-tense situations becomes lost. You run into "should I even attempt to explore that town, or should I just skip it? I might waste time simply finding out whether or not I deem anything in that town worth my time." All things in moderation.

Excellent ideas, 8D. I agree that crafting shouldn't be made mandatory in any way, but it seems like it's always SO optional that there's pretty much no incentive unless you just happen to enjoy crafting systems in general. I think if you build the item tables/system properly, you can have craftables provide benefits and variance without them being inherently better OR worse than all other items/loot in the game. Durability/longevity is one area that provides a good example, but most other games take this to the extreme. If you make weapons break and become useless after 2 fights, then any kind of increased durability from crafted weapons would basically turn into "I have to craft to avoid this huge invonvenience." BUT, you could use something like durability if it weren't quite so extreme (ranging from my sword is so awesomely durable it has added benefits down to my sword is literally unusable), or allow customization and variance in an otherwise non-randomized loot system. It should be like picking characters for your party when you can have more companions/followers than you have party slots. You shouldn't feel like the game is worse or incredibly inconvenient without every single one of them at the same time, but there should be a clear benefit to having each one of them in your immediate group. What's highly annoying is when something is blatantly made optional by having it provide pretty much no benefit. In some RPGs, you specifically make sure you have a Rogue in your party at all times and/or put enough points into lockpicking, only to find that 90% of the lockables you unlock provide pretty much nothing (like 100 gold when, at the point in the game you're at, standard foes are dropping 300 gold a piece). Or, anything of any significance is actually hard-wired with one of those "You cannot pick this lock and must have a key" systems, even when getting past it is simply one option among various quest solution branches, or something of the sort. Implementing a system that's intentionally optional and never provides anything that any player might consider something to "miss out on" is a waste of resources, and crafting is no different.