Jerky33

Yes, that's the largest issue. How about you just not award any exp for killing those specific enemies after the quest is completed? And maybe no loot can be dropped from them either, not sure about that one. Been saying this for 3 weeks.. *sigh* I mean, it's such a logical solution... maybe too logical?

Yes, that's the largest issue. How about you just not award any exp for killing those specific enemies after the quest is completed? And maybe no loot can be dropped from them either, not sure about that one.

I still don't understand why you can't award higher exp for solving quests peacefully. Is it because you can do it peacefully, then kill the bad guys anyway? I'm sure there is a solution to that problem that doesn't include taking out all combat experience.

You are pro-quest exp, and I'm pro-enemy exp and the game will have only quest experience so that's that. Like I said, if it's done well, I probably won't notice or care. Regardless of whether or not enemies give experience, I would prefer to have areas be more like Baldur's Gate 1. More nonlinear, more open, more realistic in terms of encounter density (which is to say, not very dense). I would also prefer if areas didn't unlock only if you had quests associated with them like Baldur's Gate 2 did. I liked what I saw in those screenshots from Rezzed, so it looks like they're on the right path.

How is that any worse than being able to become better at diplomasy or picking locks by cleaving goblins? Combat XP has also the same problem. I agree with you. I think that the Elder Scrolls does a decent job of increasing skills by performing said skills rather than arbitrary experience levels. This is a very high level issue with computer RPGs, and obviously the ES system is not going to be used here. It just feels to me that reducing the potential sources of experience can potentially hamper motivation, but it's all about the execution. If they do it well, I don't think anyone will notice/care.

The point I was specifically referring to was the fact that people become better at what they do by actually doing that thing, not doing something else. A fighter will still get experience and become a better fighter for doing a quest that has no combat, and will not receive any experience for actually fighting.

I'm not sure I understand the motivation for removing experience for killing enemies. Is it just because of the grinding aspect to over-level? Because that's a choice that every player can make for themselves. If you don't want to grind to become too powerful for the content, then you don't have to do that. I only did it once in Baldur's Gate 1 out of all my playthroughs, and I wouldn't do it again. And AGX's explanation of a fighter increasing his skill is something else that I have been thinking about. People on here talk about preventing PE from being "gamey", but having experience for only questing is probably more gamey than the other option.

Yeah, this is a big reason why I don't like the idea of no experience for killing enemies. It really discourages exploring every inch of a map for encounters.

In order to foster a sense of exploration, you can't have an encounter around every corner. I think you still need to leave a good chunk of an outdoor map free of threat in order to cultivate a sense of drama. Otherwise it just degenerates into an action game. I agree with this. You can't just have areas packed with stuff, it's just too much. Encounters should be interesting and fun to discover, if areas were packed, it would just get tiresome to explore through everything in every area.

Jokes are fine, but it all depends on the audience. You don't go in front of a gay community and make gay jokes, then say "relax guys, it's just a joke!" You might not realize it, but something you consider a joke is not a joke to other people. Sure, I make racist jokes a lot, but only with my friends, who also make jokes like that and know that they are only jokes. I never make jokes like that outside of that group of friends, because people are easily offended. I don't feel like I'm "walking on eggshells my whole life". Is it really that vital to your life that you make jokes like that in front of people who would be offended by them? All I'm saying is that just because you think one way, it doesn't mean that everyone else does too. You might know what your purpose is for telling a joke, but other people can't read your mind, and therefore don't know what your intention is. Sure, some people may understand it's a joke, but some people might not. They might think you are pretending it's a joke, just so that you can say something bad about them without getting in trouble. Is it worth getting in a nice joke at the expense of someone's feelings?

That kind of problem could easily be solved by an option "disable death animation/scene" or something like that. Yeah, it's nice to leave it up to the imagination, but it's also nice to see professional writers come up with a story about it (otherwise, why would we buy books, we could just imagine our own stories instead).

This part is tough, because if you happen to choose a female for your main character, almost all of the dialogue would have to be different to reflect the fact that many people will be biased against you. If it's not different, then it's that familiar scene in video games where your character is the only person in the world that doesn't follow the rules that all other people follow, and it won't feel natural.

Everytime I play an RPG, I always wonder how the story would turn out if my character dies. I doubt this is something that will happen for this game, but I just wanted to know what people thought of this. After you finish your first playthrough (so the story isn't ruined for you in the first playthrough), you unlock a story of what happens when you die. I understand that this would only be meaningful on the first death of the playthrough, then you'd be skipping it for the rest of the game, but it's still something interesting for me. When you die, there would be a narrative or scene or whatever describing what happens in the future following your death. For example, in BG 1, Sarevok wouldn't have you to take him down, so he becomes the most powerful Bhaalspawn (of course there would be more detail than that). Is it just me, or would you like to see something like this someday in a game?

I guess it's difficult to say, because different styles of kung fu center around different things. There are forms of kung fu that are based on evading and deflecting attacks. There is also the "iron shirt" which trains the body to withstand damage. I don't know if shaolin monks used armor or not. Hollywood just exaggerates what is taught in these disciplines. It's not like there is absolutely no quickness and dexterity possessed by monks.

So you wouldn't mind a "mage" class that can't cast spells or anything, wears plate only and uses a two-handed sword exclusively? That's okay. I will say:"Why the **** do you call this class 'mage'?" I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats. If you've read Saladin Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon (if not, strongly recommend that you do) then Raseed is a great monk in my mind. Almost everything in the fantasy genre comes from something in reality. The class names are just a way to group types of people to easily play a game. I'd argue that a warrior is TOO general a term, because it doesn't only describe someone who fights in armor and with weapons. A monk in this case (and most cases in RPGs) would also be classified as a warrior. I think the reason most people are hesitant about this character being a monk is because this character seems like a very blunt, straightforward fighter who jumps into the middle of a melee taking hits, whereas real world monks from which most RPG monks were modeled after were not only strong, but agile and quick and able to evade attacks.