Fearabbit

Experts only use exponential curves. I don't like all the micromanaging that goes along with lots of loot, either. I'd especially prefer it if the game was balanced around a system where selling loot like weapons and armor is impossible, unless it's a unique item. Those weapons you found on the body of a zombie warrior aren't gonna be worth a whole lot to a merchant. But I do want lots of loot. As long as there's a good overview in the menu that tells me which character profits from that item the most.

Fearabbit uses Swoon. It's super effective! The level of detail on the characters is great. Especially if it's still work in progress. In general, these screenshots look very nice, wouldn't mind seeing these graphics in the final product. The only screenshot that looks weird is the one with the dwarf in the dungeon, where the sprite is very bright even though the surroundings are quite dark and he's lit from behind. But I guess that is still being worked on.

Well, "nitpicking" implies that you are, technically, right about what you're saying. Which is impossible with a subjective statement such as "no more pink, I don't like that color". However, I don't completely disagree. Many fantasy RPGs are too colorful because every type of magic has its own hue. You have a dark fantasy setting... and then you put in all these fancy effects in blue, green, red, pink and orange. It's off-putting and can make the world feel very "gamey" (with all these colorful magic effects I'm usually reminded of the highly-saturated worlds of WoW and Torchlight). Restricting the magic effects to only a very small palette of colors can make them feel more like they're part of the world. And if souls weren't represented as bright purple glowy things but as faint white mists, I think that would be much more effective.

I'll just say that I'd love to play an RPG once where I'm actually drawn towards a more morally grey character because I think it's the better path overall. Like, for the world, for the way my party treats me and everything. As always I think the party is a good "micro-cosmos" for this. Each one represents a certain philosophy, certain ideals, they'll favor some factions over others and so on. So what usually happens is that you have to decide between them. As has been said here, siding with the good guys is usually the better option in the game, but even if it were the other way around I'd feel uncomfortable. What if my party would simply adjust their behavior to my actions? Example: Alistair and Morrigan in Dragon Age Origins. I liked them both, but any choice I made always made me side with one of them while the other looked at me in contempt. It felt awkward. What if, instead of starting to dislike me, they'd simply start to quip more about my doesn't-take-****-from-noone or my goody-two-shoes behavior, respectively? Everytime I try to write down how I feel about this I get the feeling that what I'm asking for is "no consequences for my actions", which is of course not what I mean... I think. So yeah, I can understand if people don't agree with me here, but maybe another positive example will get the notion across. In The Witcher 2, you didn't have a party. But there were certain NPCs that acted as your companions in a way: Zoltan, Dandelion, Triss and Vernon. And I really liked the dynamic between them and Geralt. They respected each other even if they did not agree all the time, they all had their own agenda. Sometimes there was tension, but you never felt like you could screw it up with these NPCs. That felt very natural. And you didn't actually miss out on anything (I certainly didn't mind that there was no huge drama between me and Zoltan for choosing different sides in the conflict, and don't think that it would've added a lot). I kind of want this feeling again, and not just in my party, but also in the world as a whole. A feeling that my actions are respected by the game (not each and every faction in the game, mind you, but the game itself) as viable options, as they were respected by Zoltan et al. Because if not, then I'll surely play my usual (chaotic) goody-two-shoes again, and I'll feel a bit sorry for it. (Oh well, this is what comes out when I start rambling about this issue. I hope some of you understand what I'm trying to get at.)

Nope. Because both are fighters essentially, but fight differently. Would a offensive paladin build be similar to a fighter? Yes. Is that bad? No. I detest the "One True Build" approach. If one build is so superior, then why give a choice to begin with? In P:E, we will have several different classes. Forget their names and just think about their abilities. Class 1 will have the ability to sprint across the battlefield. Class 2 can lock on enemies and keep them from escaping. Class 3 can inspire their party. etc. Whichever of these sets of special abilities is the one that best suits your playstyle is the one you should choose. This isn't about builds. There will be different builds. But a mage will always use magic, a priest will always do something god-related... really what you're asking here is "I want to play a priest, but I want him to be a rogue". Look, I'd actually find that interesting. Being able to play as a certain class while being regarded as a member of a different one. There could be an option in character creation for that, so that I can roleplay my character as a fighter, but actually play him as a rogue (i.e. a very dirty fighter) in combat. Things like that. But you're complaining that one class can't do what another can. I have always hated that I can't play a shapeshifting mage in D&D games or that my rogue can't have a cool bird familiar with whom to trade quips and who can distract his enemies while my rogue kicks them in the balls. You either had the luck that your character concept fitted the rules perfectly, or that it was in fact inspired by the character archetypes presented in these games.

Great update. I love the description of the paladins and I think they're much more interesting than they are in D&D. I don't actually think of them as drill sergeants, they sound more like very inspirational, charismatic leaders. Like a bard without a lute. Actually... yep, I think I know who this reminds me of. And the orlans? Well, you had me with the cipher detective. Orlans are like awesome hobbits (with a bit of hobgoblin) and I seriously can't wait to play one. More interested in the Hearth type at the moment, but maybe that'll change when we get to the druid class. (There was a druid class, wasn't there?) But aren't you simply playing a fighter then? If you don't use the abilities that make the paladin what he is, then you just want a fighter that is called "paladin".

As others have mentioned, it's not the case that games used to have predetermined main characters and are only now starting to let you play as whoever you want. Those two approaches have always existed (RPGs were basically invented with the concept that you call "fresher") and they simply offer different experiences. There aren't only extremes, though. We have had lots of in-between approaches as well. You can create your character, but you are the Chosen One, or your father was a god or whatever. You are Shepard, the officer from Earth who becomes the first human Spectre, but you can define your own background, take a class, distribute skill points. And to answer your question: Yes, Final Fantasy XV looked pretty neat. As always, I would prefer a remake of Final Fantasy VI or maybe, for once, a JRPG without anime hair and without strange medieval sci-fi fantasy worlds full of airships and robots. (The point being, of course, that "a modern RPG with characters who are set in stone?" isn't a hypothetical question. These games exist. There are hundreds of them.) Concerning your question about a totally linear game: What does "create your character" mean in that case? You're being very vague. Everything from character creation has to have some sort of impact on the game or it has to be clear that certain things, like your appearance, are only cosmetical. So, do cosmetical settings matter? Of course. They let me play a character who looks awesome. That's nice. Doesn't have anything to do with a linear or non-linear story though. And these other options that have an impact on the game? Well, they can't have an impact on the story, so they will most likely concern combat and other gameplay mechanics. So we're actually talking about options that don't have anything to do with whether the story is linear or non-linear, again. Do you see what the problem is? These are non-issues. You're asking the wrong questions. What you're thinking of is roleplaying. You're talking about the (theoretical) problem that one creates a character and tries to roleplay him as an evil badass, only to find that the linear narrative has him saving puppies from a burning building and, with a smile, returning them to their rightful owners. You're thinking of the old question whether the narrative or your own roleplaying should be more important.

I think Micamo makes some good points. The problem for me isn't that teleporting isn't possible, but that I'm not allowed to even try it. It wouldn't be a problem if the game let me try it only to tell me "For some reason, you can't teleport to the brothel. Something fishy is going on!" Of course, if a game has certain features and keeps on disabling them in order to tell its story, then that is bad writing. All the stuff about actually verifying if that old man has the shard is spot on, too. The game often forces me to roleplay a complete idiot who is always surprised when people betray him or lie to him. I am not allowed to be suspicious. Concerning class-related dialogue: I don't mean stuff like "I see that you're a rogue...", that really is pretty annoying. But when the wizard says "A peasant like you could never understand the intricacies of magical incantations. I pity your stunted intellect." and I'm a goddamn wizard of the same level as him, then I want to have the option to vehemently tell him that. Or better yet, the character shouldn't even make that obviously wrong remark in the first place. This is what I mean. NWN2 often acted as if my main character was a very specific type of character, namely a fighter with no knowledge in thievery (Neeshka's dialogue), poetry and songs (Grobnar's dialogue), magic (the wizard and the sorcerer whose names elude me) and so on and so forth.

You sound pretty angry. There's no need for that. He made a suggestion that he thinks would benefit the game, and pretty much everyone else had a different opinion. He didn't say "it has to be like this" or "the UI in IE games sucked!!". And concerning the Skyrim remark: Everyone before you managed to state their opinion without being condescending. Try it sometime.

Good idea, but no, definitely not. I want to play my RPGs with a mouse in one hand and a beer in the other, thank you very much. Yesterday I wrote a lengthy post that went in a similar direction as your original post here, but I ended up deleting it, thinking "what the heck do I know about UIs?". But in general, I agree that a very simplistic UI would be nice. My idea however was more in the direction of having pop-up menus for commands and activities and all that, while the UI in general only showed the portraits, the health etc. bars and the message box - all of which could be turned off if desired. But yeah, like I said, what do I know? I don't usually build dozens of UIs and find out which work best. I just think that selecting my character on the screen, having a ring menu appear next to him and selecting my commands there has several advantages, especially when it comes to arguments about the amount of mouse movement.

I just remembered one thing I really didn't like about NWN2: It was the fact that the main character didn't have any class-specific dialogue. At least I think that was the case, correct me if I'm wrong. But I kind of remember playing a bard and being very annoyed by my conversations with Grobnar, the bard companion, and by his dialogue in general. He kept going on and on about what life as a bard is like, and about his poetry and whatever, and I couldn't even once say something like "you don't have to tell me, I'm a bard myself you know". As soon as he became a party member, he was the bard. I think I even remember instances where other NPCs would say "I see you have a bard in your party" or something like that, completely ignoring the fact that I was a bard myself. There was no recognition of my personal abilities at all, and that made me feel a bit... ignored. ^^ That's not a problem unique for NWN2, however. Many RPGs don't acknowledge the main character's background. At best, they have some race-specific dialogue.

It could be annoying after a while... maybe you'll find a solution where the more chanters you have in your party, the louder it is. After all with more chanters it becomes more and more your main way of winning a combat. In that case it would be awesome if different chants would actually fit together if they are spoken simultaneously. You know, like your typical Gregorian chant that is made of many different voices. They can be different voice types and different rhythms (and even different speeds), and of course different words, but it all fits together and becomes one giant chant. I imagine that to be very interesting, unique and not annoying at all.

I don't see the problem you're trying to fix. If the game has attributes, then these determine whether my character is combat oriented or not. A good system shouldn't need further input, except maybe for class-specific modifications. I mean, it just seems contradictory to give my thief a charisma stat of 18 and then check the "combat oriented" box. First I say "I wanna be a diplomat", then I say "I mostly want to focus on fighting". If I give my fighter a strength of 18, constitution and agility of 18 and then check "combat oriented", I am saying "I wanna focus on fighting" and then "I really wanna focus on fighting!". There are lots of ways to determine a distribution of combat and non-combat skill points by looking at the attributes, in my opinion the only difficulty is figuring out which is the most intuitive and balanced option.

Good points, but you forgot about Mysteries of Westgate. What did you like and what didn't you like about that one? I've only played the OC so far, because I can't find the expansions anywhere as standalones and I'm not really willing and able to pay 20 euros for NWN2 Complete on gog.com. Didn't like the OC too much, for pretty much the reasons you posted (and the gameplay, as in NWN1, is very confusing and wasn't a lot of fun for me).

I think this is how many people think about these types of games, but I have to ask: Why is an "Action RPG" like The Witcher 2 not a "real" role-playing game? The action isn't actually the point (Baldur's Gate certainly has lots of action), the difference is that it's realtime. And this doesn't actually diminish any other features associated with the RPG-ness of a game (the game has choices, consequences, different ways to level your character etc.). So why is a "realtime RPG" not as much of an RPG as a "turnbased RPG"? This is what I don't understand. For me, games like Baldur's Gate are actually some sort of hybrid between RPG and strategy game. In combat, you do not roleplay a certain character at all, you simply play up to 6 different characters. (Of course nobody forces you to control these other characters, or you could go solo, but I believe when we talk about BG2 we think of tactical party-based combat.) Arcanum, Fallout, Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls and The Witcher let you control exactly one character. One could make a good case that they are the real RPGs.

Handling spells and abilities according to their nature - yes, that would be great. I'm not arguing against it at all. But one has to consider the complexity of something like this. I was just thinking of a situation where I am the one casting the AoE fireburst and it fails to kill its most important target (say, a mage who's far away and buffing his allies but close to death) because the warrior in front of him blocked 100% of the damage. And that would suck. The good thing about oversimplification is that the rules are always clear and it's easy to see what's going to happen. The good thing about more complex systems, of course, is that they add new tactics to the combat and make it feel more realistic. But you run the risk of being not quite complex enough. Your human warrior hides behind your halfling thief and isn't hit by the shrapnel granade, things like that. It may sound obvious that this should be considered, but the more complex a system gets, the more things you need to consider, and I believe it might be some sort of an uncanny valley problem - you make it more realistic only to have the unrealistic bits stand out even more. (Tables provide cover, but chairs don't? Why can't I flip the table for more protection? These questions weren't important before, but now they actually make a difference, they make combat easier!) Buuuuut like I said, I'm not against it. If it's difficult to implement, however, then it's definitely not one of my priorities.

Area of effect spells can be many different things. They can be earthquakes, gases, meteors, emotions... and they're all very different and only a small subset of them can be blocked by obstacles. Most notably light (not lightning though), gases and flames. And these would actually move around an obstacle a bit (just like there's always a bit of light behind an obstacle as well and the shadow isn't completely dark, it's basically the same thing). Cone spells: These are mostly effects that shoot out of your hands in a certain direction. That's usually not an earthquake or a meteor, but something like light, gases, flames. So these are part of the "can be blocked" group as well. I think the idea is good, but you'd have to be careful where to use it, because it can be very frustrating if done wrong. If my earthquake doesn't hit all enemies because some stand behind others, that's stupid. And I think the maximum damage reduction by a person shouldn't be more than 50%. It should not be possible to be completely safe from fire by having everyone stand behind one guy who has 100% resistance. Flames are hot and they move around corners.

Didn't mean to offend, I was just thinking out loud. The bard archetype is something that's pretty important to me for some reason and I guess I was a little bit disappointed that there wouldn't be a class for it (at least not in the typical way). But that doesn't mean that I can't play one, so everything is fine.

I think I'd rather just play a rogue with a lute. ^^ From what we currently know, it seems as if chanters are more like clerics and less like bards... and I don't want a convoluted background story about acoustics just to make my bard character. And the Lego-style poem creation system reminds me a bit of the runes in Legend of Grimrock. I hope they don't do that.

I think "political racism" (or whatever you want to call it) like the one that persists in Europe about gypsies would be excellent in P:E. Or to pick a different example, the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Where everyone agrees that the situation is kind of screwed up and nobody knows what to do about it. In the end, you have to choose a side and you don't really feel good about it. You may even be afraid of becoming a bigot yourself. That would be really interesting for the game. I mean, we are still talking about the game, right? I think it would be very interesting if the game could spark a discussion such as this one. "How could you help the Aumaua?! Didn't you see what they did in that village? They're total ****!" - "Yeah, but the Orlans and the Elves forced them into this way of life..." I would really like to see that. But having this discussion here and now, completely out of context, that doesn't seem to make any sense. (Edit: Also why is everyone telling PrimeJunta that his opinion about gypsies is rubbish when all you do afterwards is to rephrase what he said? Stop that, it's very confusing.)

Bards don't have a stigma! Bards are awesome. The problem is that D&D has one of the worst interpretations of them, in such a way that I simply don't like to play them in D&D games, but generally bards are very cool characters. (Especially if they take the "Dashing Swordsman" prestige class later on...) And anyway combat isn't everything. I actually still don't have a clue how the chanter will be different from a bard. They don't play music and they don't sing, but they recite magical/religious phrases in a very melodical manner? How does that not sound like a character that will stink in combat? Also the class sounds very unappealing to me as a fan of typical bards, because it seems to be more like a cleric who casts his spells by chant instead of by prayer.

I think I'd go with the "Kickstarter is not a shop" argument. The pitch just explains what they want to do, not what they will do. But it's tricky. What are stretch goals? Are they promises? I don't think so, but they are more than just vague ideas too. And while I would say that they're not technically obligated to do implement them the way they described them, I couldn't say that they didn't deserve the backlash of such a change of plans. I'm not a games developer, but I imagine that if you make a pitch to a publisher, you just kind of hope to convince them to fund you. The publisher has to be excited, but what you actually do afterwards doesn't matter, as long as the game sells in the end. And if the publisher isn't pleased, find a new one... and you can't do that on Kickstarter, because that funding comes from the people who actually buy the game. You can't switch your fanbase. So it really is in their best interest to implement the stretch goals as described.

I agree with WotanAnubis. The world shouldn't revolve around the player that much. I don't even want that much power over my companions. I think I remember a couple of games where I could convince them not to commit suicide and stuff like that. I don't want that because then I feel obliged to help these people. When it comes to influence, I want it to be handled exactly as it was in The Walking Dead. Characters have their own personality, but you can convince them to see things from your side, or you can choose not to care and let them have their opinion. And more or less all that this changes is how they speak to and about you. It was so, so satisfying to just be able to play my character a certain way, and get a reaction about that, without constantly having to think that some objectively bad thing happens because of my decisions. Having a dark path and a light path for certain characters is fine, as long as both are equally rewarding. And it should be clear which actions trigger which path that character takes - nothing is more frustrating than suddenly noticing that this guy turned to black magic because I shared my personal (and not overly extreme) philosophical views with him. Oh well. It's always a complex problem, trying to make it feel realistic while gamifying personal relationships at the same time. My main point is that I would like to be in control. If my choices make a character turn dark, give me a way to change that with another dialogue in which I make it perfectly clear to the game which path I'd like for this character. (And to those who would argue that I'm just a **** who can't deal with consequences: That's not it. I love consequences, but they have to feel right. My character travels with this group of people for several months, they should really get to know him during that time. The relationships between them shouldn't be influenced by the one dialogue in which they misinterpreted my answer.)

I think we need to differentiate between the following situations: 1) There is no threat and you don't want to pose a threat. Weapon sheathed. 2) You want to intimidate someone in dialogue - you put your hand on the hilt, you play with your weapon, you place your dagger at the person's neck or you shoot an arrow at a bird in a tree behind the person you're talking to. Whatever works. (Also depends on whether you're angry or relaxed.) 3) You actually want to kill the person you're talking to. You're still talking, however. You have your weapon ready and aimed. 4) You are talking to someone and there is a threat nearby, but it's not that person, and that person knows that you have your weapon drawn because of that other threat. Now, which of these situations require animations? Realistically we want to make it as simple as possible, so I'd say scrap the "at the ready" animation - the only real difference it makes is for bows, as Lephys said. Sheathed and drawn are important animations that should be there. And what about situation 2? You want to intimidate someone or show that you're getting angry... there are dozens of ways to do that. It all depends on what kind of character you are playing. A rogue wouldn't place his hand on the hilt, he'd instantly draw a dagger and (depending on how much he's in control) get close and put it on the person's neck, or idly play with it et cetera. And this is where I think we don't need that many additional animations. We just need a good dialogue system that describes what we're doing in an imaginative way. Same goes for NPCs - we don't actually need a generic system that has them place their hand on their sword's hilt when their "disposition" stat reaches 50%. We need well-written dialogue where, when you say something offending, the NPC doesn't merely reply "You should be careful what you say". The text should read: "The NPC glares at you. You can see his hand slowly reaching for the sword at his belt. With a hiss, he says 'You should be careful what you say.'" For us, the main character, it would be cool to have an interesting description of what we're about to do instead of the typical [intimidate] prefix. Generic ones like [You glare at him], and more specific ones that depend on what weapon you're using - [You play with your dagger], [You casually let sparks fly from your fingertips], [You smash your hammer on the ground in front of him] and so on. The point is: I don't need animations for these, a dialogue system is more flexible.

I agree that manually selecting waypoints would be a good thing. Especially if stealth is implemented in any way, this is crucial. The pathfinding system has no way of knowing if you would like to go a longer route to avoid detection or if you want to take the direct path, and it would be nice to lay out a path beforehand instead of having to do it on-the-fly.