Fearabbit

I guess my Tides would be Red and Silver. Those are the ones where the answers to the "tough questions" above are most similar to what I would've said. I kinda wish I was more of a Blue/Gold type, but oh well. ^^ Selfish fame-seeking bastard it is. As for the combat: I like turn-based combat systems a lot, especially the ones from Shadowrun Returns, X-Com and Fallout. It's the "philosophical" combat system and it suits TTON quite well. What I really don't like about their idea of it is, however, that it's once again a system with full control over the party. For once, I'd love to play a classical RPG where I only control one character, my main character. You know, like Fallout and Arcanum. I want to issue commands. I do not want to have my main character turn into a demigod that controls his companions like puppets when they're in combat mode. I've always thought that was weird, because in the rest of the game I can't use them in that way - I can't tell my rogue companion "hey, you do the talking, you're better at it" and I can't tell the token betrayer "hey, don't betray me!". To me that's an annoying dissonance.

Doesn't make any sense. A one-shot kill can occur whether you killed 8 other enemies before or not. It has the same probability. If the mage was casting a powerful spell that took a couple of turns to charge, yeah, then it makes sense to kill him first. And if you know that a mage is capable of killing you in one hit, it makes sense to kill him first in order to lower the probability of that happening. BUT if you just killed 8 enemies and now you're standing there, barely injured, going against one mage - that's exactly the same as if you didn't kill the 8 enemies before in terms of "how high are the chances of getting one-shotted by that mage". As for strategy/tactics (what's the difference again?), I would like a game that didn't have these generally accepted perfect ways of fighting. Like "of course you have to take out the mage first, and you have to buff your fighters with your casters, and Haste is overpowered so use that as often as possible"... I don't know if that means that I want a non-tactical game. I do want to think about my fights, and if I have a checklist of things I have to do to win a fight, well, that's not really the case then, is it? If a combat system is so balanced, however, that every action in itself is just as acceptable as the next one, and your choices are purely based on circumstantial priorities, that sounds more like tactics to me.

It seems to be composed entirely out of "battle maps". There doesn't seem to be a big exploration aspect to it. The battles look like they play like a traditional party-based RPG, but it's certainly strange to always be in combat mode. I don't know if I can get used to that.

No, that's what I sound like when I'm excited about something. And I think my post was way too rambling to be considered a sales pitch. ^^ I mean, all I'm saying is "it sounds promising, the developers are well-known and the world this game is set in is actually the most popular PnP game world in Germany/Europe". I also say that I have mixed feelings - I want to be hyped, but I know that these developers are sometimes a bit too ambitious for their own good. And I say that I'm sceptical because they've only made adventure games before. Basically, I'm not seeing the dishonest sales pitch thing going on. Maybe you were confused because most of my praise is actually concerning the world of The Dark Eye, which, yes, I knew about for longer than a couple of minutes. Like I said, it's the biggest PnP RPG in Germany and I've played that and I've played the adventure games (by the same developers) and liked those as well as their take on the setting.

Er, I hope you're asking me how much it costs and not how much I get for promoting this game or something like that. Because I get nothing and I'm just excited about this (and skeptical, like I said) and want people to know about it. Here's the Steam page for it. Thanks for the video, Elerond!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CBGhGymP8Y Official Website Steam Page So, anyone heard of Blackguards yet? No? Good, me neither, up until I saw an article by Rock, Paper, Shotgun a couple of minutes ago that said it was now out on Steam Early Access. What is Blackguards? It's a turn-based tactical RPG set in the world of The Dark Eye (the most popular Pen and Paper RPG in Germany/Europe), Aventuria. It's made by Daedalic Entertainment, the developers of Chains of Satinav and Memoria (two adventure games set in the same world) and other adventure games like the Deponia series or the Edna & Harvey games. They've been very successful and popular within the adventure game genre, is what I'm saying. Apparently, they now want to try out a new type of game. It sounds very promising: Short version: Your character is a convicted murderer who must save the world, facing many moral choices along the way. And you won't be able to win the game by always being nice. That sounds fresh and interesting. And in my opinion, the world of The Dark Eye is more interesting and more beautiful than the Forgotten Realms, so that's another plus. The screenshots are also great, even though I'm not a huge fan of all that fancy colorful magic (but it could be argued that any RPG can look like that if the screenshots are taken at the right time, so I don't know). It's out on Steam Early Access, so it's still in development but apparently not too far from release. My personal thoughts are mixed - it's an RPG by a company that mostly made adventure games so far. And while I loved those games, they were all a little too ambitious for their own good, and this looks to be one of the most ambitious games they ever made. So, what are your thoughts? Are you interested? Is anyone already playing this? Couple of screenshots:

For me, it's always strange to read this kind of sentiment. Morrowind was the first fantasy game with elves that I've played, and there were many many bearded elves in that game. For me, it's completely normal. I'm not saying this to brush aside your point of view, not at all. But since I didn't grow up with any "canonical" fantasy settings, I just have a completely different perspective on the necessity of these typical characteristics of a fantasy world. I don't need dwarves that are small and fat and live in mines and grow long beards and I don't need pale long-haired elves that are in tune with nature. In fact, if a world is too much like Middle Earth, I'm a bit disappointed. Which is why I'm very happy with everything I've heard about PE's world so far. Rennaissance instead of Middle Ages, (some) bearded elves and (some) beardless dwarves, soul magic, ciphers and chanting... I think this world will be very interesting and unique enough that people won't feel like some typical fantasy thing is missing.

I think I just really like names that give me the idea that this is a franchise. Like "The Elder Scrolls" in combination with the region of the current title, or "Forgotten Realms: Baldur's Gate" (that wasn't really the title I think, but it was still clear that this game is part of a larger world, of something epic.) "Pillars of Eternity: Defiance Bay" sounds pretty nice, I think. Of course I don't know how important Defiance Bay will be, so the name might be misleading. But a name like that makes me think: "Oh nice, so something will happen to those aforementioned pillars in this game, perhaps one pillar that holds the eternal cycle of souls in place will be shattered, and it all happens in Defiance Bay!" "Pillars of Eternity" alone makes me think that this is a general theme of this game, and it doesn't excite me very much. It sounds like it is meant more metaphorical and that we are the pillars or eternity or something like that... so it doesn't actually tell me anything about the game. I don't know, it's highly subjective. Another (perhaps more important) problem is, of course, that the next game would have to be called "Pillars of Eternity 2", which is always lame. ... such as? Take your pick.

Yes, but I'm assuming that most people here aren't actually talking about cliches like "they're powerhungry" and stuff like that. We actually don't want characters without cliche traits - we don't want characters who are cliches themselves. So it's kind of a criticism of the metanarrative. For a typical RPG villain to be a cliche, he must go beyond "powerhungry". He must also have a secret base under a volcano, he must have armor with lots of spikes, he must say "fool" a lot, he must have minions, he must have a throne, ... And I guess the things he doesn't have are also quite important. For example, a loving family. I don't think I've ever seen a villain in an RPG with a family, with a partner, with friends... really anything that would be normal for a human being. Of course, it makes sense because he's so powerhungry that these things would get in the way. It's this type of ridiculous caricature of a bad guy that we call cliched and do not want to see. It's very, very specific in its absurdity and therefore the opposite of a cliche that exists for a good reason. The crazy thing is that this cliche villain is not only highly unrealistic, it's also very useless for an RPG with choices and consequences. It's impossible to compete with a villain that's so comically evil when you play an evil character yourself, for example. Imagine how interesting things could get if he had a weak spot, like a family or friends. How would the story unfold? Maybe you can lure him out of his fortress by capturing his best friend and forcing him to go on a rescue mission? These interesting opportunities are completely blocked out if you design a villain that's "too evil" to care about friends.

I agree with SunBroSolaire. Whether this was supposed to be a troll or not, the gist of it ("I prefer 3D games to isometric games") is totally understandable. Personally I wish there were more games that could be played with nothing but a mouse, because it's such a laid-back experience. That's something you just can't have with a 3D RPG like Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol, and it's the reason why I've hoped for some great isometric RPGs for a looong time. Oh, also I like the visuals of a great 2D game. A game like Torment: Tides of Numenera wouldn't be possible without having a huge budget for the graphics if it was done in 3D. I mean I'd totally play the heck out of that 3D game, but the point is that imaginative designs like this are more likely to happen when they're cost-efficient - otherwise companies have to play it safe and take a more traditional look.

I'd like the custom companions to have no personality at all, apart from a certain type of voice of course. But essentially being able to make a party with characters who don't always bicker and fight with me is the main reason I even want the feature. As for the Adventurer's Hall... I'd love it if it just was some tavern, nothing more. Maybe a well-decorated one, the most popular place in Defiance Bay... but I don't want it to be some fantasy building like the ones proposed here. That sounds artificial and gamey as hell. I mean it could be a guild of mercenaries or something. But then you only get "guild members" which is kind of limiting. I prefer a simple inn which is well-known and popular and where adventuring types just tend to hang out. I'm also against introducing the Adventurer's Hall as a location via quest, or having it tied into the narrative... look, for me the whole concept is already pretty gamey. Tying it into the game and explaining obvious gameplay mechanics with some handwaved lore would make it even worse. I would even have preferred it if the whole character creation thing was a game menu, not an actual location. And if they tied it into the world by saying that you hung up posters and a character who fits your description then tracks you down and joins your party. Won't happen, but I'm fine with having a location as well, as long as it doesn't stand out too much and doesn't have a ridiculous lore about how the Adventurers Of Olde built it so that their noble trade gets honored or whatever.

Valorians, but your current example isn't balanced, because you didn't say anything about how base damage or weapon speed affect the enchantment. In your example a faster-than-light dagger (roughly 10^9 hits per turn) that does 0 damage each hit has a 100% chance of paralyzing the target in one turn. A hammer that hits once per turn only has a small chance of maybe 10%. You can either balance that by tying the enchantment to the base damage, or to weapon speed. 1) Tying it to weapon speed: That's the capacitor example, in which the weapon needs a small time to regain full enchantment power again. Both weapons have the same chance to paralyze the target in one turn. 2) Tying it to base damage: That's the battery example, in which it has an (in this case infinite) pool of enchantment power from which it releases small bursts. For some reason weapons with more damage also release larger bursts. I have to say though, bringing skill into the discussion by implying that it would affect weapon speed is not going to help anyone. Skill could also affect base damage, or both. And that's not important anyway - weapons need to be balanced at the same skill level.

Related discussion on the Order of the Stick forum Might not look like it at first, but this discussion is very similar to the one we're having here when it comes to the "bigger picture". I'm obviously agreeing with everything Rich Burlew (The Giant) is saying, but it's an interesting discussion as a whole. It starts with the in-comic complaint of an Ancient Black Dragon that, just because their hatchlings have stats in DnD, humanoids think it's okay to kill them. It quickly turns into a debate about having any "monster children" that can be harmed (even by accident) in your game. The key questions that arise are: Why is it worse to kill an infant or child? What is the point of putting them in the game? If there's a moral dilemma at play, how many people realize that, or even care about it? Note that this is based on the fact that some monsters have stats even as infants, and they appear in your adventures as enemies. That situation is different from what we were discussing here, but it's an important one as well, and like I said the "bigger picture" answers tend to be the same on both sides of the argument.

Isn't that always the case with different kinds of magic? I never really had the feeling that psionic powers or prayers in other settings were different from usual magic. (The difference between sorcerers and bards is usually that sorcerers have a "Bravery spell" while bards have a "Song of Valor".) The difference for me is that the Cipher powers are magic that you don't see, other than the purple glow around the weapon (and probably a general visualization). There's no fireball flying towards you, no demons being summoned to attack you... it attacks the soul directly. You can't hide from it, you just have to hope that your psyche can handle it, and that's what's scary about it.

I'm pretty sure that, throughout history, people have employed the "Ha-hah! You can't attack me without killing all these innocent 'shields' around me, but I couldn't care LESS about all these silly people!" tactic. It's pretty simple logic to baddies. "I'll employ a factor that gives me an advantage." So, I'm not going to say the world HAS to have this in it. But, it seems like a pretty forced thing to just say "Nope... no one in this world, run by fallable humans, could EVER have the means or desire to execute some plan utilizing the innocent populous as counter-attack deterrents." Not to mention, you can't even have any kind of specific scenario in which you need to save an endangered child without: A) Allowing sadists to intentionally allow the child to die OR contributing to its death, OR B) allowing ONLY the enemies to damage the child, and thus rendering the danger of the situation somewhat moot. I'd say a complete lack of conflict in areas populated by innocents, in general, is a larger concern, but the endangered child scenario is just something else to think about. I didn't go into this much because mcmanusaur already said exactly what I think on the matter. I have nothing against children coming in harm's way in some dramatic showdown of a quest, where you have to make a difficult moral choice. I think it's a crucial difference whether you (can) just go around and kill them, or whether you have to make a concious decision in a quest. And I wouldn't mind stand-offs in crowded places. That's not what I was arguing against. But I didn't express very clearly what I was thinking of in that post you quoted, and there is a reason for that: My emphasis there really was on the "you'll not notice the lack of this feature". Which is just a feeling I have - I think that before a game comes out, you can talk all day long about what creates immersion, what ruins it, which features should be in a game and all that. But at the end of the day, many of these features are just very tiny details in the overall experience and they get blown up by our imagination. We think of a game that doesn't exist yet, and we say "how cool would it be if the economy is actually completely realistic, and if I kill that farmer the prices for wheat go up in that village!!". And then the game comes out and we couldn't care less about a small town's wheat prices because we just have these 100 rusty swords from our stash that we want to drop off. And no that's not an argument for anything. It's just something to consider while having this discussion. For me the important question is: What's better, having no children in the game or having children in the game in some way? According to the poll, the majority here wants children. Whether they're killable or not is much less important than that, even if it seems like kind of a big deal in theory (and even if it might cause real world problems for the game or not). Also, being able to slap them is still the best compromise. I mean, going on a "slapping spree" is much more fun than a killing spree anyway.

I just wanna say thank you to this thread and especially you, Fluffle, for introducing me to Once Upon A Time. What a great show!

Umm, because that IS the topic? Look at the OP and the poll options. Anyway. You guys keep repeating your arguments while still not giving any motivation other than "I want to be able to go on realistic killing sprees", with a very narrow definition of "realistic". One point was made about having to restrain oneself as a good guy when children are around... I like the idea behind it but how often do we fight in places crowded with innocents anyway? And wouldn't I try to restrain myself for the adult innocents anyway? I think people give this and their logical reasoning concerning it too much weight. As a normal player you won't ever notice the children or try to interact with them. Because there will be all that awesome stuff to do. You won't fight in crowded places but spend most of your time on adventures. By the way, I recommend that everyone here read the blog entry in the link a couple of posts above (can't see the name of the guy right now), it's excellent. Especially because it made me realize that the same people who didn't want to have to repair their gear now want killable children because of immersion.

(I'm really growing allergic to this kind of question.) No, it's not acceptable to kill the farmer and all the workers. And you're not supposed to. You can kill them all because you might want to kill one of them. The game doesn't allow you to do this because it wants you to go on a killing spree. Maybe you should think about why you want to kill all these NPCs and their children. Is there a reason for this? Or is it just for the lulz? And yes, it's even less acceptable to kill their child. Because children embody innocence and vulnerability at the same time, and we have a natural, hardwired instinct to protect children, and because society (and most people living in it, minus the sociopaths) finds it morally reprehensible, period. But why am I growing allergic to these questions? Because they're the standard questions that always come up in all these discussions about morality, and they're always completely beside the point. You can agree with me in that paragraph up there or not, but the point remains that society at large sees a difference, a huge difference, between killing children and killing adults, whether you find it logical or not (hint, it's not logical and it doesn't have to be - it's emotional and natural). And the point remains that video games can't allow themselves to include this kind of stuff anymore, which is why even GTA doesn't have children, like I said before. The point also remains that there are possibilities to put children in the game without triggering any political scandals while making the world believable and immersive - as long as you don't go on a psychopathic killing spree. And also you completely missed the point of my list up there. The game allows me to be a thief, so why can't I break into a house in a certain way that would be possible in real life? Why can I pick the lock, but not smash the window? Why can I have a high-intelligence character but cannot go to university to finally discover quantum mechanics? Why can I kill adults but not kill children? It's exactly the same kind of question and the answer is always the same: because there are good reasons. Not because it's logical. But because this is the only feasible way to make a game. And yeah, I'd like to hear some answers to Karkarov's question, other than "because logically it should be possible" or "I want to play a psychopath". Because you do have to try and kill children before you notice that you can't do it. @JFSOCC: That's exactly what I said. They had brutal torture, but they stopped and said "okay but we can't allow the players to kill children". Is that self-censorship? Are all video games since Fallout 2 self-censored and have lost their integrity? I don't think so. Because there was no need for that kind of feature at all. @Sacred_Path: Yeah well. What I said. You instantly see when a town doesn't look right, but you have to try and kill a child to see that you can't. So why would you want to kill a child.

I said "it's unrealistic now". Because graphics have become better, everything is less abstract and the media attention is also much higher. You all know how often video games get blamed for this and that. Video games have to prove themselves all the time, and wishing for the ability to kill children because you want to be a psychopath isn't helping. Like I said, there's a reason GTA doesn't have children. Because even for a game like that, there are things that it can't and shouldn't allow you to do. As for consistency: Depends on the implementation. If you can hit them and nothing happens, sure, that's weird. But if you can't even hit them because your character just won't do it, that's a whole different matter. Because then it doesn't say "they're invulnerable", it says "your character doesn't want to do that". And in that case you should ask yourself "okay, so why do I want to do it?" Another thing to consider: If they run to safety as soon as a fight breaks out (which most of the more vulnerable and weak NPCs should do anyway), and you would have to actively pursue them in order to hit them, then the situation doesn't even come up in the first place. Unless you so desparately want to play a psychopath who kills children that you run after them. In which case... I don't know, I have no sympathy for your cause.

"It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a thief who breaks into buildings by digging a tunnel." "It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a scientist doing theoretical research in a university." ... "It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as an abusive husband who beats his wife but frightening her so much that she won't do anything about it." "It would be stupid if I can't roleplay as a person who stalks women at night and sexually assaults them." Some things you just can't expect them to put into a game. (Also, some things you shouldn't.) If you can't play a psychopath who kills everyone, then that's just one little and extraordinarily stupid role among many which the game doesn't allow you to play. If that makes it politically possible to put children in the game, I'm all for it.

Where's "Should be in the game, cannot be harmed, serve a meaningful purpose"? It's unrealistic to think that a game could come out now where children can be killed by the player just like that. And it's not like not being able to attack them would ruin your immersion more than not being able to attack a tree or a horse, which you often cannot do. Many things should be technically possible in a game and most of the time only a few of them are - you can't break into a house by blasting through its wall with magic, for example. Let villains kill children if your story demands it. But there's no need to let the player do it. This isn't a simulation, it's an RPG, things shouldn't be included "just because". Also, if GTA isn't doing it, that's a pretty good indicator that the feature you want is going too far. I mean, that's a game where you torture people for no reason at all. Still doesn't let you kill children.

It's fiction. Fantasy is a specific genre that is usually defined by supernatural elements. And that's what this question clearly was about. "Why do you like stuff with supernatural elements?" Sorry for being annoyed by this, but... it just happens every time someone asks a questions. People answer a completely different one, usually one that is way more broad, so that they can hear themselves talk for a bit and ask rhetorical questions and stuff. "Do you guys want a Bowser-like villain?" -> Answer: "Why a villain at all? A story doesn't require a villain! Let's talk about villains and the necessity of them in narratives!" "Why do you like Fantasy?" - "I like fantasy because of all the elements I like about fiction! I didn't answer your question at all but nevermind!" Again, sorry for being annoyed by this and please don't feel too offended. But this kind of sidetracking usually makes threads very boring to read, because people start talking about whatever. Which is okay if the original topic wasn't very interesting, but in this case I'd actually like all of you to think about this for a minute and then give an answer where you differentiate between stuff you like in fiction in general, and stuff that sets fantasy apart from that. Of course a possible answer is "I don't like fantasy more than other genres, I just happen to like some games, books etc. that happen to be fantasy because of their high quality". Totally fine. I think many people started watching Game of Thrones not because of the fantasy setting but because they enjoyed the characters and the story.

It's good that you clarified that you're not okay with several rules in other fantasy settings. I think this was what confused me, because you seemed to single out this strength=magic thing as a system that makes even less sense than anything before. If you say that it makes as much sense as other rules, which still isn't good enough, then that's a different matter and I tend to agree. The thing where I'm still disagreeing is this: I don't see a problem with one part of the body serving two functions at the same time. The body does that, to an extent - for example the ear is responsible for both your sense of hearing and your sense of balance. (Different parts of the ear, of course, but they're still linked - deaf people often have balance problems.) In a more abstract way you could take the brain, which is capable both of storing memories and of making up new things, being creative. But... you said two different types of forces, which is maybe the problem you're seeing. In this case, I don't see the difference between creating "force" and creating something else, like information. The body does the same thing physically - send a signal and cause some chemical reactions. On the other hand, this is still the same cause vs. correlation problem we've had before. I don't think the muscles would have to produce the magical energy somehow, I think it's enough if there's a correlation of some sorts. One idea that comes to mind is the increased amount of blood that healthy, muscular people have. So hey, that's already a good thing if you want to use blood magic! But more importantly it could be the blood that actually stores your mana, so having more blood naturally means more power as a wizard. ...I'm not trying to convince you here. I think you made it clear that these kind of arguments don't convince you. I'm just saying that I can think of lots of explanations that would make sense to me. Even if I don't like it and would, personally, prefer a system where a feeble wizard is possible and viable. (And one where the actual volume of blood in your body doesn't affect your magical ability, because come on that's stupid. Because I do think it's stupid and not satisfying at all, but I also think that it would make sense in a way.)

I'd love to have a familiar or a pet of some sorts. As long as it isn't a dog, because every freaking game has a dog companion. (I love dogs, but it's really enough now.) Ideas: A small imp that can talk and likes to crack jokes. A mythical creature that can't talk, but seems to have an agenda. A small flying lizard that perches on your shoulder. A demon monkey. A freaking floating skull that also likes to crack jokes. Basically I want something that fits a fantasy setting. I don't want a dog, or a falcon, or a badger or a ferret. Never liked about DnD that the familiars are so boring. Oh, and a familiar shouldn't be restricted to certain classes. At least I'm not a fan of that at all. Maybe the more extraordinary ones should be exclusive to wizards, but my rogue should still be able to tame a lizard and use it to distract his enemies.

I think we went from "I want a recurring villain whom you never actually defeat" to "I want a villain, period". Maybe speaking in very abstract terms, it's possible to create an engaging adventure where the enemy is a philosophical idea or something to that extent without having it embodied by a specific character or group of people. I think that would be very difficult, or that it would require a completely different narrative structure. (Two games come to mind, namely Shadow of the Colossus, which didn't have a "villain" except maybe yourself, and Journey, which was just as much an adventure as any other story, but didn't need a villain to be exciting. But those are entirely different genres and I'm not sure this could be replicated in an RPG.) So yeah, the original question was, do we want a villain that keeps coming back, and do we want the narrative associated with this kind of villain? My answer is no, I don't want that. Anything that has been said about villains in general has been beside the point.