Greydragon

Also helps if you have rep for being a monster: Nobunaga earned the nickname 'Demon King'.

It wasn't common because it was only useful in long drawn out conflicts and for intimidation, but some archers such as the Scythians and the Japanese under Nobunaga used excrement (Both animal and human) on their arrows for delayed but deadly results. Against small sorties and during a first engagement it does a lot of damage to morale. Biological warfare!

Adding onto this. I think making romance a stretch goal may be counter-productive to the story of the game if the story didn't intend to have romances in the first place. It would be shoe-horning a romance in via stretch goal and that seems like a bad idea. If the dev's already have a theme and story worked out in pre-development and no romances are in, then going to a KS and adding it in later with stretch goals may hurt the story. I could see people seeing Obsidian as 'selling out' to the lowest common denominator to get more money, when they never intended to have romances in the first place. I'm glad we never saw such nonsense as romance stretch goals in the Kickstarter. Sticking to artistic goals regardless of the users worked so well with the Mass Effect 3 ending (sarcasm). There is quite a hefty number of us promancers. While I can accept the loss of this option/immersive story element, I will always mourn what could have been/wait for second rate mods that support this.

No you wouldn't. There is no requirement to scale or compensate for anything just because you allow a second human entity to input commands into the same game instance as the first. Besides, it's not like a 2nd player can do anything with that other party member that the first couldn't already do with pausing. Yes, Mass Effect 3 is a great example of something no one ever has to do simply to put multiplayer into agame. Thus, you don't want multiplayer support to influence the singleplayer game. I join you in disliking that, on principle. However, it doesn't have to do so, so unless you disagree with that, there's no reason to further point out how bad it is when it does do so. I don't know how to interpret such "yeah but" responses as anything but an argument, since they seem to serve no other purpose if you've already pointed out your dislike, and I haven't disagreed with it or contradicted it in any way. Sorry about that; I was writing without nearly enough sleep. I ended up sounding all over the place. I just loathe multiplayer.

So you're complaining about how other people play. Gotcha. Of course I am; because they are inherently not me and thus play differently. Complaining about multiplayer because it is multiplayer is redundant.

I'm telling you what multiplayer doesn't inherently mean, and you're telling me how it happens to be implemented a lot of the time. I don't see an actual disagreement, here. Allowing (the key word being "allowing") co-operative play has never prevented singleplayer play from occurring. Hypothetically, if every single singleplayer game ever made had an optional multiplayer mode that merely allowed a second person (if not more than 2 people) to also provide input to the video game alongside the first person, in the exact same gameplay setting/mode/scenario/what-have-you, then you'd never, ever have your singleplayer game compromised, and you'd never ever be required to partake in multiplay with anyone, ever. Did I mention "ever"? Seriously, though. I don't think some people grasp this. Especially when I point it out, and the retort is "yeah but nuh-uh, because look at this example of a game that didn't do that." I'm inherently advocating a specific setup, here, that's entirely possible and non-problematic, and people keep repeatedly inferring that, no, it's somehow not possible, because multiplayer is inherently encroaching on singleplayer's turf. As if the main menu having "LAN" on it somehow screws up your entire singleplayer experience of an RPG. Except you'd have a singleplayer game with a difficulty scaled to compensate; or something wacky and broken like Saints Row 4. Also I technically wasn't intending to argue, more get my own point across; that multiplayer is inherently a wasted function for people like me. I don't see it as a waste of resources, because it is unrelated to game content although I really hate when singleplayer is influenced by multiplayer ... darn you Mass Effect 3! As if I didn't have enough reason to hate the game because of EA and the ending.

That's quite a splendid argument against mandatory co-operative play, but not against the availability of co-operative play. Just because people don't always want to swing with other people doesn't mean we should only ever build swing"sets" with only one swing, in isolation. However single player games are being rooted out; exterminated like a virus. Also swing sets are a good example; they seat one person, how uncomfortable and dangerous they must be when you have someone on your lap squirming against the momentum of the swing. Now imagine a few dozen all riding the one swing, crowding each other until the chain breaks. That is multiplayer in a nutshell for single player only gamers.

Concentration and solitaire are quite old; there are probably better examples too of single player gaming at its earliest. However from the gaming standpoint isn't it because of the annoying details of humouring another person in a game that singleplayer exists at all? I remember the pause battles on older consoles. I find being alone adds to the experience of games, movies and other entertainment; there is no distraction or arguing, no one to spoil the story or laugh at what is serious.

I play a lot of games; the really restricting part is I'm a single player gamer only. MMO's, team and co-ops are all just gimmicks that I never put into use. For the older games they were optional and minor expansions at best but lately they have been all-consuming. I am glad that POE and other games like it have gone the single player route. For atmosphere and story nothing beats a game that is focused entirely upon you.

Certainly the binding of souls to their corpses permanently would be an abomination; however if this were done temporarily wouldn't it be little more than mildly disgusting? As for combat, turning an enemy corpse into an undead with their own soul is not really practical; they'll still be mostly rational and probably turn on the animancer. So what if for combat purposes you summon an allied soul into the corpse? An old pet dog's for example? Also I could see this kind of skill gaining pseudo-acceptance if it is used to converse with the dead. Who killed you? Where did you leave the keys or the money... etc. Modern day mediums and psychics are after all popular with the desperate and foolish. How much better would their business be if they could actually do the things they charge money for?

In the case of heraldry there were several texts showing historical and more recent examples of the local heraldry (and well known foreign and extinct lines) written and laboriously hand copied by scribes and monks, so depending on location you could get a decent copy of a coat of arms that didn't differ very much from the current form or the original. The earliest example was written in the 1350's.

Perhaps like crystals the shards are 'seeded' to grow new ones? Imagine the confusion of meeting your soul's other pieces and what elements of yourself chose to do. Very Torment-like.

If it was all random, then certainly. Crappy life -> try again. But if there's a moral code by which things work, like suicide = sin -> you're downgraded in next life, patient sufferin = valued -> upgraded in next life, things would work out all different. Perhaps the old, wretched cripple begging for alms to avoid starvation is secretly overjoyed because next life = wealthy, rockstar equivalent.

Haven't seen the NPC project for Icewind Dale 2 at the gibberlings3 mod site? Yes, now even the Dalelands have been overrun by promancers. Soon we shall conquer all! edit: Oh yes, welcome too.

Just to add fuel to the fire on dwarven women = beards debate. The Discworld series features a dwarven race which is almost completely uniform i.e. "All dwarfs have beards and wear upto twelve layers of clothing. Gender is more or less optional." (From 'GUARDS, GUARDS!') They only use 'he' even when the dwarf in question is clearly female. However as the series progresses and the dwarf race is enmeshed in cultural changes brought on by the printing press and so forth they start to have vocally female dwarfs who shave and wear revealing clothes and makeup. Even their newly elected, so-called 'king' (from 'The Fifth Elephant'). I personally can't get enough of Terry Pratchett's weirdly funny books of fantasy/comedy/social commentary. He ends up on both sides of this debate at the same time. Now that is out of the way ... I suppose I'll try Amaua first to get a taste of the cultural differences/responses to race/new fantasy race. From there Godlike, human, orlan, elf and finally dwarf. (I almost never play dwarf, simply because I felt hemmed in by stereotypes in D&D and Middle Earth.)