Jump to content

Ffordesoon

Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ffordesoon

  1. After much consideration, I think I'm going to go with another idea, the daughter of an Aedyran servant and a Vaillian aristocrat who escaped slavery at an early age. I'm still giving this new character the last name Gullspark, though, just because I like it. Which begs a few questions that only an Obsidian employee may be able to answer, unless I've missed the reveal of this information: 1. What are the conditions for being a "Vaillian aristocrat?" 2. Who do the Vaillians enslave? Is it another culture I'm thinking of that enslaves people? 3. How does slavery work in the Rep
  2. Other than ME2, I can think of some occasions. In KOTOR2 the Handmaiden died when I played a dark side playthrough. In DA:O I was betrayed by the assassin. Also in Planescape:Torment you must fight one of your companions. In the original Neverwinter Nights 2, you either have to fight BIshop, or everyone else. yes there are some cases in games, but it is never something complex. in ME2 it was "did you do the quest? he lives! you did not? he dies! in other games like DAO it was just a numerical thing. you do and say some things, you get points and they like you or you lose points and they hate
  3. I've been at the "Can't you just RP it if it bothers you that much?" phase for a while now.
  4. Amen to this. I like following character arcs to their conclusions, and I'm good with helping characters see their own personal story through, and I'm even okay with playing a role in their journey. But even though I'm real and they're not, I hate being Mary-Sued into the role of their savior just because some idiot in Peoria can't stand the idea that his ego might not be given a tongue bath for two seconds.
  5. That's another problem, yeah. I don't know how ambitious I should get.
  6. For me, a great cRPG companion is one that's interesting to have around. I know that's vague, but that's by design. Ask me about any companion I've ever liked, and I can probably give you at least one unique reason why I liked them. Sometimes the reason I like them is because they're charming. Sometimes it's that they make me laugh. Sometimes it's that they make me question my choices. Sometimes it's that they make me feel good about my choices. Sometimes it's that they butt heads with me. Sometimes it's that they're complete wackjobs. Sometimes it's that I can't tell if they're ma
  7. @Bryy: That's, uh, pretty much the long and short of it. I mean, there's a bit more to her that got grafted on later, and I could mine that for depth, but she's more or less a joke character designed to let me do a silly voice and be horribly inconsistent in my roleplaying and make dirty jokes. Which is fun, but not exactly putting my best foot forward in terms of character-building. @Lephys: That helps, thanks! :D
  8. Here's a conundrum: I'm thinking of using the NPC survey to put a character I've had a lot of fun playing as in D&D and Pathfinder into the game. My hope is that people who have been in a gaming group with me at one time or another will see her and have a laugh as well. The problem is that she's, uh, not exactly a nuanced and multilayered character. In fact, as I play her, she's pretty much the Gold Digger/Bimbo/Lusty Sorceress stereotype to a tee. Which is a lot of fun to roleplay, but I worry that the character might come off as offensive when removed from the context of being
  9. Enh. Not too bothered by the decision, to be honest. Game's going to be plenty big as it is, clearly, and scope creep has been a problem on plenty of Obsidian projects. It would have been nice to have one companion of every class and some extra wilderness areas, I suppose, but it's not like PoE will be a failure without those features, any more than a car without spinning rims is a failure. The results of the poll in this thread were predictable, to an extent; if I say I'm going to buy you a certain amount of ice cream in two years, and then I ask after one year if you'd like more ice c
  10. @Kjaamor: Oh, sure. I was mainly replying to your assertion rather than the OP's. To be honest, I didn't read the first post until just now. :oops: I see what you mean by "dehumanization" and "real-world conditions" now, and I agree that it would be gross if every single monster was just some poor sap with a disease. But I'm not sure that was what the OP meant. It certainly wasn't what I meant. My interpretation of the OP's post was that he or she would be interested in a questline or subplot or whatever involving deformed people who are persecuted as monsters or freaks because s
  11. Pfft. This bizarre idea that "real-world conditions" must not infect some imaginary ahistorical ideal of "pure" entertainment... I don't know where or when or how it started, but I'd like to punch the con artist who ginned it up in the face. All creative work is a subjective reaction to the real world and its conditions. All of it. Even a work that purports to be a repudiation of reality operates under the assumption that there is a reality to repudiate. "What if there was a world where people flew around using jetpacks?" is a question that can only be asked by someone who lives in a
  12. Ah. Well. This is why I can never solve those word puzzles in the newspaper where it says, like, "score" with a line drawn below it. Some people go, "Underscore, obviously!" and roll their eyes. I'm the type of person who stares at it for an hour and then looks at the answer. Which is also at least twenty percent of the reason why I think puzzles in adventure games are usually aggravating distractions that only serve to artificially lengthen the playtime, and that the genre could get along fine without them.
  13. Here, I will give you the definition of an RPG: if the developer says it's an RPG, it's an RPG. Now can we stop with this garbage?
  14. @Josh: To be fair to him, y'all have discussed combat and stealth in much greater depth than diplomacy. Which isn't unreasonable, since you want to avoid spoilers and dialogue-based reactivity is the hardest system to describe in an interesting way without giving examples. But, you know, I can see how someone would get that impression.
  15. I've said variations of this elsewhere, but: In D&D, particularly in the earlier editions, you are your class. 3E and above introduced a fairly large amount of flexibility, but at the end of the day, survivability and roleplaying are still at odds with each other. Even in Pathfinder, builds are only dynamic inasmuch as you can stack levels in the static classes on top of each other, and that still means a Level 1 character is stuck as one particular class and more or less must hie to the recommended specs of that class until taking a level in another class is possible. (This is as
  16. Per-day spells are effectively per-encounter in BG1 anyway. Having to rest in order to refresh them just means you end up resting after every encounter. Yes, there's the occasional random attack, but that's just one more encounter. Neither adds much to the game besides time, IMHO.
  17. @Hiro: You're kind of right, in that wading into the fray and taking on dudes is definitely what this rogue does, but I think you're being sort of disingenuous here. Lephys did not pick the phrase "IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!" out of thin air; his point was that the PoE Rogue is not going to act like the Thing from the Fantastic Four comics, who runs into the fray before anyone else and stays there, drawing heat and knocking heads, because he is a rock monster and can take a ton of punishment. He is, in other words, a tank. The Rogue hits hard and gets out, and as such does not fight like the
  18. @Lephys: That's all true. Wouldn't dispute it. All I'm saying is that I feel PoE's system is the better one for a cRPG of this type, because the systems are not at odds with the overall intent of the design. By the way, when you compare the two systems, there's an intriguing echo of world history that seems vaguely intentional on Sawyer's part. D&D's main campaign settings have always been fantastical versions of medieval Europe, more or less. In medieval Europe, your social class was, to a very large extent, who you were. You might have been able to rise above it with a large
  19. I suppose they would be if you couldn't dual or multi-class. This seems to me to be a case where you have to look at the game mechanics as a whole. The IE games gave you flexibility with one mechanism, PoE will use a different one. If you changed that single element of either system, i.e., add multiclass to PoE or remove it from the IE games, things would break. That's exactly what I'm saying, though. We have two mechanisms that satisfy the same player desire. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that PoE's method doesn't make you choose between roleplaying and survival. I'm awar
  20. Posted this in the last update thread because I was very very tired, and then realized that I meant to post it here. In re the "But multiclassing!" argument: If you have to build a character out of multiple classes to get the build you want in the IE games (muscle wizard, for example), doesn't that indicate that the classes in the IE games are overly rigid?
  21. In re the "But multiclassing!" argument: If you have to build a character out of multiple classes to get the build you want in the IE games (muscle wizard, for example), doesn't that indicate that the classes in the IE games are overly rigid?
×
×
  • Create New...