jamoecw

i love the argument between trashman and lephys: trashman: chainmail bikinis don't any real sense lephys: but you know magic, so why not? trashman: that would be impractical, due to magic limitations and stuff lephys: if people want it why not? trashman: well if they use magic for that why not other things, i say we draw the line , no further.lephys: but we already have scantily clad mages hurling balls of fire and subduing tentacled monsters, maybe we already went far enough to allow it. trashman: tentacles? lephys: illithids, the tentacled ones, P:E ring any bells? and here i am: oops, i think i may have read ahead in the script. seriously, funny stuff, not as heated as it seems, but funny and not too degenerative.

Maybe he mixed up BG and IWD, although calling BG a sandbox might be a bit of a stretch. well in BG you get one character, which has a preset past, the personality of you characters are what you say they are, etc. same thing in P:T, one character, same backstory no matter what. ya i know not much in the way of sandbox, but IE engine had trouble with sandbox elements in game, the engine was mainly dialog triggers. think about all of the mods, and how many have made any sort of procedurally generated quest area. not one, even though in NWN there are a few, even one of the premium DLCs was a procedurally generated dungeon. there is a whole genre behind procedurally generated dungeons, there is demand but no mods for BG, due to the fact that the IE can't handle it very well (the expansions tried this to a limited extent). though keep in mind that back then sandbox generally meant void of scripted events and story. in BG just about every action you took altered your lawful good standing, in IWD you could do what you want, and generally if you felt it was keeping with your character you could do it, not so much by what ever somebody had determined your character would justify it as. think of it as you facing a dialog choice as to whether to allow a zombie to live that isn't causing harm, they are automatically evil, so letting it live would be considered evil by BG standards the developers would determine whether or not killing the zombie would be good or evil, DnD rule of thumb would be that it is neutral to evil to let it live, and neutral to good to kill it. if you see it as cruel to kill it and you let it live with some plan to keep it from doing harm in the future, if this is at odds with what the developers thought then you end up having to deal with whatever they thought of at the time they developed it. maybe you get good points and end up having to deal with the fallout of a zombie rampage because they thought you were ignorant of the dangers, or maybe you get bad points because they felt you knew of the dangers and didn't care, or maybe you get another dialog option to help out with what the devs were thinking. it is poor DMing, which is fine because there is no DM in place, but in IWD you are not penalized for what the devs think or don't think, so definitely more sandbox than BG. so as far as IE games go: IWD = sandbox (consequence free environment) BG = atmosphere (choices leading to consequence, banter, etc.) P:T = interactive novel (lots of description and other text) but ya, hard to think of the IE games as 'sandbox' by today's standards.

so with all of the 300 bashing, does anyone know the legend, or the comic book? event -> legend -> comic book -> movie i have to say that the political arguments against the movie are either unfounded, or blown way out of proportion. unless the war with iran was consistently being built up to for thousands of years. event in a nutshell: part of athens pisses off persia, persia marches against greece, greece fights a battle at thermopylae. greece at the time is divided in 3 power blocks, the spartan one fields few soldiers due to political issues. loss of battle draws spartans into a more committed stance, boeotia power block becomes divided (thebes) most backing persia, patriotic political corruption saves athens from persians. legend in a nutshell: persia invades greece, greek power blocks put away differences and unify under spartan leadership on land and athenian leadership at sea. a religious holiday prevents sparta from fielding an army, so the king with an overinflated honor guard leads the battle. a minor greek city state is given charge of guarding a critical goat path to their rear, which they fail to do out of fear for their own city state's safety. a hermit leads the persians through the goat path to the rear, causing all but the thespians and spartans to flee the battle for fear of defeat. spartans and thespians make heroic last stand, athenian navy retreats. spartans after the holiday are angered and take to the field in force and along with their athenian allies crush the persians in short order, divine prophecies turn out to be true. comic book in a nutshell: persia threatens the greeks for submission, the greeks refuse and march to war. persians buy off corrupt spartan religious leadership with gold. bad ass spartans lead under the super leader leonidas, while the athenian navy and hurricane keeps the persian navy at bay. the 300 spartans hold the line, while they send the thousands of lesser greeks to flank, hold the rear, build a wall, and ultimately do less manly things. a hunchback quasimodo like person informs them of a goat pass to their rear, and asks the spartans to compromise their integrity so that he may share in spartan glory, which is rebuffed for he shall gain the glory which he earns himself. the hunchback defects to the persians and all greek forces scatter aside from the spartans and some thespians, the reasoning that the spartans no longer hold to the old ways of doing what you want as opposed to doing what is needed. the thespians are used as a screening force, the spartans die to arrows in mass. a spartan storyteller that was ordered back to sparta to tell the tale rallies spartans before the battle of plataea. the movie in a nutshell: spartans and athens refuse to submit, all of greece march to war. persians buy off religious and political leadership with gold and promises of women. bad ass spartans under firm leadership of leonidas lead all greeks, while a hurricane decimates the persian fleet. the 300 spartans inspire the other greeks to valor, while the spartans share in all of the aspects of battle. the spartans stand against fantastical beasts of war. a hunchback informs them of a path to their rear, and asks to be a part of their well oiled machine, leonidas refuses and says he may do less manly things. hunchback defects to persians and tells them of the path. the greeks retreat from an unwinnable battle, the spartans refuse, knowing that if they do the rest of sparta won't rally to save greece. storyteller who had been ordered back rallies the greeks, and the spartans who are at the heart of a greek coalition, to a sweeping victory over the persians at some unknown battle. it constantly moves towards fantastical and current ideological standards of heroic. at the time of the comic book armour was considered cowardly, and shields patriotic (like captain america). in fact captain america is: ww2 -> propaganda for ww2 -> comic -> movie so it isn't too out there to compare the two, though the comic and the propaganda are a bit intermingled, and the name changed for the comic, and is a bit more fantastical than 300's comic. both comics were about doing what is right even when faced with overwhelming opposition, using heroic images and settings in order to entertain and teach life lessons. captain america comics used a very loose interpretation of recent events, and 300 comics a less loose (but still pretty loose) interpretation of history.

so obsidian probably already knows how they want to do their stronghold, and i am probably wasting my breath (so to speak), but hey why not kick out ideas? so you meet some villager asking for help against a group bandits/orc horde while its lord is off in a war, after haggling over the reward for helping the village you go to it and spend some time building up defenses, performing recon, or heading off for a preemptive strike. after the bandit/orc forces are defeated a messenger arrives informing the elder that the lord of the nearby keep that the village owes its allegiance has been slain and that another lord, which has a malevolent reputation is going to absorb the keep's lands into his own. the villagers, unhappy over the news, are divided over what to do. you can convince them to follow you as the new lord, hopefully buying enough time to legitimize your claim over the land. you can suggest they take their chances as an independent region and fight off the unwanted lord, maybe with your help. finally you can convince them to accept this new lord without opposition. depending on which choice you went with, you might either get the keep as a rightful lord, and now have to play some politics in order to avoid all out war (or just build up for all out war). you can become a military leader of a new nation (possibly still under a king of some sort), not having to worry about politics, just building defenses and such (assuming you decided to help them out, otherwise you'd just wash your hands of them). the usurper might grant you the keep as a reward for your role in 'protecting' his land and rights to it, occasionally asking you to carry out despicable acts for him. whichever path you took (as long as you got the keep), you can build it up as a fortress, or a wizard tower, or some such. dumping money into it and into the village (how you can dump money into the village depends on the path you chose), in order to build it up how you see fit. ultimately your choices will come to a major test, depending on several factors. maybe if you were successful in legitimizing your claim an inspector of sorts come to see how happy the people are, and how well you have cared for them, depending on which political alliances you have secured could emphasize some aspects over others (education, economy, defenses, etc.). if you failed to legitimize your claim an alliance of forces marches against you, the bigger the failure the bigger the alliance, all headed by the usurper. if you went the independent route, you would have to face the usurper much sooner, but without his allies, after which he keeps sending raiding parties, you either have to defeat him at his own castle, lead his own holdings into uprising, or withstand a final siege against a giant force. if you went the path of backing the usurper a party of adventurers emerges to fight against you, and you have to hunt them down and either convince them to leave you alone, or kill them. so it starts out very seven samurai, then becomes more of a stronghold continual/epic quest thing. so what do you guys think? any ideas of your own on strongholds and such of your own to share?

the thing i liked about IWD over the others is that it felt like the party was your party. in both P:T and BG1/2 you were a character, who had people who followed you. BG1/2 had a great world to tromp through, the banter was solid, and the storyline robust, but the party felt off, since the characters weren't yours, and those that joined had this magic party limit thing that sorta meant that you had to chose if you wanted good banter or a good party, which put one of the strengths of the game at odds with its own gameplay (sorta like dragon age's tactics/custom AI). P:T had a few choice companions, but had the same problem, though less noticeable, the story was better, and with the changes to death and how combat there was far less animosity between companion interaction and gameplay. ideally you'd make your own characters, start the game, and any NPCs that want to follow you can, leaving based purely based on their own personality/story. picking some background stuff for for generic banter for your own characters (i mean did aerie really have much more to her banter other than she was a kidnapped fairy? or that jaheira was a druid/harper/friend of the father?), then have the NPCs do banter with your characters as well. next throw in a couple of cities a few villages, and a ton of wilderness in between. then etch history and lore into everything, from generic magic items to a random cabin in the woods, each with a paragraph or two that makes them feel special. finally have a story that has you run around the area with plenty of wiggle room for side quests. so in short: IWD = sandbox BG = atmosphere P:T = interactive novel these things are not completely at odds with each other

almost all martial disciplines emphasize some sort of evasion for defense, either a parry or a dodge. this is pretty much like dodging and blocking in martial arts. in fact the proper use of a shield is to parry with it, and not have it absorb blows. any time that shaolin went to war they used what armour they could, but being a monastic order, they didn't have a lot of money for armour, so they typically weren't well armoured compared to their non monk counterparts, though it is of note that their forces tried to armour even the peasants that most armies of the time didn't care about armouring. they even gave more training to the peasants than most armies bothered to do, though their forces almost always were smaller than the opposition (fighting against your lord for no pay isn't too popular). the more i think about monks as a class name, the more i dislike it. there are better names for what is trying to be achieved, both in DnD and in P:E. ultimately i'd have to say that is the only thing i have an issue with, and frankly it is a pretty minor qualm.

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. hollywood monks are about evasion and avoiding damage, and fighting without armour and such. real world monks used armour, weapons and all the stuff the military orders of their region used. in fact medieval 'monks' are the inspiration for clerics, specifically bishop odo and the perception that he used a mace at the battle of hastings. the armourless asian warrior thing came about due to hollywood's fascination with asian martial arts, it was then rolled into dnd, real monks were not considered for the actual monk class.

Thing is though, you're an adventurer and a traveller, not a foot soldier...you might have to swim, you might have to climb, you might have to squeeze through a small gap, you have to carry your armour everywhere you go, you'd have to sit down in it to eat since there is nowhere to put it and it would be awkward to take off and put on, you don't have a squire to carry your stuff,(probably) you don't have wagons(probably) I don't really see the point in plate armour in these situations...the fact that games tend to have you fighting all the time and don't simulate all aspects of life leads to unrealistic choices working the best. That's not to say you couldn't have a breastplate though...and I reckon having some that are form fitting and some that aren't would be best...keep everyone happy . if there is plenty of armour types that don't all look the same, and no ultimate "best" armour then it's up to the player if they want the team in uniform or not. keep in mind that you have to do all of those things in war as well, and that people did do those things while wearing plate armour. in fact a full set of plate weighs less than the gear that modern soldiers wear. from a realism point of view there isn't much against armour if you can afford it, from a fantasy point of view there may be reasons against armour. same logic for having nudity wen you remove all of your characters clothes. i have nothing against nudity, nor scantily clad women, so either can go in and i'd be fine, but i want the baseline to be realistic female armour (sorta unisex).

Did not the Spartans sometimes go into battle unarmored, and were not they quite successful? actually the spartans had a law against going into battle unarmoured. there was an account of a young spartan that didn't have time to don armour so he grabbed his spear and shield and ran off into battle and defended the city. he was given a medal for valor and fined for not wearing armour. they were all about law, if you did something that had to be done, but broke the law to do it you would get in trouble, but they might also pin a medal to your chest (yes i know they didn't use medals, but wreaths). all this talk about women on the battlefield, as if it was uncommon. it is just uncommon in a few cultures, plenty of cultures considered women capable of fighting, heck scythian women would sometimes remove their right breast so they could fight better. once you go past medieval monoculture you end up with a great variety in things, like weapons and tactics, political and spiritual views, gender and racial equality, and so on.

storyline has to fit the pacing, this is the problem with both BG2 and P:T, in BG2 imoen is in pretty immediate danger from the moment you get out of the dungeon, and you are racing to save her. this is right when you have thousands of distractions and such to keep you from doing what needs to get done NOW. while in P:T it is made pretty clear that you have all the time in the world to deal with stuff from the start, but this isn't when you get all of the side quests, instead as you find out what needs to get done, and that it may be a pressing concern, you are given more and more distractions. BG2 should have had pacing like P:T and vise versa.

shaolin warrior monks are buddhist paladins, dnd made them into something different because paladins are for 'good' which is based based on a christian societies view of good, and thus they don't fit perfectly. with mechanics of dnd monks they tend to be built selfishly, they can't take on powerful creatures, they don't heal others or shield them from harm in some way, even though shaolin warrior monks have a strict code for doing what is best for the people as a whole. a monk can't compete 1 on 1 against any of the fighter classes, has less utility than the utility classes, and don't cast spells. having one in the party isn't as good as pretty much any other class, yet a party of just monks can easily be a terror to a whole country. their attacks are built for fighting many weak enemies (like peasants), able to stun clerics and other spellcasters until they can kill them, able to outrun mounted knights and such. so basically they can show up to a village and kill everyone including the local cleric/adept, then when the local lord shows up to protect his lands they can take off and avoid a fight they can't win. if they catch him unaware they can try for a quivering palm strike and kill him in one strike. on the flip side if a local lord starts terrorizing the countryside they can't stand up to him, the best they can hope for is to catch him unaware (harder to do if he is paranoid due to making enemies right and left) and take him out with quivering palm, and hope that none of his lackey's don't decide to take his place. monks aren't a worthless class, they make great spellcaster assassins, but they do have variant classes that are built for that, so ultimately i think a monk should have been a variant paladin, only tied to true neutral alignment instead of lawful good, unable to associate with lawful good, or chaotic evil people. so you can't have a normal paladin in the same party as a monk, and the class has half the wealth per level as normal. swap out a few paladin powers for monk powers and you end up with a monk class that can go toe to toe with other paladins, complete with the paladin's lay on hands like what has been a monk power in pretty much all literature that have had a monk type person. but enough about why dnd monks are not a good class.

i get what the OP is saying, it does seem like a barbarian. i like the mechanics, it seems fresh and new, the name is a little off, but other than that it seems fine. though the damage systems doesn't seem to lend itself to dodging attacks outright as a viable solution, all in all the name is a minor issue to me.

do you know if non environmental entities affect the light levels in a room (such as the player, or enemies)? if not it is pretty much eye candy (and who doesn't like candy), as using scripts could give the same effect, after all it has been done in the past.

in IE games even though there was a fog of war, enemies would be viewable based on their own merits. so sometimes enemies would be viewable even in the fog of war, and sometimes non stealth enemies would pop out of nowhere due to various factors not revealing them immediately after leaving the fog of war. i do like having some method of knowing what i can see personally though.

This is most a great point. I think that this could work on all of the non important NPC's. I think it should have a balance of this hour by hour take, along with certain more important NPCs walking around. (However, it would seem a little weird standing at a corner to see someone vanish because its the hour they are meant to be at the tavern. Thank you sir. Tips hat. i was thinking they would randomly walk to an area exit, before vanishing, via IE method of an npc leaving an area.

Methinks you're not quite up to speed on what a metaphor is. Also, the point was that, even though you COULD physically climb and traverse the mountain, you don't need to do so, because there's nothing important there. Not that a city strictly resembled a mountain. Just like the cutting off your arms thing. The point was that the game has no need to provide you with the opportunity to cut off your own arms. Arguing that it is some kind of crime or appalling that the developers of the game force you into a linear path simply by preventing you from traveling to every square inch of a city is akin to saying "They didn't put fishing boats in, so I can't paddle out to the middle of this lake and fish! But there's a lake right there! I should be able to do that! They're forcing me to decide that's unimportant!" No, what they're doing is building a finite world, from scratch, and they can either build a tiny world, or build an appropriately-sized world and understand that you're not going to go literally every place in the entire world, since this isn't Cartography Quest VIII. Then please enlighten me as to what a metaphor is. We're not talking about fishing or mountain-climbing here, we're talking about one the two supposedly "big" cities. If you're a creative designer and you have to cut out 70% of a city because you don't have any ideas to make interesting content for it, maybe you should reevaluate your career. The idea that you can isolate the "interesting" parts of a city apart from the "boring" areas is complete lunacy, and the fact is that in the case of different areas of a city the one's left out can contribute as much content as what's included. actually the main argument for cutting 70% of the city is budget constraints. basically the arguments go something like this: chef A tries to sell his idea of a pizza to a company, but due to lack of money he creates a tiny version of the pizza, which is not made to scale, due to him wanting it to work as a mini pizza (more crust for support than a scaled pizza, etc.) chef B tries to sell his idea of a pizza by making choice slices of the pizza, picking what he considers to be the best slices, then making those without making the whole pizza (and thus may not be accurate) the company evaluating the pizza ideas, get to see with a large amount of approximation of what pizza A will be, getting a great visual to sell the idea. the company evaluates pizza idea B and get a much closer approximation of what the pizza will be due to having the size of the slice indicating the size of the pizza, density of the topping on the slice are probably more accurate, etc. though he has to imagine what it would look like, as he doesn't have a good visual of it. if the company likes visuals then they will most likely go with pizza idea A, if they prefer abstraction, then they will go for pizza idea B. both have the same volume, both taste good, both require some mental compensation to account for them not being the pizza. as for the few people that have argued about cities being largely boring: chef A makes a pizza, he makes it with mixed toppings, some toppings will get eaten more than others. for the same amount of work and expense chef B makes a meal with choice slices of pizza, and choice slices of steak, and some other fixings. more people will enjoy the meal due to the chef taking the most popular parts of various meals, but that is not to say that he will accurately judge the mix of people that he gets, so he will end with the same waste. there are merits for each and every option, and thus there are drawbacks of not going other options (as you don't get the benefits of the other options that your option doesn't provide).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum in other words the elder scrolls games (which tend toward iron age romanticism and mythos, compared to other fantasy genres), would have riften populated by probably 1,000 people. in game it had about 50 named npcs, or about 5%. skyrim according to lore is somewhere around 3.8 million hectares, in game it was instead about 3800 hectares, or about .1%. for the most part it kept the end product people, and removed the work force behind the end product. thus there were more nobles to non nobles than in real life, more merchants to craftsmen, more innkeepers to peasants, so on and so forth. this creates a skewed view of the world, which fits with its romanticized nature, after all if you were playing a king arthur game would you want to be a peasant or a knight? most romanticized literature does this, less desirable people are removed from sight, but all they provide stays. the concept that a condensed scope leads to glimpsing how the society works is false, unless you see a more accurate view of the society. i'm not saying everyone has to be a peasant, but if a game only has the top 1% of our society running around and a handful of the people they interact with would you say that you are getting a glimpse in how your life actually is? if riften had say 50 less desirable people around in addition to the 50 others wouldn't that be more accurate and still be quite condensed? though it would help to undermine the nobility that skyrim is trying to portray due to the fact that we have different values today than back then, slaves and near slaves seem evil by todays standards. a game that is properly condensed can give the feeling of what the society is supposed to be like, but so can only showing choice sections and making it obvious that they are doing so. the OP gave two examples of this (though he didn't know it at the time). the only other option is to accurately portray the society in scope, you can then either include a mechanic to make operating in this environment less dull, or not. this uses much more in the way of development resources to do (without factoring in the less dull mechanics). so to recap: 1) condensed is viable 2) chosen spots is viable <- confirmed chosen method 3) fully fleshed out is viable but costly about the discussion as to whether or not easter eggs punish or reward, isn't this pretty much a method of controlling difficulty? and thus more of an option that people may not know they have rather than either a punishment or a reward?

the developer comments made me decide to buy another copy, in fact from this point forward if any random person comes up to me and says, "i like baldur's gate." i will buy them a copy of PE.

perhaps instead of each npc pathing along the lines of a schedule, you could just have the day broken up by hour, and just have different npcs be where they are supposed to be at those times, thus each npc would have a general schedule group they would fit into, sorta like the courtesans in bg1&2 (which came out at night). during the hour that they would be leaving or arriving at a place they would randomly decide to do that, and thus they wouldn't all run off at the exact same time, and it would appear that they had their very own schedule that they were following and pathing along. this would mean less inputting of individual schedules, and less processing due to the game not tracking each npc. the downside is that if person A wakes up between 5-6 and arrives at his work at 6-7, and person B wakes up 4-5 and arrives at shop C between 5-6 and then arrives at person A's work at 6-7, that person B might leave the shop later than person A leaves for work and arrive at person A's work before person A arrives even though person A has a shorter commute. thus the player synchronizing to expected time tables becomes problematic, and thus closes a few very limited options (such as framing person B for person A's murder, as he should arrive shortly after person A arrives, which if you then kill him fast should make person B the first on scene). the example is pretty specific, and anything that gets affected by this change probably would be just as specific as well, which would only come into play with dynamic events (such as in the example that first on scene would be suspect by guards, and not that this isn't a specific scripted quest/event, which would override the general way of schedules for this instance anyway).

It's already done in IWD series, so why not now? Even in PnP, some of us must have entertained our players by surprising their parties with classic ambushes and/or multiple waves of attacks such as, invisible stalkers, statues turning out to be gargoyles, and some monsters appear out of what's supposed to be mirrors et cetera. The point is, throwing screwballs to the players through various game-plays but, at the same time, in order not to make the players feel unfair, the settings must be convincing enough for them to expect certain creatures/enemies. So, if they are tied to the lore, they are even better, producing a synergy effect. I hope they will come up with a good camp system, which will allow the players to think about their tactics, preparing to handcrafted maps/challenges. PS I was not happy with the same monsters repeatedly appearing out of thin air in NWN2 OC. It didn't only feel unfair but also repetitive and even silly - honestly, I think it's a result of noob DMing. i love the flexibility you have in pnp over crpgs, get ambushed on a rope bridge?have everyone except the mage charge one side, while they do that the mage casts protection from missiles on himself, as his party reach the other side and uncontested enemy charge the mage have him cast fly then you cut the bridge and no more ambush. come across statures that seem odd for whatever reason, smash them while they are waiting for you to turn your back, generally if you are in a place that you can be ambushed in there isn't any reason not to smash the statues (barring plot elements, or having a character that wouldn't do that sort of thing). i remember when i played fallout 3, there was someone who was going to kill the sheriff the moment he turned his back, it was pretty obvious to me. so like you always do with potential hostiles you have someone behind them when escorting them (in this case me), and when he made his move i was ready and put 3 shots into his head before he got his first shot off. it didn't seem to phase him, so i took cover and planned for a long and difficult shoot out, but the next head shot i lined up dropped him from full to death easy. the sheriff's death should have been a cut scene, as it was completely out of my control. in pnp having adapted to the situation the dm would have adapted as well. i find it a step in the right direction next to the first game's complete lack of such encounters (though a 15 minute rest wouldn't have any sort of encounters, now would it?). but then next to baldur's gate or icewind dale they both are pretty lacking in that area.

now that you point it out their stance is a bit off. they stand on one leg, using the other more for balance than load bearing, like they are at the ready to charge maybe? as for stride, i tend to take wide steps, and end up with a stride like theirs, but it is not normal, and i do tend to move a little faster. there have been studies on stride length and efficiency, and when you walk with a longer stride you tend to be more efficient in your motion, but this tends to have to do with momentum helping to overcome the extra energy of walking with a longer stride. thus a slow long stride isn't as efficient than a slow short stride, but a fast long stride is more efficient than either. as they walk everywhere i can see them having a longer stride, even when moving slowly. being in a constant state danger i can see them always being ready to charge or run away. so i can see their stance and gait fitting adventurers, but i do have to agree that it seems strange and awkward. that being said i play dwarf fortress, and knowing that their stance and gait is just a graphical feature that has no impact on gameplay, i wouldn't object to a static image moving over landscape, as long as the graphics don't interfere with getting info from the screen then i'm happy. i'm also totally understanding that such things result in a disconnect for most people with the immersion.

so: #1 - diversity #2 - non-linearity [3/3] A Game Editor! [3/3] Atmosphere [3/3] Graphics [2/3] Combat [2/3] Advancement [1/3] Character Development [1/3] Choice-Consequence [1/3] Plot #? - dialog #? - control scheme #? - GUI #? - balance #? - technical options #? - gameplay options #? - environment interactivity #? - personalization #? - intuitiveness #? - community #? - netcode #? - multiplayer support i am probably forgetting a few, but overall i figured you left them out due to their lack of importance. which makes it look like you didn't care much about things that made rpgs rpgs. i am not saying that liking graphics and such is bad, just seemed like you were shoehorned into rpgs somehow and didn't know of other genres (at least decent games from other genres) that fit your list better. i started playing league of legends because my little brother was into it, it has great pacing for an arpg, a good selection of heroes, item customization that matters, an excellent control scheme, a decent gui, decent graphics, and easy matchmaking. that being said it lacks in all other areas, and being a massively online game it lacks good netcode and overall multiplayer support, and features one of the worst communities online, which are of prime importance for a MO. being competitive it lacks balance, being of prime importance in any competitive game (regardless of being online or even a video game). it fails in areas that i really care about in general, and in the areas i feel are important for the genre in specific as well, but it does do some things right. so if i was making an arpg i'd definitely look at it to help improve a game that was targeted for a different audience (like me for instance). what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand you ask? well it has to do your list and the general reaction to it. most people who play rpgs like them over fpss, which then makes them form comparisons between the two. game executives do the same. so when fpss sell more executives try to make rpgs more like fpss, which due to the rpg fans' observations makes them more like something they don't like, they fall back on the conclusion that it has the same drawbacks of fpss, which may or may not be true. thus to an rpg fan fps is derogatory, and vice versa. so when someone suggests that a game should improve an aspect that fpss have over rpgs they tend to get belittled, which you thought due to my suggestion that you look at fps based on what you like amounted to. all in all carefully breaking down the components into their individual parts help find out what needs to be focused on, some phrases typically used are pretty general to things that separate an rpg from some other genre, and thus are just buzz words. the OP made this mistake with his poll, ultimately when you made the list you left out things that to you make an rpg an rpg, both result in not actually reflecting on why we play rpgs, and how to strengthen them as a video game in general without losing why we like them.

sounds like halflife is your kind of RPG, perhaps the best editor out there, great atmosphere for its time, and a pioneer in graphics, many games used it's combat model, though character progression and such was lacking enough that people didn't consider it an rpg, system shock 2 was better in that regard, but generally isn't considered a rpg by players. personally i'd consider it a poor rpg, though a fun game. i consider dwarf fortress a fun game as well, and it has the worst graphics around, though i don't consider it an rpg (at least not the fort mode). not bashing your taste, just suggesting a game you might really like, perhaps even a genre. some FPS focus on your points 2-4, some of those have point 1 as well, and when they do it tends to be pretty substantial.

I understand, but it doesn't seem to really fit with the idea of a familiarity bonus, as with weapons. I mean, you know how to walk, and you know how to wear shoes, but the shoe causes an effect when trying to walk quietly (it produces noise), so, you either know how to sneak quietly with that shoe (how to "use" that shoe for stealth) or you don't. That's more a binary lack of proficiency, etc. The skill, or basic proficiency handles that. In other words, you don't use plate boots for a bit, then think "Hmm... I bet I could eliminate 20% of the noise by wrapping a tiny bit of cloth around it." Then, sneak a LITTLE more quietly, then after some more use say "Ahh, I bet if I wrap some MORE cloth around them, I could make them even QUIETER!" That doesn't occur to any gradual extent. You don't get better at stepping gently and quietly based on how long you wear some shoes, as you do with swinging/blocking-with a weapon. Sneaking with plate boots is like fighting with a dull, rusty sword. Maybe you know how to sharpen the sword, or maybe you know a different fighting style that relies upon blunt attacks, or you switch to thrusts, etc, but you won't just fight with the sword and cut better with it because you get acquainted with it. It's an immediate, static effect, and you either possess the knowledge to compensate for it, or you don't. That being said, I'm not trying to argue semantics here. Merely trying to convey my thoughts on the matter, as it pertains to designing such a system. So, if we were to use the tiered style of Familiarity (category, type, specific weapon, etc.), then the highest tier would essentially take the place of basic proficiency feats. So, you could have Familiarity with plate armor, as it pertains to your Sneak skill. But, you wouldn't gain more focused familiarity with a certain type of plate boot or something. You'd either account for the loudness of the metal, or you wouldn't. again i don't think it fits in the game, but you wouldn't sneak better just because you wore the shoes for a time, you'd have to pay attention to what they were doing in regards to sneaking, and for at least some of it be trying to sneak in them. you would eventually get accustomed to the changes necessary to sneaking in them: walking different in them means developing the responses that you have for walking, but for this new type of walking with a respect for sneaking, or learning how to pack the boots better so that there is less clanking, afterall just because you pack it tight doesn't mean it won't get loose while walking, or learning to pack the soles differently, or learning to walking on cushions quickly and quietly. thus most familiarity with items for sneaking would have to result from using them to sneak, afterall you don't get better at swinging a sword by keeping it in the scabbard. i could see reducing movement speed penalties (not wile sneaking though) just by wearing items that have movement speed penalties, but again in a different game.

the choices are not that great: 1) graphics - what about them? technical quality, artistry, efficiency? 2) Atmosphere/Immersion Elements/Consistent World (Can include voice acting, music, gameplay-&-story integration) - this includes plot, graphics (both quality and artistry), combat system, character development (both mechanical and plot), etc. 3) combat system - what about it? UI, character progression mechanically, pacing, balance, behind the scenes mechanics? 4) character advancement system - what about it? choice and consequences, balance, mechanics 5) etc. too much overlap, in fact based on the overlap alone i'd bet that #2 will win, that or the last one, both answers encompass almost everything about any game, let alone rpgs. in today's age there are different types of rpgs due to the focus of them, some are combat oriented, some story driven, some are more strategic. combat oriented games tend to become repetitive, story driven games tend to be flat compared to real life, and strategic games often time become fancy puzzles. the question isn't what is more important, but what keeps the game from feeling repetitive/flat/a puzzle?