Kjaamor

I'm not saying that dialogue interactions will be cosmetic (see Shadowrun Returns). I'm saying that your standing with a faction will not affect your dialogue options most of the time (i.e. almost all rpgs).

I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here. I'm not saying that the dialogue won't be as interactive as PS:T. I'm saying that even if it is, the reputation system is unlikely to hold much depth. PS:T had very in-depth dialogue trees but in terms of reputation (in terms of Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil and faction rep) didn't have a substantial influence beyond the cosmetic. Yes, doors opened and closed but these were very limited in their scope. Even Fallout 2, which had probably the most extensive and flag-happy dialogue trees (and for some unfathomable reason gets glossed over when people are singing the praises of PS:T's dialogue), didn't have reputation affecting matters in the way that people like to dream about. P:E can trump both, and still very easily fail in the implied claims (although to be fair, Josh puts in an implied disclaimer to boot).

It's not just that, it's also the whole "100% in one playthrough" syndrome. Even amongst the backers who love the IE games and others from the silver age of RPGs, being shut out of large sections of content on each playthrough without making any "wrong" decisions is likely to be unpopular. In terms of risk/reward for the devs, the significance of reputation is unlikely to be more than a well-implemented cosmetic at best.

Seconded. I've had a bit of concern over what was happening with some of the old IE combat tricks, but I do like the idea of making buffs an in-combat tactical choice. In terms of shared experience to enable the prospect of solo'ing, I think that's fine, as long as attempts to enable this do not undo the balance of the game in the same way Icewind Dale II did (IWDII is harder with six party members than it is with four, even though at a glance at the design this would seem counter-intuitive). By all means make solo'ing possible, but keep it as the challenge that it should be. The morality and reputation system sounds great, but I'm taking that with a truckload of salt.

As inevitably tends to be the case in these discussions, people start describing these situations in absolute terms, rather than how they apply in reality. In BG and IWD, your party (and others you were fighting) were frequently stunned and feared, but I reject the notion that these things were "save or die". When you set up your party, the amount of status protection you use is a tactical choice. When the mage starts casting, your efforts to disrupt him is a tactical choice. When Minsc gets "Held" at the front, this means you have to adjust your future AoEs and decide who is going to tank now (and whether to heal Minsc or kill his aggressor). With all this being the case, you now have a look at what Spells your party have memorised, and you reflect on whether or not those are truly a useful collection to be strolling around the wilderness with. PC Petrification aside (for it is the exception rather than the rule), if you view those effects as being something you have to reload spam to avoid then I think the problem is that you're looking for a gameplay that isn't there and ignoring the one that is. For PoE, it depends to what extent they wish to recreate the feel of the IE games and to what extent they wish to "solve" perceived problems with the IE games. It very much feels that Josh is significantly within the latter camp.

But you don't need to beat it in a fight to "win". And given how powerful dragons tend to be, it can hardly be a sucker punch when you attack it and get your ass handed to you.

Things were fine before someone decided that the best way to establish gameplay in crpgs was to include thousands of useless spoons in them.

I respect the guy's personal standpoint on what he wants to see, but as he graciously points out, it's just personal preference. For me, it depends how high your fantasy is. In Mount and Blade, I would want to see relatively realistic weaponry because the setting and mechanics encourage it. In Final Fantasy VII (Yes, yes... Generic jrpg disclaimer, etc) I am happy to see bizarre and outlandish weaponary that would be functionally useless because, frankly, after a guy with a sword beats two guys with guns in the opening minute, my disbelief has been suspended. In terms of the involvement of magic or any other fantasy factor, I would argue a similar but slightly different line to Lephys, which is to say that the important thing is consistency. As players, readers and viewers, we've suspended our disbelief over a lot of things over the years but what tends to break the spell (npi) is jarring inconsistencies. FFVII (jrpg disclaimer, etc) manages this because it is consistent with itself 95% of time and crucially when it matters most. For the same reason I'd argue that its expanded universe is a heap of alienating crap because it repeatedly reinvents rules and story to serve the... narrative ...and gameplay. PoE, of course, sits in the middle, so I would expect its weapons and armour to sit somewhere there as well. The other crucial factor, relating to size in particular but also shape, is what for lack of a better term I shall call the Warhammer effect, which is simply to say that when viewing small models larger, exaggerated weaponary is prefererable because it makes it clearer to see what the model is using, and gives the weapon a reasonable sense of scale on the battlefield - if not on the model itself.

"This time it'll be different, just like before!"

In all fairness, the reverse is true. Breakable lockpicks and skill rolls lead directly to savescumming and non-breakable lockpicks and skill checks make savescumming obselete. Obviously all rolls lead to savescumming to a degree, and I certain don't oppose RAND in my video games but I do think for static challenges (i.e. hardly in the heat of the moment) that skill checks are absolutely preferable to skill rolls for the very reasons stated above.

Fingers crossed you should have six of these in PoE.

I believe it would be something closer to a sex act.

Thanks for the link! That project looks really cool and I may just have to get backing it!

I can see the gameplay mechanic created by locks requiring a varying number of lockpicks dependant upon skill, but I would much prefer a simple "You need five levels of lockpicking or four with lockpicks to pick this lock" system. I much prefer games which have unbreakable picks of different types or levels. Incidentally, do we have any locksportsmen here? Exactly how often do locks break picks? I may finally support the immersion crowd if they'll rid me of an unpleasant mechanic. In terms of my reading of Infinitron's original point, I agree that many of the 3.5E games discouraged cross-class utility (as opposed to combat)skills because the vast majority of skill-checks in an area were only passable by a maxed-out class skill - certainly the places where the best loot was hiding. To be fair, though, that was another reason why I prefered 2E thieves, because a multiclass/dual was all you needed if you didn't like true thievery.

The Bloody Nine.

General thresholds of usefulness are very important in multiplayer, single-character crpgs not only to ensure that no one feels or becomes disposable but also to practically ensure that the classes that make up the gameplay balance (e.g. healers) are adequately represented to ensured to game can be played as intended. The case is similar in PnP, although obviously the DM can enhance specific-player utility actively. From a personal standpoint, and this is not necessarily a counterpoint to anything Jarrakul suggested so far, I think that the whole purpose of classes and builds in crpgs should be about shaping their utility. I think a lot of people feel a very similar way, which is why any suggestion that could be perceived as promoting class equality in a specific sphere (almost inevitably dps) tends to receive a rather impassioned negative response. Even in the original BG, there are numerous ways to build your rogue, and the threshold of usefulness is something that you shape. To borrow Jarrakul's example of the useless rogue against the undead, this would not - and did not - transpire in my playthrough because through weapons, skills and multiclassing my rogue was able to attain a greater threshold of usefulness in those battles. Conversely, I should imagine that another player building a backstabbing/scouting rogue would make for a superb magekiller which would have made other battles far easier. If my party had swapped out my rogue for another two-handed fighter (whose threshold of usefulness is damned near constant) my party would have been weaker. Interestingly, my party would also have been weaker for having the backstabbing/scouting rogue because the rest of my party was not optimised for it. We've been there before, but choices like that are the essence of tactics. I sympathise with Jarrakul (and, for what it's worth, "liked" his point even when I don't necessarily agree), because there are few worse things on forums than someone misconstruing your point, reconstructing one that you didn't make, and then attacking something you never said. However, given that thresholds of usefulness are seldom binary things and by opening up examples that both others might not necessarily relate to and that could be used to support the counterpoint, the misunderstandings that followed were always going to be more likely than if, for instance, he had pointed out the combat manouvering, stealth attacks and enemy targeting is gameplay while creeping around a dungeon searching for traps and reloading every time your arbitrary "hide in the shadows" roll fails is not. Print that off, frame it, and hang it directly above your monitor, Lephys.

I think the issue is in examples you're using. The idea of the "threshold of usefulness" (something you may wish to run ahead and get a copywrite on before I do) is a very fair point and makes a lot of sense, but then you go on to talk about the dps of fighters and rogues which isn't an example people are getting on board with because they don't see things in the same way. Perhaps because they view the threshold as being party-specific rather than member specific, or simply because people aren't opposed to the existence of contingency classes and jack-of-all-trades.

Something about this section feels lawful evil, or at least chaotic neutral.

Not looking too likely since they've made it clear they're running with a skeuomorphic GUI. File me in camp pro-skeuomorph. In other news, I'm glad to see that as the proud owner of a set of declining eyes, I'll still be able to enjoy PoE. Edit: No pun intended.

Paradox have been a part of some excellent games over the last few years. Personally, though, I was burned by being (absolutely) anti-steam, and buying a hard copy of Crusader Kings 2 - which turned out to only be playable with Steam. I'm assuming that PE shall still be available from Gog. Other than that (for most people minor, and for me, major) blip, I think good things will come from this. EDIT: Godammit, BAdler.

Wars have started over less.

/thread

Which also brings up the wider "evil answer" problem that was pervasive through all of the infinity engine games - that the evil option to "good" quests (which were far more common than their evil counterparts) most often just meant refusing the quest, and the exp. "No, but..." is fine, but in the average quest-giving dialogue "No, not at all" really runs against the spirit - hell, almost the whole concept - of the game.

I. Want. A. Pony.

Their romance arc.