Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About yaminsoul

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator


  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. Question 1) Um, does it matter to whom, for what? For people who like identifying with their characters, its a nice bonus, but if none of your choices make any difference and you have no alternate paths to explore (much like FF 13 for most of the game), i think alot of people will be sad. But again, it could still be a strong game based on other attributes. I still think making your own character is less important for the immersion feel that a good story, but that's me. 2) Both? But more the latter. I think its still "role-playing" with a pre-gen character who you then can make decisions t
  2. So after debating a similar issues on another topic, I thought I would bring this here. I am curious what people think, even though I know we wont have "fixed morality" in this game like previous IE titles.
  3. I think we have strayed a bit too far from original topic so I will move the discussion into a new thread "moral choices and consequences."
  4. No, I am fine with arguing and I understand what points you are making. I just found it amusing that you seemed to be stating the exact unhappiness I was saying would be a inevitableconsequence of trying too much for a logical reward system. Someone asking for too much of this, well be careful what you wish for. Now, I actually think there is a very interesting and risky (very, very risky) innovation for an RPG: To actually have in game consequences for acts, both good and evil that involve not getting rewards of ANY type, even if it involved time and effort. You want to good, and cal
  5. And yes, as I said "but alot of people I think would get mad if they did not get SOME significant rewards for time invested other than warm fuzzies." Cause in point above What I wanted to point is NOT that not giving material or useful rewards for time invested is an enjoyable thing for most players of RPG's. Instead, what I was noting "is kinda the logical outcome of a 'logical' reward system," which was the original point of this thread. I wanted to indicate that when you go for logic in rewards (or pretty much anything else in RPG video games ) you really should be prepared to accept
  6. Its interesting, because what you are saying above has long been a staple of table top roleplaying. IE differing type of skill checks (though hitting things is usally an entirely different mechanic), some which are unique to the character, some for whole party and some in between. It has never, however, really been implented in an IE game 2 reasons I think. 1) After Icewind Dale 2 "You" were always a single protagonist, not a group of character, so I suspect the developers wanted to emphasis your skills more than the parties, and not make you check all of theirs all the time. 2) "WE HA
  7. With respect to the well said opinions of others, for me the answer is certainly yes, but it leads to a slightly different type of game, though the difference for me is not nearly as grand as Rem seems to feel it is for him, As MC mentioned, there is a huge difference from whether the character STARTS premade or user-generated to whether the game allows real, viable choice in character growth or not. The first is a more a fine difference to me, the second very important, and I would be very sad for linear, forced character growth a la ff 13. I still think the game can be "fun," but I see t
  8. I too heartly second having NPC-NPC conversations, rivalries, love affairs, ect ect that don't resolve around the main character. I would also, if it is possible, would if NPC's aren't with the main party (ala DA:0) style, they actually go do something, perhaps even something productive.
  9. But if we are going for realism in rewards, you might just have to swallow the idea that some quest give less "reward" of ANY type than others, even if its later in the game. After all, it really might just be that certain people or situation can't offer what others can, in a major way. This of course could lead to the a nice ACTUAL moral question: Do you "waste" your time helping the farmer, or do you seak out better rewards. Its even better if the XP is minimal, so really the major reward you get is moral satisifaction and perhaps kudos from certain party members (and perhaps dislike fro
  10. Re Nemir: Cautious movement scripting would be excellent as a feature you could turn on and off (becuase you know some people are going to want to just play "I told them to move there, move their d**m it.) but I would just like better pathering which incorperates hazards or potential hazards and priotizes safety over spead, if I check that button. Re Leyphs: Eh, now we are getting to close the "realize versus gameplay" debates, but what I meant was that if your trying to bluff/convince someone the party members chimming in who are bad at diplomacy is not going to help and also does not ma
  11. I too support point buy with gradual increase, IE. the NVW-Icewind Dale 2. Your characters gets x number of points to divide amoung attributes, then say every few levels gets a point, as well can get a point or two as rewards. So ie closer to fixed but some change. My problem with rolling, as has been mentioned by a few people, is that it encourages the power gamer in me to keep rolling until I get god stats. Now if they want to put that option in, sure I guess, but it might ruin balance issues.
  12. In terms of skill checks, yeah, some I can see logically working with "aid other" idea, i.e. your party can work together do lift stuff, clear boulders, even help each other climbing through ropes and picks. In social situations it becomes harder, because as mentioned before people usually want to talk to one or two people, not 6. But remember the more kind of complex skills checks we add here, the harder it is to script and code. While it might be cool to see this, skills in the IE games were never a huge deal except really the thieves set (hide/search/disarm trap) and once in a while dip
  13. For me I also would like "logical rewards," kinda but I think that sort of realize would very, very hard to implement without sacrificing alot of game play. Because unless your character and friend are ONLY picking richer and richer people, or at least higher level craftsman, to help as the game goes on and you level, the rewards are going to be complelty mismatched to your parties xp. I mean, if were are going to be logical, the village smith is never going to have the same level money or equipment as the master one in the city, but if you encounter said smith with quest late in the game, yo
  14. Short answer for me to the original question: "Should a fighter be able to cast fireball?" No. "Should they be able to use magic?" Yes* *But it depends what you mean by magic. Long Answer As people have tended to use D and D 3.5 in this conversation, I guess I will start there. As many, many people have noted who played the table top version of D and D 3.0-3.5, one of the biggest "flaws" in the game design was how quickly spellcasters of virtually any type became "better" than non-spell caster of any type. This was actually well quantified in the "tier system" http://br
  15. Hey all. I find it interesting that the only comments I received were on the dialogue/party system. I am curious if that's because everyone agreed with the other point I made or just everyone is much more passionate about this subject. Love to here what posters think, On to dialogue speaking system, as someone who does and has done a fair bit of paper roleplaying, its interesting tension when there is party speaker with actually people and their characters involved and present. In some groups everyone keeps silent except for the Speaker and NPC(s), in others everyone has their characte
  • Create New...