Azrael Ultima

Always good to keep a spare around. Certainly better than the games where you can somehow fail to find vital body parts on a corpse. "What do you mean, 'he doesn't have a heart'?"

Standard D20 attribute names, actually. Not D&D. Those are freely available for anybody to use. The issue is that PoE would edge dangerously close to being mistaken for a D&D setting(especially with the BG/IWD/PST connection), while Star Wars clearly is not one. Also, legal troubles doesn't equal that their legal opponent actually has a valid case. Lawyers don't work for free, after all. And you didn't just ask for the names, you basically asked for the entire core attribute system to be used. There's actually D20 rulebooks for Star Wars, though they don't fully fit in with KotOR.

After they run away, at least.

Well, Ineth did say "start by", not that they would immediately lock that down as their final plan. Not irrelevant. Only objective trait you could be advantaged or disadvantaged on. Whether being under/overleveled is an advantage or disadvantage is dependent on the players preferences. Some people like the extra challenge and would therefore consider it an advantage. Others prefer outleveling fights. If you use that as part(or all) of the requirements, you become unable to find any system at all that fulfills them. Not a sensible interpretation if you're actually looking for a solution. Not to mention that granting all levels before you reach the first fight or right on character creation are valid uses of the system given, and would avoid all of the issues you brought up.

Yes, very clever (for sufficiently small values of clever), but, since we're in pedantic mode, leaving the game running as a play style is a huge advantage and a speed run would put a player at a huge disadvantage in your XP system. I know you weren't proposing this as a serious solution to Gromnir's challenge, but these examples only show the ridiculousness of your proposed solution, not to the challenge (which does have a solution, but it is at least as asinine as the time based XP idea). They aren't at a (dis)advantage in regards to XP gain per timeframe, which by definition is the same for everybody. That the game is harder/easier with certain playstyles is hard to avoid and hard to define as advantage or disadvantage, as some players might intentionally choose a style that is different from baseline difficulty. Anyway, the point was that any solution fulfilling his requirements must be one that is utterly retarded as a gameplay element. I'd say they are about as persuasive as the arguments of the anti-kill-XP side.

Way to miss the point. You intuitively associated might with the ability to make big explosions. In this case, that's simply false. Might does not make fireballs big. At the same time, larger explosions would intuitively come from more 'boom' behind the spell, which is what might is supposedly describing. Your particular choice of words when explaining what might does is a perfect illustration of how little sense the mechanical effects of might and intellect towards spells make considering what they're describing according to the lore. Replace fireball with any single target spell. You're purposely interpreting things to mean something that supports your point, then assume everybody does so for no reason other than to make your argument seem more valid. Besides, what does any of that have to do with the discussion at hand at all? We're not discussing here whether Might and Intellect are the best possible names for the stats. You also only made an argument for why Might could include AoE and duration as well, but stacking that much stuff on one stat is probably not the best of ideas.

Nah, that's just the most ridiculous edge case. It's still pretty much the only option even if you exclude anything nobody in their right mind would do.

No, partial task completion was not my proposal. I even repeated it for you in your quote. The only possible system which does not disadvantage any possible playstyle. But thank you for confirming that you willfully ignore what doesn't fit your worldview, and therefore that any attempt of discussion is pointless. No, of course not. It just shows the ridiculousness of requesting a system that is independent of playstyle. As, technically, leaving the game running while you sleep actually constitutes a playstyle as well, which, by gromnirs demand, may not be disadvantaged.

You purposely misinterpreting a statement does not a mistake make. Stop playing dumb, unless you want me to treat you like you are. Edit: Bleh, to used to forums auto-merging double posts.

They could have. They didn't want to, because that system has it's own slew of problems, not to mention that they probably would have had to license it to avoid legal trouble. Sounds to me like you're looking for a D&D based game, in which case you're wrong here. It works just as well as an argument to use any other possible stat system as well. That is, it is completely useless for the purpose of advocating one stat system over another. You also seem to have misread the pitch. They wanted to stay close to the look and feel of IE games, not to the AD&D rule set and by extension, IE games mechanics.

Actually, i gave you your desire pages ago. Grant XP for time passed, which is both easy to implement, simple and straightforward, and completely independent of any playstyle because it has no connection whatsoever to what the player does. Which is the only way to grant XP independent of playstyle at all.

You know exactly what is meant by "big fireballs". That aside, all stats are, necessarily, game mechanical abstractions. Asking for them to be fully explained in-universe is often not terribly sensible. Int somehow makes abilities affect larger areas and last longer. Does that make logical sense? Probably not. Does it work as a game stat? I think so. Maybe it would have been better suited with a name like "Intensity".

A few strawmen, i think, though i haven't personally seen them yet.

Eh, when you're stoned and poisoned you just need to ask a rock shaman to heal you. Or a rock priest.

No, the Wizzards. I'm sure the wizards are busy enough on their own to not worry about to much as long as they don't notice you.

Metagamers will always find a way to metagame. Trying to prevent that in a single player game is both futile and pointless.

But that is only a change in when you get your combat XP, not whether you do. You still got XP for killing things. This is a part where cRPGs are different for practical reasons(imagine you got all your XP at the end of BG... fat lot of good it would do you). Though, personally, i'd prefer seeing the(same) reward for any manner of defeating an enemy, including talking them down(where appropriate) or sneaking around them if they are intended to block of an area, but only once.(So you don't get XP again for killing the guys you just talked out of fighting you)

"Many people" is ad populum. You claim that change needs to happen because some nebulous "many people" are unhappy with the system you'd like to see changed. That's about as pure as ad populum gets. You'd fare better if you'd just skipped the justification part and went straight to your suggestion.(Though that still wouldn't have avoided the discussion over whether the change is necessary) And nothing can ever be changed in a way that makes everybody happy. You probably couldn't even change Nothing without somebody complaining. Besides, it's impossible to word this topic in a way that doesn't get you that big discussion. It's inherent to the topic.(Well, okay, you could make it totally incomprehensible, but i doubt i need to explain why that wouldn't be useful)

I'm not sure what worries me more. That you have a Wizzard, that he's constantly speaking to himself, or that he can cast spells. At least he shows some natural behaviour by constantly running. It's actually part of the (semi-serious part)rules of the PnP game that you should at least know and say the large print part of the spells you want to cast. The spell books have longer incantations which are partially latin(usually the first 1-2 words) and partially german. ("Das Schwarze Auge", which the Realms of Arkania games are based on, is a german PnP system) It's perfectly valid to declare what you want to cast by reciting the full incantation.

Ok, you get 1 level(or XP, doesn't matter much) every discrete time unit, regardless of your personal actions, until level cap is reached. Pretty much the only option that is completely independant of playstyle, give them XP for something they have no control over whatsoever. Incidentally, it's also one of the easiest to implement, as you can completely forgo any kind of tracking anything except the players current level and time spent, which is probably being done anyway.

So strength makes people heal better? Otherwise, you have something to mechanically distinguish the two. Fine by me. The world would be rather boring if we all had the same preferences.

Is Level 1 a trained adventurer, or someone just beginning their journeys? I view a Level 4-5 adventurer as a trained adventurer, a Level 10-12 a renowned adventurer. Trained as in "has finished basic training and is ready to go out unsupervised". A level 1 fighter is still a fighter, not a random guy who so happens to have a sword. What you call "trained", i'd call "experienced". Basically, an untrained guy would be classless(or civilian or something like that). Perhaps even level 0.

No, that makes sense in the game world because it's a quest you receive in the game world. In the end, the developers have to put in XP somewhere if they want to have an XP-based leveling system in the game. Quest-XP is the place where it has the least unintended consequences, because quests are pretty much the base concept of a roleplaying game. Ok, cool. So can we have a quest to murder everything and reward it with a bunch of XP? It's a quest, so it must be ok. Even better, have the quest reward you after every partial step.

Frankly, i think the best way to say it would be "Might isn't strength, but strength is Might". Neither fully excluding it nor equating the two leads to a sensible outcome. All of those, though not necessarily all at once. A wizard can use his magic to enhance himself or he could have trained. Maybe he does both. Different academies may have different priorities and requirements for their students(a military academy would likely put high focus on combat ability, both magical and physical. An academy focusing on enchanting and research into "civilian" uses of magic? Not so much) Your problem is that you treat these options as mutually exclusive, when there is no reason for them to be. Also consider that at this point, lore is still in flux. Lore isn't some immutable, pre-existing monolithic structure. Especially not for minor details that haven't been fully explained yet. Lastly, none of that is in conflict with wizards having an academic and studious mindset. I'm not even sure where you're getting that idea or why you believe it would be. It's equivalent to saying all fighters must be dumb because they focus on physical combat and discipline. They favour debate and knowledge seeking(which, depending on the field, might be quite strenuous), it's not the only thing they ever do. And it tells you nothing about what they do in their free time.

People are having a discussion about it. You should have realised it will spill into this thread before you even made it, since it is such a strongly discussed topic. You can demand they stop talking about it till you're blue in the face, it won't change anything. That's just a reality of forums. That aside, your topic is specificially not "Let's say that A, here's what i would do", but "I claim that A, here's what i would do", and then you start off with an argument ad populum, which gives you a shaky start at best.