Gromnir

am thinking that unlike european nations that invariably look for an internal threat against which it can direct efforts and blame for evils, the US typically looks outwards. if a threat doesn't genuine exist, the US will make one. war with mexico 1846-48 seems like an early example. more recent, American public were all scared into a panic when we learned that the USSR were spending 15% of its GDP on defense (some recent estimates suggest that % should be approaching 25, but only 'cause GDP o' the ussr were even more pathetic than we thought.) 'course it is arguable that the soviet were never a genuine threat... save for all those nukes... which IS hard to dismiss. saddam were a credible threat for 15 minutes or so. if muslim terrorists weren't a threat after 9-11, one wonders what new threat woulda' been created... probably woulda jumped at china that much sooner. china has ownership o' huge amount of US debt... PANIC. the debt they own is in the form of US treasury bonds. oh. china is taking over the world in manufacturing... PANIC. of rubber dog poop and office chairs and other stuff that don't fit within the definition of Capital Goods. oh. etc. personally, Gromnir is not a fan when any significant portion o' defense hardware or components o' defense hardware is manufactured beyond US boarders. is not as if Gromnir is some great military strategist, but that feels wrong to us. even so, as far as credible economic threats is concerned, we thought the panic about Japanese manufacturing in the early 90s were far more realistic than current nightmare scenarios 'bout china... and the Japanese fears were never all that worrisome to us. the United States has some serious debt issues and there is infrastructure problems that needs be addressed sooner rather than later... and by "sooner," we mean a couple decades ago. that being said, china? nope. sorry, we don't see it. HA! Good Fun! ps comments above should not make it sound as if we is dismissive of china economic metamorphosis of last 30 years. but much o' what were done by china to reach their current state is likely to impede further growth. gonna take wholesale changes that do not appear to be forthcoming.

am gonna balk at "great," but that is a quibble. in any event, our issue is with using as a citation. HA! Good Fun!

Well, yes, if the only acceptable outcome to in this discussion for you is that I accept everything you say without question, and that if I do not accept this then it must be because I am either indoctrinated or ignorant and cannot be taught "the truth", then I do suppose there is no point in this discussion. is in your best interest not to believe anything without checking for yourself. that were our suggestion btw. HA! Good Fun!

It isn't reliable enough in general level so that it could be used as source for scientific papers, as most of it's articles can be edited by anybody and more often than not validity of sources that people post in articles aren't checked, which can and have lead in circle references, where Wikipedia article references article that references Wikipedia article. And its article writers have often bad habit to forget to give credit for original writers and studies. is essentially what we said already. however, am gonna disagree with you that wikipedia is an ok source to cite, under any circumstances. recall our statement, "anybody who cites wikipedia..." that were how we phrased our condemnation. if you is complete oblivious and need a starting point from which to start, we don't begrudge the use of wiki. that being said, to cite wiki is... laughable. "some guy on the bio social forum" "i read it while on craigslist" "it was on a flier i was handed outside a starbucks" if the above were your citations, folks would laugh, but wiki somehow gets a pass even though it is no more valid. HA! Good Fun! ps am thinking folks is getting lost on liberty more than democracy, but if they can't find it themselves, there won't be no learning.

is many reasons. first, do you know how wiki entries is created? takes very little effort to create an intentionally fraudulent wiki entry. is even less surprising when an accidental incorrect wiki entry appears. to trust any wiki entry is naive bordering on moronic. second, is the most half-arsed and lazy scholarship possible. you don't read any primary or even secondary sources. some unknown author presents you with... snippets (?) either pulled out o' the air or their arse, or with no thought to context. is a breeding ground for plagiarism. is sloppy, unsophisticated. is cliff's notes o' cliff's notes. and while it has been a Long time since Gromnir were teaching, such nonsense is getting an automatic fail if we discovered one is using wiki as a source. and to jade, your definition should not change anything. am suspecting that the almost inevitable indoctrination o' folks raised in Democratic nations is creating a near insurmountable block. as we said earlier, is axiomatic, but difficult for people to grasp that Democracy is adversarial to Liberty. perhaps we shoulda' put "tyranny of the majority" in quotes, but it is such oft used that we found no need. if you cannot understand how a Democracy necessarily places limits on citizens and their liberty rights, am thinking we is at a place Gromnir will have much difficulty in helping you move forward. am recognizing that we needs must explains what is "law" and "liberty" and "democracy." this is perhaps getting too... rudimentary. perhaps you is confused 'cause you think we is suggesting that Democracy is specially adversarial or antagonistic... more so than say theocracy. we never made such a claim. again, maybe 'cause it would help if you got basics from toqueville, john stuart mill, john adams, james madison or nietzsche, perhaps it would be better to search "tyranny of the majority." but this shouldn't be a new concept. HA! Good Fun!

to elerond 1) anybody who cites wikipedia as a source deserves to be kicked in the head with a steel-toed boot. really 2) your post doesn't seem to have a point *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

am saying what we said. Democracy is adversarial towards notions o free speech and other liberties. the First Amendment free speech protections ensures that no simple majority decision by the people will infringe 'pon your fundamental Liberty rights. furthermore, a Judiciary (Supreme Court numbers has fluctuated between 6 and 10 over the years) that can stymie the will of the people is also not particularly democratic, is it? this is why we noted that the organization o' our government is an intended limitation on Democracy. the whim of the majority IS Democracy, and the founding fathers recognized that Individuals needed protection from the Democratic process. this is an axiomatic but difficult concept for many to grasp. many folks is taught to thinks that an inherent quality of Democracy is Liberty. the truth is that Democracy protects the Liberties of the current majority, nothing more. whatever enduring liberty protections you enjoy is due to the fact that the government of these United States is organized, in part, to combat the tyranny of the majority. as for appointing of Justices, that process is also meant to be adversarial. independent judiciary? independent from whom? the President appoints with the consent of the Senate. and once confirmed, a Justice sits for life (or until retirement.) is not surprising how many Justices act against the prognostications of Senators and Presidents once they become members of The Court. HA! Good Fun! ps perhaps an Extreme simplification is required to clarify Democracy: government of, by and for the people. Liberty: the ability to do as one chooses, in spite of the government.

*insert eye-roll here* is not that Democracy is incompatible with financial oligarchy, 'cause you know, there ain't no such ubiquitous and monstrous example in the United States. the "problem" is that Democracy is not compatible with Liberty. "citizens of the U.S. "do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise..." am not sure how reputable scholars get away with such fallacious nonsense. Democracy is antagonistic towards "freedom of speech and association"... to point out just one glaring inaccuracy. free speech protections insure that unpopular speech will not be limited regardless o' whim o' the majority. the majority, Democracy, is fickle and stupid. the majority can look at nutters in florida burning the koran or nazis in skokie illinois marching down mainstreet and be shocked an appalled. the thing is, the majority were shocked an appalled by civil rights speakers, vietnam war protesters and proponents o' gay and lesbian rights too. the Bill of Rights is NOT a tool of Democracy, it is a shield against Democracy. the founding fathers were very much aware o' the potential tyranny of the majority. furthermore, more than specific Constitutional protections, our government is designed to be inefficient and internally adversarial. the goal were to be making a government that would be fighting itself most o' the time. these protections weren't believed necessary to protect the majority so much as to protect Liberty, 'cause frequently Democracy is anathema to Liberty. now, we get that some folks, particularly first year college students and european socialists, is thinking it is foolish to give same/similar weight to a rich guy's liberty rights to spend his money how he will and and average joe who wants to protest unfair voting practices. to a certain degree, the Supreme Court agrees. strictly commercial speech and endeavors gots less Constitutional gravitas than fundamental rights. nevertheless, we here in the United States take Liberty very serious. many Liberty rights is functionally off-limits to the whim o' Democracy. even seemingly insignificant Liberties gets protected by the process. regardless, it is that Democracy is incompatible with Liberty that leads to the "problems" identified in the paper. HA! Good Fun! ps please note that Gromnir never suggested that all Liberty rights does/should get special protections. quite the contrary.

Our weapons' enchantments are balanced around their handedness and speed. handedness. handedness? taken literal, we find this amusing. weapons themselves can't have handedness, so... The Southpaw Spear of Destiny: when wielded by a lefty, the weapon may deliver an invariably fatal coup de grâce to any prone, immobilized or otherwise defenseless humanoid creature. a right-handed wielder suffers progressively debilitating nightmares. the dreams vary, but always end with the wielder drowning in blood. from a practical standpoint, the wielder receives a cumulative 1 point penalty following each nightmare to all ability scores until he rids himself of the spear. etc. handedness. *snort* HA! Good Fun!

well, to be fair, a 9th level cleric in 2e were not an every-town kinda personage. rogue's gallery stats for rigby list him as level 9 and serten gets all the way to 15. rogue's gallery were, admittedly, 1st edition, but leveling didn't become faster in second, so am thinking it is fair to use such well-known iconic characters as a guide. also, rez fail were based 'pon constitution and average con o' 9 is gonna result in a fail rate of 30%. if you died originally 'cause o' age or general poor health (constitution) those fail chances is gonna be even less forgiving. furthermore, any dm is gonna have the cleric beholden to tenants of faith such that random or your example spam resurrections of the aristocracy would be seeming unlikely. HA! Good Fun!

turn a corner in some random dungeon and get hit by a bus? splat. dead. game over. stupid? sure, but that is what we is talking 'bout. these unpredictable encounters that has a high probability o' causing a party wipe is not enhancing game fun. being entertaining is the goal... not to be "challenging," though only the most obtuse would see the aforementioned bus mauling as a challenge. is funny (well, is funny assuming you are English... or high,) but stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

In PnP terms first mistake: is not pnp. am recalling when josh had to point that seeming obvious fact out to tim cain. in pnp, you sit around a table with a handful o' other folks and got a dm, all of whom is reactive. gotta let go o' the notion that playing a single-player crpg is playing a pnp game in a computer environment. HA! Good Fun!

*eye roll* http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26786213 even if the masked men outside the synagogue were part o' some elaborate ruse (russians do love conspiracy theories after all) to make Donestk look bad (*snort*) such a ploy only works 'cause it is believable. HA! Good Fun!

got a good example o' such a single-player crpg? you know, with no storytelling save for what you interpret from killing goblins and opening chests? HA! Good Fun! Nethack *eye roll* sorry, but nethack has story same way does pong. HA! Good Fun! ps say that you don't need, care or want story elements. is fine. is honest. nevertheless, you mighta' noticed that pillars claims to be using the IE games as role-models, so... you is perhaps barking up the wrong tree if you want text based adventure game from the 80s.

... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect-kgxBb4M little kids can do this, but llephys can't? okie dokie. HA! Good Fun!

Some of those do look good. I liked the Lenin look best. http://www.xoxma.lv/uploads/posts/2013-04/1366178765_putin_moustache_11.jpg Edit: actually, he should grow a matching goatee. Mind you, some of the other mustaches make him look like an actor from a certain genre of movies. Shall we say, "nature documentaries". another pic of putin with facial hair. http://hdstarspics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/timothy-dalton-10.jpg HA! Good Fun!

sorry. am recalling back in iwd2 were developed and people were asking for all kinda wacky kit suggestions with superpowers n' such. struck us all as sad and funny, so Gromnir, demanded that we able to play a bladesinger/anti-paladin drow who could dual wield halberds and cast fireballs. there were actual a few folks who responded serious to our demand. in any event, your description sudden reminds us o' our iwd2 suggestion. HA! Good Fun!

got a good example o' such a single-player crpg? you know, with no storytelling save for what you interpret from killing goblins and opening chests? HA! Good Fun!

The only time I've ever had problems with repeating music is when I didn't like the song. If I liked the song and was tired of hearing it, mentally I just stopped paying attention to it. am thinking that the repetitive nature o' a game can lead to almost Pavlovian disgust of the music. there is games wherein game combat is perhaps not as engaging as one would hope. first time one hears the hypothetical "enemy is sighted" theme, perhaps they think that such music is ok... better yet, they don't even notice. sometimes good music is not perceived but simply experienced. the thing is, after some undefinable number o' combats, the player gets sick o' the thought o' another seemingly pointless flabarrgen encounter and the "epic" music being played in background feels a bit silly. disgust with the combat spills-over and now you not even need the combat-- "enemy is sighted" starts playing and already your teeth is set on edge. congratulations, you has been conditioned to loathe the music when you is in fact irritated by the combat. however, and perhaps unfortunately, the reason you dislike the music is inconsequential. is now a concrete fact that the music irritates you and knowing the reason don't change a thing. regardless, Gromnir is able to envision good music gone bad based 'pon its ubiquitous and incessant nature. am recognizing that this is more of a gameplay issue than music, but we will observe that if you does plan on having a particular theme play over and over and over and overandoverandoverandoverandoverandoverandoverandover, it might be better to shoot for understatement. HA! Good Fun!

And "immersion" is not irrelevant or useless. Not any more than any other word in the dictionary anyway. insofar as feedback on a game development board is concerned, "immersion" is as useful as is "interesting." "i like it because it is interesting." "i hate it because it ruins immersion." helpful? ask 10 people on these boards what is qualities that make a game immersive and Why those qualities make immersive. you get such a hodge-podge o' gibberish and contradictions that it is painful to read. as for a god doing narrating... well, at least you cover panda's seeming preference for omniscience that way. personally, Gromnir likes our gods to be remote, but that is an issue for another thread. if narration is kept minimal like in fallout, then making the narrator a character of import is almost pointless, no? if all you had were some fragment o' narration at start and end of game, would there be a point in making the narrator a character? am understanding that if you is gonna have a feature in a game, you want the feature to be kewl. as between some kinda interesting concept narrator and a nameless & faceless minimal narrator, the faceless narrator is gonna seem dull by comparison. tougher sell. the thing is that jakk were largely correct when he identified the purpose o' a crpg narrator. the narrator is Not telling the story in a crpg. the narrator is existing to, "sum up or skim over events." less is more. HA! Good Fun!

I don't understand why the narration for IWD 1 sucks. I thought it was great. I also liked the narration for the BG games as well. the narration for iwd were excellent. as we noted above, iwd and the david ogden stiers narration managed to avoid much o' the tedious character exposition you see in other games. a few minutes o' narration at start of game, between chapters and for epilogue... well-drawn storybook slides were added to enhance the narration. done. simple and stream-lined and no expensive animation. we prefer even less narration, but am understanding the urge to provide context. folks unfamiliar with d&d and the forgotten realms could be mighty confused when playing a game such as bg or iwd. writers know to minimize, but is difficult to do so. HA! Good Fun! ps we see more straw man from panda. really. what is point of the hobbit example? tell us what is bad from a movie and say it happens in games... not any games we is talking about, and is no suggestion that such an approach would occur in pillars as there is no protagonist such as bilbo in pillars... we can't have such a defined protagonist in a crpg such as pillars. nevertheless, you say that how they did in hobbit was bad and future hobbits will be bad too. okie dokie. why you wanna beat the stuffing outta bilbo?

oh come now, you don't really wanna suggest that the limited iwd or iwd2 narration requires anything substantial... and surely not an omnipresent or omniscient. from iwd you got some background info at start. then chapter filler to explain what happened on Long journeys between locations. epilogue. we linked fallout narrator. even less, and more meorable 'cause folks is such big fans o perlman. how "tricky" were that to implement? *shrug* we got some little experience with writing as well. is not near as complicated as you suggest. in most situations, the "trick" is to do as little exposition and narration as is necessary. HA! Good Fun!

the real tragedy of all of this-- what happens to Ukraine's got Talent if this regional conflict continues? https://www.google.com/search?q=ukraine%27s+got+talente&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS560US560&oq=ukraine%27s+got+talente&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.7540j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&sei=E2VPU7yqKpOnyAS3vYHICA&gbv=2#gbv=2&q=ukraine's+got+talent&spell=1 am not certain we could live in a world without Ukraine reality TV. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* the 9th level group fighting vampires has a chance. the party that a minute into combat is now the equivalent o' 4th level is pretty much doomed. level disparity is too great. if we got a reload option, chances are we don't wait for the inevitable wipe. epic battle becomes a slightly annoying reload moment. HA! Good Fun!

your examples and points is not analogous. is a game, not short story or novel. just as our lifted narration from joyce has no place in a crpg, the narrators you describe is largely unnecessary. the omnipresent narrator is Not a requirement in a crpg, 'cause the player/protagonist is gonna be experiencing the story themselves. jakk were swift to recognize that the crpg narrator need only "sum up or skim over events." the annoying and unwieldy exposition that authors believe is necessary to tell their tale, gets vomited forth by a narrator 'stead o' having the local blacksmith inexplicably describe the geopolitical situation of middle-earth and the most pressing and important current events in gondor. and why on earth did sam the knacker feels the need to remind us that we is an orphan who lost our family to a goblin raid some 5 years ago? the laundress who told us to bring the cleaned union-suit to our foster father, I'xparian The Wizard (the apostrophe makes exotic) were compelled to remind us that today were our 17th name day, and... etc. such exposition is ugly and awkward. a brief bit o' narration may make more palatable. in any event, a game doesn't need omniscience, omnipresence or any other ence worth mentioning. HA! Good Fun!