Sylvius the Mad

I'm playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and I chuckle everytime the subtitles say my character's name. Because they are lying. NWN did this, as well, and I think it was a pretty elegant solution. It seems no one else liked it.

The best thing about friendly fire, I think, is that we can sometimes trick the enemy AI into killing itself. At release, NWN and NWN2 were both great for this. Then friendly fire was patched out of both games, kind of ruining them.

Yes That is awesome. I don't think I've ever come across a Trancers reference on the internet.

1. Obviously friendly fire is something we need. 2. Dry hair is for squids. Seriously. Jack Deth? Is that a Trancers reference?

Also, with text, the NPCs can now refer to the PC by name.

There's a guild. You need to pay union scale if you don't want future projects to be a huge hassle.

It's not the size of the numbers that matter. It's the curve.

I'm not objecting to the design. I'm claiming he's describing the game incorrectly. I don't really care if the authored narrative requires combat, because the authored narrative isn't an important part of my gameplay.

Do not, under any circumstances, read his BG2 novelisation.

I would describe him as inexperienced and improving. So far, yes, his novel portfolio is inferior to his game portfolio, but it is my opinion that Asunder is better in almost every way that The Stolen Throne or The Calling.

I love the idea of an exponential XP curve like this, because it eliminates the need to auto-level companions to match the PC. With an exponential XP curve, any level 1 companion can be leveled to the PC's level minus one by leveling the PC a single level.

You're using the same definition as Feargus.

I hated those in PST. Awful things.

I already know that I disagree with Feargus on this. You might think that's crazy. How can I possibly disagree with Feargus when he's describing a game about which he clearly possesses more information than I do? Because I flatly reject the definition of "complete the game" on which his statement relies. A roleplaying game has no fixed end point. A roleplaying game has no winning conditions. There is no sensical definition of "complete the game" which is not unique to a playthrough.

The thing I like about roleplaying is the ability to create narratives through gameplay. The choices I make for my character tell a story. That story may bear little or no resemblance to the story the one the developers wrote. If I can ever, though gameplay, tell a story of Harlan Ellison's quality, that's pretty much the best game ever made.

Just because anyone can do it doesn't mean that anyone will. If the PC doesn't do it, perhaps it will go undone. I'm not asking for the PC not to be exceptional. I'm asking for any exceptionalness the PC has not to be built into him by the designers.

I think the poll just has some granularity unexplored. A person doesn't seem some magical boost of godly selection or lineage to be not a regular joe. He could just be the try-hardiest joe on the planet. As much an everyman as John McClane. The guy with guts. Even if that was the case, he WOULD gain a huge amount of fame simply by his actions alone. That's Commander Shepard for you in a nutshell and yet I GUARANTEE you most of the people would go "oh god not commander shepard, he is SO a chosen one, he's always being bugged by NPC's about how great he is and conveniently being put into situations". The only aspect of Shepard that makes him the Chosen One is that he's the first human Spectre, and that's handed to the player right at the start of the game. If, however, Shepard became the first human Spectra by virtue of something the player actually did, then I'd say there would be no reason at all to describe Shepard as the Chosen One. I don't like the Chosen One mechanic. I like my character to be unexceptional in the aggregate (so he doesn't follow any rules differently from other random NPCs), except insofar as how he behaves. Because that's my input. He's chosen only by virtue of me playing him - everything else about him is typical. So he might have uncommon ambition or uncommon perseverance or any other character trait I assign him, but in terms of his natural opportunities he is basically average. But anyone could have done those things. That I did is what makes me special. At the start of the game, none of that should yet have occurred. It doesn't matter whether someone is perceived as special. it matters whether he is.

You'd also be functionally gimped in sections of the game that reward versatility. That's sort of the point. I want both combat and non-combat skills to be valuable, but I would also like various distributions of those skills to be valuable. i'd like parts of the game to reward specialisation (and punish jacks-of-all-trades). I'd like parts of the game to reward versatility (and punish specialisation). When I say I want my choices to have consequences, I don't want all of those consequences to be positive. I want negative consequences, too. That's my objection. Why is the minimum possible level of versatility not zero? This seems like it's designed to protect the player from himself, which is something the game should never do. If that's the case, then I hope we get to roll for stats, rather than being forced into a balanced point-buy system. Unbalanced characters are fun.

I don't like being the chosen one. I would rather my character excel because of things I make him do, not because he's pre-defined to excel.

Frank Welker, voice-acting superstar.

None. Any information that isn't available to the PC at the moment of character creation is too much information. I specifically don't want to know the names or classes of any potential companions, or even how many there are.

From a gameplay perspective, having to level up under-leveled characters is not fun. If they're under leveled, then you can't take them into the current content, which means you have to go grind old, worthless, un-challenging content. Grinding isn't fun, and I don't want to spend my limited playtime grinding or have to give up ever using the other characters again. That problem only exists if there's a linear (or close to it) XP curve. If we use an exponential curve (like 1st & 2nd edition AD&D), then it only ever takes one level for everyone to catch up. What's exciting is up to me. If there's a risk-free way to gain XP that's available to my companions, then it should be available to the PC.

So if you're not there to baybysit everyone, then they should die? Could. Not should. They could die when they're with me. Why can't they die when I'm not there? Risk-free? Again, if there's some way to gain XP without facing any risk at all, why isn't the PC doing it? That versatility should come with a cost.

I'm sure that if you're so inclined, there will be a way to gimp your characters combat abilities to the point where they will be pretty bad at combat. What abilities other people's characters have shouldn't matter. It's a single player game. Not other player characters. non-player characters. By splitting the pools, the game doesn't allow a character to be ever better with non-combat by avoiding combat skills. Yes, he could choose to employ non-combat skills every time, but his maximum ability with them is artificially limited by his having been forced to spend some points on combat skills. Splitting the pools doesn't just allow us to be good at both combat and non-combat, but it prevents us from being exceptionally good at one at the expense of the other.

Pigeon-holing is itself a roleplaying option. Then don't. But I think that versatility you desire should carry an in-game cost. I also like playing versatile characters, but if versatility is a no-brainer then leveling up risks becoming less interesting. I want the game to punish me for spreading myself too thin, and I expect it will, but I see no reason to place an artificial limit on where that punishment starts. Splitting the skill point pools establishes an arbitrary minimum amount of versatility - I'd rather see that minimum amount be zero. And in a party-based game, you're not likely to have the whole party unable to choose a variety of options. I don't think the problem you're imagining is real. In a single-character game, it could be (but, again, you could avoid it by no building a one-dimensional character), but in a party-based game you've got six characters across whom to spread those disparate abilities.