Sylvius the Mad

Exactly right. I've asked in other games for the ability to disable the segmentation of the quest journal so I don't know which quests are main quests or side quests - because the PC shouldn't know those things either. I also hate cutscenes that show me things the PC doesn't know. NWN2 is the first game I recall doing this much.

If we have a key ring, then there's no decision to be made about whether to keep the key. Maybe we'll find out later that we need to break into that same guy's house again, and if we didn't get caught the first time then we can use the same key. But if we threw it away, we have to find some other means of ingress. Imagine a plot where there's a locksmith who's been making a master key for all the locks he makes. If you find it, having it disappear would tell you when you'd found all of the locks - I'd rather not know that for sure. Look at the companion quest items in NWN. You could find those items before even meeting the relevant companions, and you could discard those items before ever meeting the relevant companion. When you find any item, it might be valuable. You don't know. You can make an educated guess based on item descriptions of the circumstances under which you found it or any number of things, and different characters will discard different items for different reasons - telling the player in advance what an item is for (or that it is for anything, or that it isn't) impacts those decisions in a potentially character-breaking way.

I've always considered the dialogue options to be abstractions (like keywords in text parser dialogue systems), rather than an exact representation of what was said. I don't perceive the player-created character as the player's avatar. Since the player controls the whole party, I suggest that the party, as a group, serves as the player's avatar. A sort of gestalt avatar. That would stand to reason, if it were the case that the PC was making all of the tactical, logistical, and equipment decisions. But he isn't. Not unless the player decides he is. The player makes these decisions for the party, and how the player imagines the party is actually making these decisions within the game world is entirely up to him. There is no requirement that the PC be the one carrying out the player's instructions. Inf act, in combat, we can see how this isn't the case. Since the player retains control of the whole party, even when the PC is incapacitated, demonstrates that the player doesn't control just the one player-created character.

I don't see why you would assume that to be the case. As mentioned above, both BG games allowed any party member to act as leader - they even got smug about it. The PC isn't necessarily the party leader. The player is necessarily leading the party (by controlling where they go and what they do), but from an in-character perspective those instructions need not be soming from the player-created character. Perhaps they're arrived at by consensus. There's simply no reason to assume the PC is the de facto leader unless you would prefer it that way. Yes. Me. The player. Not necessarily the PC.

I really hate this idea.

I couldn't disagree more. I really dislike the trend in modern games to tell me exactly what something is for and whether I'll need it. The Junk section on the inventory in DA2 was appalling. The inventory system should not give me metagame information about the things I find. I don't want to know if something I picked up is a quest item - I should have to figure that out myself. I don't want to know that something I just found is useless and I can safely sell it - I should have to figure that out myself. And I should be able to decide how to do that in character. Having the game tell me that something is no longer necessary eliminates a potential roleplaying opportunity. Having the game tell me that something will be important later eliminates a potential roleplaying opportunity.

I'm fairly certain that one of the early updates of Q&As told us that they were heading more in the BG2 direction than in the BG direction. Which is sad. I'm still massively looking forward to this game, but I would really like it if someone would give us open exploration (like BG) again.

Why should the PC necessarily be the party leader? This isn't something I get at all. If I design a PC who isn't well-suited to lead, why would he lead? 1. The boss doesn't necessarily speak for the team. The boss might not be the best spokesperson. 2. The PC isn't necessarily the boss. Maybe there isn't a boss - perhaps the party is a group of equals. The player is in control, yes, but that is not equivalent to the PC being in control.

No matter who is party spokesperson, I would expect a goody-goody paladin to object to that kind of behaviour. Selecting the wrong response for that character could imply end the conversation as the companion objects to the direction in which the party is headed. It's possible I started that one, too. Since PE isn't fully voiced, this wouldn't be necessary, as the lines could contain variables. There's no reason why Obsidian can't write dialogue as "Greetings, %CHARNAME%."

Excellent choice. Though, given the availability of player-created content, I think I'd go with NWN.

The oldest CRPG I have played - Oubliette, released 1977 - consisted entirely of a single dungeon, which was 10 levels deep. And to this day, I wish it had been longer.

And I would take that to mean: a BG or NWN level of voice-over. They'll probably voice opening lines and character-defining lines, but most lines will not be voiced.

I've been trying to get some sort of answer on this since the project was announced. In a party-based game, I really like to be able to create different kinds of characters without them needing to fill specific roles within the party (because there are other characters available to fill those roles). This allows me more freedom in crafting my character's background and personality. However, if my character needs to act at party spokesperson, that means that I need to create a character who is capable of acting as party spokesperson. I'm not talking about stats - Tim's update made it clear that low Charisma or low Intelligence characters will be well-served by the written dialogue - but more about things like shyness and anxiety. If my character needs to act as party spokesperson, then I can't very well have him be afraid of people without breaking character whenever I initiate a conversation. It's not a game-breaking issue, but it is a game-changing issue, and I'm curious to know in what direction Obsidian is heading. Will this be like PST, where the player-created character is always the party's spokesperson? Will it be like Baldur's Gate, where any party member can lead the party and act as spokesperson? Will it be like SoZ, where the party initiates conversations as a group, but then employs a different spokesperson as it sees fit?

It had better apply exactly the same way. There's no defensible reason to have the rules that govern the PCs be different from the rules that govern other characters.

Obsidian is running out of time to let me know whether we can use any party member as party spokesperson. I will increase my pledge significantly for this feature.

Put everything in a frame. The UI shouldn't be blocking my view of the in-game environment. That screenshot is pretty - I'd rather not have to peer around a floating UI element to see it.

Yeah, I remember that. Who'd have thought a bunch of wolves would provide such a ridiculously tough obstacle? While I'll agree the scaling made that encounter more difficult at later levels than it should have been, animals in DAO had really low Will saves, so they were incredible vulnerable to things like Sleep spells. Casting Sleep at the start of that encounter rendered it trivial. And that's the sort of thing I would like to see, but without the scaling. Some encounters should be difficult for some types of parties while very easy for others, while with other encounters it will be the reverse.

I would enjoy that, and making the game harder or easier could potentially be the reason I did that. As long as the mechanics are well documented, any ensuing balance mistakes are the fault of the player.

I don't agree that Baldur's Gate's multiclasses were overpowered. Dual-classing was overpowered, but multiclassing in AD&D had significant drawbacks.

99 Red Dragons. Those were the days.

I refuse even to go so far as to call it abuse. It's just use. Calling it abuse requires a foundationless value judgment I'm not willing to make.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves. The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better. I don't concede that it's bad design. Giving the players options is good design, full stop. It's up to the players to use those options they like and ignore those options they don't. It is never the designers' job to protect the player from himself.

All party members are player characters. I should have equivalent control over all of them.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

Newspeak would like a word with you.