Sylvius the Mad

While that was a bit silly, it wasn't tied to class. A character of any class could wear heavier armour and draw more attention. DAO is an example of a game that doesn't limit combat roles by class. The BG games don't, either. If you want to build a party around Viconia and 5 wizards, you can do that, and the party can still be effective.

I recall a time when RPGs were never released on schedule. Because RPGs are hard to make. Games should be released "when they're done." That used to be BioWare's standard, years ago.

RTFM - But then let us assign everything as we see fit as long as we comply with the rules.

This isn't a feature I generally like. I think classes should be designed to make sense within the setting, and then the players can work out how they want to use those classes together as an effective group. For example, in D&D-based games many different classes can adequately fill the role of front-line warrior, including some non-warrior classes like Clerics. They might not all be as good at acting like a front-line warrior as a Fighter is, but that can be compensated for with the rest of the group. Similarly, in DAO a character of any class could fill that front-line warrior role. Warriors, obviously, did well, but Rogues and Mages could both, depending how they were built, do the same (Rogues were arguably better at it). The tendency, which I mostly blame on MMOs, to force each class into a specific combat role is something that I think harms the coherence of the game's setting. Class abilities should not be so narrow as to appear obviously designed. So I'm very much hoping that Project Eternity will not rigidly define classes by their intended roles in combat.

37 Ultima IV

I prefer Realist art in my games.

I would pay extra for it. edit: You know what, I'm making that offer. If Obsidian announces optional full-party creation and the ability to use any party member as party spokesperson, I'm doubling my pledge. I'm already over $100. I'll double it for those two features.

Some minigames are fun. I really enjoyed the lockpicking minigame in Wizardry 8.

I can back this up. For DA2, giant numbers was an explicit design goal.

That's why I like my solution, which requires no extra writing at all. Just let us initiate conversation with any party member and use his stats to deternine success or failure. Everything else stays the same.

In a party-based game, I think we always have multiple PCs. Just some of them are pre-generated (like the PCs in tournament gaming you see at Gen-Con).

True. PS:T wasn't written in a way that would have allowed it (though, again, according to Gaider neither was BG2, and it worked just fine). But if Obsidian plans for such an option in advance, they can write the game such that it works. Granted. I agree wholeheartedly. See, there I disagree. If Aerie says that, that tells us a lot about her personality. The shyness could be a facade, or perhaps she's more psychologically damaged by the loss of her wings than she thinks. I think that choice should be left to the player. Avoiding lines that are out-of-character for the speaker is already a huge part of conversation-gameplay. When choosing which line your PC will speak, you avoid those lines that don't suit him. I see no reason to prevent the player from having the pre-generated party members from saying anything at all. Unless they would, in which case they're now different characters. I refuse to concede even that the companions are the same from one playthrough to the next. Perhaps in one playthrough Keldorn wouldn't utter menacing threats, but in another he might.

Blunt weapons, dammit. Blunt weapons have been sorely neglected in recent CRPGs. Why can't I use a mace or a hammer alongside my shield? And melee staves. Staves are great melee weapons, but we almost never get to use them like that in CRPGs.

So don't play it that way. By letting us try different party constructions. An all Wizard party is often quite fun, but if we're limited to the pre-written party members then we probably can't ever do that.

It's not a question of the companion replacing the PC, as the PC never having occupied that spot in the first place. Why would any player just assume that the PC was party leader?

I might phrase that in reverse, and say the gameplay is part of the story.

Absolutely. If the party takes a position the party-member will not support, then I would expect that party member to object, and probably leave the party if the party refused to change course.

That's where we differ. The PC is not me. I'm the player. I don't even exist within the game's reality. So having the companions talk isn't an instance of the PC making them do something, but instead an instance of them agreeing to do something the party wants them to do. And I get to decide whether they agree. The PC doesn't select anything. The player does. Just like Baldur's Gate, but BG didn't force the PC to act as party leader or party spokesperson. So clearly that's not mandatory. Roleplaying exists in IWD and SoZ. It's just not the player in control of one character only. IWD and SoZ, in fact, solve the incongruous problem that exists in games like DAO or NWN2 where the player controls everything about all of the party members, except during conversations. Then it shouldn't work when the PC is unconcious. But it does. Therefore, I'm playing the whole party. Gameplay/story segregation is the devil.

Why are we assuming the PC is the party leader? If I design a PC who isn't well suited to leading the party, he shouldn't then be the one leading the party.

If we change the coinage to a different metal, that doesn't make the problem go away. Is weighty silver somehow less important an issue?

I'm actually indifferent. I don't love weightless gold, but weighty gold isn't something I need. I did really enjoy weighty gold is MMOGs, because it created this unexpected emergent economy of money-changers, but in a single-player game I don't see that it adds a tone of value. Weighty everything else, yes. Weighty gold, I don't care.

This would drive me nuts. I'm not playing a single character - I'm playing the party. If I'm only playing one character, then I shouldn't get to decide what skills the other characters use, what tactics they employ, what equipment they use - any of that.

Are you not able to perceive your PC as a real person? If you think it would be out of character for a particular companion to speak on behalf of the party, then don't have him do that.

They clearly wouldn't. They already write generic responses for the PC. Since they don't know the PC's personality, they can't inject it through dialogue. Those lines would therefore work just as well for the companions. Similarly, the companions aren't speaking on their own behalf, so there's no reason for their personalities to be expressed at all. When acting as party spokesperson, they're speaking on behalf of the group. There's no need to change how the game is written at all. This is purely a mechanical difference. In games like these, PC is protagonist, main force in the story. From the point of view of the party members, there is no story. So why should their behaviour be constrained by it? I have yet to see a game where it didn't make perfect sense to allow any party member to speak on behalf of the group. Forcing only the PC to do it, expecially when the PC isn't well-suited to the role, is lunacy. What if my PC has crippling social anxiety? How is he supposed to lead a group or drive conversations? Forcing the PC to be party leader or party spokesman is a gigantic limit on roleplaying freedom.

GURPS-like is an excellent standard toward which to strive.