Amentep

They just act like there is when Miley Cyrus twerks, as if we were in the 50s and Elvis had swung his pelvis.

D&D used to straight-up give fighters land, title, and vassals as they levelled. It was one of those things (see also, better magic item access and more restrictive magic) that helped fighters keep parity with casters that eventually got discarded. Nobody wants to work for some book-lovin' nerd. Thankfully D&D offered the charm, dominate and similar spells to get around that minor issue.

Nah, the case for Romance is that they make for more memorable and better interaction with party members. The case against Romance is.....mmmm.....oh yes we can focus on other types of party interaction and discussion arcs .... That is all Even as someone who is nominally pro-romance in role playing games, a poorly written romance isn't going to be "more memorable and better interaction" than well written alternatives. True but as far as I know no one is advocating a badly written Romance arc But there's no guarantee that by writing a romance arc that it will be good; therefore romance as element cannot be seen as naturally additive, ie game

Nah, the case for Romance is that they make for more memorable and better interaction with party members. The case against Romance is.....mmmm.....oh yes we can focus on other types of party interaction and discussion arcs .... That is all Even as someone who is nominally pro-romance in role playing games, a poorly written romance isn't going to be "more memorable and better interaction" than well written alternatives.

That would be 1996's Chain Reaction, IIRC. With Morgan Freeman, Rachel Weisz, Brian Cox, Fred Ward and Joanna Cassidy

I think part of the problem is that some designers feel that a romance should be a player ego stroke so they only fail if the player wants to fail them. In that sense the character and the story aren't a collaborative/reactive element with the players choices but become sublimated to the player's whim. Personally I think in a "perfect world" romance that there should be characters who you could pursue who you'll never succeed with - ie the other character will always break the romance because of their personality/goals/personal story and there should be factors other than player choice that can break a romance (for example, having your SO get injured repeatedly in combat if they're a party member). To me the romance if it exists shouldn't exist as an ego stroke for the player but as a character based story element. And, of course, the character should still be interesting and reactive if not romanced by the player - the player shouldn't have to romance them to have an interesting character to take in the party or do quests for, etc.

Overmoderation will drive people away as much as undermoderation - whether its official mods or the community policing itself. Eventually those places where the moderation becomes a barrier to communication with whither and either stagnate or collapse entirely, IMO.

There's also a difference between someone adopting a negative net persona to "act out" for their own amusement and having clinically diagnosable mental issues. My worry about a study like this (besides the obvious that we have little about their methodology in the linked article) is that its "science as excuse"; it reads as an attempt to not understand trolling behavior and trolls so much so as to cow them with a stigma. Its entirely ancedotal, of course, but there are probably at best a couple of people I've interacted with online in the last 20ish years who I harbored suspicions that they had deep set emotional/mental issues. RPG Codex and RPS are perfect examples of how it hasn't changed. There used to be unmoderated and moderated newsgroups on USENET for example that were what RPG Codex was and unmoderated and moderated newsgroups that were the same tone as RPS. The nature of what people want and expect from interactions online hasn't changed, just the venues and tools they use to enable such.

I dunno, I played Titan Quest a lot more than I did Sacred (another game I liked). YMMV, of course.

Or its someone who thinks that maybe people shouldn't take themselves or the things they like so seriously - including their own posts/comments. There is a big difference between trolling and being a troll. We all have our trollish moments. An actual troll is probably spending more time online than they are in real life, and they are completely disassociating themselves from reality when they do so. That's not good. Muy Malo. If everyone trolls, then at what level do you trip from being a normal, upstanding internet citizen engaging in a bit of tomfoolery and high-spiritedness when trolling and transition to knuckle dragging, disassociated from reality shut-in whose only joy in life is to make others miserable when trolling? It sounds like you're arguing for a standard with no clear delineation between the two groups. I've been on the internet since the early 90s is some form or fashion. My experience is that it really hasn't changed much in terms of the pro-social behavior, the anti-social behavior and the strata between.

Or its someone who thinks that maybe people shouldn't take themselves or the things they like so seriously - including their own posts/comments.

I love Titan Quest as a Diablo-type game. I was looking through some of my old games and remembered how bland and uninspired I found Dungeon Lords (so much so I never finished it). Although IIRC it was one of those dump jobs where the game went out unfinished (a bit like Lionheart, from what I've heard).

No real sign of how the survey was conducted or what the sample size was. What we do know is that the percentage of people identifying themselves as trolls was very, very small (5% of respondants). So were they people trolling the polling? While I imagine some people who troll are horrible people, I'm not sure this study really finds anything out about the nature of anonymous online interactions (negative or positive).

Reportedly, the actress signed for three films, the theory being they are Batman/Superman (aka MoS2), Justice League, then a solo WW film. I watched THE FALCON'S ADVENTURE (1946) the last of the Tom Conway Falcon films. Not really a "who-dunnit?" so much as a "how is the Falcon going to catch them?" after the first 20 minutes or so. Not the best in the series but not the worst. Also watched Hammer's THE GORGON (1964) somewhat of an odd film - the basic idea has interest, but the truth is they never pan out the idea very well seeming to be unable to figure out what they want the film to be. And they try to make things mysterious when there's exactly one character in the movie who could be the possessed monster. And who thought Christopher Lee needed a droopy mustache to play a professor?

Missy's was a little more strict in the enforcement of "da rules" (as few as there were) so...more Codexian free for all then?

Changed mine too when I got the email.

The second half was abysmal enough to make me forget the fun I had in the beginning.

Jade Empire predated Dragon Age II, so technically DA2 was the "getting worse" bit... And IIRC you could get a threesome with Zeveran and Isabella or Isabella and "hardened" companion in DA1 too couldn't you?

When we're counting the type of computer game rpg's (as opposed to jRPGs or console rpgs) Lionheart certainly ranks up there with the dissapointments. Awesome setting, really liked the ideas behind it and I remember discussing it on the old BIS forums and being excited. And Barcelona - while not perfect - was a fun city. But the actual gameplay was awful and that's what you're stuck with when you run out of Barcelona quests.

Winterwho now?

Isn't it the case that anything verbally defined aloud as a bromance stops being a bromance and is just awkward? So I think they're still good.

Sounds good to me. I've always said I wanted interesting, reactive characters whether that included romance or not. I'd rather them not do them than do them poorly (I know some people believe they can never be done anything other than poorly but haven't really subscribed to that line of thought personally).

I felt like I was about to fall watching them climb.

They're still talking Carol "Captain Marvel" Danvers for the Avengers in the rumor mill. I watched FIRST MEN IN THE MOON (1964) an adaption of the HG Wells story. It was fun, but I felt the framing sequence took some of the oomph out of the story and they spent too long on Earth. Then I watched 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH (1957) which is one of the few Ray Harryhausen films I'd never seen. The effects work is great, seeing William Hopper (TV's Paul Drake on PERRY MASON) as the lead was a hoot (not a position he was in a lot). And the scientific implausibilities and general ridiculousness was entertaining.

This thread had me going And then I read the posting dates and was all