Amentep

because you have a different opinion than they do. you mentioned action RPGs in a positive light. Just be happy you didn't suggest anything like an MMO. I loved Times of Lore for the C64 - one of the first games I played where you could kill NPCs (including quest givers, making it impossible to continue on). Nothing wrong with action role playing games, IMO. That said when I first played Baldur's Gate (the first PC game I'd played in a long, long time) I couldn't figure out how to move the characters for some time. Oops! Once I got used to it I had no problem. It was also relatively easy to highlight the party and move them all as a group, so once I got the hang of it, it was fine.

Yeah, I actually agree with Trashman, an attack on the back is an attack on the back; a fighter is going to be trained to end the fight quickly just as a rogue is. Both are going to be looking at opportunities to do that.

Tep, I think the Codex runs a controversial facility where dual-identity-gamers can be made 'natural' again. The techniques are... unusual, and some don't make it through. But if you do, apart from the large scar across your forehead, nobody will ever knew that you had The Treatment. Yikes! Sounds a little radical, but I'll keep it in mind in case my inner-turmoil boils over!

I'd imagine that there are ways to control this - guideline given up front, smoothing out things on the back end - so that everything works well. Or I'm an optimist, nearing Pollyanna proportions. One or the other.

Hmmm, I enjoyed DA2. I also enjoyed Plan 9 from Outer Space. Something doesn't have to be good or well made to be fun (to certain audiences or with the proper context). I don't need every movie to be Citizen Kane / Rashamon / your choice of superior movie or every game to be Fallout / Planescape: Torment / your choice of superior video game. I also prefer turn-based combat for party based RPGs and think romances can be used as part of character and story development if the developer chooses to. I can only assume this means I'm actually a double personality and any day now I'll wake up unable to breathe, finding my inner Codexian traditionalist is using my arms to try and strangle my inner Biowarian rube.

Right, not showing the line (thus the player doesn't know 15 int or above triggers extra dialogue) was what I meant.

Sports *usually* don't involve people trying to kill you but sometimes you can *see the field* and get an idea of where people are (opponents and team mates) and react accordingly. And other times an opponent can seem to drop out of the sky on a parachute next to you, DA2 style, without you sensing them. Its also usually fairly chaotic during transitions. But if someone is trying to stab you in the back and you can't turn around (because you're already fighting, because you don't sense them, because you slip on a banana peel, etc), whoever is trying to stab you in the back has an opportunity to strike in a way that isn't going to be defended like going in for a face-to-face duel. A lot of the "kill quickly" scenarios given assassins or rogues or thieves apply to any mortal combat. All sides will want to end it quick and are going to look for the literal **** in the armor to slide their blade home. To that sense, perhaps assassins, rogues and thieves would be better suited to "quick strike and out" roles than a fighter, using mobility over strength. Unexpected blows or blows from behind should just be treated as situations where the opponent can't defend, regardless of who initiated it. At least that's what I'm thinking.

Heh, I actually couldn't remember how Torment did it (been ages since I played one of the IE games) I'm torn on this myself, on the one hand not guiding the player helps the player stick to their characterization (ie choosing the dialogue that's fits the view of the character, not the dialogue that's the most special) on the other hand I can also appreciate the encouragement having the tag gives me as a player in showing how my choices are influencing what I can do in the game.

I see souls as the unifying concept of the game, therefore I have no problem with it effecting everyday life in the setting.

I don't like that concept actually, well, where it's seems to be going (the X-men path). And that's fair - I don't know that *is* where its going, but I kind of think it is. Could be wrong, I'm a terrible prognosticator. If the fighter can't harness their soul power then there is still the idea of the monk as a mage whose magic is channeled inwardly as opposed to outwardly so there's still the way to justify it in the setting regardless, I think. I'd still like to see a fist fighting grappler character (who primarily is going to be concentrating on getting single opponents off their feet and under their control than dueling or crowd control roles) to traditional D&D style monk. But I don't have a problem with something more akin to the D&D style monk either (but accept that not everyone feels the same).

You know what I really hated about BG2 - the fatigue mechanic when traveling. Okay so I choose to go somewhere on the map that'll take me 18 hours to travel and I've already been up for 10. So I arrive and I'm immediately fatigued. Is my party too stupid to sleep while traveling and instead they have to sleep when they're 10 feet from the shadow temple of evil? So I'd say the sleep mechanics in IE wasn't exactly my favorite. And maybe that's why they're looking at sleep spamming and since sleep is part of the D&D method of magic recouperation, that's why they're having to try to create a new magic system to mimic (but not exactly) the old system? Dunno.

Wizard is not close-combat specialist. He does't need to compete with fighters. Monk, on the other hand, is and does. It's the same as archers in Dragon Age 2, if you catch my drift - when archers can shoot twenty arrows in AoE like ability, the whole combat style thing becomes obsolete and indistinguishable. Suddenly, if someone calls himself a pretty name and says he meditated for ten years, he can do as well as somebody who relies heavely on equipment, training and technique - because "soul". That's why monks are lame. And, actually, that's why sorcerers in D&D are a bit lame too (like Order of the Stick making fun of them by Vaarsuvius simply counter-spelling every spell a pompous sorceress throws at him). If (big if, because I don't know how this is going to work) a fighter with a sword is able to channel his energy into his sword strike or damage, then I don't see any problem with a monk being able to do the same with their hands or feet. There would be a number of ways that this could then be used to make the classes different, focused and viable next to one another. The way I'm thinking is that the difference is that the fighter doesn't need to channel his soul energy as much as the monk; therefore the fighter over the course of a fight will use less of his soul power than a monk who is having to constantly use it for attacks and defense. This could then balance out to monks having to spend more time building spirit related traits; in turn the fighter can look at strengthening normal attacks - this in turn could lead to a monks and fighters both being warrior classes, a monk may choose to be a warrior of equal par to the fighter at a huge cost to defense or the monk may choose to be defensive on par with a fighter at a cost to offense. The fighter could do generally more even damage over time while the Monk may be up and down the charts, most useful in delivering a great blow at the most opportune time. or something.

Couldn't and elf be a human? Couldn't a human be a dwarf? Yes, yes and yes. Have you never role played an elf who is actually a human (race reassignment surgery) but thinks that he is dwarf? I haven't but my brother played a gnome illusionist with multiple personalities so the character occasionally thought he was either an Orc Barbarian or an Elven Princess. Of course I also remember early D&D where "Dwarf" and "Elf" were classes you took, too.

Would it still be okay to show that a choice is a skill limit choice but only if you meet the threshold. Something like [intellect] - I'm smart, so I can say this But if you're not smart you just don't get the choice?

Paladin would belong to an order, so having to maintain a high (very high) faction rating?

Here's my complaint about binary reputation systems - realistically an evil character should be able to have a good reputation because they've never been caught and have always managed to turn any situation into their favor. And a good character might have a bad reputation because they killed an evil man - who just happened to be liked by everyone. Problem is, I don't really have a good solution for how to better do reputations without being incredibly complex (and probably having multiple systems going at once).

I'd like for the "someone hires you to free a manor from an usurper" scenario to be resolvable in the following manner as well. You pursuade/extort the quest giver to a high fee upfront and to sign a contract that they will pay you an additional fee when the usurper no longer has control of the manor. You then go and do a quest for a government official as well as a quest for the local captain of the guard. You pay a forger to frame some evidence on the usurper which you give to the local captain of the guard. The captain of the guard then uses the city guard to remove the usurper from the manor. You also use your influence with the government official to back your legal claim to the property because squatter rights in the city had given the usurper legal claim to the manor however the claim was forfeited due to the criminal charges back to the government. As the good citizen who brought to light the evil deeds of the usuper, his property (formerly the quest givers) is turned over to you giving you legal ownership of the manor. The quest giver in anger refuses to pay the additional fee when you've rid the manor of the usurper so you go and legally file charges against the quest giver for not honoring your contract since the usurper no longer had control of the manor and the contract was fulfilled. Because he still doesn't have the manor and the original fee to take the quest was all the money the quest giver had, s/he's taken to prison for not being able to pay their debts." And I'd like for the same quest to be able to be resolved by a player who goes and finds one of the usurpers thugs and after doing a series of quests for him manages to get him on the PC's side; he gives the PC the password to get into the house. The PC gets through to the boss who along with the help from the flunky convinces the usurper that there may be a better way to resolve the usurper's problems. The PC goes through a few quests that find the usurper their own land and money to build a manor of their own. The PC also convinces through deeds, word and dedication the usurper and the quest giver both to dedicate their manor's chapels to the PC's diety. And I'd like for you to be able to just plow through the manor, kill the boss and get paid for it which also opens up other quests from the manor inhabitants and the original quest giver. Probably a bit too complicated for a game, but ultimately there needs to be some quests (not all quests) that allow for evil options that aren't just "whack a mole for evil" and good options that aren't just "do good for goodness sake" but really reflect the nature of the setting and what the PCs goals would be. Certainly not all quests, "go kill the giant ant eating my cow" is probably not going to lead to much complexity, but there should be some signature quests that allow a lot different ways to approach and resolve.

I think part of it is that its harder to think about the benefits of evil or different degrees of "evilness". I think it actually *is* a problem with both good and evil, to be honest though. Its the reason D&D Paladins are referred to as "Lawful Stupid". But most evil PCs in cRPGs (not pen and paper) end up being "Chaotic Sociopaths" randomly cutting their way through people in town. Because murder is the only really "evil" choice. So hopefully PE will take a more interesting approach to good and evil and those who want to take the harder paths in good and evil can still be rewarded for their gameplay with an interesting storypath that fits their character.

Now I want to play a Bard who says something like "Beware evil doers, or I shall SHAKE MY MARACAS AT YOU!"...

So...couldn't you technically have a "paladin" by having a fighter who (assuming backgrounds are in) was raised/trained/joined an Order of Paladins in the society? This would give you a "paladin" without being a new class and one that they could build some reactivity to the character (quests, faction ratings based on how the order is perceived, etc.). i've wanted to see Bards who were like wizards but their instrument was their focus and thus the instrument dictated the things they could and couldn't do with magical energy in combat. Then make them good talkers and information gatherers outside of combat.

My hope is that the AI is more robust than that and that if characters can pull the attention of an opponent, its not a simple "I've been lured now I must attack without regard to anything else ever again". Also the word "aggro" is annoying, and I don't know why.

Distract lowers some combat skill, I like that. Maybe only pulls characters who'd it'd make sense a distraction would pull its total attention (Mothman says: "Must...resist...Rogue...striking...match... (fails and flitters forward). Maybe add in the idea that really BIG distracts could actually penalize your own party too? ("If you set off fireworks in the middle of the fight again, I'm gonna...!!!")

The thing about camping - to me - that can make it interesting is trying to find "good" places to camp, setting up the camp and watch to be defend-able. That chance that something might happen in the night and you're scrambling to prepare (or unprepared if your guards miss something sneaking into camp). I'm not convinced camping is interesting solely because that's when your mages get their groove back (Vancian system) but that doesn't mean camping in itself couldn't be interesting. Now the thing about expelling waste products (whichever, your choice) is that they create mini-situations where you're character could be incredibly vulnerable. But the question should be "what is fun?" in dealing with any game mechanics. I can't imagine dealing with six character and having to manage their bathroom schedules and their rest schedules and they can only pick new magic when they're visiting the outhouse reading their spellbook (or something like that) is going to end up being fun. Unless the game is about Sims style character control and not fantasy roleplaying with a storyline. I've tried to ponder an style of magics and pretty much everything either comes to some form of Vancian (replinish by rest, replinish by spell components, X spells per day), Mana pool (can't cast if tired) or cooldowns (Fireballs online in 10...9...8...). Not much help I'm afraid.

I think distract sounds more utilitarian and can encompass a wider range of actions. Also if Lizardmen were coldblooded (like lizards) I'd expect they'd be easily distracted by mages using cold spells (out of necessity) more than anything else since that would really screw around with them.

I like friendly fire, for the most part. Sometimes its implementation doesn't always work for me, but frankly if there is going to be area effect spells or chance of moving through line of fire, it makes sense to have to worry about that.