Amentep

I understand your points of view and don't entirely disagree - but wouldn't 'godlike or planetouched' races be just as 'out of place' as someone who was affected by one of these states? I'm not sure there is a huge distinction there and as we know godlike races are already confirmed for the game. Vampires and lycanthropes and in some stories, ghosts, are predators of humans. Possession is totally based on another entity sublimating a person and taking over its body which is generally seen as bad if permanent (if not permanent, like someone being possessed by a spirit guide temporarily and the spirit guide is a permanent partner then I'll take back my objection; I was thinking more along the lines of "Exorcist"-style demonic possession). I think that's why Vampires and lycanthropes show up as monsters in video games (along with other predatory creatures, like Lamias or Harpies). This doesn't mean a good game couldn't be created around them though! But I think for me I'd want that game to start out with the goal of playing in the specific world of vampires and werewolves. Godlike/planetouched typically aren't necessarily seen as beings who eat people. They could very easily be like the demigod heroes (Heracles, CuChulain, Ansel) as well as, presumably, demigod villains so would be more open to varied opinions in the world.

Hmmm, , I'd have a hard time believing - if vampire, ghosts, lycanthropes and posessed states are treated similarly to how they are historically in human culture - that you'd have anyone who'd be willing to work with you once it became "known" what you were. Yes I know that you're supposed to be able to solo the game, but I'm not sure I'd be for solo-only content (or more specifically content that forced soloing) as something that resources should go for. Mutated - maybe if the game was Gamma World...

To be fair, exploitation films actually tend towards doing just that - offering elements such as sex, nudity, gore, violence just for the intent of getting people into seats, with the sex/nudity stuff being specifically aimed at arousing people to get their patronage. This presumably isn't different from other media dealing with the same issue (Hentai games being the thing that immediately springs to mind with relationship to video games). The problem with the argument IMO is more rooted in the idea that people who want romance only want it because they're getting their jollies from it. If this was to follow every player who wants an "evil path" through the game must be sociopaths and every player who saves the world in a game must feel like they saved the real world outside or the game. Its really not a one-to-one ratio, IMO. While I support romances (within reason, ie that the game designers want it, plan for it, the setting supports it and the resources are available to do it), I also support character relationships in general. Two straight characters of the same gender should be able to go to the town pub and have beer and a character based interaction that expounds on the character or setting or quest. So I suppose, realistically, what I want is the ability to have an NPC be a well drawn character through multiple types of interactions that are appropriate to both the PC and NPC and one option for the appropriate character/setting/game might be romance but not the only type of interaction the NPC has with my PC and not a required interaction either.

Well I'd like to see grappling but doubt its possible (and somehow my mind keeps conjuring up ideas of trying to do it IE style with repetitive animations which would probably look hilarious). There is some appeal to the idea of using the wrong "tool" and getting a weaker result (taking longer to subdue, subdue could result in injury/death). Could also be penalties for being really strong as well (since it might be harder to not use lethal force) but maybe a bonus for some other trait (dex/finesse/int?) assuming there is traits. I'd be happier with the idea of their being an absolute chance to fail in subduing if there was still another way to force the opponent to be defeated non-lethally (successful disarm followed by trip allows a chance for opponent to acquiesce?) otherwise I think you'd just be encouraging players trying to subdue with the express intent not to kill (to get information, lets say) to just reload and retry.

I always like the idea of the PC and the World's Inhabitants being able to do the same thing, so I'm all for Bandits being able to take down the player, or if the PC walks alone down a city street possibly being knocked out from behind and waking up without what he was carrying. I like all of your suggestions actually, they'd certainly be interesting to have in a game.

There is gender dimorphism in lizards and cats, though. While lizards can have slight difference (slightly larger head or tail in male to much larger males to different colors), most cats do have a size difference in gender (and that's excluding the obviousness of maned lions) and certainly when I've been around others with pet cats, telling the males from females at a distance wasn't too difficult without looking for the obvious sign. I'd agree mammaries shouldn't be on any species that isn't mamalian* realistically, but I suppose the creators would need to determine if a "Lizardman" was a mammal who has characteristics of a reptile or a large reptile. *presuming that species weren't diety created which could mean anything, really.

I like the idea, but I'd only agree to it if the player is not forced to chase panicked enemies down (like in Fallout - particularly annoying when you couldn't find the hostile on the map) or have the decimated force inexplicably decide to come back and attack you with even LESS than they started with just because their panic timers have timed out. Ideally for something like this I'd like it so the player either has to actively try to pursue the characters (no mercy!) or else the panicked characters actually leave the area.

Most people (excluding the undead or The Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail) die of either shock or blood loss when dismembered much, I think. Although if there was a way to do it where you could target a limb and chop it off (say, a leg) it'd be cool if you could keep the person alive as an option to interrogate them (or, you know, be evil and chop other parts off like you're Kevin from Sin City or something). Might be a bit much to deal with properly though (but not a bad idea).

You can subdue and then dismember but you can't dismember and then subdue* Sadly subduing and dismembering is not a symetric property. *I suppose you could dismember the living dead and then subdue the head or something from biting, but I think that's probably the only case you can dismember and subsequently subdue in, and if the head is still moving then the arms and legs probably are as well and you probably want to react Evil Dead-style rather than trying to subdue them, just obliterate.

I do. But in lieu of anything new to discuss in concrete terms about the project, its probably inevitable that the forums look like an impossible wish list even if the budget was 4 billion dollars simply because people are discussing what possibilities (no matter how remote) the game has.

If it fits the story, if it fits the characters, if it fits the setting and if Obsidian determines its right for the game (the resources and planning needed) then sure. But I think it'd be very possible to create Project Eternity and make it a game I enjoy and want to play repeated both with and without romances.

If it were easily doable within the game, would anyone be interested in being able to set your characters to "subdue" a opponents rather than kill them all? This could lead to allowing capture quests (that don't involve beating all of the lifepoints away from enemies who then don't die because they're scripted not to) or quests where you could subdue someone not in control of themselves and try to save them; it could allow thieves to knock a swell unconscious & rob them rather than murder and loot their corpse (which they could still do so broader range of options), and it could allow the player to choose to let a character live who comes back later either to join or antagonize them (without, again, it being forced through scripting - "Hahah, you THINK you beat me! But I'll be seeing you again!" *teleports*). D&D used to do this, as I recall, by having you declare subdual damage (and certain weapons, like whips, only did subdual damage). Any interest? Or some other interesting idea? Or should it always be kill / sneak / speech as the primary options to resolve encounters?

I think the only way for that to work would be to look at the habitats of semi-aquatic animals, like a beaver, polar bear or otter or go magical and have a "water elemental". Truly aquatic (fishmen and the like) or amphibious creatures (Frog men) don't really fit (unless they just have characteristics only of water or amphibious dwellers but are typically land dwelling which I think defeats the purpose of having them) (Note I'm not saying having an Otterman race but look at the types of habitats and societies and adaptions the animals have and create a humanoid race that would have similar adaptions and habitats, then thinking through those adaptions into terms of race/character.). Someday I'd like to see an aquatic RPG where aquatic races would make sense. Mind you, I'd also like an RPG where the races were based on the Homininae (like Homo Sapiens, Homo floresiensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Habilis, australopithecus, or something). Not really this RPG though.

Lord Chaos - sorry to hear of your loss and hardships; glad things seem to be turning around for you.

I'm in my 40s. No way I could give you even a short list of favorite RPGs (I am either easy to please or have bad taste, I guess ). So you'll have to settle with my first non-PnP RPG, which was SSI's Phantasie, which I played on a Commodore 64 back in good old 1985(ish).

Without C. Thomas Howell returning, it'd be "Soul Man" in name only...

Its kinda stupid, but I actually like the thread title Gods in Eternity a bit for some reason. Not sure if the plot is going to revolve around gods, so maybe "Souls in Eternity"? I'm crap at naming stuff.

Not really my intent to make a "dress up Barbie" suggestion; my point is that its unrealistic to be able to loot bodies and put their (probably damaged) armor on - particularly with no regard to size or body type (an orc, a giant, a gnome and a human can all trade clothes) and wade into the next battle and proposed a possible way to address that that could bring interesting useablity / versatility to blacksmithing and crafting skills. In addition such a method could be used to further customize the characters avatar (if that was wanted and desired) by giving use of the skill the option to customize a bit further. Wizardry 8 and Arcanum (which I'd forgotten) already used "size" for clothes to make really small / large clothes unusable by other groups. My problem with this (moreso in Wizardry 8 than Arcanum) was the lack of clothes in a specific size could create problems in the party (everyone's wearing superarmor exept the short/big character who is still wearing leather because no one has the odd sized armor*) It seems the vast majority of people feel like its TOO micromanaging a concept and prefer the usual abstraction which honestly I can live with. *Although I suppose in retrospect, this actually isn't that far off from real life.

I liked the magic vs tech as well My problems with Arcanum are mostly in other areas, not in the setting or world set-up. EDIT: That said I don't think this will be Arcanum 2, but I think that some of the good bits of Arcanum may show up here

Whatever it is named, it'll be pronounced "Throat Warbler Mangrove"

Generally speaking I read faster than most VO actors speak, so it tends to slow the game down to have to listen to dialogues. I really have no problem with no VO at all in the game; if it is going to be there I'd prefer it to be in specific cases (narration, starting dialogues of named characters, interparty shouts).

Yeah I liked that picture pretty well myself.

I manged years ago to get my DM to allow me to play a Lizard Man. I actually couldn't go in to towns (because they tended to attack Lizard Men since there was a hostile tribe nearby and that's all they knew) but it allowed us to work with the hostile Lizard Men in a way that the DM hadn't initially planned (because I was able to get on with them rather well eventually). Only problem was to get equipment I had to let one of the players use my money (or barter with the other Lizardman). I'm sure the gnomes were cheating me when they went into town. Anyhow, I like playing nontraditional races, but I think I'll be happy to explore the races Obsidian create and how they fit in with the world, so no real opinion on the issue I guess.

I really hope crafting is really thought about and worked out in an interesting fashion. My experience in games is that usually it either takes so long to gather the materials to craft that what you can craft is useless (like you say) or you craft something that is good for now and 2 minutes later whack a kobold who has a better sword than you meaning you wasted your crafting material (and gold, dependent on the system). So really crafting and looting are interelated and need to be thought of together, I agree. I think the problem with the suggestion is it seems to rail the player into needing crafting as a skill (since it seems there are many things that only a crafter can create). Or do I misunderstand?

Now I want deep sea diver armor in the game. I kid, I kid. I would like a game that sticks with things that look more like real functional weapons and not something you'd need superhero strength to wield or if armor to walk or, you know, stand up in.