Amentep

I think Minsc and Viconia really are more cases of those characters being made to fit the setting when all of the possibilities of the setting weren't in the context / confines of the game. Not really sure about Kivan. But I'd like to think since the system is being built from the ground up that they would be able to create a robust system that allows for each NPC to have their own feel without breaking the rules they just created.

Well, this is one of the things which puzzles me. I mean...are you saying people really want Shepard to get busy with a blue alien? Because that doesn't make any sense. At all. It does nothing to propel the story or game. Its an option for the player to define their character if they choose to do so. Most side-quests don't propel the story forward (does getting Nirali Bhatia's body back to Suresh (or choosing to ignore him or side with the agent) actually propel the story forward? Or does it simply offer a way to define the PC and the world they live in?) I think when we see passion - and maybe I'm wrong - for romances its an outgrowth of passion for one's PC and the investment in that character. The problem with most romances is "they just seem to happen" (which, iirc, is actually female Shepard's response in the Liara romance at one point). However, using Jade Empire as an example, I kind of felt that it was natural for the male PC to want a romantic relationship with Dawn Star (who very easily could have been a romantic figure in his life for years since they've grown up together.) Or not - the PC could very well see Dawn Star as a childhood friend and never think of her that way. But again the player gets an opportunity to stake out that part of the background of their character. Of course, if the player wanted to they could incorporate this into the background of the character whether the game supported it or not (using the idea that video games can't naturally incorporate *everything* the PC does, did or wants into the structure of the game) which is reason why most people feel its unnecessary to the game. And I'd agree that it is unnecessary; but as an option it can be something players have to feel like their character is a fleshed out figure I have no problem with it.

For my part - and again I'm not going to be torn up if romances aren't in the game - I like party interactions. Party interactions can create interesting relationships between the NPCs and PC or other NPCs (interparty banter or squables or quests). Its a way so your Orc Fighter isn't just a meat shield and your wizard isn't a fireball battery. They're characters with some personality traits. In specific situations I see no problem with those relationships being romantic in nature. Again this would have to fit the scope and focus of the game and I'd rather have many other things in the game...but if its part of the character design for NPCs and it fits the game...why not have it as one more avenue with which to define your character as well as the NPCs? I think your use of "you" here is confusing, since we'd be talking about the character in game and not the player, but it seems to be you think that its the player who has the "relationship" with the companion in game.

However as a stretch goal, if Obsidian could figure how much it'd cost might work. But I don't think they could since the game probably won't be 100% nailed down until the kickstarter is over, so you wouldn't know how many named NPCs there are. So yeah, its a nice idea but I kinda agree it'd be difficult if not impossible to do.

Well certainly it has to fit into the game; I could see tattoos as something that could work *if* there is a monk (unarmed, unarmored) type class as a way they could still have a large number of options, for example.

My hope would be that the game itself would make following the quests to resolution urgent through engaging me in the story. While it would be neat to see a game take into account partial or absent actions on a quest after a certain time, I'd imagine that each level of added scrutiny would up the complexity of the game. That said if quests are going to be time sensitive I hope the game gives us a clear direction to go in (something that I kind of felt Fallout lacked*) *Its been years since I played the game, but my memory was it wasn't difficult to miss things and thus miss where to go to get the waterchip - but my memory may be cheating.

I wouldn't be against it, but I don't think it'd be necessary for me to have, either.

My brother in PnP came up with the novel solution of using the bodies of the goblins we'd just killed to set off traps. Good times, good times...

Ahh, the Vampiric Wolves east of Beregost. Yes, those were cruel. Encounters like that are why games should offer us tactical retreat (running away) as an option. I'd like tactical retreat ("Brave Sir Robin ran away..."). I don't mind walking into a video game situation where I'm clearly outmatched as long as its possible to extricate myself by means other than a reload.

I dunno, I think there has to be some consequence of attacking someone in full sight. That said there's something about creating a system that allows the evil player to kill a character without worrying about appraisal (essentially assassinating them). None of the "you stole an item from a locked box in an empty room and now your universal reputation -1" stuff (also known as the "donate to the church for good / wack an NPC system")

And of course, sticking things in the holes of your party members is even more important, right? While I disagree with SanguineAngel's proposition that "Adding romances...is a relatively trivial matter...", they also didn't mention sex at all in their post so your conclusion is a bit skewed I think.

Jell-O?

Every update makes me more interested!

Wasn't it IWD2 that did a limited version of that with the Wilderness Lore skill, IIRC, letting you use it to get an idea of what monsters might be in the area. I really liked that because it allowed me to plan better when going into a new area.

I think its hard to not have things fall into some sort of commonality for how we expect creatures to look. For example most of the Elder Scrolls critters look similar to existing creatures (maybe just not at the right size). But as long as they work within the physicality of the world, I'm cool with a wider range of creature to pull from - similar to exisiting animals, similar to extinct animals, tweaks to make freaky animals and so forth.

My hope is that there are traps and that there's more flexibility in dealing with them than always having a thief in the group.

Revolution is the one about all the power going out and nobody being able to get electricity working again and so society goes pre-AC/DC. at least that's what the trailer looked like.

I think its always a some of both to greater or lesser degrees, because I think it's impossible to take yourself out character creation.

D&D had Rust monsters, who were not only resistant to your +1 sword, but could destroy it on contact if you hit them with it. D&D had Jellies and puddings, who were not only resistant to your +1 sword, but would split and become more powerful on contact if you hit them with it. D&D had mages who put up Prismatic spheres that made them not only resistant to your +5 sword, but you risked DYING HORRIBLY if you hit them with it. D&D had creatures who could telekinese your weapon right out of your hand, forcing you to try something else, even if you did your homework and came totally prepared for the fight! But I guess it makes total sense that someone who's played D&D for 14 years would be annoyed at the 'unfun' nature of some enemies in the IE games being resistant to your weaponry. No wait. it doesn't. Er, but PnP games there's a lot more area to find an alternative resolution than in a computer game. And a DM running the game might be a bit more forgiving if the party stumbles onto a random encounter they aren't equipped to handle. I only mentioned having played D&D to say that I understood the system and understood that there was some creatures that couldn't be hit (or killed) without certain tactics - I wasn't walking into the game totally blind, as it were. I'm not against resistances; I'm not against having to adjust your tactics. I'm not overly fond of total immunities and very often I found in BG 1 that lack of money made it impossible to get the items necessary to kill certain monsters and if you tried to run away you'd get a TPK forcing you to reload. This wasn't a problem in subsequent playthroughs since I'd "learned" where to avoid the monsters, but an issue when I first played the game.

At this point, I think a lot of posters here are going to feel alienated if they don't include an alienated character...

I think Tolkien's fantasy stuff has its place. I just don't think it should be the only flavor of ice cream we get. I loved it in SSI's Phantasie when creating your party you could randomly get some of the monster races to join your party. I liked the inclusion of the planetouched in NWN2 (since they didn't show up much in D&D videogames to my experience). But ultimately as long as the races in the game - standard or non-standard, Tolkien or not - as long as they're fun to play and distinct enough to give reasons to want to play them...well I'm good with that.

Romance could be a part of the content if it's well done. If Josh has already has this in mind for specific reason related to the story and story dynamic I'd be fine with that. But just adding romance because OMG I WANNA ROMANCE MAH PARTY is a waste of Obsidian's time. besides we all know the party gets hot and heavy when we hit the "sleep" button and the screen fades to black anyhow. I kid. I kid. Joking aside, I don't think most of the people posting about romances would disagree with your statement. I think - because we don't know how much of PROJECT ETERNITY is nailed down - we're seeing a lot of people suggesting that it be considered when nailing down the story / story dynamic.

To be fair, though, some people see romances as something that can add extra play quality to the game (ie make it the best game possible). Some don't. And then people polarize and start making extreme statements that don't make any sense. And then the thread gets shut down by a moderator like the last 4-5 romance threads I've seen. I think these kind of discussions are inevitable - at the very least until more concrete information about the game exists - though. EDIT - I'm more bugged by lengthy quote pyramids here myself

Well, you know how immature priviledged white straight males are, don't you? I may be confusing my long term posters here, but as I recall Jaesun, the "Burn it with Fire" suggester, isn't that.

Because this is supposed to be a return to the classic IE cRPG days, not a real life emulator. Where do you draw the line? "I am extremely ADHD so I want Obsidian to include a ritalin meter (come on, George Ziets!) where I'll go into an "interruption mode" where my character won't let anybody finish their sentences when it wears off. I want this because I have a hard time relating to people in a more appropriate format than videogames." If they could support it through the game (think of how the low int dialogue in Arcanum was done, or the madness of the Malkavians in Bloodlines), an ADHD background (or alternatively a race with short attention spans) could actually be kind of fun. But I'd only want something like that done if it made sense in the setting and was able to be carried through the game (pretty much like any character creation trait or option)