Amentep

Romulans are warlike. Romulans are always on alert for Klingon attacks. The Romulans probably wouldn't be against using force to subdue a planet to mine on it. I don't see the problem with an armed Romulan Mining ship (who, thanks to being from the future, has more powerful weapons than the ships of the past because of tech advances).

Ill probably regret asking - but what is so horrible about 4E Forgotten Realms? I haven't even looked at the books so have no clue. (Also it seems like in my experience that whenever a new edition comes out there are always those who complain about the artwork - I remember it about 2E as well).

Or maybe she was building a fence and he summoned rain, wind and hail against her.

When I read the "Fight the Good Fight" Intelligence dialogue the first time, in game, I thought my character was using intelligence to be sarcastic. Like "Oh...you 'fight the good fight'quotes> with your...voice". That basically the character was saying 3 Dog was full of it. Maybe I'm just too charitable.

Yeah I only read a little bit about multiclassing - it didn't immediately click with me. It seems you can only do two classes, from what I gather, and it then allows you access to feats of that class but it seems like you'll always be a bit behind someone who starts with that class (or maybe I read it wrong, like I said it didn't immediately make sense to me).

Is that a nuclear explosion in your pants, or are you just glad to see me?

Yeah but you waste a feat on it to be able to take the skill (and isn't that feat the multiclassing feat?)

It was fun to use, for sure. Oh yeah, and picking up loot was more difficult after disintegration.

I like to think that Games aren't that different from other media. Typically, in most storytelling, the idea is that an audience will always be able to swallow a singular fantastic element (and anything that derives naturally from that element) but not two. So I think the question really isn't realism per se, but if we buy the singular fantastic element of the Fallout Universe (an alternate "sci-fi" future based on 50s pop culture where people fled to giant vaults to survive a nuclear holocost) is the fatman something that naturally derives from that fantastic element? Due to the Alien Scares of the 50s, the Alien Blaster seems to fit naturally. The Fatman has a real world historical precedent like the Alien Scares, but given the nature of the universe and its relation with nuclear weapons, the introduction of it as a weapon (and a not rare one) seems to some people to be a second fantastic element and thus setting breaking; others however think that the fatman is in keeping with a logical progression in the settings technological base. So to me the debate is more "does the fatman's existence require us to suspend disbelief a second time or not" as opposed to realism, since, as you point out, its a game.

except in FO1 the alien gun was just a part of the Special Encounters, most of which were supposed to be silly bonuses...like the hidden track on a CD. Well that's a fair point; if there was one fatman in the game and when it was busted it was done (like the two alien blasters in FO3) I suppose it could be seen as more of an "easter egg" weapon. I think I had like 2 or 3 Fatmans (fatmen?) at one point (and had probably used another 1 or 2 for repairs) in FO3 which may be a bit extreme. But what can I say, I loved the alien gun in FO1... Well except that after awhile the disintegration animation in long fights got annoying. I suppose it could be argued less powerful uber weapons would be needed though if the regular weapons actually did anything (sometimes I thought I'd kept the BB Gun for all the good my weapons were doing).

I thought the Fatman was silly, but its a game with an alien laser gun, so I can't say I found it to be too silly to be in the game.

I wasn't aware that was the case; I don't remember seeing Thievery on the list of skills a Warlock could take - but again I've not tried to play the game. And whether sneak attack is "great" or not is irrelevant in terms of setting a class apart from another class.

2-1 today. Lost a squeeker - http://amentep.mybrute.com/fight/175023475

Haven't played the game, mind you, but my look through the Rogue and Warlock seemed to indicate the Rogue was still supposed to be best in the sneak and theivery skills as they're trained in it. Combat seemed to be oriented to sneak attacks type special attacks. The Warlock seems to be a short distance attacker with a lot of status effect abilities to add to their Eldrich Blast.

I don't think they are the same; I think that logistically they *play* the same - ie you have certain things each round/encounter/day that you're able to do that have certain strategic effects within the role you have within your part. So people don't need to feel entrenched in a particular character type as being the only one they know to play. There are still things than any given class isn't going to do well (that's the point of the Leader/Striker/Defender/Controller idea of team management).

I wouldn't not buy a game because of difficulty, but certain *kinds* of difficulty would probably lessen my interest in a game (for example, if I heard - from sources I trust - that a game had incredibly difficult timed jump sections throughout the game, I'd probably end up not buying it)

Of course even in that there are degrees; being challenged and being frustrated are often closely related in my experience.

The neat thing about having the classes play the same is I think players may be more willing to move out of their niche. You know, the guy who ALWAYS plays a halfling rogue or a Elven bard or whatever because they're so used to how they work might be tempted to experiment if the basics of each class are all very similar.

Thi4f! Brought to you by 31D05! No wait, those numbers actually work... Yeah I think you mean 42D16.

The game designer should know their audience. In other words, the game designer who make a languidly paced shooter probably wouldn't make shooter game fans happy and probably wouldn't create much buzz for any potential crossover audience. But on the other hand allowing online fan opinion to sway the design of a game is really the same as any creative endeavor by committee; it'll have input from everybody and please no one. The key is, I think, in knowing the audience and having a strong sense of what the game should do and be. Then the online fan opinion can be looked at to see if there's anything in there that fits the general audience and fits in with the expectations of the game. Or something.

Yeah I don't see it flopping either, but I think gamers in general and console gamers in specific aren't necessarily against certain design decisions that add a degree of complexity to a game. things like inventory costing AP (although I'm unsure in FO3 how that would work with the real time combat) or the healing over time to mitigate stimpak use (which yeah I admit to abusing, but still...) shouldn't be deal breakers in a game, I'd think.

I haven't played 4e but like every edition since 1e there's stuff I like and stuff I don't like about it.

I read the first book for Rice's Vampire stuff and while it ultimately didn't leave me wanting more, it wasn't really awful. My biggest problems with any of the Rice books I've read is the perception I get that around page 300 the major characters all do something grossly stupid - often even pointing out that they're doing something stupid - for very little reason beyond a need to add 300 more pages to the book.

The new main character will be named Thiaf!

I do agree with your sentiment, but I think the issue will always be what is a compromise to the integrity. That said, I don't think having a restriction to healing would effect casual gamers; I've played a lot of console games (since games in that market seem to be, for the purposes of this discussion, the realm of the casual gamer) that either didn't allow or limited healing in combat situations. In fact I seem to think most action RPGs on consoles used healing over time as their method of operation, but my memory may just be off (it does cheat, you know). I seem to remember the Champions of Norrath games and the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games using healing over time, for example. the point was to say "hey, i didn't invent the word. don't look at me, Homer." Yeah I know you didn't invent the word; I was trying for wit and only got half-way there. My apologies.