Since making judgements by looks is a bad policy in reality...
You keep claiming this...I guess I don't see this as the truism you do. All we have is sensory input to make judgements...and judging by the size of our visual cortex in relation to the other sensory processing centers...we as humans are specialized in using our vision. So, are you claiming we should not be making judgements at all? If so, should we just abandon any semblance of meaningful behaviour since we are not allowed to make conclusions about our environments?
But those things should also effect people on the ground. My non-flying bard should have to worry about "Wind, air currents, creatures in the air, other players, traps, skill/ability based" in addition to the ground -based content..so you are still bypassing all the things limited to the ground.
The other two, "time limits, range limits" are not content or challenges, they are simply limitations to your content defeating abilities.
Yes, I am asking for some stereotypes to be used to communicate information about that character. I want a high-STR character to have an above average muscle tone/mass. I want a high-DEX character to have a smooth rolling gait and perhaps some distinctive static actions. Likewise, perhaps high-IQ characters, when not being actively controlled by their characters make bend down and appear to sample the ground/wall. Etc...I see nothing wrong with this.
Speaking of which, I would have no problem compromising with these static emotes. Let you look like what you want (although I much prefer characters only have options available that are reasonable for their "stats"), and give me what I want through these static emotes. As I said, I am open to other solutions, I had not yet thought of any.
Well, I am a huge fan of a consistent and logical world (with reasonable causality) as opposed to realism for realisms sake. However, our ideas of reality are drawn from our understandings of the consistency and logic of the world.
What I am actually asking for is for the consequences of ones decisions and state of being to have some effect on an avatars visage. I am not asking for this as a means of stereotyping or pigeonholing people...I want visual ques that represent all the things we are able to perceive in RL...that makes RL so much richer, for the sole goal of making the virtual world more rich. If it were possible to have my computer replicate pheromones, smells, voices, and all the other identifying features real people have, then I would be arguing to let everyone look like whatever they want....and just have those things logically bound to stats. Since they are not in game, I still want those clues albeit in the only way we have possible, visually via the avatar.
Actually, (for non-cleric abilities/spells) I think Björn had it right...at least as far as PfO goes.
My only concern with removing flying is that it removes a huge portion of those obstacles...and those obstacles are the content. All the things I have read that suggest new obstacles for flying are all obstacles that should also be there for people not flying as well...so the end result of flying, nullifying content.
So, amusingly we have illustrated that half of the people in this debate believes nature trumps nurture and the other half the opposite. Personally, after reading how goblins were created, I tend to support the nature > nurture position and that Evil behaviour (destruction and mayhem) is inherent to being a goblin. I think their brains are wired such. These behaviours activate the pleasure centers of their brains, reinforcing that behaviour. I agree a Good deity could probably rewire a goblin or few, but then they would no longer be goblins, imo.
And then, as Ryan says, if you make something available to the players, everyone will do it...it will no longer be the rare creature that all the nurture > nature people are asking for.
GW/Paizo, please do not cheapen your iconic beasties.
I agree with you totally. All problems should have a variety of solutions...but if you do not have a solution (or cannot think of one) you do not get past that point. Also, I agree someone should be able to go get a solution if possible, but here is where we need to remember that most dungeons will be temporary affairs created when found.
I was using climbing as an example case.
SOrry, I think most of you are missing the point. No, CHA (as an example) does not necessarily tie to appearance...but it does tie to something(s) that makes you more able to influence people. These somethings might be pheromones, voice quality, posture, demeanor, body language, color of tie, or even appearance...whatever this something is, the most efficient way to replicate it (or the lack of it) is through visual markers on your avatar. Your appearance/gait/posture/body type/musculature/etc is a marker for these things. If someone has a better way, I am excited to read it.
For the record, I have always argued that there should be customization within the ranges set by those conditions. I have not (and nor has anyone that I have seen) argued that these features should be the sole determiner of one's appearance. A
Yeah, it is called consequences of your choices. I don't see the problem illustrated by your sarcasm, I would call that a feature that enables everyone to be good at something.
Opps, thanks for the correction...point still stands.
I have two problems with this, one) lighting is handled client-side with all current games...there is no reason it must be this way, and two) the point was the ability to utilize branches (hence z-axis), the dark and gloomy was only atmosphere.
When it comes to negating the huge effort to make the ground game work as intended....yes.
I am obviously not against a very limited flight/levitation as illustrated here. Do I want to see Golarion look like Aseroth with flying mounts everywhere...no.
I was only illustrating a point, in the specific case given, those spells would also have the desired results, an open portcullis. Either way, the effect is still that certain challenges have to be met of you do not get past.
But also creatures. It annoys me seeing a harpy that flies 3ft of the ground, a harpy would fly up and swoop down, not come charging at you hovering just above the ground.
Very good point, I agree that flying creatures should have a vertical pathing.
This makes one wonder where the goblin was able to receive training for his/her Paladin skills.
Awesome point, I would much rather see time spent making climbing and swimming available to all characters (to varying degrees based on skill/badges and encumbrance) than flying. Likewise, I would like to see non-combat and non-flight uses of magic, such as teleport, within visual range.
This plays into much earlier discussions about the types of non-combat challenges we would like to see in dungeons. I hope cave systems are not 2-dimensional, I hope dark, gloomy forests have trees with branches...I hope progression is not linear, here is the beginning of the dungeon, here is the end...instead let us explore the dungeon as we are able. Did not bring either a grappling hook or wizard with teleport (or other similar effects), well you do not get to see what is down the wing of the cavern with the entrance 30ft off the cavern floor. Don't bring a rogue who can pick locks? Well you do not get to get past the part with the ancient portcullis. Etc...Etc...
Good call Randomdays.
I have not read anything that suggests all (or even any) members of a CC sponsored by a settlement have to be residents of that settlement. So, I think I have to agree with Blaeringr on this one.
I would really like clarification on this point because it has huge organizational implications.
To answer your questions Blaeringr, I do not think there should be basic mechanical advantages. I hope there are options available to allow the greater organization to create/set benefits such as tax breaks, storage options, housing options, contract access, etc for official members only as a means of incentive to get people to join...as the greater organization sees fit.
While I appreciate the gesture...and accept the apology if it makes you feel better. In my case it is entirely unnecessary. Usually, we are offering opinions for GW to use in making their own decisions about game design. As such, I am glad there is a plurality of opinions and more importantly, whatever arguments/justifications we can each make for our respective positions.
And...I have found that I do not know what it is, by my particular style of forum writing tends to "inflame passions"...or just piss people off. At this point I just accept it as an inevitable response to my posts and try to step away when it occurs. I actually blame myself...how can so many who I have upset...and who are otherwise friends be wrong.
I disagree, especially if GW uses something equivalent to the point buy system to choose initial stats, there will always be the min/maxers who are only out to optimize for a single use/class/stat. With the point buy system I use for my PnP, the only way it is reasonably possible for base character (no races) to have an attribute of 18 is to take penalties on other stats...like Raistlin Majere, INT 18/19, STR 8/9, CON 8/9.
I actually think more people would choose class/function based extremes than balanced.
Interesting. I suppose that highlights a difference between us, I envision a playstyle and everything else including appearance evolves from that based upon needs and eventually story. You envision an appearance (and story?) and evolve everything else including playstyle from that. I guess it is just a difference of tastes.
No, I gave myself two options...the other being protection. I would end up a light armor wearer so I can wear long ropes/hood/goggles, etc. for when I do play during the day. Hence, my character's development was not hindered, the environment helped shape it. Maybe I would choose a profession that relied on stealth so I could do my "work" at night.
As for "most efficient builds"...I enjoy a spreadsheet as much as the next guy, but I am always the one trying to find alternate uses for my class...tell me I have to have a certain build to be effective and I will never utilize that build or anything like it.
And again I must disagree. In current MMOs, even with all the sliders you have two types of characters, mains who all look identical because they are the epitome of beauty/masculinity...and alts which either follow the same template as mains or end up at the other extreme...all of them. So, it seems giving people choices actually ends up in less variation; to me any ways...but we are just tossing out opinions right?
For me? I enjoy RPing, even if in action only. If I felt the need to play an albino, yes I would either play at night or protect myself sufficiently. This for me would be the the challenge of playing that role. And I do RP to face challenges that are outside the realm of my mundane world...so that would be my reason for playing. Or maybe I did not understand your question...
I don't agree, because that has no real bearing on musculature. A blacksmith might have hulking arms, a fencer, acrobat and sailer might have very strong legs, while only having moderate arm strength, yet stats wise have the same strength, how do you reflect that? There's no reason they couldn't have started from the same body type. So really for me, I just don't think that sort of stats based influence works very well when translated to appearance.
Sure, and this is a simple problem of limited information for simplification of a system...in this case either the PnP game or MMO. We do not keep track of the strength or mass of each muscle in the body...as would be necessary to truly address your concerns. In any case it would be a simplification...but the goal again is to transmit information about your character to the rest of the world via visual clues.
I for one am up for listening to better ideas on how this could be done.
I do and I don't. I can understand your desire to have something you have set the way you want it...to stay as you want it. I however must disagree for myself. I want as close to a living breathing character as I can get. I want the world to affect my character as I am able to effect the world. To me, the two go hand in hand...my greatest fear with PfO is limitations in my ability to affect the world. I guess to me it just feels unbalanced to not also have the world shape my character as I am trying to shape the world.
And, likewise, I want to be able to see hints about how others have shaped their in game environment and in turn their environment has shaped them (since this is really one mutual shaping).
I am an artist, I spend a lot of time on deviantART checking out people's ideas of perfection. I would prefer PfO characters tell me about the players choices and behaviours in game then their nubile fantasies or ideal masculinities (not aimed at anyone here, just a common case).
For myself, I hope it was never taken that I was arguing that appearance should only be based on stats and in-game actions. I hope they allow us the ability to choose within a logical range...either fundamentally based off our stats and/or modified my our actions/accomplishments.
A human male fighter should be able to be a 5ft 5inch scrawny guy with zero percent body fat and toned muscle...or a 6 foot 7 inch obese guy...the obese guy still has that toned muscle...it is just not visible under the "natural armor". I am simply arguing a STR 18 guy should have well-developed muscles, always. I hope there are also sliders that allow you to customize this with amount of fat, height, thickness, etc...all within lore tolerances, but fully customization. The difference is that a STR 8 character would not have access to a build that was all bulging muscles, and this is irrelevant to whether the STR 18 guy who does have access decided to minimize or hide the appearance of the bulging muscles they have access to.
So, I see the argument that this will make everyone the same, very narrow visioned and inaccurate. There is a multitude of other variables that can be added to the system and still use this consequence based appearance system.
Sure they do, even if the implementation/mechanics are not the same, I understand what he was describing as how he thinks the mechanics for PfO should work. Since Ryan said PfO cap should be about equivalent to 12th level characters (I might be wrong here, but that just changes the scaling), suggesting an ability become available at about 6th level means half way through your levelling in the relevant archetype. Likewise, "flight time per level" can easily be understood in PfO terms as each additional merit badge or skill training track. I had no problem making the semantic equivalences.
Kevin C Jenkins wrote:
Nope, I would I use the same argument for flask throwers and even some melee weapon uses such as whirlwind. If my character is swinging a single sword in non-acrobatic combat, I hope it is because he/she has the skill to use it and enough control to avoid hitting friends who might be fighting around him/her. Where I start having concerns is when people are tossing about splash weapons or other forms of AoE...and being selective with targets within the radius of effect. I just don't get it.
(I would actually prefer it as you have said it...but asking for AoEs to be logical is pushing many too far.)
Totally agree, I hope there is a huge array of wearable items, the ability to mix and match as desired (or even layer pieces), and perhaps even the ability to customize pieces of clothing and armor.
And this is all in addition to your previously mentioned hair styles and lore appropriate colors and tattoos.
I would actually prefer all of this require getting in-game as opposed to at character creation. Let players be tailors/barbers/tattooists and allow them to make money off our desire to be unique.
Interesting, I have never heard of a half-gnome. Do you have lore precedence for gnomes being able to breed with the more mundane races?
It is stupid to use grenades or nukes in areas in which you are concerned about collateral damage. Consider that before using a fireball in town. If a wizard is that stupid, they deserve the full repercussions of their actions.
I am however confused about points brought up by Blaeringr, while always evil, I thought killing others is only illegal in areas with laws...like civilized areas. I am not sure why using an AoE on anyone should tag someone criminal outside these zones (or in battlefields for that matter). The only repercussion you should have for nuking your buddies in battle is their anger later and the attrition of your army caused by you.
In a game with Open World PVP making it require considerable time to retrain a fallen animal companion or familiar is just cruel to the classes who use them.
This is exactly what I would like to see. But your claim of cruelty is assuming these classes are not viable without their companions...and that the act of catching and training an animal is not the "fun content" the person who chose that class signed up for. I would hope for the opposite to be true.
With finite development resources, it is a zero-sum system: Any time spent improving the UI for touchscreens is time not spent on something else. We can argue about when improving the UI for touchscreens is the best use of the finite time=money available, but I'm going to point to market penetration of touchscreen controls in PC gaming as my primary evidence. When touchscreens are or will shortly become as common as gamepads currently are on gaming PCs, then spending resources to provide specific support will be worthwhile.
Hence, why I was suggesting they spend a little bit of time considering the benefits of optimization for touchscreen interfaces at the foundation of the system, so it always remains an option. Later, as the tech matures, they can implement it if they so decide. If they do not optimize it at this point, it will never be an option because the cost of redesigning the system to allow it would be prohibitive and as you suggest...at the cost of other things.
But, as usual I am not sure if you are expressing an opinion (I do not trust my ability to discern what might be subtle connotations on your part), or just lecturing me on basic economics.