You would be surprised.
I think I'll roll an assassin named "Obaky" and pretend I'm in the upper echelons of a mega guild and infiltrate another lesser guild and try and talk them into abandoning ship a year and a half before launch...
Oh and I'll do this while someone who used to use the pseudonym "Obakararuir" is at NTC and DOESN'T HAVE INTERNET ACCESS. Yeah, that will be real smooth and probably work like a charm.
Here is where the Catch 22 comes in.
They are already going to make positive contributions. Productive members of a volunteer society climb the hierarchy ladder faster than those who aren't productive.
If you reward those that are hard workers and deserving of promotion, you may promote those with hidden agendas.
It doesn't always necessitate extraordinary measures to safe guard extremely sensitive information. A lot of time, it's just dependent on the systems a particular game has in place. Decentralized guild banks. Measures that require 3 or more members of leadership to access.
To me, things like that aren't necessarily extraordinary. They're good protocol. Extraordinary measures would be encrypting plans that could only be accessed an hour before "go time" and over-nighting them to your key players on a thumb-drive.
The real kicker is the assessment of items classified as passive intelligence. Things that can be pieced together for value, but by themselves aren't really considered important.
I appreciate the clarifications. I would not expect any CC to simply tow the line in an alliance. My concern is with the two phrases that spell out your expectations in regards to voting power, as they seem to be contradictory.
"Prevailing" is not the same as "equal". Whereas "Equal" voting power seems acceptable, "Prevailing" seems less reasonable unless there was significant justification to merit it. Just so you understand where I was coming from.
Your clarification is again appreciated, I apologize if I came off as trying to trouble-shoot you.
Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
What level of control would the Kingdom exert over the Company as far as finances, leadership, direction, and politics are concerned?
If you could please elaborate on what you mean by prevailing vote. You wouldn't join an alliance in which there could be a possibility of the alliance deciding to do something contrary to the wishes of Aeternum is my understanding.
+1. Blood Hunts are definitely whats up. Gonna be interesting to see how the Jyhad plays out in real time.
@Ryan, yeck! The Pilot Program doesn't hit any of what comes to my mind whenever you described the way the game would be upon launch... whichever name we end up with.
The term Pilot makes me think that the actual launch could be a different game. Also, it leaves the possibility that the game may fail.
I think Doggan nailed it.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Paizo released the Core Rulebook. The basics... then they said, "This is what we would like to do," and gauged fan/customer reaction. They utilized fan feedback, just like Goblinworks is now.
Like the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
@Nihimon, it's definitely the perfect industry term as Gamma Launch just seems lacking. If that is what GW was trying to get out of this, then you hit the nail on the head.
It's just my personal preference that whatever the term, it holds more than a passive meaning but still "pops" when you say it. Cliche' with Depth I guess you could say.
@Onishi, I agree... it's just the Founder's term returned, "What level of donation from the Kickstarter granted Founder status?" upon my reading it. I believe we all know who are those that have significantly contributed to the community and would consider each other "founding members" of it.
I think what Nihimon is trying to get at is certain people would feel excluded or possibly get the wrong idea.
I'm not a "Founder" as I didn't donate $250 or more to the Kickstarter. There were a total of 4,212 backers.
That's why I went with Squad Launch. It still ties into the community that contributed to the game, but doesn't have the exclusivity feel.
Along with what Ryan said, they don't want something Pathfinder-related, but that doesn't mean it can't tie back to our community which is what I think you were going for Andius.
Personally, I would prefer something that does ties back to all of us as opposed to a status quo term like Delta Launch. I like it, it's catchy, but to me it just doesn't do the entirety of our journey justice. Everyone else seems to like it though which brings up an interesting question...
If Nihimon were to win, since he was already a member of the Goblin Squad, would someone get like honorable mention and still get to be part of the Squad?
-The Symbiotic Quality User And Developer Launch Phase.
With the possibility of not only the launcher type, but overall development and business model becoming industry standard, I think it should tie back to those that pioneered it.
Goblinworks and the Goblin Squad.
When fans of a specific property would hear that their next installment was going to be doing a Squad Launch, they'd look back on all of us and know they were in for something special. They'd know that they could have a significant impact on the product they were purchasing. Let them remember how to do it right and who did it first.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Burke
I don't see it as playing their game. I see it as not turning the other cheek. It is no great accomplishment to rile me up. To rile me up and prove your point at my expense, completely different story... that is, if your point is relevant. Most of the "trolls" talk in circles anyway. The contention is entertaining... at least to me.
I'm still waiting for the part where he tells us they don't have the right to choose the way they design the game and that it has to be vulgar and obscene. Either that or he'll threaten to sue because of a civil rights violation.
Wow.... you linked a personal blog, a website that has 72 subscribers, and a forum that bashed the kick starter a lot of us funded.
What's your point? Besides repeatedly proving ours for us? If you would use half of your time spent looking at other peoples opinions and actually look at everything Paizo and GW has put out on Pathfinder, you would know that you are just regurgitating information.
The problem is you are just feeding off of negativity. Yeah, fight the power! Keep gaming EVIL!! And yet we are the fanbois?
The reason we back Ryan with GW and Lisa with Paizo is because of credentials. Ryan? 3e and OGL. Lisa? VtM and Paizo.
We back them because when Hasbro decided to scrap 3e... a group of people that had put their lives into 3e 8 years earlier told them they were making a mistake.
Then 4e came out. Pathfinder strapped "Official 4E" D&D in a car seat and padded it with bubble wrap. Hold on to your sippy cup cause it's about to get bumpy. Pathfinder swept the ENies. If WoW showed the world how to make an MMO, Pathfinder showed the world how to make an RPG.
Guess what... now we're gearing up for 5E. That, my friend, is what you should base Paizo's success off of. You mean to tell me that you would base Apple's current success off of what Microsoft does next year? Or what they had done 10 years ago?
Let's look at this. What was the catalyst? 4E. There was a Pathfinder Campaign Setting before 4E came out. Once 4E was announced, PFRPG came out. In that order.
They've said it numerous times. They want a particular mindset when building their community. Those guys writing the blogs aren't in the equation. They have no impact. Opinion doesn't matter. Everyone has one. But tell me, who has the credentials to back up their opinion?
It's not being a "yes" man. It's reality.
@BlackUhuru - Hence me not bothering to reply. I swear Dancey must be a Demi-God with straight rogue / assassin / shadowdancer stats to pull that off. Might even want to throw in some psionics. I mean if you are going to make inference that he... around 2001, while an executive at a place that was probably paying better, hatched a plan to give people free reign of DND rules, just so Paizo could create an offshoot brand, then somehow sabotaged EvE so it would stagnate, and leave only to come aboard Pathfinder and create an MMO at a place where he is probably making less money than if he had stayed at WotC? All while he predicted the future right when OGL was hatched? Ethical or not, I want that guy on MY team.
I mean, prophesying about the future, yeah that kinda is unethical when you think about it.
I'd say 25. I've a completely different common sense factor from my 18 year old self.
And he may have scored a knowledge check, but I just made my Stubborn saving throw to avoid.
@Baalbamoth - I have... read a good bit about the Living Campaign fiasco among other things.
Here's what I do know.
Ryan Dancey + WotC = OGL / d20
Lisa Stevens + WW = VtM / WOD which in turn = Awesome from mechanics to lore.
OGL + Paizo = Pathfinder
Lisa Stevens + Ryan Dancey + Pathfinder + MMO = A 98% possibility for a home run.
Your preference to user options is noted I'm sure. Do you own stock in Paizo or GW for that matter? If not, then that is all you are entitled to. If they decide to change their plans based off of your recommendations I'm sure you'll be the first to know. Until then, deal.
@TerraNova - Healing a septic society is much more taxing than taking preventative measures at it's inception. I didn't see the "ban-hammer" being par, I saw it as the "enough is enough" or "oh hell no" option. When a mod found themselves saying either of those, then they'd wield it.
I'm sorry, I'm fairly familiar with a "mine field" concept. I got it. I even gave you a real world comparison so YOU can get it too. He doesn't want people even thinking of going there. THAT IS THE GUIDELINE. People keep accusing him of being vague when he's not. I wouldn't list every single sexual, religious, ethnic, etc slur either.
My issue comes with the common sense factor. Like Ryan said, "worst case scenario" thinkers.
Guess what? If someone infiltrates our settlement and destroys it, then I blast him by calling him a racial slur for an arabian individual wearing a turban, I deserve to get banned. The same if I threaten to place a burning cross in someone's settlement. That's offensive and uncalled for when playing a game. That is the sort of thing he's talking about.
If you are a positive member of the community and aren't trolling folks, when you inevitably do step all over your own chorizo it will be what it is... an isolated incident. If isolated incidents begin to trend, they'll pick up on it and no matter what good contributions you've made, you'll get the ax.
It's not playing favorites because that is how society works, that is punishing people who have good records lighter than people with bad. That's why you don't get executed for just armed robbery. But if you do it enough times, you get 25 to life. While if you have a squeaky clean record and rampage through an elementary school executing children and faculty, you get multiple life sentences if not executed. Cause there is just some things society will not stand for.
How people got all sorts of left field ideas about this is beyond me. I don't think anyone is stupid... but obviously some people are lacking common sense.
With intelligence like yours, who needs ignorance? Allow me to quote myself.
But when that line is in the middle of landmine riddled brush and people can shoot at you while you try and cross... very, very, very few people attempt it. Even fewer survive. A testament to it's efficiency.
The conversation... in case you haven't been following and have just been spitting random words out that seemed like a good bandwagon to jump on... is in regards to how effective Mr. Dancey's policy would be. A policy's efficiency is what we are discussing here, not how fun the game will be. Please do try and keep up... I tend to make short work of those who don't.
I still think people are taking the openness of the product design for granted. They could not tell us anything, and we just deal with what the end-product is.
@TerraNova - "We might permakill your character for any four letter vocabulary, but maybe we won't" is a distortion of what was actually said. You people should really learn to read... and yes, I just said you people. Now for the third time, I will quote what was actually said. Just so you know, like two other people have quoted it too.
From the blog wrote:
Imagine that. Guidelines... in black and white even. So, you know at the very beginning of this post... the link that looked something like Goblinworks Blog: I Heard It through the Grapevine? Click it, read it, and you too will understand.
This actually makes me think of a very real situation in which Ryan's "landmine logic" has worked and has been working for over 50 years. The Korean DMZ. There is only one place that you can walk right up to that line, that's the JSA, and daring to cross it is suicide. For the rest 160 miles, there is an area 2.2 miles wide that if you wander into, you are fair game for either side. There are plenty of landmines there, too.
And he is exactly right. That one location where we can walk right up to the line and look right directly into the eyes of Communists who want to kill you is a tourist attraction for US Soldiers. You want to see how close you can get. But when that line is in the middle of landmine riddled brush and people can shoot at you while you try and cross... very, very, very few people attempt it. Even fewer survive. A testament to it's efficiency.
Oh wait... what "Goons" are persons of historical infamy? Just googled, Goons... no Taliban, AlQaeda, Wahabis, Takafiri, IRA, Vietcong, Nazi's, Mongols, KKK.
So I'm assuming you just /facepalmed due to your inference that Ryan just violated one of his own rules. If this is the case, please elaborate or /facepalm yourself repeatedly until you have sense.
@Ryan - Oh I fully understand you weren't behind development, but you've been around the RPG business scene for long enough to where you made significant contributions to the furthering of the game.... hence "A" major force not "the" major force.
This is proof. "...One of my fundamental arguments is that by pursuing the Open Gaming concept, Wizards can establish a clear policy on what it will, and will not allow people to do with its copyrighted materials. Just that alone should spur a huge surge in independent content creation that will feed into the D&D network." - Ryan Dancey, 28 FEB 2002
Here we are... 10 years later. So Baalbamoth, Forlarren, Kevin Mack... take a step back and take a deep breathe. Realize that the guy at the head of this ship has done more for the RPG industry than arguably anyone else on these boards. Couple that with his sharp business mind, "fans" of "D&D" are closer to the melding of MMOs inspired by D&D than ever before with Pathfinder Online.
Before this, the closest thing was NWN2... and that was a ways off the mark. DDO was even more removed. DNDNext is very much focused on clearing the cobwebs from the power punch known as Pathfinder. Pathfinder is proof of one man's vision and that man is in charge of making Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson's dream, the game just about all of us grew up on, more a reality than ever before.
I think we're in good hands. I still don't think there should be portals for teleport... but I trust Ryan and the GW team to make the right calls when push comes to shove in-game. They want this as much as we do.
@Forlarren - I don't see any threats. Ryan simply stated what he could do in times past and asked how he could replicate it in an MMO. Valkenr and Nihimon offering alternatives, while I suggested that players have the option to opt out of a perma-ban by having Ryan punch them in the face for real. Face punching is PG rated by the way.
@Baalbamoth - There was nothing satannic about DND. It was Occult. Yeah, our moms tried the whole church ban thing and got pwned by the priest the called to the house. He told them it was nothing more than math and problem-solving. The citied the "pictures of devils", he responded with, "oh like the stained glass windows we have at the church?" RIP Father Joe.
But seriously, this is the best shot in a long time that we have of bringing something tangible into the world. Hasbro and Co aren't gonna do it... and if they did, it wouldn't be up to your "standards" and they would have just enough foresight to see six months down the line to the first expansion and their next cash cow.
GW has a vision. It's their vision. It's their IP. IP holders have rights... you know like renters? Consumers have rights too. Buy it or not... in sure the license agreement will be published before hand. GW has already outlined something that will take around two years to work towards and see high end rewards. Two years. No company does that. No one with a "money, money, money" mindset makes an MMO and says he guys, you won't see end-gameish till two years from now. They don't want WoW bunnies or AOC cronies.
They want players who want to create something great with them. Positive influences to make the game interesting for all involved. No game, save EvE, has done that on such an epic scale. Who was a major force behind EvE? Ryan. Oh by the way, he was also behind OGL, which if you know anything about DND... it's pretty much the reason we are on this forum having this conversation. Pathfinder would have been a much harder product to make if people like Reynolds, Cook, and Dancey hadn't been there to develop 3rd and put that license in place. Why do you think Hasbro scrapped it for 4th? Oh and Lisa Stevens? Ever heard of Vampire the Masquerade? Yeah, she was one of the people behind that.
These people know what they are doing. Granted, Ryan and I only agree like 40% of the time, but I respect their judgement... and in the end it's their game and they don't HAVE to be this open with their game. Look up World of Darkness... see how much player input they are taking over there... uh none. Unless somethings changed in the last few weeks.
No matter what Ryan does... he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. For enduring that to make a product for all of us, a appreciate him enough to not be condescending and respect his judgement. Maybe you should too?
My first thought is how can I use this to gain an advantage over other players... then that turned into "how can we..." which eventually brought me to "can this be implemented in a way that doesn't break the progression timeline GW has set?"
If it can, then great. If not, put it on the back burner until its feasible to revisit it.
So what if gameplay was slowed down but the combat length was shortened? Align HP more towards PnP as opposed to MMO? Or is it more of a players not liking the turn-based feel?
Personally, I would like to see more action and smarter action. Not the same auto attack, but a style of attack. I could deal with a little slower than real time as long as it was made up for with something that was sensory appealing.
Maybe even a system of "learning" different moves or tactics that only affected animation and was based off of data being sent anyway, the amount of damage delt. Your character would have a unique style based off of choices you piece together.
That may be more difficult / less effective than I envision, but in the end slower gameplay is more tolerable when you occupy the players senses. The game isn't going to be twitch based anyway, slightly slower than real-life doesn't affect the end result of combat. As long as I'm not waiting a minute between regular attacks, I'm good.
People will be annoyed no matter what Ryan does with every aspect of the game, every choice is a 'lesser of two evils'
Truer words were never spoken. When you've got a multicultural fan base that are die-hard loyalists, that's kind of the predicament you find yourself in.
Look at Star Wars. For years people wanted more. Some didn't, some were content with novels, but some wanted more movies. At that point George Lucas was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't from an atleast semi caring IP holder. He did and made lots of money and half of everyone hated it. Personally, I loved all the movies. Part 1 was kind of kidsy, but you were making a movie about a kid, it's hard not to be kidsy.
But yes, Pathfinder Online is more and more finding itself in "lesser of two evils" water. Just wait until they announce races and classes. And then again when they announce which abilities don't translate into the game... and at the same time, the way they are executed in the game.
I'm sure Ryan and crew take us all with a grain or two of salt.
Psst.... Ryan.... include the ninja! =)
@Mbando - The whole "don't be a jerk" rule not working is exactly what I was trying to get at before hand. American culture is somewhat desensitized to violence, while European culture is somewhat desensitized to nudity and sex. All the more reason for less than explicit rules. You'll never fine tune policy to be a perfect medium between two cultures.
@Ryan - While profanity can be somewhat immersion breaking, I don't think a filter is necessary. Not nearly as important as the slurs policy and the character name policy.
@Nihimon - Actually, I had to have a talk with my sons a while back. I had caught them talking trash on XBox Live. Come to find out, they were imitating me... and combining that with words they had picked up from their friends. Because there is this collective culture of acceptance, there is no clear moral/ethical code for the youngest generation of gamers. I had to explain why telling someone that you were going to whip them like their daddy should have was less severe than say telling someone you were going to make them perform oral sex on you. It was one of those "parent" talks that was a little uncomfortable and had me taking a step back and reevaluating my own behavior. In the end, my kids learned what was acceptable and what wasn't... but I still have to be a parent and monitor them. The point is, they didn't know and because that moral measuring stick was never in place for them, I did have to spell it out and explain it in detail. That's something we are all going to have to do from time to time if we want things to change.
I'm American too, I just get it.
You'll be warned, suspended, and/or banned depending on the frequency, the severity, and the situation of the infraction. But there are some things you'll be booted for without appeal.
Don't use racial slurs.
These rules don't govern teamspeak servers. What this boils down to is in the one channel that people cannot get away from, "Public Chat via text" you have to mind your P's and Q's. I'm sure this applies to sending people /tells as well... but there's an ignore list for that.
I'm sure that bans will get reviewed. You just won't be privy to that review. People aren't perfect but when it is laid out in black and white, as Ryan has done, and you cross that line by an inch or a mile, you crossed it and you have no one to blame but yourself.
@Reliken- Right, it's such a small percentage that law enforcement agencies have task forces set up specifically for it. And the instances in which I was speaking about my children not over hearing were like those of Diskord's, "Honestly i have read some weird stuff in general chat, yet it's exactly that kinda nonsense that makes me giggle aswell."
And yes, I would much rather have my child exposed to violence as a teen then sex. He's my kid, you don't like it, oh well. By all means apply your parenting style to your kids but don't tell me how to raise mine.
Secondly, two of the three examples of crime you gave had a very particular variable involved. Addiction. That doesn't factor into my scenario. Case and point, noise ordinances. Google that and tell me what the ratio was before and then after stricter enforcement and punishment.
@Forlarren- Pay attention.
From the latest blog wrote:
You like goggling stuff? Google what I bolded. That should clear things up enough for you to operate within the confines of them. If not, then yes, you should probably find another game to play.
You can argue about it all you want. It's their game, their rules.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Never exactly knowing where that landmine is? That tends to keep folks much, much better behaved.
You know, we've got different views on a lot of stuff, but I love your logic behind this. I really do.
@Kevin - Think of it this way. In the US the speed limit on the interstate highway is usually 70mph. Each mile over is roughly $20 bucks after a flat "you were speeding" fine of $150.
The police have gotten in the habit of not pulling anyone over unless they are doing at least 7 miles over 77mph. They bring in at least $240 for their city, county, state, etc.
So even though the speed limit is 70mph, I get away with 74mph all the time. I know how far I can push this limit over the line and get away with it, so I do it fairly regularly.
If the speed limit were between 40 and 80mph, people would be getting popped for 52, 75, 68, etc. This in turn keeps people at around 40 sometimes 45. That is about how much they could theoretically get away with... but they'd have that thought popping in their head.
This would result in the average population keeping their speed much lower. Up the penalty for speeding to a year in jail with an additional 6 months per 5mph over ... you decimate the number of offenders you have. Now no one is going anywhere near 80MPH because that's 5 years in jail.
Ryan is setting up the same thing, except in his world their are fewer cops and you get 20 to life if you get caught going even 1 mile over the speed limit.
This doesn't work in real life because laws go to court and have to be clear. GW is making a game that has policy and that means they can make the rules up however they like and change them whenever they like. Does it suck... sure, but that's only if you are in the habit of being a jerk.
Interesting video I found. NSFW.
As far as the article goes, I think it's a bit of a stretch. In reality, it is a chimera of social issues from the start. Not a violent crime.
Poverty, ethics, environment, media, crime, family, and parenting plus a few dozen more variables.
It's not just about women, it's bullying in general. I've been the "victim" of things just as harsh as what this chick endured. She handled it well. Should she have had to endure it? No. Irregardless, this wasn't "woman hating" speech. This was a guy pissed off because a chick beat him. Are some sexist comments thrown in? Yes. But if she were a dude, he'd be saying the same thing with different nouns. Same goes for if she were Asian, Black, Mexican, Gay, Lesbian, or Martian.
In the end, it shouldn't matter who is being the victim of harassment and verbal assault. Its unnecessary to take it to that extent.
@Ryan: I would hope that you want to create a healthy environment for all your players... minus the dirt bags obviously. Judging by the racial, ethnical, religious, etc slurs bullet, I take it you do.
Like I said before, kudos on personal behavior policies.
That's really what it boils down to.
It's a game that minors will have access to. Different cultures have different standards, but I believe Paizo's intent is to keep it right around the same range of acceptance where ever their audience hails from. Just as you won't be allowed to talk about certain subjects, I doubt that their will be any nudity in the game but also their won't be the "gruesome COD FPS" level of violence on display either.
From ESRB - TEEN
That's probably a relatively close hit to their target objective although online gaming interactions aren't rated by the ESRB.
That's an interesting logic behind the rule.
I get it, but honestly, the vast majority of female gaming population I've encountered can hold their own with men all around. The MMO community, more so within the PFO community, I've seen anything but misogyny. The RPG community has been probably to most welcoming gaming community towards women. FPS communities are a hundred times harsher. I just hope people aren't getting banned because the person they were having a disagreement with happened to be the opposite gender and the "perpetrator" told the opposing gender to go f- their self.
As long as it's not one-sided and not abuse-able, I don't see it taking away from the game.
I don't think the problem is letting them hear about sex. I think the problem is that there are different social standards of what is acceptable and people aren't always keeping this in mind. My oldest two kids have both had a class on puberty / sex education. Both when they were 10. This isn't the problem.
The problem is people interpret "casual conversation" differently. So while someone may include transgender subjects in casual conversation, I don't want my kids hearing about it until they are older. As a parent, I believe if I let my child play a game online where they can interact with adults, them possibly hearing these things is partly a risk I take. I also expect the people behind the game to adhere to the guidelines they set. That way, if I let my kid play a "Mature" game with violence and language, I know what to expect.
To answer your question, there is no problem with letting children hear about sex. It is the context of the conversation that is the potential problem... and instead of outlining in graphic detail which subjects are good to go and which are bad and then bouncing those off of the player populations' ethical and moral standards, then trying to find some common ground that people are still going to complain about... GW did the common sense thing. Err on the side of caution, ban it all and be done with it. You will never get a 100% consensus on borderline subjects.
Well, I still think you have a point. It's somehow ironic - that's my European view - that it's perfectly okay to poison people, to shoot them, to stick a sword in your enemy's chest, to probably kill entire tribes of goblins to put weakening curses (-> torturin) and what not, while it's forbidden by banning law to talk about a sexual act.
The internet is rampant with sexual predators. Since this won't be a "Mature Content" game, children will be online. Allowing sex, minors, and adults in the same forum is usually not a good idea. GW's implementation of this rule is not only to protect children playing the game, but to protect its naive adult population as well. You don't know who is on the other of the keyboard. Some adults can be manipulated by young teens and while the teen may have instigated the whole situation its still the adult that gets charged. Its a common sense rule aimed at protecting children. It keeps GW and Paizo's names clean in the public eye.
As far as sex vs violence goes in America, we've been prude for a while but that is waning. I just think it boils down to the fact that sex is more personal than violence. Sex crimes tend to be more personal than getting beat down.
I'm fairly confident that GW will bring common sense into the equation. Trying to sell a dwarf threatening to shove a bow up an elf's arse because he keeps getting shot as "conspiracy to commit aggravated force-able sodomy with a weapon" is quite a stretch but actually falls under the confides of "sex". I doubt seriously that said dwarf's comment will be interpreted that way.
And I'm sorry if people can't say what they want in public chat, but if my 13 year old son is playing a game, I don't want him hearing about bestiality, S&M, or any other left field adult shenanigans. Good call GW.
So no mentioning of blood, food digestion, breathing, or child birth? Sweet! So does this mean there will be no need to eat or breathe in the game? On a seriously note, great call with this one. It's simple. Don't be a jackass.
I also like the idea of a looming evisceration for those flagrant and habitual offenders, who bank on the idea that they won't ever get in trouble because GW has a small staff. With a game designed increase your investment in characters, it makes said evisceration all the more effective as a punishment.
Both good calls. Also, I loved the screenshot... i can't wait to see the level of detail an environment will have.