Messages

I've had the same bug quite a few times; this is how it occurs, if this helps:
1) Starting Inventory. At this point, there are 8 apples in the inventory.
2) An apple is given to Madeleine.
3) This is the final inventory before starting battle
4) The battle is quit.
5) Savegame is reloaded. Now, Madeleine does not have an apple, and there are only 7 apples in the inventory.

As an aside, is it possible as of now to modify savegames? This bug has caused all the spears/crossbows I've bought to disappear, making Lakshmi and Harriet unusable; I'd like to be able to add in spears/crossbows.
Cancel that, I figured it out on my own.

Upon reaching the first battle in a new game, Emma Strider has nothing in her inventory; I've played through the same portion in the demo, and she has a sword. She is unable to make any attacks/set snares. I've played through long enough to get her a sword and given it to her; it disappears whenever she enters battle.

I've attached a log file from the first battle.

Correct: stats are not randomized. However, certain items that drop can permanently* improve a character's stats by a set amount. Thus, it pays to control as much of the map as possible so you can nab random item drops when they occur.


* that is, for the rest of the battle

What is the pacing of battles going to be like? (as in timewise)

In a game that takes a long time, (say, chess) map control is generally very important. However, it seems that it isn't that important to control certain tiles in the majority of TRPG:SoG battles. So are we going to be looking at longer battles?

[spoiler]
It actually isn't completely unprecedented -- there was a game that did it before TSoG. In Planescape: Torment (a game which I suspect TRPG takes some influences from), you could also talk the final boss to death, so to speak -- in fact, there were multiple ways to do so! I do agree that it is a rather radical notion among modern game design, though, and I applaud Craig for giving us that option. I like it when I'm able to win by brains rather than brawn.

I do agree that convincing him that quickly is pretty unrealistic, though. I, too, am an atheist, and I know what you mean about religious debates. I think you could justify it as him just never thinking that far into things, though -- he took the words of the Iqon at face value, and didn't think to look further than he needed to. You're exposing questions that he never even considered, so he doesn't have a rationalization to counter it. His beliefs aren't completely shattered though -- to me, it sounded more like we exposed a chink in his armor that made him falter for a moment, but the ending montage shows that he goes on to continue preaching. So the debate shook him up a bit, but it didn't seem to change his core beliefs.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Yeah, I see what you mean as far as not changing his core beliefs. I think that we should also consider the setting-Ravinale doesn't seem like a place where debates about God abound. So it's definitely possible that he hadn't heard those questions before. I still find it kind of weird that no one thought to talk to him about it-but no one else has a 16 personality.  ;)[/spoiler]

Finished it! Only one week after release too!

That is to say, I beat it once on normal mode. And the great thing about games like this is that it isn't enough to play them just once-you have to play it over and over again in order to learn all of the secrets, and a challenge. Then you play it again, just cause.

One thing I found interesting about the ending...
[spoiler]So, you can just talk to Cygnus and win? Wow. That's...unexpected, to say the least. I tried to put myself in Duvalier's position, and what I would do is keep on arguing, so one thing led to another and...Victory. What surprised me about it the most was the idea that a someone like Cygnus could have his beliefs shattered. As an atheist who very commonly gets into religious debates, it's very hard to convince the common person to change their beliefs, and someone like a priest is even harder. (nigh impossible) And when you do manage to convince someone, it tends to be from several months of debate, not the shorter time shown in the story. Still, I like the fact that you can convince Cygnus that he might be wrong. It wouldn't really be an RPG if you had to kill him, would it?[/spoiler]

When talking to Festus about Shadowling troops, when he says "I mean there are no troops for you" the portraits for Duvalier and Festus are switched.

Well, I feel like I need to follow through on the rankings now, so here goes: (Keep in mind I haven't completed the game yet and haven't recruited Rajav.)

1. Arman: Speedy and powerful. There's not much more you could want. I also find that he doesn't go down that easily if you upgrade his defense, he only has a bit less HP than Griffin.
2. Griffin: The rock of my team, at this point. I like Qudssi for the speed and counter early on, but he is soon outclassed. Griffin may not be the strongest, but it's hard to imagine a team without him.
3. Malis: Similar to Arman here. Fast and strong is the way to go.
4. Rahel: Very good ranged support. Hits hard. A bit squishy for my tastes though-but that might just be because I don't protect her enough.
5. Naj/La'Man: Can't really choose here. Both Duvalier and Set can heal just fine, so Naj's healing is unnecessary, and I like the extra HP of La'Man for a tank.
7. Set: I'm not a big fan of healers, but they're necessary so I bring them anyway. My main complaint here is the low health and the expensive upgrades. This might just be because Festus was such a good healer and Set pales by comparison, but eh.
8. Qudssi: Good at the start. Weaker at the end, and not good enough to make the cut. If he had more attacks, then I'd use him, but all the other characters gain a big boost over their normal attack (i.e. double strike for Griffin) while he has nothing.
9. Luca: I've never really trained Luca, nor have I had any desire to. She could have some usage as a support character, and I use her early on as a flier, but there are too many good characters to include her as support.

My normal team is Duvalier, Griffin, Rahel, Arman, Set, La'Man, Naj, and Malis.

I like to keep Duvalier, Griffin, Rahel, and Set together as my 'main group' while using the other four to take out specific targets. I'm playing on normal right now, if it makes a difference.

Thanks Craig.

It's been out for almost a week and no one's created this poll yet? Weird.

So, just vote for your favorite team! (Besides Duvalier, of course.)

I think I'm missing one character, so if anyone knows who that character is, let me know and I'll add them.

Wow. How long did the map take? I spent about an hour and a half in order to get to -14, 14 before some greater ghosts wrecked my life. I am relieved to know that it is possible to get through though.

And I get a three-day weekend! I know exactly how to spend it...

Congratulations Criag, for four and a half years of work!

Just read the news post on the main page about it...and I'm speechless. Honestly, all I can say is 'seriously?' It's worse than even preventing freedom of speech. The dev pretty much had to work on the game in order to get any money(or be forced to quit his job in this economy) and is then killed for it. As far as I know, the game wasn't even distributed in Iran! Disgraceful...

Instead of debating on a compromise, the Democrat leaders are lying and naming calling.  Of course, Republicans don't want to work with the same people who are calling them "crazy" and "radical".  It shows that they find winning elections to be more important then running the government.

So you saying the left is full of 'fear mongers' isn't name calling?

Both sides are doing it. Debate the issues, not your opponent.

Your article claims that the Romney add has Obama saying ""If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose," while Obama really said  "Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."  I find it ironic, because I remember that the 2008 McCain campaign accused Obama of lying for putting those exact words in thier mouths.

I am a little more understanding of Romney because his job right now isn't to run the country.  When Romney is playing politics, it doesn't get in the way of running the government. When Obama and Boehner play politics, they aren't doing thier jobs.  When Obama refuses to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the election in order to help reelection campaign, he is acting more like a politician then a president.  When Boehner has a bill that removes Obamacare passed in House while knowing it will either be shot down by the Senate or vetoed by the white house, he is acting more like a politician then a lawmaker.

I was okay with Campaign Obama of going on The View and SNL, but I find it tacky for a President to go on Letterman or The View.  As a President, Obama should be focusing on fixing the economy and winning the war on terror instead of campaigning on talk shows.

So it's fine to lie if you had nothing better to do? Are you mad because you think the left is full of 'fear mongers' or are you mad because said fear mongering is taking place when they have better things to do?

I don't think the Republicans are more libertarian then they were pre-Obama.  Libertarians have become more vocal and active in politics recently, because they have become so angry at Obama for trying to move the country towards socialism and by him trying to increase the deficit.

The votes in the Iowa Caucus determine my view. Yes, libertarians have gotten more vocal, but with a huge number of young republicans voting libertarian, it doesn't seem like a passing thing.

I have seen/read that Barack Obama, Debbie Shultz, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid make misleading, false comments with the obvious purpose of scoring political points.  It is possible that there are other Democrats who having accused the Republican party of being hijacked by radicals, but they don't tend to be heard as much in the news.

As do some republicans. Failure to acknowledge the good points and flaws of both sides will lead to bias. Some democrats make misleading comments, as do some republicans. Even Mitt Romney does it. So yes, your post implied that all democrats lie, which is certainly not true. It's a problem, but a problem that is shared equally by both sides.