Are we getting the PE we were led to believe was on the horizon during the KS?

[alanschu]

 

 

They made a Kickstarter which specifically mentioned Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment, what else did we have to go off? As I said previously I don't think "IE-like" means isometric graphics alone, graphics are completely cosmetic.

 

So it's another example of how there's no consensus over what exactly makes up an "infinity engine game."

 

I still expect the gameplay to be similar.  It'll just have differences in the actual rules adjudication.  I also have certain expectations on the writing, the conversation system, levels of reactivity and choices, and so forth.

 

You're getting upset now because this isn't what your imagination told you you were promised.  Which is "welcome to crowd funding."

 

 

 

 

And telling me to leave because I don't conform to a fanboy norm of a forum is pretty weak, I think a forum is exactly the place to disagree.

 

You ARE conforming to a fanboy norm (just not one that is "yay Project Eternity").  You have your head completely in the sand and went into this with absolutely zero flexibility and frankly zero trust in the developer itself.  You, in your own words, think that the game will not only have a poorer ruleset, but that it will be buggy and incomplete as well.  At this point, I can only conclude that you made some suspect choices for not only contributing to a game that you figure will be buggy and incomplete, but without properly reading the actual kickstarter.

 

 

 

 

I just think the conduct of OE in regard to the games they told the backers they were inspired by has been disrespectful, do you think the IE games had nothing to do with D&D or something?

 

I liked the IE games despite the AD&D ruleset.  If it wasn't for a friend encouraging me to get past the first few levels of Baldur's Gate, I may have never bothered with picking it back up again.  The game was immensely frustrating for me, despite prior experience with AD&D from games like Eye of the Beholder, Dungeon Hack, Pools of Radiance, and Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures.  The first 3 games I never actually finished, and FRUA I played around with because it was fun to do my own stuff.  While I learned the rule system, and understood it, I still preferred games like the Ultima series, and later games like Fallout.

 

I dislike the much more deterministic "all or nothing" system of AD&D's AC rating.  While Pathfinder and beyond may improve things (I think NWN2 may be the last d20 CRPG that I touched), something like Fallout was not only more interesting, but also more intuitive (and it was hardly crystal clear).  The relationship between Armor Class, Damage Thresholds and Damage Resistances for particular weapon types was something I really liked.

 

So when I had a chance to play BG, when I loaded it up and saw it was AD&D, my first reaction was "Hmmmmmmmmm."  It worked better in dungeon crawlers like Eye of the Beholder and Dungeon Hack, and while functional for Baldur's Gate the only real advantage I saw of its presence was that I knew the ruleset.

 

 

I've also become a greater fan of games that try new and different things.  In this regard, while I acknowledge that Sawyer and Co. may come up with something that is poor, they may also come up with something I find equivalent (but different, which is a plus) or even better.  d20 at it's core is still a system that is designed around rolling dice, and the convenience/limitations that that provides.

 

 

I do feel I am still getting the game I was led to believe I would get.  It sucks that you don't feel the same way, but as I started this post with, that's just reflective of the idea that what people like about the IE games is NOT consistent across people.  PST is my favourite of all the IE games, and it's the one that did more to bend the AD&D rules (at least compared to my other AD&D experiences), while having things like superior writing (which is so good in my opinion it pretty much trumps all deficiencies on its own).

 

 

As for "telling you to leave" it was more specifically the thumping of one's chest regarding this particular beat.  You now know the reality of the situation.  You are free to continue to participate in the forums as you wish, but I personally don't see it as productive for anyone if your choice is to continue lamenting the decision to not go with a d20 system.  Unless you think you can change their minds (skeptical), or that you don't think the complaint has been received (acknowledged), I'd actually rather you accept the system, and try to be responsive to the system as it exists.  You *could* choose to have an open mind about the system.  But if your sole reason for contributing to this was because you wanted a CRPG with DnD/d20 rules, you're going to be disappointed and that's likely not going to change.  How you choose to deal with your continued disappointment is up to you.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

To be fair, there is a 5% chance to miss.

 

And chance get bigger if you go against opponets above of your level.

 

Level is a big factor in your total defenses, but the character's class determines the starting point of each defense stat (which can be further modified by attributes, spells, abilities, talents, and equipment).  For example, fighters start with the highest Deflection score and they maintain that advantage as they level up.  If a fighter really wants to focus on holding a line in melee over doing damage, he or she can equip a shield and gain an even larger Deflection bonus.  Unless you're higher level than the fighter, it's very unlikely that your Deflection-based attacks will come close to his or her Deflection defense, meaning you'll wind up missing a lot more than 5% of the time -- and it will probably be impossible to crit them.  If you want to hurt fighters, use attacks that target Reflexes or Psyche, which are their weakest base defenses.

 

Most classes have at least one ability or spell that shifts the defense they are targeting with standard attacks.  E.g. barbarians have a Brute Force ability that allows them to temporarily switch over to targeting Fortitude.  Against our sample fighter, that would have the two advantages of ignoring the target's high base Deflection and ignoring the bonus provided by the shield.  As another example, druids have a spell called Firebrand that creates a weapon made out of pure fire.  In addition to doing only fire damage, it targets the Reflexes defense.

 

So, while it's true that an equal defense and accuracy will result in a 5% chance to miss, it's rare that defense and accuracy will actually be equal on any given attack.

[Infinitron]

 

FO2 supporting many ways to play through the game doesn't have anything do with SPECIAL. It's content - it would exist even with a completely different system.

 

Uh, yeah it kinda does.  The attribute system you use determines what kind of content makes it into the game.

 

 

You're looking at things backwards. There's nothing about having choices and consequences, or many different ways to solve quests, that requires a particular RPG system. Whether or not a particular system inspired the designers to add those features isn't important in view of the final product.

 

Systems versus content.

[jethro]

<details details details>

 

Hooray, new facts. Now we can start over with the discussion, generate new speculation and find new reasons why the system is either unplayable or better than swiss cheese ;-)

[Sarex]

Hooray, new facts. Now we can start over with the discussion, generate new speculation and find new reasons why the system is either unplayable or better than swiss cheese ;-)

 

This is a discussion forum it's what its for.

[Stun]

The problem with the D&D system is that balance never seems to have been a concern of the designers.  There's maybe a little sweet spot somewhere in the levels 5-7 range where most of the core classes are moderately well balanced with one another, but the rest of the time classes are all over the place.

This is.... True.

 

But I don't see it as a problem, or a flaw. I see it as the exact opposite. I see it as the soul... the color and the human-like realism of the system. Classses are like Careers in real life. They're not supposed to be equal and balanced. They're supposed to vary wildly in terms of power.

 

In D&D, you have a class like Mage. Very weak early on, then they evolve and become the most powerful class. And you've got Warrior-types. Their progression is Slow and steady. They'll never be the weakest class, and they'll never be the most powerful class. They'll be something in between from beginning to end.

 

This is as it should be. I shudder at the thought of some boring, soulless, robotic system where everything is equal, thereby removing all motivation to replay the game (after all, why bother Playing a warrior for your new playthrough, when you know that the game's challenge will be exactly the same as it was when you played as a mage?)

 

 

But this is a pointless discussion. The Balance issue is a moot point in a party based system. If Mages are more powerful than Clerics, then.... who cares? Your party will have BOTH.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Stun

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

This is as it should be. I shudder at the thought of some boring, soulless, robotic system where everything is equal, thereby removing all motivation to replay the game (after all, why bother Playing a warrior for your new playthrough, when you know that the game's challenge will be exactly the same as it was when you played as a mage?)

 

If classes excel and suffer at different elements of gameplay but are still roughly as viable as each other throughout the game, the challenge isn't the same at all.  "Balanced" does not mean "the same".  Playing different classes should make challenges out of obstacles that were previously easy and turn cakewalks into struggles in equal measure.  If you just want the game to be harder overall, that's what the level of difficulty is for.

[tajerio]

 

But this is a pointless discussion. The Balance issue is a moot point in a party based system. If Mages are more powerful than Clerics, then.... who cares? Your party will have BOTH.

 

 

Balance isn't a moot issue in a party-based game at all.  If some classes are significantly more powerful than others in the vast majority of situations, that will tend to force the developers to balance the encounters for a party containing the companions with the better classes, which will then itself force me to bring around those characters for the majority of the game, to the detriment of the other companions and the quality of the game generally.  Decreasing balance tends to limit variety, in a cRPG.  In PnP, not so much, but that's not the concern here.

[Wombat]

While I enjoyed the simulationist aspect of Shadowrun Returns, I think the team is on the right track in taking the gamist direction in PE.  I like games which are designed with clear design visionary in mind.

[Sensuki]

Level is a big factor in your total defenses, but the character's class determines the starting point of each defense stat (which can be further modified by attributes, spells, abilities, talents, and equipment).

 

So, while it's true that an equal defense and accuracy will result in a 5% chance to miss, it's rare that defense and accuracy will actually be equal on any given attack.

How are attacks and defenses represented in the character sheet and combat log ?

 

Will the 'attack bonus' be displayed by the equipped weapon / will the character sheet display the bonuses like they did in the IE games where (pretty much) every little bonus from race, class, prof, buffs and gear were documented?

 

We are used to seeing attacks represented with a + and Defenses as a static number. Also will the defense being attacked be displayed in a combat log representation of a roll ?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sensuki

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If you just want the game to be harder overall, that's what the level of difficulty is for.

[PrimeJunta]

How is d20 "not their own ruleset", there's been plenty of original rulesets which use d20 as a basis, doesn't mean they aren't original. Numenera is using d20.

Numenera is nothing like d20 (although you do roll one a quite a lot). For PnP gaming, I'm liking it hella more than d20 (although I'll only start running a campaign in it later this fall). Way more straightforward, way more room for creative play, both from the player and the GM side. For one thing, the stats and progression are there almost for flavor -- the cyphers are where the real action is at: you could totally run a high-power adventure with a first-tier party just by being liberal with cyphers.

 

The Numenera team are going to have to do some hard thinking on how to translate that to a computer game though, as the system itself is really built around interaction between players and the GM. The mechanics are too simple for interesting gameplay if applied without that aspect. For example, combat is kept interesting through GM intervention and application of Effort, there's an extremely limited selection of "spells" (esoteries) but there are guidelines for players who want to creatively modify their effects, and players are encouraged to make up their own skills. The whole thing pointedly ignores things like systemic balance, leaving that up to the players and GM. One of the functions of the GM intervention rule is, in fact, to sort out precisely such things.

 

In other words, it treats the players and GM as responsible adults who want to play a fun game, rather than rules lawyers looking to exploit holes in the system. There's no way a computer can do that kind of creative reinterpretation.

 

I would expect that what the ToN team is doing now is figuring out how to build a varied-enough superstructure on top of the basic system to make things work in a cRPG. It'll be quite interesting to see how that pans out.

[Silent Winter]

If classes excel and suffer at different elements of gameplay but are still roughly as viable as each other throughout the game, the challenge isn't the same at all.  "Balanced" does not mean "the same".  Playing different classes should make challenges out of obstacles that were previously easy and turn cakewalks into struggles in equal measure.  If you just want the game to be harder overall, that's what the level of difficulty is for.

 

This.

When I replay BG as a different PC class (or different party makeup), I approach it differently (trying to make my PC the 'main' guy.)

When I was a thief, I used more stealth and backstabbing to open a fight  (then running away    into my waiting team).  When I played as Mage, my team were to keep the enemies off me while I picked them off with spells.  When I played as Druid, I became the summoner/buffer/disabler.

Some fights, especially boss fights, needed a very different approach.

I'm tempted to try a run-through with only thieves or only druids.

 

Different classes give you different skills to play with.  How to use those skills to best advantage is part of the fun

[Stun]

If classes excel and suffer at different elements of gameplay but are still roughly as viable as each other throughout the game, the challenge isn't the same at all.  "Balanced" does not mean "the same".  Playing different classes should make challenges out of obstacles that were previously easy and turn cakewalks into struggles in equal measure.

If that's the case, then I don't know what the gripe is with D&D. It was a balanced system. At least balanced in the way you're defining "Balance".

 

-Clerics, for example, will own powerful undead in any battle. But Warriors of equal level will have a tough time.

-Warriors can plow through Golems. Mages, on the other hand, will suffer a world of hurt against Golems.

-Rogues can make short work of a heavily trapped Corridor.... the other classes can't.

-Bards can smooth-talk their way out of a bad social situation, Barbarians can't...

 

etc.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stun

[Elerond]

In computer games D&D has been anything but well balanced.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Elerond

[Infinitron]

 

If classes excel and suffer at different elements of gameplay but are still roughly as viable as each other throughout the game, the challenge isn't the same at all.  "Balanced" does not mean "the same".  Playing different classes should make challenges out of obstacles that were previously easy and turn cakewalks into struggles in equal measure.  If you just want the game to be harder overall, that's what the level of difficulty is for.

 

 

This post should be turned into a banner image and be permanently emblazoned at the top of the Game Mechanics forum.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[Stun]

Except that what he's describing is an Ideal. One that invariably falls by the wayside the moment magic items are brought into the mix.

 

You can have a "perfectly" balanced system, but then, how are you going to deal with loot dispensing? Are you going to deprive a warrior of his ring of invisibility because Balance dictates that only Rogues should be able to turn invisible? Should Clerics not be able to "lift" a Hammer of Thunderbolts because it would cancel out a Warrior's melee advantage? Should mages be unaffected by magics that increase armor ratings and health pools since physical Durability is what balances warriors with spell casters??

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stun

[Infinitron]

Except that what he's describing is an Ideal. One that invariably falls by the wayside the moment magic items are brought into the mix.

 

You can have a "perfectly" balanced system, but then, how are you going to deal with loot dispensing? Are you going to deprive a warrior of his ring of invisibility because Balance dictates that only Rogues should be able to turn invisible? Should Clerics not be able to "lift" a Hammer of Thunderbolts because it would cancel out a Warrior's melee advantage? Should mages be unaffected by magics that increase armor ratings and health pools since physical Durability is what balances warriors with spell casters??

 

Project Eternity isn't doing any of these things, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

 

Your ideal of an unbalanced system is based on a simplistic combat model, where any given class can only be "good at combat" or "bad at combat" and that is the only meaningful trade-off that exists in the game. You fail to realize that in a sufficiently complex game, different classes can be good at combat in meaningfully different ways. The long range specialist will have a significantly different experience from the melee specialist, the critical hit specialist will have a significantly different experience from  the accuracy specialist, the heavily armored guy will have a significantly different experience from the fast, dodgy guy.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[PrimeJunta]

Objectivity is also an ideal. It is known to be unattainable. Do you think that means that, say, historians, journalists, or judges should just say freck it and write or rule whatever they want, rather than trying their level best to be as objective as they can?

 

If you don't, then why do you think game designers shouldn't try to balance their game system out as well as they can, even knowing perfect balance is unattainable?

[Stun]

Project Eternity isn't doing any of these things, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

 

Your ideal of an unbalanced system is based on a simplistic combat model, where any given class can only be "good at combat" or "bad at combat" and that is the only meaningful trade-off that exists in the game. You fail to realize that in a sufficiently complex game, different classes can be good at combat in meaningfully different ways. The long range specialist will have a significantly different experience from the melee specialist, the critical hit specialist will have a significantly different experience from  the accuracy specialist, the heavily armored guy will have a significantly different experience from the fast, dodgy guy.

And this is where I'll ask, again, Did D&D fail to make the different classes good at combat in meaningfully different ways?

 

Or was it, in fact, balanced in precisely the way you're describing it?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stun

[Infinitron]

 

And this is where I'll ask, again, Did D&D fail to make the different classes good at combat in meaningfully different ways?

 

Or was it, in fact, balanced in precisely the way you're describing it?

 

 

Only if you look across the entire level spectrum, which isn't what I meant.

 

Low level mages = fairly useless, high level fighters and especially rogues = fairly useless.

 

So no, it wasn't.

 

And this is, by the way, why many D&D CRPGs have tended to be a lot easier than they could have been - because they couldn't be designed with the assumption that your party was fully combat-capable at all times, with any party composition and at any level range. The cost of the imbalance that you think was such a great thing was easier games.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[Stun]

 

And this is where I'll ask, again, Did D&D fail to make the different classes good at combat in meaningfully different ways?

 

Or was it, in fact, balanced in precisely the way you're describing it?

 

Only if you look across the entire level spectrum, which isn't what I meant.

 

Say what? We're discussing game balance. You can't make a relevant point about game balance without taking into consideration the entire class and class level spectrum that the game/system offers.

 

 

 

Low level mages = fairly useless, high level fighters and especially rogues = fairly useless.

This is vague nonsense. High level Rogues and Fighters in D&D are sufficiently powerful to deal with just about any equally high level challenge, be it combat or non-combat. The fact that they won't be exactly as powerful at all times as an equally high level mage, is, as Josh points out, irrelevant, since apparently, Balance does not = the same.

 

And this is, by the way, why D&D CRPGs have tended to be a lot easier than they could have been - because they can't be designed with the assumption that your party is fully combat-capable at all times and at any level range. The cost of the imbalance that you think is such a great thing is EASIER GAMES.

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you give me a couple of examples for comparison sake? Say, a more "difficult" party based RPG that doesn't use D&D, so that we can compare it with one that does, and so that we can accurately assess the reasons why it was more difficult? Edited August 8, 2013 by Stun

[Infinitron]

Say what? We're discussing game balance. You can't make a relevant point about game balance without taking into consideration the entire class and class level spectrum that the game/system offers.

 

 

Of course I can. In a typical RPG, the entire party will be in the same level range at any given moment. Whether one class becomes better at combat twenty hours later is irrelevant to how they're performing right now.

 

Now, I realize that there's a certain long-term satisfaction narrative in "shepherding" a weak low-level mage until he becomes powerful enough to kick ass and outshine the rest of the party, but I'm pointing out that that approach has many disadvantages.

 

This is vague nonsense. High level Rogues and Fighters in D&D are sufficiently powerful to deal with just about any equally high level challenge, be it combat or non-combat. The fact that they won't be exactly as powerful at all times as an equally high level mage, is, as Josh points out, irrelevant, since apparently, Balance does not = the same.

 

 

"Sufficiently powerful"? In what game, I ask? And I answer - in any game that has been made sufficiently easy such that high level fighters and high level rogues can get by despite being so much weaker than high level mages.

 

Wouldn't you rather play a game where the high level challenges kick everybody's ass, not just the fighter's and the rogue's?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[Stun]

Of course I can. In a typical RPG, the entire party will be in the same level range at any given moment. Whether one class becomes better at combat a higher level is irrelevant to how they're performing right now. I realize that there's a certain long-term satisfaction narrative in "shepherding" a weak low-level mage until he becomes powerful enough to kick ass and outshine the rest of the party, but I'm pointing out that that approach has many disadvantages.

Aah. Ok, I get what you're saying. Lets keep one thing in mind. Unless we're talking *truly* low level (as in level 1), the "balance" differences between a Fighter and a Mage are not as massive as you're making them out to be. For example, at 3rd level (which is, by all definitions Low, yes?), a mage will be able to invisibly slip past a band of orcs when a fighter can't. A mage will be able to Shield himself from an arrow barrage when a fighter can't. And on occasion, a mage will be able to launch one magic attack that may automatically kill one equally leveled opponent, while a fighter has a good chance of missing his one attack. etc. Non-combat wise, mages at 3rd level are not less powerful than warriors AT ALL. They're the ones with the Brains. They're going to be the ones who can engage in conversation and come out on top. They're the ones who will be able to speak different languages, build campfires and makeshift shelters. of course, the "balance" here comes in the fact that fighters will be better swimmers. Better food hunters, better rock climbers, etc.

 

However, from a pure survivability standpoint, I agree with you, of course. But like I said before, I most definitely would NOT want it any other way. If you give me a game where a mage is just as *tough* and durable at level 3 as a fighter, I will dismiss that system as boring and....redundant.

 

 

 

"Sufficiently powerful"? In what game, I ask? And I answer - in any game that has been made sufficiently easy such that high level fighters and high level rogues can get by despite being so much weaker than high level mages.

Sufficiantly easy? Who claimed that? I didn't. If any challenge is sufficently easy then you can no longer call it a challenge, Can you. No. I'm talking about D&D. a 25th level fighter in D&D can slay a Balor. He can enter an enemy General's stronghold and wage a war against his troops, and come out on top.

 

A mage can do the same. Unfortunately, computer gaming has bastardized Mages and made these challenges a bit easier (or quicker, to be more accurate) for them. But in *true* D&D, this is not the case. In Pen and Paper D&D, a mage must contend with the difficulties involved in getting his spells off. And it's not just "Damn, my spell got disrupted by a stray arrow". No, it's more like, "Sh*t, half of my spell components were ruined this morning when they got rained on!, Now a good portion of my Arsenal is LOST to me..

 

Wouldn't you rather play a game where the high level challenges kick everybody's ass, not just the fighter's and the rogue's?

???

 

Are you suggesting this can't happen in D&D? There are enemies in the system that are specificially designed to indescriminently kill whole parties at once, and not just your Mage, or your Rogue. or whatever.

 

My turn. Do you really want to play a game where Your Mage and Fighter have the exact same health and physicial toughness as each other, exact same armor rating as each other, and exact same damage output as each other from first level to 20th level?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stun

[Chrononaut]

 

 

If classes excel and suffer at different elements of gameplay but are still roughly as viable as each other throughout the game, the challenge isn't the same at all.  "Balanced" does not mean "the same".  Playing different classes should make challenges out of obstacles that were previously easy and turn cakewalks into struggles in equal measure.  If you just want the game to be harder overall, that's what the level of difficulty is for.

 

 

This post should be turned into a banner image and be permanently emblazoned at the top of the Game Mechanics forum.

 

Except that Sawyer's wording of "classes excel and suffer" is very curious. Mechanics updates seem to indicate that PE classes will not suffer at anything, they will have advantages, but not disadvantages. Their will not be armor or weapon restrictions based on class for example. Seems to me that PE classes will just be blank-slate defaults and their "class" will just be a bonus so they do something a little better than other characters. But getting that bonus isn't offset by a restriction or penalty, it's just a bonus.

 

I think classes should be defined by their weaknesses as much as their strength. PE character system seems to be designed by some kind of Bethesdaerian idea of your characters being able to "do anything" (even that update from Cain mentioned "Your characters" when justifying not having class restrictions).

 

For a guy that designed Icewind Dale II, it's rather disappointing to see him display such contempt and hatred for big and long character generation at the start of game.

 

I'm still going to hold my final judgement until I see PE's character generation screen, if it's small as **** then this game is doomed. The only games that do this nowadays are like Skyrim, start game you choose your race and name, and that's it, the "character system" in the game is just masturbatory power-upping and your character's stats and skills do not define how you interact with the world. I personally think chargen should be the most important part of any serious RPG, it should allow the player to plan their character right from level 1 to the cap.