Umberlin

I'm aware that's how most games do it, and I don't like it. Melee fighters should do relatively low damage but without cost, while ranged attacks should be limited but powerful; an arrow should be pretty much undodgeable for all but the most dextrous high level characters, and potentially do a lot of damage. And ranged combatants have the advantage of being able to damage the enemy while remaining safely out of reach of melee weapons themselves (depending on the layout of the battleground). Ranged combatants that can run out of ammo should be capable of switching to melee, though less effectively than dedicated melee fighters; I think this makes more sense for archers than mages, so I'd recommend against a system that lets mages run out of power entirely (eg the Vancian system). Well yeah, obviously the things you're better trained in you'd be better at. I definitly agree on the part that they'd be able to switch, with the obvious note that the limitations of their character progression choices, thus far, would be upon them. I'm going to catch a little flack, maybe, for what I'm about to say, or maybe it's just the fact that I really dislike the game I'm about to mention . . . but one thing Dragon Age 2 did right was the Staff attacks that used the staff as a secondary power source for attacks beyond their spell casting. The only thing I'd have changed about that would have been that it is . . . again . . . "Unlimited" and I really don't feel any form of combat should have an unlimited option. I'd go back to the D&D Wizard Staff/Wand or equivalents from other settings that offered magic users a secondary option beyond their spells 'if' and only if that secondary option was also somehow limited. For example a wand that could hold one type of spell, that slow regenerated charges (too slowly to just spam constantly) in combination with the memorization styled spell list or what have you. This is actually something you could potentially have in D&D so it's not really different except that I'm proposing the Wand/Staff act as a focus DA2 style for a particular type/form of attack spells unique to wand/staff (or whatever brand of focus) weapons that sort of have their own internal mana bar or charge limitation or what have you. As long as it's limited and slow enough they can't just spam the bloody things. I'm a fan of limitations when it comes to the expendature of effort/resources/whatever in exchange for an action in an RPG. I feel strongly that it's the thing that spurs on real tactical thinking. Of course what I just mentioned is way, way to simple and too rushed to be of any use. Someone a lot more dedicated than I would have to flesh it out into something viable, and, really, by that time, I'd hope they could just plain come up with something far, far better on their own because I am reaching on this one.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with the rest of your post, but I'd like to point out something unrelated to my opinions quickly, a fact if you will: They outright said that the backers were their boss this time around. “I’d much rather have the players be my boss and hear their thoughts for what would be fun than people who might be more distant from the process and the genre and frankly, any long-term attachment to the title.” - Chris Avellone And not just that one way quoted above, they've said it multiple times. Like I said, I'm not going to bring my opinion into this. It's just a fact that they set up that 'you are our boss' mentality. They did. Obsidian did. Not some self entitled fans on the forum. Obsidian. If I were to put in one little bit of my opinion on the subject it would be, "I think that's awful brave of Obsidian." I guess we'll see how that pans out.

Yeah, limited, everything should be limited. All forms of attack, be they ranged melee or magical should have limiters of some sort in place to ensure you use them tactically. No free attacks, at all, of any kind. Whether it be a melee swing, a magical shield or a bow in the hand of a capable archery the attack in question, in every single case, should cost. Cost can be anything from eating up a resource to eating up an X per day charge or even stacking some brand of negative, like fatigue, on the user.

In a way I get why people like customization for magic. It's sort of the point of becoming a Wizard, or something like that, outside of power, to one day create your own spells toward your own ends. No longer using, "Mr. Whosit's: Super Powerful Energy Ball IV" but instead creating your own magics, naming them. Also selling your magically enchanted wares on the open market at cut throat prices because you've turned all the competition into toads.

I don't see that as a problem; magic should be a great deal more powerful than hitting people with bits of metal, Then you aren't familiar with how most games, especially modern games, handle magic damage verus melee damage. There are exceptions, but the typical design flaw is that they'll give the melee a free attack or a no cost auto-attack or the like, that can do a sizeable portion of damage based on the weapon they're using, this becomes especially problematic with magical weapons because the result is typically that the weapon does a great mass of damage comparable, or even greater than, a spell that has a high cost or that can only be used X amount of times per day. Essentially what I'm saying is that everything has to have a cost, cost for effort, expendature or build up of a negative. Risk for reward via the resources spent through the effort that could potentially be interrupted. If it applies to one form of combat it must apply to all, otherwise you end up with that guy that can just keep swinging and swinging and swinging with no cost. I'll go back to the earlier example of how that applies outside of magic. You have a ranged character, limited ammunition, this is as it should be right? Well I think it is. But then you'll come across the flaw in all to many games where a melee character can just come in and use a decent to high damage attack or skill over and over and over again, without cost I must again add, while every other form of combatant on the field has to deal with the reality of finite resources. The Mage has limited spells per day or limited mana or what have you. The Ranged combatant has limited ammo and so on. If done right the melee combatant too has a finite resource that can run out, like stamina, or whatever floats your boat. If done wrong the melee combatant has a free attack or costless auto-attack that they can use forever, without end. And wrong way happens 'all the time' because that free attack or costless auto-attack general depends more on the damage of a weapon, especially magical weapons, leading to them dealing impressive damage, for free, when everyone else on the field has a cost associated with that brand of damage. It's a matter of balance, because, what do you want in your group, as far as companions go? A bunch of characters that can run out of a resource? Or a bunch of characters with a free high damage attack they can spam constantly? It may sound like an impossible mistake to make, but it happens all the time, because you end up with those Fighter or Warrior characters that, even if they have a resource to spend on special attacks, will almost always have that free swing that doesn't cost a thing, while everyone else is expending casts per day or ammo or mana or whatever resource you please. "If" magic deals much more damage, you have a point, but, especially modern games, balance out the damage so everyone is about the same, meaning the guy with that no cost attack? He's the companion you want because he will never run out. It's a problem in so many games because you can make a party of those sorts of characters and steamroll content with little risk and high free of cost damage. Obviously, yes, some games do get it right. I'm just pointing out that if one form has a cost, all forms must have a cost, simply because I'd feel amiss if I didn't after seeing so many studious make this mistake for . . . reasons I can't fathom. Give magic a major drawback? Is it similar in damage/effect to other forms? Then either the drawback/cost needs removed or all the other forms need simialr costs and drawbacks. Is it higher damage/effect than other forms? Then there's wiggle room, but I'd still maintain that 'no' action, regardless of form, should be free.

The problem with applying negative consequences to magic use is that then you need to apply a similar system to other action forms, such as a melee swing using up stamina that you're actually in danger of running out of, and, when out, your actions start taking health. If you don't then you end up with the very real, and very prevalent problem of magic users that can actually run themselve completely dry while your melee characters can just keep swinging away with no resource spent. Countless games actually suffer from there, where magic has a cost and other actions, quite simply, do not, or if they do then there's usually a sort of 'auto swing' or 'free swing' attack for them to use, that's quite effective, that magic users have to equivalent to. You actually see a similar issue with ranged characters in games that limit them by ammo, as opposed to the ones that don't count the ammo. You have your ranged attack character in danger of running out of ammo, while the melee character, again, due to a flawed design, can swing away over and over and over ad infinitum ad nauseum with no cost, and often with quite large amounts of damage in games where magic weapons are more the deciding factor than the character's base stats. I'm not going to say you have a bad idea, because you don't, it's an interesting idea, actually, but it's the sort of thing that you need to add 'something' for everyone, so everyone's potential for attack is kept in check, in order to facilitate the use of actual tactics. Just the same if magic can be interrupted and resources wasted (or a negative built up) then so too must other forms of attack be vulnerable to interruption and waste of a resource (or build up of some negative).

That's something of a victorian myth. Not that I agree or disagree with the sentiments you're expressing outside of that. I'm staying out of this one.

It'd be interesting to see the social constructs of different societies within a game with differing views on things like magic, gender and race . . . but only if it were done well and handled with the intelligence and care needed to make something like that come of as thoughtful and challenging rather than as in bad taste.

Longstanding consequences are an admirable goal, but I imagine hard to do right. If they can do them right, and well, I'm all for them. Especially if the results may not be what you intended, reflecting the fact that the best intentions . . . (or the worst) can have very different consequences in the long run than what the immediate action may suggest. Echoes of Kreia.

Outside of your tactical input, such as how to use what the character has at their disposal, there should be no player input at all. You might choose a conversation option, but the conversation options available should be a result of who your character is, what they know, how bright they are or how bright they are, how wise they are or how wise they aren't, how charming they are or how charming they aren't and so on and so forth. This extends to combat, your characters statistics, gear, abilities, skills, level and the environment are the true deciders with your input being how to use what's avaiable. There should never be a twitch 'player skill' element in an RPG, the idea of player skill in an RPG of that sort beyond their tactical and decision making input is laughable. Every time someone claims to be great at RPG PvP, for example, I laugh to the point of outright hysteria, because it's either not true or because the game is an RPG in name only, with none of the underlying factors that make it an actual RPG. You are inserting yourself into the role of a character in an RPG, part of it is realizing that your own 'I can shoot way better/aim way better than that' abilities should mean nothing, because that's you. What you can do means nothing and should mean nothing. It's about what you're character can do, and working within those confines, working with what they have instead of what you have. Outside of you deciding what to do with what 'the character' has, you should have no input. Your input is selecting the dialogue option, deciding which quest to take, deciding where to move, whether to flank or not, if your character is even mobile enough/stealthy enough to flank - and that's the key. If your character isn't either of those things then you need to work within the things your character can do. Not what you can do or think you can do. Only what your character can do, and they should never be able to do everything. You're playing a character, and if that character misses or hits it should be a result of their capabilities. The second someone complains that, "I was facing them how could I miss!?" is the second they need to realize that they don't really want to play an RPG at all, at least not a real RPG. There are plenty of mindless twitch ridden action RPGs out there for people that want that, indeed it's darn near the only thing developers are willing to make anymore. If this is really a call back to the oldschool IE games then I expect that sort of twitchy "My reflexes/twitch gaming skills should matter!" mentality to be thrown straight out the window, into the trash heap, where it belongs. Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim and their ilk aren't RPGs in my mind, they're action RPGs, and that's a pretty massive difference, which is fine if you want an action RPG . . . but that's not what I'm looking for here. That's not what this project was advertised as. PE was advertised as a call back to the old IE games, and they were not action RPGs. Action RPG styles nonsense is the last thing I want to see in this game. In short: I'm looking for a full on oldschool RPG, your player skills like twitch/reflex and all that should mean zip, zero nada. Nothing. The player input that 'should' matter are the obvious things, your ability to make choices, your ability to think tactically and intelligently - your ability to think 'as' your character, and operate within the confines of your character. Tactical. Not reflex or twitch.

Getting lost in the fog was always more intriguing to me than obvious red/blue this choice is bad this choice is good, as far as the game system is concerned, methods.

Personally I always prefered slower leveling forms, with fewer levels covered over the course of a game.

That sort of thing annoys me, and I don't really think it's ever necessary. It's just some people want to do it. That said, you know . . . I don't mind skimpy or inappropriate armor and clothing if, and only if, conservative and sensible options, as well as middleground options, also exist in every possible tier. Because the only thing worse than there being skimpy or inappropriate armor in the game is if you are forced to use it for statistical reasons. As long as there are options that are conservative and middleground to counter balance the skimpy/inappropriate stuff I can deal. Sure I won't like the skimpy/inappropriate stuff but I understand I'm not the only one in the world, and my tastes aren't the only ones. I'm willing to let everyone have their own thing if the developers feel it's practical. Still, if they can only do one of the three, my vote is always toward the most conservative and appropriate armor and clothing for the setting. And I don't mean boring when I say that, different levels of how stylized and ornate they are . . . that's fine, that's a typical separation in society where some people are more extravagant/rich and thus have more ornate clothing/armor is fine, but, again, that's as long as the other end of the spectrum exists as well to represent the middleclass or the common soldier or the poor or the homeless guy drinking himself into a stupor in the gutter. That's the only way the rich noble, extravagantly dressed, character really works, is if you have something to contrast them.

On that note, I'd totally play a cRPG that literally was just a 3D representation of a PnP tabletop game as a tool for DMs to better visually represent their campaigns and connect their players across a larger area. Especially if it used a physics engine to let me throw dice, and move my little character several tiles. No really, if it were literally just the tabletop game on the PC I'd be all over that. Actually you can do that now, minus the 3D (and the physics engine for letting you throw dice one day . . . one day), I've played a few games like that with a group while . . . people watched. No literally there was a chat room and people were just watching us play and commenting . . . It was a so weird. An example of one such a virtual tabletop: http://rpgvirtualtabletop.com/images/TTopRPG.jpg . . . well, it's a start.

I'd even play an old school text based game if it were intriguing enough.

Western inspired games in the East run outside of the PC, mind you, just look at Etrian Odyssey, Dragon's Dogma as well as Dark Souls and Demon's Souls. As for the PC titles, Japanese PC titles run through a lot of genres, certainly, and some of them definitly seedier than others. However examples of eastern games on the PC are, again, too many to list all of, and, again, I can't help but think people will act like because they're the examples I give they're the only ones out there. They're not. There are hundreds. Sangokushi XII, Monster Hunter Frontier Online, Power DoLLS 5, Ys : The Oath in Felghana, Ys: Origin, Front Mission Evolved, Grandia II, Final Fantasy VII, Sudeki and far, far more are all available on the PC. I'm sure someone can nit pick and find ways they 'don't count' and so on but oh well, just one digital store has a list of over a thousand games . . . if someone wants to track down every last digital and physical store in the East and find a problem with every last game . . . be my guest. But let's go further than that and talk about the Japanese digitial distribution stores out there were you can find all sorts of western games from American Mcgee's Alice to Morrowind and the other Elder Scrolls games to silly western airplane simulations. Think of a genre and it's likely represented, especially western styled RPGs, again you find no lack of many genres of game from various countries outside of Japan provided. - Why exactly do I have to provide yet more examples though? This isn't some well kept secret. You want me to list some? Why? There are thousands of games out there, provided you know the language. Heck, a few of them actually make it over here every now and then in english (I'm talking Japanese PC games) but it's a rarity. I don't understand why I have to prove it, like it's a mystery, when there is no mystery, heck, they aren't even hiding.

Here's a random thought: What if it's something you have to develop and augment much like the character itself, toward the functions you want it to fulfill/power?

Then you simply do not know the truth of it, as several of the western games I mentioned, and many more, are in fact succesful amongst the normal consumers. That's why some of the games I mention exist at all. If that's what you think then you're horribly unaware of the eastern PC gaming markets that exist heavily, you sound like every other person I've ever talked to about this subject, with only a minority being the exception. I gave examples, a few, because listing every last one would be a pain, and you act like the ones I gave are the only ones in all existence and proclaim some of the games given as examples to be 'shallow' and the only reason they're a success and so on and so forth it's like I've had this conversation before with clones of you. Their PC market is pretty big actually, but, it also doesn't come over here a lot. Even amongst their console releases, given what knowledge you've shown so far, I think you'd be surprised at the amount they don't bring over here at all. As for Wizardry it was delivered to the east in more than one form, and, was a perfect example because not only is it a Western franchise that became popular in the east . . . but it's also a western franchise that the east adopted when it faltered, they kept it alive and are still making Wizardry games to this day. The only example? Not by a long shot but a well documented example certainly. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. And so is the poster that thought your post was spot on above. It's not my opinion that you're wrong, it's my first hand experience that you're wrong. In the end the point was that western RPGs have been, in the past, and still are, in the present, played on a consumer and business level in the east, and that point is very true. I think you'd be surprised. I had to grow up overseas, in Japan especially, and, if you've seen any of my posts on the forum I've played plenty of old to new western RPGs . . . why is this important? Because I was able to buy those games, before the internet, before anything, there, right there, in Japan and I wasn't the only one buying them.

Please don't mistake my concerns for a lack of support. I really hope you create something wonderful, and am eager to see the results, I'd just feel amiss if I didn't voice my concerns, whether they're worthwhile or not. I'm sure that goes for a lot of us here, we feel strongly about it because we care. Thank you for the clarity. Good luck with what you're trying to do.

Illusion, Transmutation, Divination and Enchantment style Wizards were some of the most interesting to play. Even conjuration styled Wizards have potential if their potential is tapped and they aren't made out to be just, "The Pet Wizard" . . . . I'm just worried the approach you're talking about would make it hard, or impossible, to play any sort of Wizard that wasn't the typical evocation styled, "I shoot it with a fireball! I shoot it with a fireball! I shoot it with a fireball!" Wizard . . . outside of those 'rare' instances where we'd perform a ritual with reagents. The Transmutation or Illusion styled magic users are legitimate in their own right. If the invisibility and knock spells makes a rogue wonder why he exists, then he's not aware of his strengths in the least and that's an issue with the player. Because there are plenty of reasons for that Rogue to exist while those spells also exist. Rogues in D&D, from my perspective, on top of having the ability to stealth at will, not using up a memorization slot for invisibility, had plenty of toys to work with and played the role of DPS massively. The sort of Rogue you're talking about that wonders why he exists just sounds like PnP player Rogues I've come across that refuse to flank the enemy and get the free damage bonus. Rogue players like that stand out especially when you see someone playing a Rogue that actually uses the skillset available to them, rather than uselessly wondering why they exist as if they don't have plenty of option laid out in front of them. I'm really worried how magic users in this game will turn out, possibly as little more than damage dealers with a weakness to bullets, when you talk like this because it makes me think we'll be back with the usual, "I shoot fireballs at it" magic users and not exploring the interesting, weird and less obvious forms of magic that were always the more enjoyable ones. I think the point is to not make it specific. A good DM makes it just vague enough so that it doesn't feel like you're being spoon-fed instructions on how to win. (although there's nothing wrong with flat out spoon-feeding instructions every once in a while, especially early on) But generally, a good DM will want to keep it Just vague enough so that a keen, alert player can connect the dots, while a dumb player is S.O.L. for not paying attention. Exactly. Good example.

I think it's a bit odd to read some of the comments in here, the Western influence on the East, where RPGs are concerned, resulted in several of the big names in Eastern RPGs, as well as countless others. There's not a gaming wall over there keeping western games out, in fact plenty of western games are played over there and many of their games past present and future are inspired or influenced by western mechanics and game design. Wizardry isn't the only one but it's a big one, without Wizardry you don't get Dragon Quest. Without Wizardry you don't get Etrian Odyssey. Etrian Odyssey pretty much 'is' Wizardry with a different coat of paint and a name change, and that's not even counting the fact that the Wizardry series of games is still going 'because' it was so adored in the East that they wouldn't let it die. And again, it's not even the only one, it's just a well documented example that's easy to research if you aren't willing to take my word for it. EO and Wizardry aren't the only Western styled games going in the East for that matter. The Eastern market has eaten up the Elder Scrolls series of late, being quite of interest to them and you can see that it's not just something that's enjoyed, but yet another thing that has influenced game design which you can see in practice in several of the newer Eastern RPGs. There's this weird idea of Eastern games I see around the internet that seems to think all Eastern RPGs are blue spikey hair and the young teen hero on a super linear quest to save the world when Eastern RPGs have given us non-linear experiences like the SaGa series of games, or individual entries like Legend of Mana and Chrono Trigger and so on and so forth, I don't see the point in listing every possible example but far more than that exist. Such things go outside the realm of pure RPG mechanics to arguable hybrids like Steam Bot Chronicles which puts an emphasis on non-linear gameplay and choice (if you can get past the badly aged 3D visuals). I won't pretend they're to everyone's taste but to dismiss them despite what they represent is pure ignorance.

I'm pointing at the Wizardry series right now (amongst others), and if you have long term knowledge of Western RPG influence on the East I hope you know why.

I've played Divine Divinity and even Divinity: Ego Draconis. The first was a good game with some interesting ideas, the second... well, it was disappointing to say the least. Beyond Divinity was essentially the 'actual' sequel is you want my measure . . . I have no idea where or why Ego Draconis happened, but . . . it actually had 'some' interesting ideas mixed in with the things I disliked about the game. The mind reading, for instance, and how it cost experience was an intriguing that I wish had more impact on gameplay, plot and . . . well character advancement. Beyond Divinity had a better idea in general than, "Dragons are cool!" being that it thought to fuse you to your sworn enemy. I don't think I liked it as much as Divine Divinity, in general, but the idea was good . . . just needed better execution.

Hhmmm . . . Thunderscape: World of Aden was a fun RPG, and its intro did a great job of delivering the plot and getting you excited all at once, the point at which he inquires, "Why will face the horrors at Skellon's Pass!?" accented by the explosion of the shield is a sharp hook through the lip. Strahd's Possession and Stone Prophet: both Ravenloft games, were quite good early RPGs, though not the first I played. The Quest for Glory series were Adventure/RPG mixed games, and had a surprising amount of ways to go about the same objective for an early game series (or even a modern games). Importing characters from previous games in the series was . . . not the first, but I think this is one of the first game series I experienced it in as a child. Then there were the Wizardry games. The first one I played was actually Bane of the Cosmic Forge. Very out of order, I didn't get to the earlier entries until later when I actually did play them all through to Crusaders of the Dark Savant. I didn't play VIII, at the time at least, because it wouldn't run at all. Well, it'd run, it was just a buggy unplayable mess at the time. I actually played a Wizardry-like game past that called Wizards & Warriors tha was released in 2000 for the PC which . . . well, I prefered to Wizardry 8. Possibly because I was able to actually play it right out of the box. Lands of Lore, Anvil of Dawn and . . . well, many others, too many to list. There are plenty of good ones out there.

A good DM, like a good Developer, is fully capable of giving you hints along the way without outright slapping you around with the information. Whether a player pays attention to such things or not, whether their character is able to detect them through the net of their skills or not, is not a meta gaming choice. Does the reload factor come in? Sure. However, no good Developer makes their game with the assumption a player will just reload. Obviously they'll reload. The hints and clues, and things people can find on or off the beaten path, the ways they can figure out what might be needed, what might be useless, are a part of crafting a game. I know this from putting together PnP games, if I need my players to have certain information, I'll have it available, either as a whole, or in small bits, clues by they hidden or spoken in a way that may not be immediately obvious. These the things the creation side does to make sure that a tactical approach is actually viable. In PnP obviously I'm not going to let them reload, but if I were developing a game, while I'd surely note that a person can reload, I'd still make the game as if they couldn't. So that the needed information would be there. A cooldown/mana system just gives you everything all the time. No limitation. The cooldown portion doesn't matter because you will have it, you'll just wait until the cooldown you need is up. None of this makes you stop and think. I've seen plenty of people playing games using the mana or cooldown or combined systems and it always just comes down to spamming whatever when available no matter how much they try and claim 'tactics' . . . A good PnP game using a system like the D&D one will make you play Chess with your abilities, use them Chess pieces, make you think of when and where to move them based on an opponent's own choices. A good DM or Developer will lay down the ground work you need to make intelligent decisions as to what you're going to bring to the battlefield, but they won't scream it in your face either. It's part of the adventure of an RPG, uncovering the hidden clue needed to defeat the "insert whatever here" instead of just rushing into its lair and getting deep fried. Listening to the tavern gossip and realizing that you might be jumped by Goblins out on the road, as that's been happening lately. Seeing the wanted posters for a local gang of Bandits in the area. There, part of the scenery, or in the case of the "instert whatever here" hidden, a known problem with an unknown solution that you have to track down. Oversimplified examples, sure, but the logic stands when running a game. The game development logic has its own challenges, its own set of issues that a PnP game doesn't face, but the basics are the same. How do you plan for your fight? By sniffing out the information? Where's the information? How do you find it? These answers are context sensitive. Are there prints on the ground hinting at what a thing ahead might be? What sort of roll would you have to make to detect the print? What knowledge and roll would you have to make to determine what sort of thing made the print? All of these things, and more, are possible in a cRPG because the examples I gave are actually variations of things I've actually seen cRPGs do, and not even close to all of the possibilities I've seen cRPGs bring to the table. The issue that breaks such things apart, is not, in fact, reloading, because outside of a hardcore mode you can't stop people from doing that, but instead something much more simple: "The Resting System." The resting system tends to be what's exploited in games that don't have the common sense to prevent you from resting constantly, and putting in deterrents that, well, deter people from just resting every few minutes to always be full on spells. Again this is something plenty of older games actually addressed even when they didn't use the D&D-like spell system they added in rests being limited by location, by potential encounters, by the heroes not feeling tired and thus refusing to rest and so on and so forth in so many ways that I doubt I've even experienced them all, and I've experienced quite a few.