DCParry

There is always a question of motivation. Players should act certain ways for a reason. In a PnP environment, consistent role playing (even beyond alignment requirements, which I see as a straightjacket of enforcing role playing) can be rewarded relatively easily. IN a CRPG, it is more difficult. Sure, you can poison the town well if you want, but the question becomes why? If you are being paid for it, then there is a rational motivation for it (ala Megaton). Otherwise, you are just role-playing a sociopath. Now, if you want to do that, that is fine, but at that point you don't need much reward, because, you know, you're a sociopath (in game of course). Also, if you run around molesting children, you should be hunted down by the hard-bitten half-orc constable Steliot Eabler and his buxomy non-nonsense half-elven partner Bl'via Oensen, who are part of an dedicated squad of peace keepers who pursue those who commit sexually based offenses, which are especially heinous. DUN DUN.

This thread is a familiar one. The problem is that some (not all, not necessarily anyone in this thread) people want to rewards (both game based and emotional?) of being evil without any sort of downside. They want their crazy, free wheeling, murder-rape-kill fest regardless of in world consistency or reaction. Should the options for depraved, evil acts be included? Sure, but only if there are ramifications for the players. You want to wipe out a town? Knock yourself out, but don't expect not to be shot at on sight at the next town once word gets out. Bounties on the PC's head should get progressively larger as she/he becomes more and more of a terror. And the hunters shouldn't be walking bags of XP and sell-able loot, they should be challenges that pose serious danger to the PC and the party. Finding and maintaining followers should become progressively difficult as your ruthless reputation becomes more solidified (sure you have a crap-ton of money, but working for you involves being hunted down by every city-state and kingdom on the continent). The first time I had a character utterly murdered by Legionnaire Assassins in FO:NV was both frustrating and hilarious, and really made me consider my actions for the rest of the game. That is until i became a walking murder machine, and then it was candies and kittens for everyone because screw you Caesar, I have a laser gun. I also had a whole tirade against the crypto-objectivism nonsense I felt was emerging in parts of the thread, but decided that was probably just my own bias and didn't have much to do with the topic.

It worked wonders for Neverwinter Nights. I'm not trying to be snarky. That seems to be a commonly held opinion. Well, I think that's what Harebrained Studios thought. Then of course they went and made a campaign that makes NWN OC look like Ulysses. EDIT - Bastard Necro! Kill it with fire! And, I had even posted in here before and forgot.

but like I say moving very 300 miles away very soon. Do not worry, the internet is not a fixed geographic phenomenon. But the tubes might not reach!

In general, I have no problem with polls. Again, this one was made to create a mostly binary discussion with an emphasis on 'durability as they described sucks because I think it does, so here are some options to confirm my opinion." At the very minimum there should have been a fourth option along the lines "I am reserving judgement until more information is available".

As a player, I have no problem admitting to my degenerate status.

I see what you are saying, but in the end, all crafting in all games will boil down to a spread sheet. I think it is just a quality of the medium. While I completely agree that crafting can get quite boring and predicable, over complicating the process just makes it more likely that it might be ignored. In the 15 minutes or so I played Skyrim I hated the crafting system with the hate of a thousand suns (warning: previous sentence contains hyperbole). Of course, this is just one kobold's opinion.

You have obviously never eaten one of my sandwiches. It not only heals broken bones, but makes you smarter as well. And, I mean, it's ham. What else do you need?

WHAT?! I demand to be able to discuss, flirt, and possibly woo any jellies, slimes, or molds I come across. Also: What kind of car does Deekin drive? A Nissian: Zoom, zoom, zoom. Zoomie zoom zooooooooooooom.

Thanks for the postings. It all looks great (how sad it is I love the developmental UI - to each their own I guess). Looking forward to more info from Rezzed!

Again, great update. The paladin set up looks well thought out and deep, and can encompass non-western types of archetypes as well. Looking forward to more info!

Thank ye. I just peed a little.

Given the polytheistic nature of the world in P:E, there might be internal squabbles within this or that faith, but I doubt there'll be a hegemonic religion on the order of the Roman Catholic church of the medieval period. This precludes any world-shaking revolt or schism, but there could certainly be a smaller scale conflict or two to liven up the theological scene. Well, world shaking can be a relevant thing. A rift in a state or regionally dominant religion can be devastating on a larger economic and social scale (a religious shift in a medium sized state could allow for a relatively obscure minority to come into power, cut off or reduce trade with other regions, give other, extra-state religions the chance to increase their own power in said state and so on). And these are just the larger, intra-state relationships. Metaphysics becomes an interesting and non-theoritical issue in a setting were actual commune with divine beings is possible. There are a number of interesting directions, but two pop to mind. You could go (the more boring way, but something that sets up an antagonist relationship between mortal and divine worlds) with the removal of confusion. Theological issues are easily resolved since you can just phone upstairs for the answer. Of course, this curtails discussion and compromise among the faithful and the crime of non-belief becomes even more heinous since there is explicit evidence supporting the party line. The other, which is more interesting, would be concentrating on the human aspect of religious organization. As I teach my students, religion is a human creation, it is a series of social organizations, and it would be a fascinating playground to explore when humans have some sort of recourse to a correct "answer". How does this affect interactions among different faiths? Organization and promotion within the church? Relationship with prevailing authority structures? At what point does the actual existence of a deity become immaterial to the health of the religion? Also, in the PE world, how does the fallibility or lack of omnipotence in deities affect religious belief as well as relationships between religious organization.

Eh, where do we get this information? Share!

Often times New Game+ are ways to artificially extend the perceived game-play time. They do this by locking away content in second and third play thru-s.* I think this is generally a bad idea. All content should be available (barring exclusive choice content - that is content that is dependent upon choice, i.e help defend the village, you get quests attached to such, but you lose the opportunity for content associated with the bugbears who wanted help burning the village and so on) on the first play through. Locking content away behind artificial barriers creates a bad precedent and many customers see it as cheap and mildly underhanded. A counter argument could be made that the devs are then making content specific for New Game + modes, so they wouldn't be taking anything away from the core game. To that, I would counter, they should spend their time working on the core game then. If you make the foundation of the game (interesting and distinct class mechanics, a pool of viable and well-written companions, choices with visible and pervasive effects) then a mode to extend the life of the game is unneeded, since the core mechanics encourage replay anyways.

I starting to think that's true. It seems to me some people didn't want an IE game, just a modern RPG made by Obsidian. Some people don't want that. We want a game with IE era sensibilities made by Obsidian. I can't see how Sawyer will please both groups at the same time, since they want different things. Well... if you read the PE presentation on Kickstarter, it doesn't say they will be making an exact clone of the IE engine. Only that it will pay homage to those games. Personally, that's what I signed up for; a game with a similar style and flavor. Most of what has been discussed here has been pretty minor stylistic differences with some graphical variations. It's still the same type of interaction and controls. That's what I signed up for also. But for some people the combat log, solid UI that acts as a frame to the game window, the dialogue system etc. are importand parts of that style and flavor. Call us strange. You're strange. Also, don't retreat into some vaguely anonymous group of people. Discussion has been going on quite well without factionalism or over-territorial positions. Each individual will no doubt focus on different aspects that they find central to the spirit of the game that Obsidian is making. For you, engine specific qualities are important, and that's fine. For me, non-engine specific attributes are more important. de gustibus non est disputandum and all that. Also - semper ubi sub ubi.

Great update. Quite exciting to see the process (you guys are busting it out with the progress). Excited to see the UI!

I think the OP is talking about ability/class visuals. So, when my cipher begins his psychic assault on a poor bandit by projecting feelings of guilt for disappointing his mother, what will it look like? Will my eye glow ominously? Will there be a psychic laser death ray firing form my head at his? Will swirling coloured lights begin dancing around my? The concern is making the visuals distinctly different from magic visuals.

Kickstarted game's audience is a special case. A large portion of them genuinely consider that modern games has moved in a bad direction. UI, combat, text focus vs cutscene focus, design direction in general. Many can't stand these modern elements. On the other side, if someone considers IE games meh and outdated, he shouldn't had donated in P:E. If someone wanted the IE experiense streamlined and "modernized", he has DA:O. Many of us considered that game mediocre at best, a pale shadow of the IE games, and hope that P:E will be way more "old school" for a lack of better word. For me, it is about divorcing form and function. What I am looking for is something that has the careful craftsmanship (in combat/systems/narrative) that many of the older games did with the advantages of newer innovations. Now, I am sure for some people the aesthetic of the UI is an integral part of the IE experience. This made me think about the relationship between the UI and the game system, and the IE interface was designed around the computerized (A)D&D combat system. Now, I know there are going to be similarities, but I hope that functionality won't be sacrificed to maintain the look. Also, it is a bit presumptuous to say who should or should not donate to the Kickstarter campaign. This particular funding phenomenon has a number of facets to it and is it not a simple thing to categorize. EDIT: Just as a counter example (I am truly not trying to be a contrarian here), I recently replayed BG1 and I freaking hated the interface.

I voiced my opinion in the announcement post, but I am of the minimalist/modular point of view, in that I think the UI should be as customizable as possible. There are arguments back and forth, but in the end I think it comes to merely personal preference. As an aside, and I freely admit this maybe me just being surprised/upset that my preference is in the minority, the choice of sub forum for this poll (while technically correct, which, of course, is the best kind of correct) will the end skew the results a bit (namely, those people who most interested in the nitty gritty of the engine and such are often classified as the more 'hard-core' type of player and so on). No offense meant or anything, just a stray observation.

Loved the update. Not a fan of the UI. It feels cramped and while I know it is supposed to be somewhat nostalgic, seeing the IE icons makes me cringe thinking about all the issues of the clunky interface and misclicks and what not. I am more of a minimalist UI kind of person myself. Some suggestions: 1) Have an option to take out the background palettes (or whatever the technical term is for the brown stuff behind the UI. (I mean, you did all this great work on the environment. I WANT TO SEE MORE OF IT). 2) Would it be possible to make the UI modular, making it moveable, and have the ability to turn things on and off? (I mean, I can't think why someone would want to turn something off, but maybe they should have the option?). Scaling would be included in this as well. While I am sure you guys are working on it, thought I would mention it anyways. Say what you will about MMO's, they have changed the way that UI and UI configuration in games is viewed, and I think taking some cues could make the UI more agile for the end user. While this may not be entirely relevant, I would love for the option for health/resource bars hovering characters and such. Anything that keeps my eyes on the pretty is always a bonus in my book.

No doubt it would prove amazing to make it so detailed,I would first welcome this,but the fear of overburdening the developers with all that still stands. That danger is always there. But there are far older games that did it. I do love those extras tough. It does lead to some "fun" PnP situations. Player: "Ok, we make camp and eat." DM: "You have rations?" Player: "yeah, we have some potatoes with us, so we'll just cook them." DM: "You did bring some pots and pans, right?" Player: "Ummm... no. Can we cook it in a steel helm?" DM: "Only if you take out the padding and ruin the helm in the process. You got flint?" Player: "Frak. We eat them raw then." DM: "You eat the potatos and feel satiated. However, your stomach hurts...because raw potatos." Player: "We sleep it off." DM: "Sleeping bags?" Player: "Dammit, doesn't anyone have a sleeping bag? Tom? Tom has one." DM: "Tom gets a semi-restfull night of sleep. The rest of you can barely sleep at all betwen being uncomfortable, being bitten by bugs and stomach ache." Player: ".... at least it cna't get any worse." DM: "You didn't post guards...it can. I roll the encounter table.... ouch. Ogres attack you. You are caught flat-footed and you get an aditional penalty because you are unrested and basicly poisoned." Player: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU And then no one shows up next week. Fun stuff.

As long as I get the "Doom" chant I will be happy! Doomie doom doooooooomm... doomie doom doooooooooom. DOOM!

This is an interesting question and tough call, especially in an era where producers and developers have been increasingly seen (I am stressing the appearance, the actuality of the charge is neither here nor there, especially on the internet) in failing to keep either expressed or implied promises to players. Of course, it all depends how attached I am to a particular feature as well. I would have to say I would be upset, but I would also be more willing to cut Obsidian slack, then say a big publisher backed studio. The communication has been fairly good here and I think that any problems would be presented to the backers in a relatively honest way.

I think you are voicing some valid concerns re: mechanics, but I would think (and I could be off base here) that monks would have some sort of kick-start ability. It would either give them a wound to use right off the bat (meaning they would start taking damage and have a resource unit to use) or preferably something like an "empty wound", that is a resource unit to use that is not attached to the damage taking element. It would be a small amount of resource and something that could be used to start a fight or pop a little extra chi for a major move. Also, we shouldn't fall into the trap of only focusing on the wound mechanic. I assume it is the defining mechanic of the class, but is it the only mechanic? Can wounds be consumed in different ways (to heal?)?. Also, in the goblin/troll example, does a monk really need to worry about a wound when killing one goblin? Can't he just smack him in the head? Would a mage use a fireball to kill one goblin? Would a warrior pop his whirlwind attack? That may be going a bit far on my part but I think it is something to think about.