Jojobobo

I'd like 2 more races, but I think what would make them money is a player stronghold and extra companions as that's what people seem really keen on. Honestly I don't think extra companions are necessary as I think the existing ones will be detailed and compelling enough as it is, and as for the player stronghold I don't think it's appropriate for all roles people might want to play (a penniless monk wouldn't have any need for a big blinging fortress, etc.). A fortress also implies the prominence the character acheives in the world - something that may or may not be appropriate to what they have planned for the main character thus far.

Yeah I know, I just didn't understand this was quite how the add-ons process worked and that they sent a survey round afterwards; I guess update 4 doesn't really explain the process as well as it could (a line like "and then when you are charged you will recieve a survey with which you can check off which add-ons you want" would help) - unless I'm being stupid and this was explained somewhere really obvious on the home page of the project? Thanks for replies anyway.

That's what I thought, but it could have been made more expressly clear as it is slightly confusing. Hopefully projects like this might prompt Kickstarter to re-design the pledge page so add-ons can be added to a pledge in advance before someone is charged.

No it's the addition of the expansion I'm after. From reward 4: "As a quick tutorial on how to add add-ons, goto the Project Eternity site on Kickstarter and then hit the Manage Your Pledge button. The reward tier you had already selected will still be selected and the amount will be in the big box at the top. All you need to do is add the dollar amount that covers the add-ons you would like to your pledge and enter the new total number. For instance, if you are at the $35 Pledge level and want to add one Digital Download, you would enter $60 as your total pledge." So that sounds like you just change your pledge and get the option to add stuff on at the end, however from update 19: "Due to popular demand and for a limited time, we are offering the ability to add our first expansion pack, due out approximately six months after Project Eternity ships. Any money contributed to add-on the expansion now will be used to make the main game larger. The expansion budget is not being created by money from this Kickstarter." So I don't really realise how these things work in tandem with each other. Also is there any guarantee that if I didn't get the add-on I wanted (for whatever reason) then I could get refunded the amount that I spent to get the add-on in the first place?

I can't see an option for this, and I want to add the expansion. Does anyone know how? Edit: Wait so I've just read update 4, if I'm understanding this right I change my pledge amount and after I'm charged I tell them what upgrades I want? If that's right how does it work with the expansion which is only available for a limitted time?

What Death Machine Miyagi said: I'd like to see a situation where evil characters are more well liked by society than good characters. Playing the stereotypical stupid and petty evil character who goes around being a douche/stealing/murdering doesn't make any sense as in time most people would lynch that character on sight. I'd like to see some smart evil options where the evil character decieves a settlement making it appear that their problem is solved (thus getting more liked) when in reality they have screwed them in a way they don't yet realise. Making evocative evil quest options is a great deal more difficult than making compelling good options, and so more time needs to be devoted to those.

I for one would like to see him do the portrait artwork, it was great in IDW2 and just looking at the MtG cards he's illustrated (found here: http://mtg.neoseeker.com/wiki/Category:Justin_Sweet) you can see how truly talented he is.

Yeah they were my favourite race in Arcanum, so I'd prefer them too. But if that isn't possible as long as there was an option for some sort of stereotypically brutish race, I'll be happy.

I thought the chanter's powers were going to be linked in with what Chris Avellone mentioned in his first obselete gamer interview (found here: http://obsoletegamer.com/we-interview-chris-avellone-from-obsidian-entertainment-part-1/), under the second question. I could be a mile off though.

I like orcs and think they'd make an interesting playable race, especially if they were believed to be more savage.

I'd like a merman race, not one with flippers and such but regular people who transform slightly when beneath the waves. Maybe not as a PC race but as an NPC race it might be fun.

I find the assumption experienced devs wouldn't know how to manage a project properly amusing. I don't think they'd make stretch goals they know are going to compromise the quality of the game, so there's really no need for concern.

As others have said, I'd prefer another race or two than another class. Playing a specific race should nuance the play style of the classes anyway, so in terms of giving players more options I think a race or two more and not anymore classes is the way to go.

How is the inclusion of paladins and chanters (the latter of which many people will think of as psuedo-bards) as well as George Ziets who they know is a fan favourite and who will make them more money not a marketing strategy? Don't get me wrong, including all these things is a nice fan service, but for that selfsame reason it will also make them money so as a bottom line I think that is now the stronger motivator than them doing it just because they are all nice chaps. Overall I think the game has been very successfully marketed with the limitted means of kickstarter as opposed to the ad campaign of a major publisher, and for that I'm pleased as more money will help to make a better game on the whole.

Well obviously there would be a few more choices, it was just an example; I don't think Obsidian would limit you to making two choices or a non-choice. Still I'm surpised to hear you feel strongly enough as to "hate" those choices. I don't hate black and white choices, I just like it when things aren't so easy on the player.

I like grey choices. I think I read some World of Darkness material recently (or maybe I just outright dreamt it) of a monster that was predating on a single town (say killing 20 people a month). The options posed to the players (as I said, I'm not even sure if I've remembered the source or scenario properly so take it with a pinch of salt) were along the lines of: a) You can sacrifice a baby from the town to appease the monster permenantly. There is no other way to stop the monster from doing what it is doing. By doing this one fairly unspeakable act, you are saving countless lives in the long run, yet the people who petitioned you to help in the first place will hate you for this course of action. b) You do nothing. c) You manage to convince the monster to hunt more scrupulously, spreading its killings out over multiple settlements so the "hit" to any single settlement isn't so large - though in fact when you tell the monster of this plan he says he will now kill more people simply because he can get away with more without it being noticed. The town who asked for help thinks of you as a hero. Which one of these is the morally right choice of action - who's to say? Maybe both a) and c) are good in certain respects (the former provides a long term solution, the latter provides a solution only for the town that was aggrieved) and bad in others (you have to kill a baby, or you are effectively making the monster's predation worse on the whole). Some might argue innaction is also the most evil/good choice (as though you aren't making matters better, you don't have to do anything questionable either). I don't like black and white choices, as a true white choice ends up with you being celebrated for your good deeds whereas in a true black choice only the player profits - real life and real choices are often more complex. I see sacrificing the baby as the "white" choice above, and yet the townsfolk would hate you for it. By making a difficult decision, I'm guiding a character with a moral compass that I've imagined for them, and by taking that choice despite a lack of reward (either people thanking you or something material) I'm roleplaying. Troubling choices like that, which give me pause for thought and stay with me for a couple of days, are what make classic rpgs IMO.

I guess I feel like the update should have given a bit more information about what access to the expansion pack truly meant. If people who have more money are getting access to it sooner than people who don't, then that's not particularly fair. I guess they probably don't mean that at all, but they didn't really clarify what they meant very well in their update so it leaves it open for misinterpretation. I for one would love to pledge enough to get the expansion too, but I lack the funds to get anything more than the base game unfortunately. That being said, if they are offering the expansion at a higher price then it would come out of the box and not giving it to people early they are also not really incentivising people to go for a higher tier either - so it works both ways. I don't think offering more will get the majority of people to increase their pledges either as by now I think most people will have offered what is within their means to give.

Wail of the Banshee, because I'm lazy.

I guess if I wasn't being clear enough, I was referring to narcotics - but the word is a bit less widely used than drugs for most people so I went with drugs. Not too many people would even make the distinction that drugs could be something else than illegal substances, because that's what the word is commonly used for nowadays. I think a split would be best - maybe more enlightened civilisations are starting to stamp down on drugs (particularly those that adhere strongly to one religion or another) and the more savage cultures use them with reckless abandon. Or to turn things completely on its head, they are frowned upon by savages and used more by civilised people as a mark of how sophisticated they are. I do think that they should be illegal/frowned upon somewhere in the gaming world, if only to make it more relatable to our real world values. Edit: As for the whole magic being used for drugs thing, I could definitely see a cipher (which is increasingly looking like they will be in the game) making someone believe they are on drugs; and yes maybe using some spells might give such a rush of power that they feel addictive might be fun too, or drugs that are enhanced through magical processes/alchemy. I don't think ciphers or wizards should be able to outright replicate a drug's effects though.

That's true, but the same could probably be said for a lot of game features that some people will use fervently and others will pass over completely. I suppose determing whether enough people want a certain feature is key.

I think FO:NV tackled drugs nicely, it had some quests dealing with the life destroying ramifications of addiction and plus the fact all the drugs featured in game were actually useful for one thing or another. I don't think I made a single character that didn't use drugs in that game, addiction be damned! Still I would have liked it more if they had included social ramifications to the PC becoming addicted. I guess they could have addiction being a lot more severe in a fantasy setting, as there would be no easy way to get clean unless they wanted to let you use magic to do so (can't just pop a fixer or see a doctor like in FO:NV). That being said, I wouldn't want drugs in the game if they would eat up too much of the devs time to make workable or just to produce compelling storylines from.

I like Leferd's idea, it's an easy way to balance spamming health potions especially if the withdrawal symptoms are harsh.

I think something with broad appeal would be a good idea, from a money making point of view. Something like one extra race, class and a minor organisation/faction plus an extra small region (an island or something). Failing that, class based factions might be fun too. Personally I would like more races, because I like that sort of thing.

I'd like unprocessed and processed - processed made through crafting. Also, as your player is being exposed to several cultures (some of which may not interact with each other well), they could combine unprocessed drugs from several cultures in unique and interesting ways. Or not - you know, just a thought.

So as a disclaimer, this thread should be bereft of real life opinions on drugs as that can be a touchy subject; it should only feature how much potential you think they have to make the game more interesting/fun/whatever. Drugs have always been common in the Fallout series, so would you like drugs to feature in P:E? I would. I'd like them to be craftable now that a crafting system has been attained. I also think maybe becoming a drug dealer in game might be fun, with visits from regular clients whose lives you're ruining. Addiction (both for the player, his companions and NPCs) has lots of potential for good story material and also interesting mechanics to enforce withdrawal (I'd like to see one that actually shows addiction is taking an emotional toll on the character, or maybe have unique quests/dialog only open to drug addicts). Plus (that I'm aware of) no fantasy game has ever done drugs in detail, despite fantasy settings having limitless options of weird and wonderful things they could cook up. With P:E being an M rated game, they could really make a good job of featuring drugs. So basically, I want drugs! Edit: Shucks, I meant to post this in general discussion. If a moderator could move it that would be great.