Hmm-Hmm.

Okay. I never noticed I didn't get a kickstarter badge for Pillars. Now it's bugging me. Why, Obsidian, why?!

I like the portraits very much. One niggle is that I usually want more - and the more races and classes and playstyles there are the more portraits I think a game needs. Sure, class isn't as important as you can have portraits which are appropriate for multiple. But aside from racial and gender differences there is also the matter of tone and role/playstyle. A swashbuckler isn't the same as a duelist is not the same as a mercenary - and all could probably have the same class. And that's not even mentioning more personal differences such as a more malicious or capricious or chivalrous one.

Personally I would rather have an excess of money than a durability system if it adds nothing more than a moneysink and tedium. I'd rather you up the price of items to sell or having a hunger and thirst system in the game, for instance. Then again, I've never felt that money is power in roleplaying games. If being rich changes a lot in terms of options which open up and things you can afford (bribes, bodyguards, castles), then that's great, though. But given the average playthrough, I imagine it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out how much money/wealth a party needs at any given time. Okay, okay, maybe it is, though, but then it's better to err on the safe side. Of course, players who grind random encounters or who explore every nook and cranny and do every quest will have more wealth, but that's not such a bad thing unless money is in some way too important in terms of progress. Another thing you haven't mentioned (but probably have considered) is the income. If whatever the party gains outside of quest-specific rewards is useful, but of relatively low value when sold (rather than used, in crafting or as gear, etc.) then taking the scenic route will not 'overburden' the party with too much wealth. Nothing they can really cash in on, at least. Regardless, I generally find durability systems add tedium rather than fun to games. In some games they fit, and if you decide to carry on I hope it's not too much of a bther. Or optional, even. All the best.

Let me be really clear: This is a singleplayer roleplaying game. Why would we even need moneysinks at all? What does it add? If a player chooses not to get a Stronghold, well, then let that player have a wealthy party. I don't see the problem with that. Money is generally not the be-all and end-all in roleplaying games anyway. That and durability usually leads to more tedium and wasting of time spent on things (like walking back and forth, item juggling, etc) which aren't actually enjoyable. So why would we want this?

I am really questioning the decision to add durability to Eternity. What, pray tell, does it add to the gameplay? Other than a (generally tedious) way to make you spend more time and in-game resources on something which isn't actually any fun. This isn't a competitive game. This isn't a game which is all about gear and treasure. I truly see no need to implement durability. No upsides, only downsides. But I am willing to listen to what the developers think.

Looks great! Keep up the good work! I feel like I should add something else, but nah, the first bit covers it.

I think both could work, but it very much depends on the design they'll be going with. I pretty much trust Obsidian in this. They know their rpgs.

Hmm. Personally, I think it should have a story behind it. A specific flavour. Perhaps multiple (considering the size). Where did it come from? Who started it? Do they still live down there somewhere or have they left constructs and relics? And over time a lot of creatures may have left their mark on it. Who are living there now and why? What are their relationships with eachother? Why are they hostile (if they are)? So whether you actually meet npcs you can talk to/interact with or not, it should have its own distinct character, I think. In terms of what the levels look like, what you might find and who you'll meet.

To answer the OP's question: Heh, I'd say that in RPGs there's more often a lack of NPCs than a deluge. Lots of places for colourful characters who aren't necessarily big quest npcs. At least, I suppose (hope?) those backer NPCs will be fit into the world like that. Discuss the character with said backer and find a suitable role/location. If done right people won't even know it's a backer-designed character.

So if a group of people become agressive after something you said or did but you don't really mean to kill them, what should your options be? Usually, you'll just have to kill them. Which is obviously unsatisfactory. Subdual damage can work, just like disarming them or perhaps one of the two combined with some persuasion (regular or threatening). I'd like a system in which the way you can try to subdue others depends on the skills you have. A holding spell would work as well as a terrifying illusion as a carefully positioned blow as disarming.

The most important thing about encumbrance of any sort is that it should not hinder the game from being any fun. So, whereas I am indifferent on the issue, if gold is to have weight, there'd better be banks or other types of ways to invest money of some sort.

I don't specifically want a certain race, since I very much hope they'll put a spin on common fantasy and not deliver a same old same old Forgotten Realms-like game. But what I would like is some racial variety fitting within the universe of the game. Minotaurs seem fun, for instance. Or werebeasts. A little something different. A mostly aquatic or flying race, perhaps? Could be fun.

Those which make most sense within the universe/area of the game as written. No more, no less. I'd rather they'd come up with cool new stuff or find logical reasons for the existence of known classes than forcibly interjecting 'my class of choice'. More freedom to the writers and game designers will probably end up getting a better game to us. Or that is what I believe.

I don't mind romance options, but I wouldn't miss them. Although from a relationship standpoint it would be sensible to include those which.. well.. make sense. I would mind being forced into a romance. I'd also wager they're some of the more tricky parts to write well considering all the variables and differing player perceptions involved. So I suppose I lean slightly towards romance options.

Good voiceover work is rather expensive. Not to mention that as an rpg, Eternity would need a LOT of it (even in a trimmed dialogue version). So it's probably best not to voice dialogue at all but possibly have some good voiceover work. And even then it can be hit-and-miss, especially if the PC has a voice in an rpg with character customisation. So what I'd choose is: Voices for NPCs outside of dialogue only. ("Go for the eyes, Boo!") No voices for the main character.