Mr. Magniloquent

As my moniker insinuates, I favor the elegance of theatrical loquaciousness to construe my intentions above the brevity of concision. Please regard this uncharacteristic depature with considerable clemency. Moderators. Please. Euthanize this degenerate and pitiful squabble.

Agreed. For this reason, I like the FATE system (derivative of FUDGE) quite a bit. Intentions and choices matter more than anything else, and the mechanics are quick. That being said, I love tactical combat. I liked AD&D, but was consumed by 3 Edition. I belive computers allow players in the modern world to enjoy both.

Default difficulty, Trial of Iron. I may actually create a few characters and play through only the "tutorial phase" of the game to experience the ruleset and character options first; however, I want to capture the full weight of all choices and actions before I have the experienced "tainted" by the irreversible and unavoidable meta-game of prior knowledge. Games are almost always the best the first time. I intend to maximize that novelty with the gripping challenge of wading through the unknown.

What a horrifying statement. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to reserve my most intimate, vulnerable, and personal emotions and sentiments for actual, organic, cognitive, human beings. It is the reason why I will be married in the spring. What a brave new world we live in.

I find this to be exquisite. Add in a Temple of Elemental Evil radial menu, and I would be very pleased.

Agreed. That said, I am very pleased with Obsidian management of Project: Eternity. While Kickstarting avoids many caveats of the traditional publisher model, it comes attached with new complications. Obsidian is pioneering this route with a greater deal of professionalism, organization, and courtesy than just about any other developer other there. The only pressure I fear them succumbing to, is releasing before it's 100% ready.

Personally, I have never felt that crafting suits adventure games. Player characters are transient adventurers, not mundane townies taking up a trade that requires permacy. That being said, Arcanum is probably the only games I have ever played in which I felt crafting was useful, balanced, and engaging. I found it generally agreeable in Storm of Zehir as well, though not as much as in Arcanum. I digress. My ultimate decision to vote against item durability, was that I felt it pushed players to choose crafting skills, and penalized characters whom do not. I don't typically hate item durability, but I cannot think of many instances where I felt that it enhanced gameplay outside of the survival genre. I believe their choice to remove item durability was sound.

It's been awhile since I've attempted to make a monster. I had been mulling over a spectre type concept, but could never properly capture the flavor or abilities. Not my best work. This is where I left off. Name: The Forsaken Description: The Forsaken are the shattered and incomplete remains of souls the gods have abandoned. Some were merely finished and never guided to a living vessel, while others never completed to begin with. These pitful beings cling to existence, yearning for mortality that destiny denied them. The shimmering spectral tatters of the Forsaken attempt to resemble and reproduce things in the living world in order to become closer to it. Abilities: Mimic: Attempting to assume the ways of the living, Forsaken souls have X% chance to mimic any ability used by an opponent during their next action. The attunement to the target's soul is unstable, and can only be used once by the Forsaken for each time it was used by an opponent, and only immediately after. Doppelganger: The Forsaken may attempt to imitate a living creature it encounters. The Forsaken gains all phyiscal attributes, attacks, and special abilities of target opponent. However, these values are only 30% of the target's maximum scores. Wail of Anguish: The Forsaken are tormented creatures, and the void within their beings is tangible. Releasing a terrible moan, the fractures within their incomplete soul ripple out and potentially damage the essence of living beings. All living creatures within X yards have Y% chance to have their movement slowed and attributes lowered by Z unless resisted. Attributes: Incorporeal: Immune to non-magical weapons and physical (non-elemental) damage. Attacks bypass non-magical armor. Low: Health, Stamina, Magic resistance Med: Attack High: Speed, Evasion

For Wasteland 2, the community had significant impact on what attribute system was ultimately accepted. Is there an attribute system would you like to use? Do you have any suggestions for improving traditional concepts and systems? I for one, would like to see Strength and Constitution to be merged into one (physical) Fitness stat, and Intelligence and Wisdom to be refined into a Reasoning stat. Furthermore, I would like to see Charisma evolved beyond just the ability to interpersonally influence others, but also as reflection of a character's identity, sense of self, and fidelity to it. Perhaps renaming it, Persona. Finally, I've always been fond of Perception stats. I'd like to see Perception apply not merely to detection radius of foes & traps, but of NPC motives, bluffs, and even of magical/metaphysical phenomena. I would also like to see some Deadlands influence. I loved how stats started out average, but that for every character flaw (hinderence) a player chose, they were allowed to enhance another attribute. These went beyond mere numbers, and were both expected and encouraged to be roleplayed. What are your views, suggestions, and hopes for character attributes in Project: Eternity?

If P:E takes a kind of Planescape stance where gods are reliant on faith, then I would like to see god-like creatures have features which represent the abstracted portfolios of these gods. If your soul has been molded/touched/influenced by the Lord of Famine, I'd like to see them have features of a person who might be starving. The same applies to any other domain. I'm not expecting something so ambitious, but I would prefer god-like races to be a bit more high concept than Elemental/Alignment influenced.

In D&D campaigns I've played, resting only heals 1 HP + 1 HP/Constitution Modifier. Healing comes from spells limited in use per day, and consumable expensive items. Limiting rest to once every X hours, and the locations in which it can be safely done serve to conserve this otherwise unlimited ability. Without parameters, yes, resting makes many thing irrelevant. However, that is why the structure of resting matters so much. Instead of ranting, what do you propose instead? Curative items have all the same complications. How accessible should they be? How potent? Are they consumable, or re-usable? Can they be used anywhere, at any time? What is too expensive or not expensive enough? I disagree. Resting is an inclusive concept that is implicit with all aspects of rejuvenating and preparing. I find that it is a better and more easily controlled mechanism for recovery than items and magic which can quickly get out of proportion.

I don't understand the stigma towards death spells. For all purposes considered, I assume we are speaking within the realm of D&D mechanics. Traps frequently kill characters in many games without even offering a chance to respond. It's expected that when in a dungeon, you should expect traps. Traditionally, rogues have been the only characters adequately equipped to detect and disarm them. Nobody complains? Dragon breath has a very strong chance of killing an entire party with a single utterence--unless you are protected against X Element. It's expected that, when given reasonable suspicion, you should expect to deal with a breath weapon. Traditionally, only magic users have been able to grant protection from this and only at various degrees. Nobody complains? Critical hits have the capability of killing many character outright. This can occur any time a weapon is used, with no limit. Many fighters have the ability to increase the frequency and potency of their critical hits. There are very few ways to mitigate this risk. Nobody complains? Some magic users have the ability to damage, manipulate, and kill entire parties with a single spell. It's expected that, in a world of magic, you will face magic users. Traditionally, only magic users have the ability to provide hard counters to offensive magic. Suddenly, this is a problem? Death spells have never been any more difficult to overcome with a roll than any other spell--often times, they are much more easily foiled than any other spell. There are many ways to provide, not merely a hard counter, but to enhance saving throws to mitigate risk. Furthermore, Death spells generally have limitations on what challenge rating of creatures can be effected, and how many. There is also the typical "all or nothing" caveat. Many variants of death spells even require multiple saves, screening through multiple "opposing stats" giving the defender an extreme advantage. There is nothing unfair about instant death spells. There are many other threats which provide an equivalent threat, or are even more severe and difficult to respond to. To me, it merely sounds like many players here do not wish to be bothered with things such as scouting, information gathering spells, or being bothered to be prepared for a contingency that many never come. I'm not saying that every mageling should toss direct death about. I believe that it should be a higher tier ability, which proportionate inputs or risk to the magic user. However, it shouldn't matter if a foe kills you in one round with a sleep spell followed by a "coup de grace", or outright via trap, breath weapon, or other spell/ability. In a world of magic, character should be prepared to deal with magic. By no means should a spell system be limited in scope because some players may find coping with it irksome.

Should we exclude powerful traps in dungeons as well? After all, if you're not using that one ability from that one character class that can detect and disarm it--doesn't this just amount to a "gotcha moment" that promotes degenerate play and save scumming? Is it not poor design? I'm not saying that every mageling should be tossing death at players with every utterence. However, I feel death spells are an excellent and game enhancing aspect to any magic system. They are a risk a player might face, just as any other. Anyone who thinks that all players should be able to blunder into all encounters unaware and unprepared yet survive should go watch a movie instead of play a game. Consequence has to be real for choice and tactics to matter. When threats are severe, no longer do you just load up on fireball spells. You need to be prepared. You need to scout for traps and enemies. Suddenly skills, spells, and classes that are generally regarded as useless are now incredibly helpful. Instant death spells should be in this game for the same reason that anything else which can quickly kill a player character should. If you're worried about poor design making this kind of feature awful, then you should instead have considered kickstarting a project with a company you trust.

Yes, please. Naturally, the strength of the spell should be proportionate to its difficulty and risk to invoke. Temperance acknowledged, death spells should be in P:E.

I haven't reread all 6 pages since I last visted this thread, but why not anchor resting to the difficulty setting and or game mode? Obsidian announced various modes beyond the standard difficulty toggle, so it seems like everyone should be able to be happy within their prefered mode. Standard: Adjustable difficulty Multiple save files and reloading Safe resting in hostile areas Expert: Adjustable difficulty No ease of use options, less help Multiple save files and reloading No safe resting in hostile areas Trial of Iron: Core rules difficulty, not adjustable No ease of use options, less help Single save file and no reloading No safe resting in hostile areas Path of the Damned: Highest difficulty, not adjustable No ease of use options, less help Multiple save files and reloading No safe resting in hostile areas This way, you have all of your targeted play styles set with modes already announced. It progresses from least challenging to most realistic, before ending in absurd challenge. I made "Path of the Damned" mode reloadable, because its meant to be an absurd challenge--not realistic. "Heart of Fury" mode was about outrageous fights and "Gotcha!" moments, often using trial and error methods to work through them. I imagine the contention in this thread is precisely why they are having so many different game modes.

The thing is, one cannot 'prove untrue' something which does not purport to be a statement of fact. Having said that, one can easily subvert this 'rule' by introducing into a situation people with different desires and wants. For example, a rapist might state that because he wants people to have sex with him, it is OK for him to have sex with other people, even though they might not necessarily want that. Even leaving aside extreme examples such as the aforementioned hypothetical rapist, modern society tends to set limits on free will and self ownership based on certain conditions. For example, a child may want to go out joyriding with his mates, but society dictates that he is not permitted to do this without a certain laminated card bearing his photo. He also may not exercise his free will to have a few fermented beverages beforehand. Then again, there is the school of thought that places humans as just another animal in the animal kingdom, with no more significance given to someone offing a neighbour who irritates him by driving a noisy car than one would attribute to a lion eating a gazelle. That was exactly my point though. With your example of a rapist, they are displaying a form of hypocritical egotism. While they might welcome sex, and force it on others--they will not likely approve of their victim killing them in self-defence. Refusing to allow someone to kill you, yet not acknowledging another's right to refuse your "advances" is a contradiction. Society has very little to do with what is morally right and wrong. Laws are about control, not good or evil. That being said, we might want to continue this exchange though PM. While I'm late to the thread, it doesn't need my help staying derailed.

I am very excited about the concept preview given of the Chanter class. It makes me think of a flexible, elegant, word or true name magic. I always like the D&D magic mechanic of "Words of Power". It really gave the Divination schools something special, but I can think of one CRPG where it was implemented in a meaningful way. I hope they elaborate on this class soon, so that I can stop wondering. The Mongolian chant reminded me of the Shinto priests at the temples and shrines in Japan. Frankly, as a child, I found them unnerving and somewhat frightening.

Not all features are created equal of course, so my disdain would be proportionate to the degree of changes. As a general rule though, I do not approve of this kind of behavior when money has been solicited. Being acceptance of it sets a poor precedent that tells companies can dismiss and abuse the trust placed in them. Caveat Emptor, naturally. I gave my money to Obsidian because I trust them as a company, and share the general ideas they espoused with their ambitions for Project: Eternity. I funded a concept, an ideal. I prefer they risk their wings melting, personally. Especially in the modern state of the internet--there are few mistakes that cannot be undone or improved with patching and community modding so long as the core structure of the game provides the means.

D&D's alignment system Your observations have much truth, though I do believe absolute morality is possible without a singular authority. The Golden Rule, as it were, prevades all things. It deals with aggression against free will and self ownership. Anyone who feels that "The Golden Rule" can be proven untrue, is likely a hypocritical egotist not fully investigating or understanding the depth of the moral. That aside, I completely agree with RPGs relying on a factional mechanic for positive/negetive reinforcement. It gives the maximal amount of flexibility and freedom to design choices and paths, while still delivering a response structure to a player's actions.

I think it would be a great pleasure to experience area of effects which recognized collision not merely with the environment, but with characters on the field. Typically, all creatures within a spells area of effect are hit, regardless if there is another character between them an the point of origin. For example, it might make sense for a rogue directly behind a warrior to be shielded to some degree, if not totally, from a Cone of Cold spell or Dragon's firey breath originating perpendicular to the fighter. Some projected energy/elements like fire and cold could be blockable, which others such as poison gas or electricity would ignore collision with characters and strike all within the effective radius as normal. Technically, this might be more trouble than it is worth for a game that is technically 2/2.5 dimensions. However, given one of the stated goals of Project: Eternity to revitalize tacticl party combat, this could be a feature which steps forward--rather than merely attempting to ressurect the past. What do you other members think?

Power, duration, and number of the summons are all secondary considerations for balance. The true issue, is control. It is that simple. When a being is summoned, in most games, its will is automatically subverted and requires no effort to maintain. You now have an ally on the field. Other questions now become relevant. Its now needs to be powerful enough to be useful, but not powerful enough to invalidate other characters. Duration and numeration also factor into this same question. Shadowrun does an excellent job handling this. Summons are powerful, they are worth summoning, but they are like fire--a dangerous servant and a fearful master. The longer they are on the field, and the more you demand of them, the more your summon will resist your control. Not merely resist your control, but seek retribution. D&D has a similar mechanic, in that most spells only allow a caster to control "#d#/caster level" at any one time. This is what you need. Summoning a creature is not merely the act of calling it, but subverting its will. Maintaining control over a creature(s) needs to exert effort. Both of these require the chance to fail, with consequences attached. Maybe it returns to its home plane. Maybe it sides with you, but at its own direction. Perhaps it goes berserk, or actively seeks to slay the summoner. This way, a summoner can call forth beings of power in any volume for any duration they are willing to risk. Balance is provided by the reality that summoning is a double-edge sword. Mix in dismissal spells and other countering abilities, and summoning can be more dynamic and powerful than any CRPG has ever done before.

I imagine that the flavor of monks and this wound-centric technique could develop along these lines: Monks, no matter the denomination or path, seek to be master of self. They also tend to be cloistered and minimalistic. Should this type of person engage in combat, they are very likely to recieve wounds. Being masters of self, they attempt to regulate and control their wounds through their disciplines like any other function of their being. Over time, this would have developed into a more sophisticated method of not merely resisting injury, but returning the harm from whence it came. So, it's not that injury is necessarily sought, but rather that wounds are just another part of the self to gain mastery over, and utilize. Granted, I realize the explaination about Monks and armor in the update actually indicating that injury is desirable. I'm just attempting to reconcile how such a thing might come about; an origin if you will.

The class does feel reminiscent of the D&D Barbarian, no doubt. However, what immediately came to mind when reading the class description was a thread many moons ago suggesting that Monks take a European theme loosely based on "Flaggelants"; martyr-like monks with a masochistic bent to their rituals. I believe the class as described has great potential, though I will be very curious to see how they will flavor the class. I can see the wounds mechanic being a limitation on the types of philosophies monks would likely engage in. As is with everything, the devil will be in the details, and the execution of this concept will be delicate. I look forward to witnessing the outcome.

I disagree: Random encounters aren't a solution because this kind of artificiality is a symptom of a larger problem: The problem of enemies being thrown in solely because the designers think the player will get bored if they go 30 seconds without killing something, rather than being properly integrated into the setting. So long as the enemies have a clear, good reason to be there (and why they'd attack you on sight) the encounter won't feel arbitrary whether it's randomized or not. Actually, I tend to enjoy random encounters to a degree. Handled properly, they provide and element of danger and surprise. I agree with Sacred Path, in that random encounters create a journey, rather than a series of destinations.

Storm of Zehir has a perfect overland map. It instilled a sense of purposeful adventure and discovery better than any game that immediately comes to mind. There is so much that can be done with that format. The incorporation and utility of non-combat skills was also extraordinarily rewarding, and made class diversity and party composition very intriguing. I would be elated if they followed with a similar map. Frankly, if P:E could be a fusion of the adventure and party dynamics of Storm of Zehir with the narrative and depth of Planescape: Torment, I might stroke from sheer anticipation.