JFSOCC

Since winter is around the corner, and since winter depression is kind of a big deal for me, I've been trying to get back into a decent rhythm, one part of that is taking methylphenidate again... Rebound is a bitch, but I'll take a daily dip over a depression any day. Still, looking at a whole bunch of stuff you could do (read, play games, go outside) and not really being able to care/decide. Yeah, rebound is a bitch.

nomnomnom

inspiration comes from the strangest of places

I've always found characters to be either too tight lipped, or overly trusting. I'd like a trait which implies a more trusting individual. It wouldn't be good or bad, per sé, but it gives you different roleplaying options. If you're being followed and you enter an inn, saying "I think I'm being followed, could you give me a seat near an exit with eyes on the door" is an option which involves some trust on your behalf: you have to trust the innkeeper, after all. But it may not always pay off, you could trust the wrong stranger. This is how I envision traits, not inherently bad or good, just different. A person who picks this trait gets access to conversation options which implies a measure of trust. players themselves need to figure out whether they take their chances or pick traits to offset the risk, like a trait which encourages more sympathetic responses from strangers (kind and gentle language) or a trait which allows you to better gauge others. (psychology, body-language reading) some of these other traits may also offset for other traits. (a gambler may also have use for body language reading, for instance, when playing poker) Might be too much. But I like traits which are a little ambiguous in their use. Skills and feats, imo, are the things where you don't have ambiguity, traits help you define your character and your role-playing experience.

I've always liked someone I can set my teeth in, take mine! but you owe me one.

There's tons of different ways treasure could lead to more/different content, it doesn't all have to be antagonistic.

I like the idea that skill in stealth allows a skilled player more options, but doesn't make stealth an automatic overpowered solution. on the flip side, even a non-stealthy character can sneak past a guard, he or she just has less time to do so, and needs to stay a greater distance away. It allows stealthy characters to shine while not making life impossible for the army boots characters. It's obviously the bare bones of an idea, a concept. you can work with environmental adjustments, creaking floorboards and stairs, loud traps, distractions, or apparently polished marble floors. you could also have different means of detection for different senses, dogs using an abstraction for scent: the ability to see where a player/creature has tread their feet, without giving you information about that creature, a path which after enough time clears up. (x amount of time that the 'smell' lingers). perhaps ciphers, as it seems to be part of their core concept, could see what has been touched or used by their quarry with the right soul abilities, useful for tracking, but also for seeing solutions to answers, or traps, or finding out what happened with little Timmy's corpse. (items used recently might light up for the cipher while the ability is active) Josh mentioned in a previous thread that stealth was intended to be more than just a dice roll like in older IE games, but not as big as for a stealth game (which makes sense) so perhaps we're going overboard. It's just, I don't think this would be so hard to code.\ but then I have no idea really.

Morgulon the Wise has spoken

No, they could always be called up for information, too. There are plenty of examples in fantasy literature of people summoning various sorts of infernal or fey entities to trade soul, sacrifice, or service for badly needed information. I think including this in P:E is a splendid idea that deserves some consideration from Obsidian. Your "allies-in-a-bottle" comment is, however, my preferred method of handling summoned entities when it comes to combat. As was noted by someone else earlier, they're summoned via a spell and they should be temporary additions to the party that return whence they came after a period of time or when their material body is destroyed, whichever comes first. If you want a more permanent summoned creature that might grow with you, craft a figurine and let it operate under different rules than a garden variety summoned entity. What I find preposterous is the idea that it becomes impossible to summon an hound archon or a marilith ever again if one of them gets killed fighting for you. Were they the only ones of their kind in the entire multiverse? Gee, it must've been rather lonely to be them... If I may, having some summons be killable does not mean all of them have to be. I like the idea of gaining unique summons whose states are remembered by the game. When they unsummon after combat, they gain a little health and stamina (perhaps based on the casting ability of the summoner) and can't be summoned for a cooldown period, let's say a day. You'd have to be careful using these powerful allies, as losing them means losing them permanently. That doesn't mean there'd be no "ally in a bottle" summons which can be used again and again. I do like your idea of not using summons only for combat, but also for information. Although pacts with demons are as clichéd as it gets, and get no love from me, I can see summons taking the place of familiars, using them as scouts and thieves, perhaps giving some (like a cat) special ability to climb past obstacles to create familiar/summon only paths.

what about "works on the critically injured" or "works from lightly injured to badly wounded" Makes spells scale with the power of the enemies, might be interesting.

likewise. I've also argued before that I think it'd be an interesting idea to have some sort of benefit to hoarding wealth over spending it. Wealth levels, say having a high wealth level allows for different interactions with The high and mighty, or encounters with those who may target you for your wealth. When your wealth exceeds your spending, at least it would have some alternative use. And I love the idea of prestige collectibles to display in your stronghold. Whether that's an art collection, a library, Unique armour/weapon stands, a treasury with gemstones and other precious materials, an bestiary/garden with rare animals and plants or a vault with dangerous artefacts. Maybe decking out your stronghold in that way may attract the interest of fellow art aficionados/students in need of patronage, learned men, armourers, entrepreneurs, horticulturists/druids or powerful wizards respectively. Alternatively, it may attract the attention of art critics/cat-burglars, spies, mercenaries, robbers, drug lords or powerful wizards seeking to use the artefacts to their own ends, respectively.

If I could have afforded it (which is not the same as being able to pay it) I absolutely would have paid the big bucks, being able to design something that will actually get played by a large audience? Count me in! It'd be so cool! I'd design and name an NPC, an artifact, a portrait, design a tavern (hell yeah!) AND design an enemy adventure company (badass!) Perhaps its good that I'm poor then. But man, having something go from my brain to your screen, and (hopefully) see it appreciated, I completely understand it if someone wealthy enough would pay for the privilege.

yeah, but when people are suspicious you want their behaviour to reflect it, patrolling, searching, or calling it out to their allies.

Absolutely agreed. You're right, the risk is irrelevancy. But that's a question of what topics to focus your research on. If you give importance to the societies depicted in your game/film/book, then you research societies, or language, or both. Not Geography.

You seem to be under the impression that research is only done for realism, and that realism is the ultimate goal that the developers are trying to achieve. I don't think that's the case. Research is done so you have a solid basis, which you can diverge from. It's like an anchor point. You can't build a house on quicksand, no matter how solid the house, it'll sink. Doing research gives the designer real world knowledge to draw from. In no way does this force a strict adherence to reality at the cost of gameplay or engagement.

The balance would have to be determined by the game designer, but generally, the more you get right, the less problems you can expect. I don't know what the threads after release would say, but since they're now flowing the right way, I guess it won't come up. I don't know if the 'average' gamer will notice x or y, but if you get it right, then if they do notice, I imagine it'll be appreciated. But that's not why I think research is good for game design, I think research is good for game design because the more you learn, the more you have to draw from for inspiration. That's really the core of my argument. There is no such thing as too much knowledge. Based on the time constraints, there might be "too much research", but you do what you can in the time allotted to you.

Not to nit-pick, but I am curious as to your opinion on how a game could accomplish retaining the ability to be engaging without being fun; if said game isn't enjoyable, are you still going to play it? A game like Spec-Ops the line, or Papers, please, is decidedly unfun. they are bleak, dystopian, and confronting. Yet these games are engaging because of it. Games as a medium for art are beginning to grow up. But if you look at a different medium, Film, you can clearly see that a film does not have to be fun to be engaging. Some films are downright horrifying. You have thrillers, tragedies, film-noire, horror, you have films in which you see people suffer the way through, and it doesn't put a smile on your face. Yet many of these films are decidedly engaging. We need to move away from the childish notion that games are just for children, are just a means of entertainment and that fun is the only way to engage the player. Luckily the medium is, slowly but steadily, growing up. No, you don't need something to be fun to be engaging.

/thread. Nobody is arguing for a hyper-realistic simulation game. Some in this thread believe Josh Sawyer is going overboard with the realism, some, myself included, do not. I agree with Mcmanusaur that realism is not the opposite of fun, it can be, at times, in which case I don't think I'd opt for realism. Or rather, the game doesn't always have to be fun, but it has to be engaging. I believe that research of your subject will allow game designers to make a more engaging game. En verder wil ik er geen woorden meer over vuil maken.

oh that is a flaw in the system I hadn't considered. Perhaps investigation could be based on a counter-skill. If a stealth character enters your sight range, no matter what, the NPC alert state changes one level to "suspicious" or for every 5 ticks spent in NPC observation range, there is a x chance of a change in alert state (base 10%) to suspicious. the perception/observation/guard skill would add 1% per level. So base 10% after 5 ticks, 20% after 10 ticks and so on. Whereas a character with 7 levels in perception would have 17% after 5 ticks, 34% after 10 ticks, 51% after 15 ticks and so on. Obviously if the number of ticks runs out before suspicious state is triggered it would still trigger auto-discovery. No hiding 10 minutes right behind someone. I suppose "dead zone" could be a special rogue ability where "up close" does become a safe spot as long as the rogue doesn't move, as per his specialisation in stealth. -- Another alternative approach is to have the suspicious state activated when you run out of ticks, instead of auto-discovery. A suspicious NPC will usually (unless he or she has specific orders to hold his or her post.) look about, making discovery likely. In that case the distant vision cone would also yield instant discovery. --- I sincerely hope that lighting will have influence on npc vision, aiding or foiling stealth attempts.

I'm very curious what these smaller quests and NPC's look like. I hope no 'rats in the basement' or 'fetch me three orc skulls' and the like. I hope every quest, even the small ones, have a proper amount of attention spent on them. when you mention smaller quests, do you mean that these are quests with little to no world reactivity upon completion?

When you hear about some doomsday preppers, you think they are nuts, they spend their life in service to the sad hope that doom strikes, BUT it pays to be prepared, and if it's just a small effort so you have 'something, just in case' then brilliant. Besides, if I ever become a rich eccentric millionaire, you bet your ass I'll have some crazy ass doomsday fort in the basement

Sometimes I wonder if people are deliberately obtuse just to **** with me. Gromnir mostly ignores the valid points others make because it doesn't fit his narrative. And historical fiction is one of the examples, but there are many reasons to research your subject matter. And yes, I sincerely hope a great deal of fantasy, imagination and completely new things will find their way into P:E, but I am glad, no, happy, that people like Josh Sawyer take their job seriously and research before they produce. Because all those things that annoy so many of the fanbase, like boobplate/"naked armour" or fake "ye olde English" won't find themselves in P:E because the devs did their due diligence. I seriously don't understand how you guys don't get this. And let me get one thing clear: Knowledge does not limit the imagination, it does the opposite, it frees the imagination. It is a pre-requisite for creativity and originality. A five year old child will NEVER be able to imagine a beautiful architectural building into its smallest detail, and while many architects are less than special, those who created true beauty were the experts, not amateurs. The argument that shakespeare didn't research his subject matter ignores his experience and training as a playwright, his knowledge of plot devices, and his mastery of the English language. He had to learn these things. You simply cannot create something from nothing. Like the Mitchell and Webb skit I posted earlier: sure you can write your fantasy about being a doctor into a series, but it's not going to be particularly good unless you can make it convincing. "We need to bring this man medicine" - Even IF you somehow could produce something without any research at all, something quite good, people are not going to connect with your story or setting if they cannot emphasize or understand it.

Avellone's forum account is stuck on a very small postcount, I don't think he frequents these forums very often, I'm sorry to say. He does seem active on other places on the web, including twitter, maybe you should try it there. http://forums.obsidian.net/user/13-chris-avellone/ Last Active Dec 20 2012 01:15 AM

Not no, Yes. Project Eternity is said to be comparable to around the 16th century of our world, technology wise, and for some of the societies. With some differences, because the developers are NOT trying to make an exact realism simulator, as you seem to suggest. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/palooka.htm http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.