GrinningReaper659

Well first of all I'd like to say that I'm very pleased with the beta, the general feel of the game is beyond satisfactory. The team did a great job with this and I am beyond excited to be eXPloring the fantasy world that OE has created for us. I do have a few thoughts. User Interface: -Character record, journal, inventory, etc. should always be one mouse click away from each other, the player shouldn't have to close out of the inventory in order to then open the character record screen. I think that this would be best accomplished with tabs. -I've never really supported the stash system in general but from what I've seen I can come to terms with it; however it does seem that each character could do with some more inventory spaces. -It would be nice if double-clicking on the area map would close out the map and jump to the spot where the player clicked (as in BG). -item description pop-up windows need to have a "close" button or "x" to close out instead of forcing the player to click somewhere outside the window to close it (this applies to some other windows as well). -When you open the grimoire from inventory, it closes out to main game screen instead of back to inventory. -The borders/outlines on the visible area indicators while in stealth mode are a bit heavy-handed for my liking, which just led me to think that plentiful feedback options in general would be more than welcome. Combat: A lot of fun; could probably use better visual options to differentiate between the on-screen models, although to be honest most of my issues subsided after sinking my teeth into the beta for a couple of hours so it may be, at least in part, a simple matter of adjusting to a new system. Difficulty: I'm apparently at odds with a vocal group of people on the forum on the point, but I don't think the combat is too difficult. I've been playing on easy and will likely play a character on normal or hard tomorrow, but I would strongly suggest to those that are having issues with the difficulty level of the game that they give the easy setting a try. A summary of my playthough so far, with emphasis on difficulty level (detailed spoilers ahead obviously): I created a human druid with stats of 12 13 12 15 15 16. I stuck with my main as well as the four "BB" party members throughout. Spoke to the first group by the bridge, went to the inn and advised their prey to escape, went back and fought the quest-givers. Combat was hectic and a bit chaotic, but my party emerged victorious with nary an unconscious soul among them. I was then asked to hunt down a pig-stealing ogre and I happily obliged after speaking to everyone in the town (and searching all the nooks and crannies of course, nobody hides a unique quarterstaff from me). Upon entering the wilderness area to the east of town I began to sneak about, engaged a few beetles in combat which proved to be somewhat enjoyable, but hardly challenging. Upon making my way to the southwest corner of the map, I spotted a small group of wolves lurking about, and decided to try out the old "select all" + "left click" strategy. The wolves were quickly dispatched. So, I tried the same when I ran into a couple of widowmaker spiders soon thereafter; the spiders suffered a similar fate. I came upon three wurms and my winning strategy defeated them with ease. I would have begun to get disheartened at this point had I not known that three more difficult settings were available for my enjoyment on future attempts. I rounded a corner and encountered a fellow adventuring party, and my select all and attack strat finally resulted in a party wipe, although I did take out two of their number and injure a third before my demise. After reloading, I employed a bit of brain power and took out the dirty brigands that didn't want to share their loot, took out a couple of woodland beasts that looked a bit like shambling mounds (from bg) and headed toward the mouth of the ominous ogre cave. Although the health of my party members was relatively well-off, my rpg eXPerience has instilled in me a certainty that every cave is actually just an entrance to a system of caves many miles deep, and so I headed back to the inn to rest up at this point before returning to the cave. Once inside, my party snuck past some spiders and approached the ogre. Ultimately, once satisfied that he was not in posession of any noblewomen, we convinced the big oaf to move along peacefully. Following this, we went through the cave and killed all the spiders, all in a hard day's work for any band of adventuring exterminators. Back in town, the farmer was quite unsated in his bloodlust as he had been quite set on using the poor ogre's head as some sort of horrid decoration, and so he proceeded to throw a bit of a tantrum. Anyway, we took pity on him and gave him some coin to shut him up, and were rewarded with an incredible blunderbuss. We were not, however, rewarded with any XP from this whole eXPerience as far as I could tell (I'm assuming that this was due to a bug). After some extensive inventory management and a trip to the merchant, and perhaps another night of exorbitant luxory at the inn, we were off to confront the man that had made some bold claims about a young lady's interest in him before sending us off to acuse an ogre of having kidnapped her. Well the confrontation ended violently as such things so often do, and by that point the plot of an insidious cult residing in the ruins beneath the town was becoming clear. So down into the ruins we went, and "select all" + "left clicked" the crap out of those cultists and even blundered our way through a series of traps before finally coming to find the leader of the cult. We snapped the poor girl's neck, putting her out of her misery before she went and did a bunch of awful stuff against her will, and needless to say the cult leader was, displeased, with our having snapped the neck of his puppet. An enjoyable battle ensued which required some thought. Eventually, the cult leader and his minions were dead. Once back in town, I approached the noble, niece-molesting nincompoop and he met with a well-deserved "accident" which ended his life. I'm not sure that I received any XP for any of this ruins and cult business either but, again, this could be attributable to a bug. I would say that if I had been careful and employed some tactics consistently I could probably have entirely skipped the three times that I rested. I'm very much looking forward to playing on a higher difficulty setting as I am thoroughly enjoying the combat system. I urge those who are having considerable trouble to give yourself some time to get used to the system, consider the effects that certain bugs are having on your particular difficulties, and if all else fails try out the "easy" setting if you haven't already. XP System: Apart from what I assume are bugs essentially depriving me of gaining any XP, I have no problem with the system as it is. I don't feel that the lack of per-kill XP took any of the fun out of combat for me and I engaged in it as much as I would have had I been being rewarded for each kill. The only difference is that I wasn't "encouraged" to kill everything for non-rp reasons by having per-kill XP make up the majority of the XP in the game. I know this is an incendiary issue on the forums at the moment and a lot of people are upset about the lack of per-kill XP, but I personally don't have any problems and prefer the system as is. The encouragement to dispatch foes is as it ever was: they are in the way of your goals, and as such they must be dispatched in one fashion or another, and you really are being rewarded for those kills once you get your XP for finishing the quest (if killing those in your way was how you chose to finish it). The real difference with this system compared to some others is that the players who sneak past enemies to avoid combat or use diplomacy to be persuasive or who complete their objectives in whatever way they choose aren't punished for doing so, all the paths are acceptable, which seems pretty logical to me. I wouldn't object (pun intended) to more objective-based XP as some people on the forums are asking for, suggesting that objectives such as "clearing the road of beetles" should be rewarded with XP, but I also don't think that a change is really necessary, and I would certainly be disappointed to see per-kill XP added. I guess we'll see once the bugs are worked out but as far as I can tell this system is fine with me.

Hmmm, I must assume that this isn't directed at me since it, specifically the first four lines, would make no sense in relation to my arguments, but I'll take a crack at your final question here (one more time): 1. The ability to imprison foes (and all that ends up going along with this - collecting money or rare, unique items for ransom; interrogation; etc.) 2. The (extra) rare merchants and visitors that show up, when it stands to reason that the time freed up by not running a stronghold and lands could allow the adventurer the opportunity to run into unique encounters of their own since they're out in the world more. 3. Bonuses - If having a library gives you lore bonuses and having training grounds gives you strength bonuses, then potentially sleeping at an inn or in the home of a lord whose estate has such things should improve your stats as well, right? I mean, the point here is that your stronghold will either be the only building with a library in the game (that you can sleep in), or some other places you can sleep will have a library but you won't benefit from it. Either way, the effect is being restricted to the stronghold in a way that doesn't necessarily make sense. As I've said a few times, I can accept it if it stays at it is now, but surely you can see that there are plenty of possibilities for some of these stronghold-specific things applying outside of the stronghold.

What do you mean by "game at large"? Due to the nature of the myriad of stretch goals that were met in order to give us the game we're getting, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Project eternity is a game made up of a bunch of pieces*. The Stronghold IS a part of the "game at large". *For example, The mega dungeon will be optional. The stronghold is optional. The named companions are optional. The adventurers' hall is optional. Crafting is optional. Hell even combat will be optional. So what's your suggested alternative to these mechanics, items and mini-quests being exclusively tied to these optional areas? Would you prefer they be placed only in the main, critical plotline? If so, what was the point in having these stretch goals in the first place? More to the point: How exactly do you suggest we take prisoners (for example) if we have no place to hold them prisoner? Should the game just let you drag them around with you on your travels? If it does, then they can no longer be called Prisoners. They're just companions. Ditto with collecting taxes. If you don't own land, how can you demand collective payment from the citizenry? You can't... at least not without it being called extortion. "What do you mean be 'game at large'?" What I mean is that some things which can be done by the owner of a stronghold could also logically be done by someone that did not own a stronghold. I already mentioned the possibility of taking a prisoner by turning someone into a militia. Alternatively, I see no reason that you couldn't take a defeated foe back to your camp on a temporary basis to interrogate, torture, or collect a ransom for their release. I never suggested that taxes should be collected by players on land not owned by the player, that's obviously ridiculous. I think that taking the stronghold is being strongarmed into the game as the "right" choice by providing no logical alternatives for those that don't. I hate to repeat myself, but do you not think it possible that a pure adventurer would have more possibilities to run into unique encounters while adventuring than an adventurer who spends a great deal of time running his lands? Is owning a stronghold the only conceivable way to take someone prisoner? So, as I see it, there are two issues here: there are no logical alternative encounters, etc. for those that choose to spend their time adventuring instead of running a stronghold and the surrounding lands; and there are game mechanics (such as taking prisoners) being tied to the stronghold which don't make sense as needing to be tied to the stronghold. But, as I've already said, I understand that the scope of the game must be limited in some ways and I understand if the team doesn't have the time/budget to include these sorts of meaningful reactions based on player choices.

Maybe if you considered the stronghold a bunch of optional side-quests? It's pretty much assumed you get some reward from side quests, but no reward for not doing them... But then, not spending cash on a stronghold means spending cash on something else, so it's not a total loss. Well, we're not really sure, but I'd guess that the money earned from the stronghold will end up matching or exceeding the money spent on it. Your examples aren't really relevant to the issue here. I don't have a problem with player choices blocking off certain content when it makes sense, but you are talking about potential logical inconsistencies that would be caused by having choices with no effect, when in reality it would be more logical to have alternatives to the possibilities presented by the stronghold (taking prisoners doesn't require you to own a stronghold, having the option to encounter rare merchants shouldn't logically require this either). As for the supposed penalties of owning a stronghold, being an obvious target = xp from encounters, money to upkeep is (I imagine) negated or exceeded by taxes, money from ransoming prisoners, rare items available to only those with strongholds, stat bonuses, etc. These penalties of yours don't really seem like penalties to me. Well, when discussing a game that you overall want to play which is in development, it's natural to point out the parts that you probably won't enjoy. The stronghold certainly won't stop me playing this game, but it may take away from my enjoyment a bit that resources were poured into creating cool rpg mechanics (taking prisoners and negotiating their release, etc.) and then those mechanics were made available only to those that choose to run a stronghold throughout the game. Just to be completely clear, I don't mind content/items/etc. being blocked off based on player choices, but based on my above arguments I simply don't like it in this context. Content and items are being developed which would make sense to be applied to the game at large, but are then being restricted to being available only to those with strongholds (as far as I can tell). Anyway, like I said, this certainly won't disrupt my playing of the game much, I'll most likely run the stronghold every playthrough because I like a lot of the ideas that are being tied to it. It should only turn out to be a minor inconvenience, but I thought I'd mention it.

I'm not really sure what the reason is for this, but it seems that a strong majority of modern RPG players are consumed with two elements of modern RPGs which I find at best tedious and at worst loathsome: time-consuming crafting and strongholds. I understand that PE is hoping not to mirror the games which inspired it, but rather to draw inspiration from the good bits and improve on the rest, but it seems like most of the games that this project claims to be taking inspiration from got on fine without tedious crafting and stronghold minigames. BG2 thief stronghold was annoying enough, and all that it really required was returning every x days. Also, the games which have included these components are often cited by players on this forum as being worse than the old ie-games, though many seem to know not why. This in itself doesn't prove that either of these mechanics is the cause of the games which include them being worse, but it is something to consider. I think that there are different types of enjoyment, and the tedium (followed by a sense of accomplishment) of collecting crafting components until you have all you need to make something or of upgrading a certain branch of stronghold construction to completion are a different sort of enjoyment than, say, experiencing a well-crafted story. Of course, this former type of enjoyment is used in most games in leveling systems, etc., but I think that it's easy to overuse it. All that being said, I understand that crafting and strongholds are in and that this isn't going to change. I was annoyed with their inclusion from the moment I say them appear on the Stretch Goals, but this is what the majority of players want, so I don't mind it being in the game. I do take issue when it becomes practically necessary. @Nonek said the following: "i'm happy that the Stronghold is optional and you will lose out on content if it's not taken advantage of. Too many games i'v eplayed lately have no real consequences because they're afraid of denying players content, or making choices count" I suppose that this can be thought of as making choices meaningful, but to me it simply takes choice away by making one "right" choice which rewards the player and one clearly "wrong" choice which punishes the player. The reality of why content is lost out on by not using the stronghold is that the designers put time into it and therefore believe that having a stronghold is the correct way to play the game, which is why the player will be punished for not doing so. I understand that the sort of "choice" suggested by @Nonek is similar to the choice of completing or not completing side-quests, you will miss out on content, items, etc. if you choose to not complete the side quests. I don't have a problem with optional side quests, because you would be hard pressed to find someone playing PE that has a problem with quests, but it probably will not be so rare to find someone that has a problem with running a stronghold: the core mechanic of one, quests, is the core mechanic of the game at large; while the core mechanic of running a stronghold is a sort of minigame that some people simply do not enjoy. Can nobody see the possibility of a "pure" adventurer (that doesn't have to run home every other day to manage his finances or rearrange his furniture) being exposed to unique content which an adventurer that also has to run a stronghold and land may miss out on? Why can't the pc take an enemy prisoner by turning him into the local militia (and then being convinced to charm or sneak his way in and break the prisoner out of said prison in the face of a lucrative enough offer)? Can the pc not run into one of these special merchants in a random encounter outside of their stronghold (for example, in the stronghold of a noble that the pc is visiting)? Perhaps having these types of meaningful choices isn't within the scope of PE's budget, which is fine, but the stronghold giving stat bonuses and plenty of exclusive quest-resolution options (which could seemingly be accomplished without a stronghold) and lots of rare magical items all of which will be missed out on if you don't handle the constant tedium (which is what it would likely feel like to me and some others), feels unnecessarily like a not-much-of-a-choice type of choice. I'd just like a few parallel options for those that don't want a stronghold (or possibly a "stronghold manager" type of npc as suggested by some others). I think it's easier to turn a stronghold mechanic into an annoyance than it is to make it constantly enjoyable throughout the entire game, especially when continual interaction with it is essentially mandatory. Finally, I'd just like to say that I do like several of the ideas presented here concerning the stronghold. I especially do like the prisoner idea, because it isn't something I've seen done before; there have also been a lot of great ideas from posters in this thread.

Well, I almost stopped reading at this point: "How many times have you seen a website say 'We're not responsible for the content of our comments.'? I know that when you webmasters put that up on your sites, you're trying to address your legal obligation. Well, let me tell you about your moral obligation: Hell yes, you are responsible. You absolutely are. When people are saying ruinously cruel things about each other, and you're the person who made it possible, it's 100% your fault. If you aren't willing to be a grown-up about that, then that's okay, but you're not ready to have a web business. Businesses that run cruise ships have to buy life preservers. Companies that sell alcohol have to keep it away from kids. And people who make communities on the web have to moderate them." This is outright ridiculous, the comparisons here aren't equivalent in any way. Yes, those that run cruise ships are obligated to buy life preservers to save the lives of the passengers and crew in case of a disaster; they are not, however, held morally or legally responsible for some random horrible sh*t said by some idiots shouting death threats from the dock, or held responsible for the things said by their passengers for that matter. I understand that the point is that people should have a way of controlling comments on websites, but in many cases on forums and comments sections, it can be extremely difficult to control communication without destroying it (especially in the extreme cases being talked about here). My point is that those that run a cruise ship can't control what their passengers say any more than a person with a blog can attempt to control an onslaught of hateful speech overwhelming their comments section. Some (idealistically) decent points were eventually made. What it comes down to, though, in the cases such as those discussed in this thread, is: "don't allow comments." There's no number of bans or moderators that could stop some of these aggressive attacks that cover many, many pages of comments. Additionally, the author eventually makes one reasonable point concerning the blame being placed upon the head of those running the site. When the hatred of comments is being used by those that run the site for publicity in the vein of "all press is good press," then yes, I would say that using something ethically reprehensible for personal gain is itself at least ethically dubious. However, it still doesn't make those that run the site morally responsible for the words and actions of others.

I pledged through paypal about a week or two after the end of the Kickstarter campaign, so I believe that I may be a "slacker backer." Just to throw in my two cents, this title doesn't bother me at all. It seems as if I may be in the minority on this, but I don't see anything disrespectful about the name. We're backing, but not doing so as early as those that backed the KS campaign. Pretty straightforward. Also clearly a light-hearted play on words; I can't see how someone can take offense at this.

I am definitely not a fan of the proposed crafting system, and have been put off by the crafting systems in games such as NWN2 for a few reasons: -Being able, as an adventurer, to craft any possible weapon makes little sense to me. -Crafting seems to diminish looting and buying when you can make any weapon of any power through the annoyance of collecting every scrap of material you find. -I have never found this process fun. I thoroughly enjoyed crafting as it was done in the BG games, it was simple and made a lot of sense. Find all the pieces, and have an actual master craftsman put them together for a fee. This maintains the looting and buying systems and gives a greater sense of accomplishment when you are able to get the pieces and craft an epic, unique weapon of some sort. What to spend money on: -I don't really have anything against consumables, and they're a good money sink that make sense to me -The availability of unique, epic equipment for sale in stores can be understadably off-putting for some, but there could be ways of buying such items apart from in generic stores: special merchants that you run into while travelling or potentially an NPC that you run into that is impoverished to the point of having to sell off a powerful family heirloom, and you have only the one chance to buy it, retired adventurers that you come across that may be willing to sell some item from their former adventuring days if the right price is offered and the right words said. I don't have a problem with some of these epic and expensive items being in Adventurers' Mart type stores, but there are plenty of ways to put them elsewhere that make sense, give the player the opportunity to spend money, and don't make the player feel as if they can buy every possible piece of equipment in the game from a single merchant. -BG2 style crafting of unique items which are expensive to create, it makes sense to have to pay a small fortune to have a legendary piece of equipment recreated for you, especially if there are only a handful (or less) of people capable of doing it. -Potentially some occasional bribery options to make certain jobs go easier; or a monetary gift to impress or bend the will of a faction leader whose coffers are getting light. In short: potions, ammunition; paying the best smith in the land to recreate that legendary weapon from its pieces; expensive items found in stores, on traveling merchants, in the homes of retired adventurers and in random encounters with NPCs; and potentially some bribery and gifting of money. As for the proposed equipment degradation system: it seems somewhat pointless as proposed, just a money sink and an annoyance of trudging back to town or having to keep a craftsman and materials in your party. That being said, it doesn't seem like it will be a hugely noticeable annoyance, so it's not something that will bother me too much.

Some interesting ideas here. I'm pretty much against any resources whatsoever being used in a pointless attempt to combat piracy (not just in PE but in any game), but the idea of a simple message for thanks of support and a link to buy a game key on a start menu sounds nice and simple. A pirate that got that got the game may decide, once they've had a chance to enjoy it and have some money available, to click on the link and conveniently support the game...

In 6 ( 5?) weeks we haven't even seen progress enough to get him to shrouded Hills, with this pace he won't get to tarant before PE is released. Also he clearly has times to play other games, games that he does on his own leasure compared to a game people gave money for him to play You're being oddly demanding, it's a pretty crass attitude. If he wants to play games in his leisure time so be it, you're not in control of his life or his schedule. Mentioning things he does in his free time has no relevance to this, as this isn't something that he should be doing in his free time, as you said, he's being payed for it. From the stretch goal: "Also at $4.0m Chris Avellone will be forced to play Arcanum." Nothing there about a timeframe or inviting individual people to dictate what he can do in his free time. I'm sure he knows that he has to play it, let the man have some fun by taking it at his own pace.

perhaps you were kidding, but that's just not how stretch goals work at all. The idea that the amount of money between stretch goals is literally the cost of the following stretch goal is not correct, not sure why so many people seem to think this... All money is supposed to go into making a better game (more writers and coders, better quality assurance, and of course once all that has been fulfilled, peoples' pay going up); adding a stronghold to PE, for example, didn't cost 200k, just as hiring George Ziets likely didn't cost exactly 100k. They totally don't increase people's pay after these goals are reached. I'm not sure on what basis you're assuming this, but it seems likely enough that they can't plan expenditures out down to the penny (not to mention the amount left aside for patches, etc.), and that any extra isn't just going to be thrown out and will therefore end up in the pockets of the devs. I don't see anything wrong with this, but it seems like a pretty obvious possibility; so I'm not seeing what makes you so sure that extra money won't be added to the pay of the devs... Because it's a job? When you are hired by a company you agree to work for a wage, they aren't going to give you more money just because they have more money, that would be silly. Sure, except that when I say that the pay of the devs will go up, I am referring to the pay of InXile. What exactly the money goes to is irrelevant to my point. InXile is developing the game, InXile will be receiving any excess money. InXile=developers. You are making a distinction between some specific employees of InXile and InXile itself, I'm not. Just a difference in reference I suppose, no real argument here.

perhaps you were kidding, but that's just not how stretch goals work at all. The idea that the amount of money between stretch goals is literally the cost of the following stretch goal is not correct, not sure why so many people seem to think this... All money is supposed to go into making a better game (more writers and coders, better quality assurance, and of course once all that has been fulfilled, peoples' pay going up); adding a stronghold to PE, for example, didn't cost 200k, just as hiring George Ziets likely didn't cost exactly 100k. They totally don't increase people's pay after these goals are reached. I'm not sure on what basis you're assuming this, but it seems likely enough that they can't plan expenditures out down to the penny (not to mention the amount left aside for patches, etc.), and that any extra isn't just going to be thrown out and will therefore end up in the pockets of the devs. I don't see anything wrong with this, but it seems like a pretty obvious possibility; so I'm not seeing what makes you so sure that extra money won't be added to the pay of the devs...

perhaps you were kidding, but that's just not how stretch goals work at all. The idea that the amount of money between stretch goals is literally the cost of the following stretch goal is not correct, not sure why so many people seem to think this... All money is supposed to go into making a better game (more writers and coders, better quality assurance, and of course once all that has been fulfilled, peoples' pay going up); adding a stronghold to PE, for example, didn't cost 200k, just as hiring George Ziets likely didn't cost exactly 100k.

@Lephys Some good ideas there. I've been trying to come up with some alternatives to the proposed system that I dislike, but I'm having trouble finding time to do so (and write out what is sure to be a long post associated with the ideas). Anyway, if I do think of anything good, I'll try to find time to post.

I wholeheartedly agree. I've already articulated my stance in the "KNOCK KNOCK!?" thread, so I won't bother reiterating, but I'll be pretty disappointed if locks can only be bypassed via the lockpick skill.

@Lephys The arbitrary power level of wizards concerning what they can and can't do is a problem, not really sure exactly how that would best be handled. I agree with most of what you've said. My problem still comes down to thinking that this... "lockpicking is the only way to get past a locked door or chest" ...is an illogical system; and it seems that you agree. You said "how problematic is it really?" Well, that's a good question. I guess most people probably won't mind the proposed system but, imo, alternate ways to get past locked objects are important.

That's not really the best comparison. Wizards shouldn't be able to cast "Teleport Pocket Contents," and Barbarians shouldn't be able to tackle people "accidentally" and have them drop all their stuff on the ground, then simply apologize and pick it all up without them noticing. There's no problem with doors being bashable, or locks being magically openable. But, if you make Lockpicking require 75 skill points to pick a given door, and you let a Barbarian easily break that door down just because he has 19 STR (which he's had since LvL 1), that's a bit silly. For one thing, why would someone foot the bill for an EXTREMELY complex lock (back in the day when such things were hand-friggin' crafted by master artisans) to put on a door that a buff guy could simply knock down? Did the person who wanted that door to be a barrier to people just not know about strong people, and/or axes? He just made the door out of quarter-inch balsa wood? You would expect someone to make sure all aspects of a door or chest were fairly level with one another in quality/sturdiness. That being said, I think there are ways to handle it that aren't silly/problematic, and I think those are definitely worth exploring. The implementation just requires a lot of consideration, is all. I agree that barbarians shouldn't be able to run into someone and have all of their valuables miraculously drop out of their pockets, and then be able to pocket all of them without the victim noticing. I also agree that a "pickpocket" spell wouldn't necessarily make much sense. What would make sense, however, is for a barbarian to have to kill or attack and then loot the valuables off of that guy, or for a wizard to have to use some sort of charm/stun spell and then get their valuables off of them. So, your comparison isn't really in line with the proposed system, whereas mine was. Each class has its own strengths, and should be able to use said strengths to accomplish goals; which is why, as I said before, forcing everyone to lockpick in order to open a locked chest or get through a door doesn't make much sense. What the P:E team is suggesting is that a high level wizard that has spent years adventuring would be unable to handle a locked door without using a gimped lockpick skill that he's been pointlessly practicing (keeping him from putting points in magic-related skills). What you said about putting a complex lock on a particle board door, on the other hand, is true. That would be pretty ridiculous. Your statement, however, seems to suggest that it's always easier to pick a lock than it is to destroy the door that it's locking, which I don't think should necessarily be the case. I imagine that some locks would be unnecessarily complex for the doors that they're locking, and I imagine that some unusually strong doors would have fairly simple locks. Should it be harder to break a "strong" door than it is to pick a "strong" lock? perhaps, but that doesn't mean that a strong enough character shouldn't be able to break doors/locks when it makes sense to be able to do so. This isn't even touching on the magical destruction of doors by wizards, but I think you get my point. So it seems to me that some doors would be more easily bypassed by a warrior (such as barricaded doors as mentioned by @TRX850), and some (possibly most) would be more easily picked than bashed...

Yes to all. The whole "allowing locks/doors/chests to be bashed or opened with magic makes lockpicking, and by extension rogues, worthless" is a ridiculous argument. If that logical implementation of alternate ways to open things makes the rogue class worthless, then you're not doing rogues right. Creating a task that you've decided can only be completed by rogues (even if all classes can do exactly what rogues do at a less effective level) makes no sense. I'm just so looking forward to seeing a 20 strength barbarian fumbling with a lock at half the lock's skill level because he doesn't have a rogue buddy to help him through the door... or even better some high level archmage doing the same thing because there's no way that magic could be used to pick the lock, or create a magical door right next to the door he needs to get by, or obliterate the door with fire, and the list goes on. No, we need to make the doors indestructible to make sure that rogues are necessary to bring along in the party (assuming you want loot from chests and don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to unlock doors with your druid's lockpick skill). IMO, some doors/chests should be easier to break than their locks are to pick, and some doors/chests should be harder to break than their locks are to pick. Some doors could be completely unbreakable by anyone in your party, depending on your party composition and level. Doors and chests should be bashable, because it just makes sense; it's being specifically withheld in order to make a certain class artificially more valuable. A minotaur charging you and bashing down the doors you close along the way, as I believe was one of @Osvir's suggestions? Sure, why not; although I do think that bashing a door with your body should cause you some damage... As for the usefulness of rogues, I think it's safe to say that they could have a lot of usefulness without needing to create it with this mechanic. For example, the ability to unlock and re-lock things, to listen at doors, to sneak, backstab, pick pockets and do myriad other things better than other classes can do them, which does make sense. On the subject of not being able to bash chests open, we might as well say that killed enemies can't be looted because it would take away from the rogues pickpocket ability. Your barbarian has to attempt to pickpocket all enemies instead (at reduced skill level) before killing them if he wants anything they're carrying. Some sort of knocking on doors mechanic so that you don't have to break into everyone's home to get quests, etc. sounds great. TLDR: Yes to all. The idea of making doors, chests, etc. indestructible in order to create more artificial value for rogues is, to me, a very poor gameplay decision.

AKA "I don't like the game I don't even have all the details on and like to assume lots of things about." That's a pretty big dilemma. They should probably just scrap the project. That would fix it. You wouldn't have anything to suffer such grief over. *dusts off hands* u_u Actually, he was referencing specific aspects of BG2's systems that he didn't like. So "There wasn't a whole lot I did like about it," in that context (you know, that thing you find so bothersome as to ignore it completely), it probably meant "There's not a lot in BG2 I wouldn't change if I went back in time and remade it." If he hated BG2 as hard as you're implying, he'd make a completely different genre of game. It wouldn't have combat, or levels, or NPCs, or dialogue, etc. The fact that P:E is still utilizing pretty much the entire backbone of the IE games is a testament to this. But, you know, the overdramatization of every little change is always an option, too, I suppose. "Wait... quests are going to entail different things than in the IE games?! Health won't be determined by the same balancing equations? WE'RE NOT USING THE EXACT D&D RULESET ANYMORE?! How in the hell are we going to represent things? With some other form of MATH?! AAGGGHHHH! *facepalm*" @Lephys Actually, in that post, Sawyer was listing specific things that he didn't like about BG2, and then decided to make a more generalized statement that there wasn't much that he did like about it. It was a long time ago. I'm sure he meant what he said, although he may have changed his mind over the years. Your decision to translate "There wasn't a whole lot I did like about [bG2]" into "There's not a lot in BG2 I wouldn't change if I went back in time and remade it." doesn't change the fact that he actually did say the first thing. It wasn't out of context as it was an independent statement summarizing his feelings about BG2, so your arbitrary decision to change it into something he didn't say is a reach (to say the least). Does this single statement by Sawyer make me regret backing P:E? Absolutely not. Like I said, it was a long time ago that he felt this way, perhaps he's had a change of heart over the years. Is it a bit disturbing? I'd say so, yeah. I certainly hope that he isn't intentionally pretending to like a game that he despises for the sake of pandering to people that he knows are willing to throw their money at anything related in any way to BG (I tend to think that this isn't the case, but who knows).

Yeah, because it's so much more socially dysfunctional and time wasting to watch someone play Arcanum than it is to play Arcanum, or even to watch whatever it is that you watch for entertainment. /sarcasm Seriously, accusing these people of being socially dysfunctional because of what they enjoy watching? You're spending your time on the forum of a game that doesn't even exist yet, reading a topic that apparently doesn't even interest you, and even taking the time to comment just to say what a waste of time it is. wow, the lack of self-awareness astounds me. Yes it is dysfunctional, watching someone who you don't even know, come on. Playing games or watching good entertaining programs is not. And I don't think that I wasted time posting here, I hope that some of the people (or even one) who posted on this 5 pages or was interested in this "event" will think: "The hell I'm doing" and will stop with behavior that gave RPG gamers such a bad reputation. That will be all from me on this topic. Well, it's not my cup of tea, but it's certainly no more dysfunctional or time wasting than watching, for example, some person you don't know and will never meet playing golf or tennis on tv. You just think it's pathetic because of notions you've been socially and culturally engrained with. What's the actual difference? Your arbitrary lines of what is and what isn't a waste of time or socially dysfunctional are based entirely on your own interests and preconceived biases.

Yeah, because it's so much more socially dysfunctional and time wasting to watch someone play Arcanum than it is to play Arcanum, or even to watch whatever it is that you watch for entertainment. /sarcasm Seriously, accusing these people of being socially dysfunctional because of what they enjoy watching? You're spending your time on the forum of a game that doesn't even exist yet, reading a topic that apparently doesn't even interest you, and even taking the time to comment just to say what a waste of time it is. wow, the lack of self-awareness astounds me.

Also, why are gnolls or bears always portrayed as ignorant beasts in D&D, they should be playable races equally as intelligent as humans! In other words, this entire topic would have been much better crafted as: "I am hoping that P.E. will include some sort of 'noble savage' race; thoughts?" You keep asking why orcs are portrayed as they are in D&D, etc. and the answer is simply that they are fictional creations that were made to be as they are, be it stupid oafs or otherwise. I might as well request that elves go from being organized, intelligent being to being ignorant savages. I'm not confused as to why D&D portrays elves or halflings as they do, because it's a fantasy game wherein they chose to portray them this way. Not trying to be harsh, just a suggestion that you may want to consider changing the wording/topic @ArchBeast. Playable orcs that are as intelligent as humans? No thanks. If the lore supports it, then I guess I don't really care, but even if the lore did support it, it would be a very forced decision to change orcs into being something appealing as a playable race. Essentially it would be creating a new race and giving it the name of an existing race in fantasy games in order to appease a niche group of people that want to play as an orc (and to change them considerably from what they've seen in other games, meaning that they're not really "orcs" anymore). Including a race in P.E. resembling some sort of 'noble savage' archetype? Absolutely, knock yourself out.

So you think all ©RPGs that came before and told the story around a party rather than an individual had it wrong? Because "our natural perspective" wasn't considered? Just a question, have you ever been part of a group with a common goal where your individual condition and reasons were secondary? Have you played games/ read books/ seen movies where the focus isn't on a single character? I have. There's nothing inherently inferior about this approach. OTOH, using a single character's often very limited range of motivations (U killed my G0ri0n!) can make for a very lackluster game. You are still completely missing my point... Have I ever been a part of a group where my personal desires weren't of prime importance? Obviously yes, but it was still me as myself + each of them individually as themselves, not me as both myself and them. An individual occupying multiple individual consciousnesses doesn't make sense and it certainly has nothing to do with broadening the depth or complexity of a story. As I keep saying, a story that focuses on a group doesn't require you to be every member of that group. In fact, that's a much more ego-centric perspective when you feel the need to control every member of the group as opposed to just an individual, you're essentially playing alone if you're trying to role-play every character in the story and, if you're just controlling them and not really roleplaying them then, as I was saying, it's no longer a role playing game. Anything that separates the player from playing an individual role in the story further takes the game away from roleplaying. This has nothing to do with story focus, the overall story can be about your entire group, or about your enemies, or about the world at large, but you should still be viewing it from the individual perspective of the role that you are playing.

@Osvir I don't think I've been making my point clearly enough. I crave deep, well thought-out NPCs and I want their personal stories to matter in a game like this. I don't want silent companions, I want complex interactions with all the other characters involved in the story, including the party-joinable NPCs. In the post you quoted, Failion mentions that stories that center around a party are more grand and that playing basketball with friends is more interesting than playing alone. This does not contradict my stance at all. The story can be focused on your party and still you wouldn't need to be(/control) your entire party. Yes, you'd rather play basketball with friends, but it is still you playing with them, you're not occupying your own consciousness as well as theirs; in fact, that would essentially be playing alone... Also, I don't prefer the "chosen one" backstory for the main character that is so popular in CRPGs, I prefer that the main character starts out as a nobody and is defined by you, the player, throughout the game. However, none of these things require the perspective to not be an individual one, this is the only point on which we are disagreeing. I truly think that taking away the individual perspective turns any game into something other than an RPG. If you're not playing a role anymore, and you are instead just controlling several different characters, I have a hard time seeing it as a roleplaying game. Just wanted to make sure I had clearly stated my point. As you said, this is an endless debate as it's a perspective preference issue.

This is completely absurd. Why is it that you are incapable of seeing an individual perspective as anything other than stroking the ego of the player? This is our natural perspective as humans and is therefore the most fitting one for a role playing game. Pulling the strings/occupying the minds of a group of people is not role playing, as there is no individual role being played by the player in that scenario, it makes no sense for a role playing game. What you're talking about is effectively a game where you control a group of people without really playing the role of any of them... You also seem to think that a game which is played from an individual perspective inherently lacks good story, which makes no sense. The story can be good as any story can be, whether you're experiencing it from an individual perspective or not. Anyway, as Sharp_one said, this topic is pretty irrelevant at this point and, as you said, this is becoming somewhat retarded.