Ganrich

Using your stamina/mana example - My fear with that example is that Elves could then be the best at a melee/caster hybrid, and be forced toward that. Increasing regen or total values on stamina/mana bars is a slippery slope IMHO. As you pointed out it can mean little toward the end, but is a great boon in the early levels. However, mage type classes are meant to be harder early on, and much more powerful later in the game. If you make them too powerful early on... I dunno if I would personally enjoy them as much. To each their own. Using percentages is also kind of slippery. You could say that elves get +5% crit chance with long swords, and then the most powerful sword in the game is a Long Sword, and there you have it.... every person hence forth rolls elf swordsmen (Warrior, Pally, or Barbarian) to use said weapon. However, as long as damage amounts stay relatively low, and the HPs stay low... the difference should be negligible. When dealing with numbers lower than 50 I don't see a problem. So, as long as PE doesn't run in the direction of JRPGs and use numbers in the thousands for damage/HP... It should be fine. Using flat bonuses like 50 mana is meant to alleviate the difficulty early on, but (as I stated previously) I really hate making a casters life easier in the early levels. I want a hard road to power for my caster, and by end game I hope to be the creme de la creme of Control/damage/etc. Though, I do agree that those bonuses should be useful throughout. I would like to hear from the devs on this one. It would be interesting.

This is one of those things I loved about Arcanum. Does your race have a negative to a stat necessary for the character you want to build? Well pick this background, and it can counteract said deficiencies. If Obsidian were to implement something like that... I don't think they need be too detailed as to still allow people who like to write backgrounds that option. Kind of like TRX850 suggested where they were professions or vague at best, but still could counteract the race selection. Something like Soldier could fit into many people's backgrounds. I agree, though. I don't like the old school way of pigeonholing certain races into certain classes. Every race should have their exceptions, and our PCs should be that exception if we so choose.

I think many of us are disenchanted by the industry. It's 90% marketing and 10% game development. At least from the outside looking in. The initial announcement has people spooked. In the end time will tell. I am excited, but that is because I have faith in many of the devs on these kickstarter projects. Where I am disenchanted with publishers spoon feeding me garbage. I think a few of these devs have been quoted as to saying that it only takes 1 major foul up for the kickstarter house of cards to come tumbling down. This could be it, but I haven't seen evidence of it yet.

I think "the truth is somewhere in the middle" answers can be a bit hokey but, in fact, the truth is somewhere in the middle -- between BG1 and BG2, that is. BG1 had a lot of empty space and BG2 packed in the content like a can of sardines. We want exploration areas to feel like you're not tripping over quests and monsters every five feet, but there should be a rewarding amount of good content to find, even in "wilderness" areas. I am inferring here, but does this mean we will see a map system more like BG1? By that I mean, if I move to the western section of the map area of Bael Marsh will I move toward the Eastern section of the Pearl Coast, or will it be more akin to the BG2 style of get a quest that leads you to Bael Marsh and that unlocks that location on your map, or is it going to be something different? Perhaps a mix of BG1 and BG2... where some areas can be accessed by exploring and others via quests? Just curious.

I agree, Valsuelm. I can vividly remember my first reaction to the very beginning of PST. I remember finishing that first dialogue, and just being utterly confused. It was a mystery, with a very unique art style, that was enthralling from start to finish. It was the single most cerebral RPG I have ever had the fortune of playing on a computer. The story, and concept, were so good that it overshadowed its mediocre combat. Stripping the D&D systems from it will do it some good IMHO. I also agree that even though I am insanely excited... I will wait to see a bit more, and hear a bit more on it before I back it. I do hope Chris gets involved in it to some extent. Not so much as to ignore PE, but maybe write a few companions and the like. I think this iteration will need more characters like Monte and Fall from Grace if it is to be accepted.

Heck ya!! Thanks for posting this!!! I am excited that this trend has given rebirth to this style of rpg. BGEE, PE, wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, BG2EE, and now a game in the vein of PS: T? This is my favorite year in video games in a long time... Long, long, long time. Also, I am excited about Project Fedora. I miss old FMV games.

You caught me, I love easy games, and simplistic games. That is why I am here. /Sarcasm. I find it odd that you use Zelda as an example and accuse me of liking dumbed down gameplay in a forum supporting a type of game much more complex than Zelda has ever been, but I digress. In Zelda, you cannot do dungeon 2 without doing dungeon 1 because you get the boomerang helps you complete dungeon 2's puzzles. The boomerang is in dungeon 1 though. Completing dungeons will give you new accessories/weapons, and you use those accessories/weapons to get to (and complete) the following dungeons. As you progress this way you get new heart containers, and possibly sword upgrades. Thus your power grows as you complete dungeons, those dungeons must be completed in order, and that is linear. Exploration doesn't mean it's non-linear. Are there games more linear than Zelda? Absolutely. However, Zelda is not, not has it ever been, the pinnacle of non-linear gameplay.

Zelda is linear. You go do dungeon 1, and then make your way to dungeon 2, and so on. They don't have to level scale because of this. Games like TES require some level scaling because you can ignore the main quest till you are near max level. At which point the difficulty would be non existant. Any single player game with rpg progression that is open like that had to consider that. It isn't necessary in iwd to level scale because it is linear. I hope PE is more open, and allows me to do what I wish, when I wish. Which means they may require some level scaling. Sounds to me like you want it to be more of a funneled experience than I do. It is all personal taste, but I prefer a little freedom vs funneled story arc.

I think that technology has moved forward in such a way that the days of shoe box environments like BG1 can be done away with. I don't expect the areas in PE to follow BG in that way, but I do hope that you can go to the eastern side of map 1, and be able to move to western area of map 2, and so on.

I must have misread things then. I thought some things were in 3d. I figured that some of the buildings, and perhaps crates, barrels, chests, etc could also be 3d as well and thus such effects would be possible. Eh, it is wishful thinking on my part either way.

I have always loved BG1's style better when it comes to how you moved around it. I definitely liked it more than BG2's system where I could only go to an area that I had a quest that would take me there. I wanted to leave the city and explore, but I couldn't. BG1 could have had more in it for sure, but at least it didn't hold my hand and point me in specific directions. However, this is a preference thing. I remember a few weeks after BG2 released I was the only one in my group of friends that didn't like the lack of exploration. So, to each their own. I think the only thing that hampered BG1 was the terrible journal, because if you didn't solve everything then and there... you were likely to lose the quest deep in the journal. As to BGEE and its movement system. I do believe it is running the BG2 engine, and as such the movement speeds are faster now. Not 100% on the movement speed situation though. I hope PE takes the open freedom from BG1, and refines it. The BG2 system, or the DAO system on that note, are far too restrictive IMHO.

That just makes me hope they implement physics on big spells like fireballs and the like. It would be sweet, and almost guarantee that I make a mage lol. My one beef with many fantasy games is that my spells ignore the environment. Thanks for sharing that video.

Iago. However, my favorite video game villain is still Jon Irenicus, but it is probably a testament to David Warner's VA than the character itself. So, Shakespeare's Iago from Hamlet is my favorite. Oh, and Starscream from gen 1 Transformers is up there. But that is because he is incredibly flawed.

Having Bob the Barbarian wait in a corner until his stamina (main health bar) has rapidly healed from those 3 big hits increases the need for tactics? Interesting. I really do not think that CoD style healing requires the player to make wiser tactical and strategical choices if you ask me. ^^ I don't think hiding Bob in the corner is what I was insinuating. I specifically mentioned spells and abilities that negate damage. Using tactics to put shields on Bob preemptively as opposed to hitting him with heals reactively. EG you see he has 3 enemies attacking him, and the priest, cleric, mage, or bard buff him with a spell that increase AC or DR, perhaps both. I would never implement CoD ideas into a rpg, I am a battlefield fan.

IIRC the original artwork is lost from the BG games. So, I believe the only way to increase fidelity is by zooming out. I guess you could redraw everything, but that would be heresy IMHO. So the only option available is zooming out. BGs walk rates were abysmal, but it worked at the time. Adding a PS: T style toggle would be awesome for PE, and the suggested penalty for abusing it someone posted above (via stamina penalties, or other means) sounds great as well.

I have to agree with Lephys on the topic of what is more strategic in regards to healing. Strategy, to me anyway, has always been about having a game plan prior to combat. I feel that dedicated healers are reactionary at best and reduce the need for actual tactics. It is more tactical to use abilities to reduce damage taken than to run in guns blazing and realize Bob the barbarian took 3 big hits in a row and saying "Joe Cleric go heal!!!" I very much send my rogue/stealthy ahead to see what the enemy layout is, and then decide my tactics accordingly when I can. I look at a group of possible enemies that are currently neutral, but my not be after we have a chat, and ask "what should I do if this goes south?" I would prefer our cleric/Druid/chanter classes, whose d&d brethren were capable of healing, be more capable in preventing damage as opposed to negating damage already taken. I would prefer it be tactical vs reactionary. However, I feel it is a tight rope the devs must walk because if the duration on such abilities and spells is too long you run the risk of over buffing and combat suffering for It by being too easy. If the abilities and spells are too potent you have similar issues. With healing not being prominent it gives me hope that they aren't taking a Dragon Age approach to combat and adding taunt mechanics to warrior/paladin/etc classes. This was the one thing that made me dislike playing the game more than one or two time since it released. It made all combat encounters identical with each play through. Where, in the old IE games (and similarly styled crpgs), Having a different party makeup could and would drastically change how your tactics played out. This is, in the end, why I loath tank and spank mechanics. You can add whatever you want to an encounter with aggro mechanics in place, but in the end... Tank holds aggro, healers keep him alive, dps fires at boss for big damage. This system is heralded by many as being tactical, but in many ways it isn't. It is only in the game to streamline production of content by allowing devs to benchmark encounters more easily and thus pump out content faster. It is a quantity over quality scenario. This works in MMO design because pumping out content is required to maintain subs, but incredibly stupid in single player tactical crpg design.

I've never been amazing in the realm of math, but you run the same probabilities. EG 20 cards in said deck, 1 or 2 can crit, 10 or more can miss, etc. Pretty similar to DnD minus outside modifiers like stats, gear, abilities, and having an effect. EDIT: Basically, each card would just represent a number from 1 to 20 in said deck. I think his idea was that the cards stay pulled out. So probability changes as you attack. I've never seen this done well, it usually feels cheap. Oh I hit 3 times in a row, I'm due for a miss now. Ah, I see, my apologies. I have either never played a game using a system like that or have slept my memories of it away.

I've never been amazing in the realm of math, but you run the same probabilities. EG 20 cards in said deck, 1 or 2 can crit, 10 or more can miss, etc. Pretty similar to DnD minus outside modifiers like stats, gear, abilities, and having an effect. EDIT: Basically, each card would just represent a number from 1 to 20 in said deck.

Interesting revelation. I am not 100% sold, but not dismissing the idea either. Although, I can agree that seeing 3ish misses in a row can be disheartening and downright frustrating, I also think those misses make that crit that follows so much sweeter. It is the lucky oasis in the middle of a patch of desert. Miss, miss, miss... BAM (cheesy Batman sound effect included)!!! I think the IE games being as random as they were are what made them fun, at times, but other times... I got irked by traveling all along the sword coast looking for scrolls/potions to give me immunity to petrification when dealing with those dirty basilisks. Sometimes that random was just stacked against you. Eventually, you will lose to RNG. Then sometimes it is the other way around, and it finally swings in your favor. If the feel of combat, the interesting characters, creative story, and tactical combat are all of an IE feel, but not necessarily a replication I think I will be fine. Come to think of it, we tear down many creative minds within other mediums for replicating their successes. That is because those replications are less interesting the second go around. I can't tell you how many times someone told me that they didn't like X band because "all their music sounds the same." Simultaneously, we get those that dislike change, and complain about something different. The "I like their old stuff" folk. I guess what I am saying is that I don't want BG exactly as it was because I have played that game before (replaying it now actually). If I want BG I will play BG, if I want PS: T I will play that, and if I want IWD I will play that. While, at the same time, I also don't want it to get too far astray of what made me love the IE games in the first place. Actually, wasn't their resistance to IWD2 having 3.0 ruleset when it first launched? Perhaps that was just my circle of 2nd edition friends being pigheaded. Good luck, Josh. You were right when you said that showing the results of your math wouldn't stop the paranoia/hate toward this system. The ONLY thing that will stop it is the naysayers playing the finished product, and liking the result. It was a good interview. I enjoyed the read, and your continued responses in the thread.

Gonna agree with Duke. The writing of character expression into dialogue is one of the reasons I love Planescape: Torment as much as I did as well. It really does give you insight into a character much more. I hope they do dialogue this way in PE.

Yeah, I didn't realize the scaling slider in Oblivion until late game. Sometimes, especially with TES games, and other series I have come to love, I forget to peruse the options menus and dive right in. I also agree that I hope it is a curve, and a bit of level scaling and a bit of increasing the encounter as a whole. As, IMHO, a second playthrough would have some surprises in store if you do things in a slightly different order. The stories would remain constant, but the combat would change because the numbers and composition will change based on the level you stepped into the quest area. I do believe bosses should be a challenge, and should scale more than general content. Staying a little ahead makes it challenging in that regard. I would also find it funny that in this very scenario the player gets overconfidant because he/she is destroying a horde of goblins, and rolls up on a boss as bold as brass to get smote lol. However, I get my kicks in those situations in cRPGs lol. I agree, too wide a gap is boring, but I will say some areas need that gap. I don't mean all these enemies retain 4 hp, but kobolds can't scale to the same level as say... ogres. However, this is where numbers should play a part, allow some leveling, and use a mixed bag of archetypes (casters, melees, archers). This atleast allows some danger, and still keeps the lowbie type monster from being so powerful it also detatches you from said game world. Heck, I am not against replacing kobolds with Ogres as long as, from a story perspective, it makes sense. It's ironic because I remember Bioware talking about that being a bad way to increase difficulty, and then they went and did it. I think it was the ME studio talking about it though. Admittedly... I haven't been able to play DA2 a second time through though (usually play through on normal first then scale the difficulty with other playthroughs) since the pregenerated-cookiecutter dungeons made me cry. Also, the frame narative was less than intriguing to me, but I know people who liked both those things. I think the lack of the trinity made the health scaling like that impossible in ME, or they couldn't do it to that effect. When you have tank, dps, heals as a mechanic (taunting/aggro management) it makes cranking the hit pool much more tempting. Which is why I loath tank and spank in many games, and even moreso in single player games. I actually hope the tanker classes don't have such mechanics in PE. I may be the minority, but I hope for quick deadly combat encounters. I will play it regardless though.

I have a love/hate relationship with level scaling. I can tolerate it in many games, but not to the extent Oblivion used it. I definitely don't want a bandit trying to rob me of 100GP when he/she is wearing armor that could sell for 10 times that amount (In Oblivion the Bandits could have Daedric armor....). I think certain creatures should have caps. We don't need level 30 goblins rolling around everywhere in the lower level areas when you come back. However, a more diverse group of goblins, or a larger and more diverse group would be fine. Some level scaling... maybe. I would prefer an increase in enemy numbers or a change in the group composition of the enemies as opposed to full on scaling of their levels. For instance, let's say, if an encounter had 5 melees and a mage when your party is around level 6 then the composition should be 8-10 melees and a mage, or 5 melees 4 archers and a mage, etc when the party is level 12. I definitely don't believe everything should stay at my level as I play the game. To counter an argument made a page or two back... A bandit group hunting and theiving won't get as much experience in a fortnight as my group storming 15 levels of the endless dungeon. No way some deer, and some mercs + merchants equals the monsters in said dungeon. I just don't see it. We are comparing the xp values of fauna to beholders, and likely there will be more beholders than the fauna in that period of time. I am sure scaling of one form or another is going to be in, and I am pretty sure the devs have said it will be. I just hope it is done well, and not lazily tacked on. This subject is right up there with some games using more HP as a difference in difficulty. The enemies do the same damage, and have the same mitigation... So, you just have to hit them more because their hit pool doubled from normal to hard difficulty. That isn't fun, nor hard to accomplish as a dev. All in all, I think we will have to wait and see.

I liked Minsc, but we don't need a rehash IMHO. Minsc is fun, for sure. Personally, I liked Edwin more. That is the cool thing about being able to choose your companions though.

Went with the Chanter on first play through. However, that was with current info. I loved my bardbarian in NWN2, and if I can buff myself with a 2 handed weapon while tossing some enchantment type spells around, I will give that a go. Love bards. However, if they make Druid shapeshifting a major focus of the class I will be tempted to give that a go. In the end, I will likely change my mind as I learn more, but right now the chanter looks up my alley.