Silent Winter

Added numbers to the quote and snipped for brevity: 1)Yes, that's what Josh's saying - if there's degenerate gameplay, the devs are to blame. I don't think he can totally remove opportunities for some cheesy exploits, but that doesn't mean he should ignore things that he can see and not try to fix them. Encounters need to be designed with the system in mind, and the system as a whole needs to be designed well. 2) Exactly - you don't know it's degenerate, it's just a valid tactic - so the problem lies not with the players but with the designers (as was Josh's point, I believe). D&D was designed around no-reload, table-top gaming with a DM. Want to try your luck with Harm - go ahead, maybe you'll get lucky this time. But in a crpg, it's 'missed with your powerful spell' - reload. (Not that I would, but I think the temptation is strong for many people). If there were a way to fix the RNG on spells (as has been suggested previously for random-loot chests) then that'd solve that problem. Your luck wouldn't change with a reload. Of course, if you die in the fight and *have* to reload, you'd know not to bother with Harm this fight. I think Josh was saying that he'd rather not have "all or nothing" spells but have "powerful" spells that might be saved against for reduced (but not zero) damage. Since this makes for a more balanced encounter.

But then we'd just lay down 7 or 8 spike-traps to kill demogorgon or amellisan. (AFAIK the damage type from those is non-magical, but hits any enemy that needs a +5 weapon to hit, and the same as hitting someone with a melee weapon). So yeah, I agree, designing encounters well is important. You need to consider the tools available to the player and think about cheesy ways to exploit them. Then consider how you can still have a meaningful encounter that doesn't just stop the player from using the skills they've gained. In the example he gave - the fault was with the spell - it was all or nothing on a dice-roll - reload and try again. He praised the 3rd Ed equivalent - high damage unless saved, then lower-damage. An improvement I agree with. None of which is about whether per-kill xp is better than objective xp. If you simply remove per-kill xp from BG then it'll be bad. But if it were designed up front with objective xp in mind, then it'd be fine. BG quest north of farm north of Friendly Arm - go kill 20 zombies. So you kill 20 zombies and get xp for each kill then get xp when returning to quest-giver. Was anyone at that point going to quit after 19 zombies? If you design something to be objective only then yes, you won't get xp for those individual kills...but I agree with the design goals that this is actually better. You can argue that you should get combat experience for engaging in combat - but in BG, my thief takes part in combat then gets better at backstabbing and also gets to choose whether he gets better at lock-picking or pick-pocketing...from combat. It's all abstract in the end. So unless we want a system that says "Use sword swing 100 times to improve sword skill" and "use 'talk' 100 times to improve talk skill" (which I've played in other games and was a boring, stupid, grind) then the objective xp system is better. On another note - a reason to engage in combat is to get better at combat. When I started BG, I was rubbish at combat. Many fights later, I was better. The player gets experience even if they don't get 'xp'. On the 5th playthrough, I don't need to, but I still need to chase down those gibberlings for the xp. I prefer a system that doesn't have this drawback. One that rewards doing stuff by whatever means your team has at their disposal - often this will be combat, but now there are valid alternatives to fighting sometimes. If you only engage in combat to see 'xp' go up then maybe RPg isn't your genre. (maybe Jrpg?)

Oh yeah. I was looking at them as throwing random trashmobs at you but now I remember they were set up and just repeated the same encounters depending on your level/chapter. Still, there was no dialogue, you were just forced straight into combat. (Except a few times I've gotten a NON-hostile bear ... just walked away since I was a druid/ranger at the times). A set-piece with bandits demanding a toll (and other such things) couldn't be repeated as often - though this may well be a good thing. Once again - whoever said that 15-levels of megadungeon was a single objective? That would be stupid, I agree. It's more likely that either a) clearing a floor will be an objective (OBJECTIVE =! GIVEN QUEST) and/or b) opening certain puzzle-doors (likely guarded by enemies) / finding artifact X, etc will be objectives. That's nothing to do with player freedom - you're free to kill the bandits or NOT? That's freedom. You're free to not kill them but you'll lose out on important xp at that time in the game? - that's not freedom, it's 'optimum path' forcing. Sendai's lair - you can go through the spider tunnels or the slave tunnels to reach your goal. What did we do? We went through the spider tunnels, rested, then went back through the slave tunnels for the giggles/XP. That doesn't encourage player freedom or roleplaying or repeat playthroughs - it just encourages grinding.

I'm thinking "random encounter" is being differently defined by peeps in this discussion. Hiro's talking about the oft-coming random monster attacks as you travel between, say, Beregost and High-Hedge or wherever. Others are coming up with examples of 'scenarios' that, though they may occur at random, are in fact set-pieces made by the developers. I agree it's less likely that we'll have the former in PE (though they may still be in - I don't have any info for sure) in which case, they're irrelevant to this discussion. Encounters while exploring the map (so not based on trying to do a quest but just enemies you run across in the wilderness areas) can still be rewarded indirectly under the current system as I highlighted in my last post. Once again "Objective" does not equal "journal-entried quest" (unless one of the devs pops up to correct my misinterpretation of the phrase "Objective xp".

Fair enough, and that's your playstyle - for a lot of us, we'd beat those slimes and open that chest just because it was there (and we wouldn't know it wasn't an objective until we did it -> "objective" doesn't equal "given quest").(That's a reminder to everyone, not aimed at you Hiro) Josh has said you'll need gold and wotnot for the stronghold - if you choose not to bother with the stronghold, then you won't need as much loot. (I'm hoping that they solve the issue of early-game poverty v. endgame millionaire). But they can reward you with XP for beating a group of enemies, for getting through a level of the mega-dungeon (whether or not you killed every last skeleton, you got past them either by fighting or by sneaking or by trapping or by...). Is it really necessary to reward the annihalation of every last Xvart in the village? (we'll be talking 2xp maybe ) Fighting while randomly exploring the wilderness (as Stun brought up) is more of a question. How should that be rewarded? Obviously there's random loot, but in BG I often don't bother picking up those swords unless they're magical and special - so Hiro's point is valid for this. Should the wilderness have hidden, mini-objectives? "Find the campsite" , "Control the Ankheg population" etc - this could be achived most directly through fighting through it, but perhaps sneaking past to the campsite and purchasing Ankheg poison from the nearest town and placing it at the edges of their holes would work too. So you're getting xp for exploring and doing things - combat is the obvious way to solve the problem and comes with its own challenges, other solutions might be possible too (and if not - there's still the combat). The combat fans aren't getting short-changed then, just because fans of other methods can also get XP from exploring. Or maybe they'll just say "scr*w it - explore if you want, there's no xp"

It's a fair question - the obvious answer being that sneaking in halfway will allow you to hit them before they can react/cry for help, but sneaking all the way through would take too long. There's also the idea that simply grazing someone's circle (running through the edge) wouldn't make them fully aware - they'd go on a different patrol perhaps to investigate and maybe make others' do the same by calling to them. Perhaps their circles then get bigger (because they're being more actively searchy) making it very difficult/impossible to sneak through a whole area just by running quickly through the circles. So if your plan is to sneak-by, you need to avoid the circles. If your plan is to backstab, you've got just enough time to do that.

For me, I like the objective XP idea. I'm almost certainly going to do multiple play-throughs and if I can overcome quests in different ways, then it'll add more to the rp aspects. BUT, if there is greater xp-reward for one solution then I'll feel gimped by doing it the other way. So one play-through will involve mighty warriors, carving up the land of trash-mobs (or hopefully PE equivalent entertaining combat mobs) Another will be stealthing through and another would be talking my way through. Obviously there won't be a 'one-solution-for-all' game so there'll always be a need for combat and dialogue and maybe a bit of stealth in every game - Above, I'm speaking of the general play-style. Now, if I'm sneaking around and THEN coming up against an unavoidable tough fight that my sneaking skills won't help with, it'd be a kick in the a**e by the devs if I were underlevelled at the time. IF my sneaking skills could still help with the fight (back-stabbing for example) then it wouldn't be such an issue. (Can't see the same for talking - maybe if you could persuade some of the boss' henchman to run away?). So that's my take on it. I'd like to see multiple solutions, equally rewarded - both for encouraging roleplaying and for multiple varied play-throughs Edit: slow-typing so echoed some of what Labadal said - I agree (obviously )

Wouldn't say 'favourite' or even 'likable' but Neb from BG Flaming-Fist prison was memorable. To escape, you basically had to let him go (at least until you met up with him later in BG2 for some butt-kicking justice). In my first play-through, I killed him in the prison ... but then couldn't get out myself. Had to reload.

^This would be cool I'm fine with the 'one-circle to rule them all' approach. It's abstract, but from a gameplay perspective, it's both simple to understand and sounds fun to play. I wouldn't object to more complexity if it can still fall into the 'intuitive to use' category, but I don't think it's necessary to spend a lot of time on it.

I liked that Athkatla had many quests - I just didn't like the number of people who came up to you (unavoidable) and said "I need your help NOW!" while at the same time you need to rescue Imoen NOW, and then when you get back from spellhold you need to confront Bodhi NOW and get the lanthorn so you can face Irenicus NOW because he's attacking elven city NOW. In other words - many quests = good, having too many urgent quests forced on you at the same time = bad. (not that urgent quests are bad, just the volume at once) Basically, there was never a good time to do most of the side-quests from an rp perspective. I also don't like quests that are locked out after chapter x, unless there's a good reason (like quest-givers in village B are put to the sword in chapter 2). I've done specific run-throughs to pick up just those late characters I otherwise wouldn't have used - a less than optimum team but with the BG NPC pack it was still worthwhile.

Hopefully we can also just click on a portrait, like in the IE games, to switch to that character's page (so any characters are just a click away).

How dare you associate Tiax with a thread on minor characters! Clearly he was the central character of all stories on the Sword Coast. Tiax will see you reduced in stature when he ascends

Yep - it's this attention to world building that gives me great confidence that the PE world will be one worth exploring. yep ... but then I'd hit my friends with the arrows too Luckily, in PE, my archer will have a better accuracy score than me Anyhoo - agree that AOE should be either party-friendly or not, not based on the extra size of the blast/whatever. Is it not easy enough to have 'click for centre, move mouse to adjust size, click again to fire?' for the interface? (we're getting a TOEE style marker to show area of effect AFAIK). and then have the computer calculate the animation size/who gets hit? Edit: read Lehpy's post more carefully, already suggested the click-drag, so yeah, that's what I'd prefer.

Only within a certain range: Pulling the bow right back to ends touching (or as near as the arrow allows) results in the bow flexing back to a normal position but the initial part of that re-flex is not producing (significant) extra power into the arrow - it's the middle ground that has the biggest 'snap'. A bow produced for the individual, with the right draw-length (such that it's drawn back to cheek) and draw-weight (such that you can draw and briefly hold it there) is going to be more effective than one that has less/more draw-weight for the draw-length or the wrong draw-length (more or less) for the weight. Better materials, of course, make a stronger bow but that's not about whether any given bow can be made to have more power. I'm starting to think I imagined the physics I'm talking about, so I'm off to try to find the info from an authoritative source. I'll be back to confirm whether or not I've been talking out of my nether-scroll. Edit: Read this: http://www.yeoldearcheryshoppe.com/drawlength.php about draw weight: It's the 'peak weight' that I'm getting at. Any resident archers, please correct me if I've misinterpreted. Edit2: Hmm, maybe I'm wrong - just noticed the bit about the traditional bow - the rest is for a modern compound bow....nevermind. Edit3: It's still limited by the bow-length, arrow-length, and as far as accuracy is concerned, needs to be compatible with the spine of the arrow. (but that's getting far too technical for a crpg). Don't know yet how much 'Might' affects things (what range of damage we're talking about) so it may well be that it's fine anyway. Failing that - soul/qi-power works for me. So long as it's fun to play

works for me oh, no, I know, no worries As for bows - the limit is less about the actual ability to pull the bow until the ends touch as it is about the effective limit on where the speed of the bow 'snap' comes in (and arrow length but, ya'know). You can pull it back further but it's not proportionally more powerful. But that's to digress and is essentially the same point. I was actually thinking of the 'soul-power' thing on the way into work. I agree with what you said there. I'll liken it to Qi (/Chi / Japanese-Ki) - a swordsman extends his/her qi to the end of the sword and uses it to increase speed/damage etc, same for a staff. Perhaps in PE, you can extend your qi into the bow/etc and increase it's power that way. (irrespective of how you think it works in 'the real worldTM' , it's valid for a fantasy world). (and I agree that if you change one bit of physics, you have to deal with the fallout. So, yeah, it's better not to change it just to half-a**sed explain one situation)

Hello here, glad to be there and welcome psst, don't forget the shopkeepers, townspersons and captains of the guardses (they might give you quests if you're nice to them)

You're me from the future, aren't you? ... Ohh, that other guy who likes games! Nice to meet you too Now now, none of that rudeness! Stand up straight when greeting people, u_u... But what a thoughtful gift (I mean, giving someone the 'hump' might be considered rude, but the hunch is all the rage these days) We now return you to your regularly scheduled derailing

Ok, (though I was thinking of less extreme examples - it would be tougher to survive an individual fight, not certain death, and you'd often be closer to zero stamina at the end). I'm sure Josh has looked at it though and decided that grouping them would be better (rather than arbitrarily moving them) so as long as it works together then I'm good.

I've changed my mind on having a problem with might affecting bows+guns damage. (bare/bear with me, depending on clothing/animal preference) Nothing says PE world needs to have the same laws of physics as our world. If they say that, in PE, you can add more strength to a bow to make it more powerful, then ok. Pulling the bow back further does give it more power. The same could be said for crossbows (maybe they have more notches to pull the string back to, coincidentally representing Might-points). Guns (this was harder) -> Recoil -> when a gun is fired, some of the energy is transferred into pushing the gun backwards. A Mightier person can hold the gun steadier against the recoil and thus more energy is transferred to the projectile. ... ... ... don't judge me I don't care if this is official, it works for me *feels the collective rolling of eyes* -> sorry, I just like to be able to make internally-consistent sense of fantasy worlds. --- On the topic of relatability v. fun+balanced gaming mechanics, I'll lean towards the latter (but hope for both)

Am I the only one finding the left FAR easier to read than the right? The background makes the white text much more pop up than that blurry stuff on the right. I wouldn't see any reason why to make it that way. It looks worse, and it reads worse. What's going on? (Only really pointing this out since Kaz said he would make it more like the right and I went "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo") When I look at the right, I find my eyes unfocussing on the group of text - when I look at the left, it stays clear. (wouldn't be such a distinction with different text but it's worth noting).

Map generation, for those with some 3D background, isn't that complex - the problems lie in the size of the resolutions (though you can do it in stages and stitch it together) and the number of different passes for one area - time consuming unless you have a super-computer/render-farm. I could produce a map like these ... though not of the same quality Free tools to do this? It could be done in blender - but that's not that easy to learn and it would take a skilled user to create backgrounds that were good enough to not look like cr*p next to the official ones.. I don't know if Bryce 5 is still free (again, takes a lot of learning but can produce good results) - Bryce 7 is better (I've got a license but it won't run on my current system - it should but it won't). Setting up a website to share modding resources is a good idea and will probably be done soon after the game is out

I'm against "kill all the party" death spells that you couldn't have prepared for beforehand. But a "Kill single party member" death spell could result in "woah f**k! He's got a death spell. Haven't seen one of them before: a) Oh, look, I've got a 'death-proof' potion - use it b) Runaway! c) dog-pile the mage d) ignore it...die." Otherwise, I pretty much agree with what Lephys said on the last page. I don't mind reloading, but I'd like to be in with a chance of not having to just because I didn't read a game-external strategy guide. In world warnings and lore (even vague) are good. Being able to scout is good. Being able to adapt tactics on the fly to deal with new situations is good. Dying because I couldn't figure it out first time is ok. Dying because I had no chance to figure it out first time is not. (Having said that - I don't really mind the very occasional situation like that if it's a clever puzzle.)

I'm as fine with this one as I was with the last one - if it works well and is balanced in game, then it's great. 'Might' - like others, I'd prefer a better shortname than 'Mig' - Power and Pow are ok (though 'Pow!' with the exclamation reminds me of old TV-series batman, complete with mental sound-effect ) It still doesn't make sense from the point of view of bows and guns (NB: Unless the bow is made to your personal draw-weight+length, it's not going to be optimal and you can't put more strength into a bow than it has - put in too little strength and it just doesn't work). Perhaps an aspect of 'Might' in PE is the use of your soul-power to enhance projectiles *shrug*. That's nitpicky though, and as long as it's a balanced system that's fun to play then I'll roll with it. Resolve - I like the suggestion of adding Stamina bonus to that - I liked that Health and Stamina were separate before - a fighter who could keep going in any given fight but would need to rest more often vs. a fighter who went down a little more easily but didn't need to rest as much so could keep on through a group of fights. Again, that's not a major gripe or anything and it can make sense to have them together. Would just be nice to see each stat having 2 dependencies - call me OCD

Like most here, I can't stop looking at that environment and the UI ... (well, obviously I can, since I'm posting this, but I keep going back to it ) Loving it!

Late 30's here (birthday at the end of the month so won't put an exact number on it ) I've enjoyed gaming since the BBC Micro/zx-Spectrum days (and PONG before that but I didn't have that at home). RPGs have always been my favourite. Even though I have a lot less free time these days, like most of you, I don't think I'll have any problems enjoying PE. I only played BG for the first time about 3-4 years ago so other than my wonderful son ("Daddy no play this one. Turn it off." when he's at home), I'll be fine. As to Josh's questions: a) I have no problem with scope - though I like it to build up (don't get on so well when the 'starting area' is city-sized with too many things going on - I persevere though). I've replayed BG1+2 a few times and I have less entusiasm now to play through to the end of TOB, but I think that's mostly since it's very linear with little variety for different classes compared with SOA. If it takes me a few extra weeks to finish PE because I'm busy, then so be it. b) No - that's what difficulty sliders are for - if it's too hard on 'Normal' then there's 'Easy' mode. As above for 'fair' difficulty rather than 'your whole party was wiped out because the opposing mage rolled a 100 on his 'kill'em'all' spell). (And as far as difficulty of figuring out quests goes - I'd rather run around and try things and eventually 'get it' (I'm looking at you 'A Link to the Past' and your cleverly hidden grapplehook target) than have a big pointer saying 'questers this way'). c) This is the one - if you could just include a Time-Compressor with the boxed version then I'll get that and enjoy it all in one sitting