curryinahurry

Just because powers that are magical in nature are derived from and powered by the individual soul doesn't necessarily mean that magical powers will be all that common place in P:E. One can look at this as akin to Qi (China) or Prana (Vedic); everyone has life energy and it courses through the world, but gaining any mastery over these forces takes a great deal of training, discipline and self-sacrifice. It's not exactly the same because souls are ostensibly individual, but the same principles apply. A farmer, as used in some of the above examples, will likely spend his day in bake breaking labor, not honing his skills to a knife's edge, or in inner contemplation. If someone like that has any access to the power of their soul, it may come at a cost so great or risky as to discourage any attempt at utilizing such potential.

@ Sensuki Thank you for the post.; Great Stuff.

I agree with Trashman and others about hit points and relative damage. P:E will hopefully be more granular in leveling than 3.5, and less parabolic in the accruing of power. I also want to P:E to be balanced so that one on many fighting is always dangerous regardless of level disparity. If I'm level 10 I should still have to be very concerned about fighting a level one group of fighters and archers; especially in a clearing where they can flank, kite, etc. Taking on a group like that should feel like as much of an accomplishment as defeating an Umber Hulk.

I think the video describes very well the difference between difficult and punishing, the most important distinction being that punishing is when you couldn't know in advance how to deal with the problem you are facing, whereas difficult gives a player all the needed information for them to CHOOSE how to respond. It becomes about skill, and not grind. Combat in Baldurs Gate II was a grind for me. But I think this video stands with or without my personal opinion on BGII. You're damn right that I hope that P:E will be a game that is not punishing, I want it to be a game that is difficult. One you need skill to overcome, not trial and error. A place where my observation skills can tell me enough to solve the encounter, not just luck in what skills I happened to click worked out for me. I think P:E can be that, and this would satisfy everyone. It has been a while since I played BG2, but with the exception of a particular demi-lich, I can't think of any moments in the game where I thought that I didn't have information to address the challenge. If you read spell descriptions, paid attention to caster strategies, and read the manual, BG2 wasn't particularly difficult. Some of the combats could be a bit grindy in the buff-debuff vein, but that is different from punishing. BTW, did you play IWD 2? Josh Sawyer has stated that is the intended difficulty level for P:E; and in my estimation, it was far more diificult than BG2 (with maybe the exception of Demogorgon using the Ascension Mod in TOB).

I'm not a big fan of resource management for resting purposes like food, wood, etc. But the rest of the things you mentioned would be fine; particularly with regards to creating a secure environment. If there is resource management in that regard; having oil, traps, caltrops, wards, door spikes, etc., that would be great as it can be part of the camping interface and a real mechanic to create a level of security.

So you're outlining a fatigue system; a third bar? I'm not really in favor of individual fatigue in a party based/oriented crpg. Since different party members are likely to fatigue at different rates due to the mechanism being tied to ability scores, almost everyone will rest when the weakest (daily stamina-wise) party member reaches his/her nadir. It's probably better to have a party fatigue system if that is is what you want to incorporate into gameplay. I'm not against such a mechanic, it's more a matter of how it could be done; maybe take an average value acroos the party? Also one would have to determine what causes fatigue; encounters, exploring on different types of terrain, searching rooms, etc. It could be an interesting mechanic.

@ Chilloutman They're using Stamina and Health bars that work in a fashion to what you're describing. Stamina replenishes quickly but Health only during rest. It's unclear how quickly health will replenish at rest. As Sensuki states above, it depends on where resting occurs and if they differentiate resting in dungeon from camping in the wilderness to recuperating at an inn.

With regards to the paladin, great start, but I'm hoping that along with buffs to allies, there will also be de-buffs to enemies. Also, I would like to see special individual feats befitting the paladin that are tied to the status of allies; increased movement to get to an ally in trouble, increased damage when aiding an ally that id below 25% stamina, berserk rage if all other party member go down and the paladin is the last one standing, etc.

It seems that since the player character will be new to the land, that would allow for moments in which locals could provide pronunciation tips whether by transcribed journal entries or by asides in dialog like, "you'll want to head over to the town of X; the locals pronounce it..." As long as some hints are provided, I think most players will be fine with their mental approximations of the words being spelled out in front of them. The only note of caution would likely be for words that might appear in VO dialog or narrative which might be pronounced in a markedly different manner than their spelling. For those words, there should be some consideration for making sure player expectation roughly conforms to VO execution.

^ Illithids didn't instant kill you in BG2 did they? I thought they sucked intelligence points, and when the character zeroed out, it was a brain suck. It was the same as losing hit points, only from a shallower pool. BTW, that sort of mechanic should definitely be in P:E; monsters that kill by means other than whittling down health or stamina. It will be interesting to see how Obsidian handle such things and if the effects are treated like health (regeneration only through rest) or like stamina (relatively rapid).

Instead of a generic holy sword, maybe we could have religious relics or weapons that are either blessed or cursed depending on who wields them. Also, this may not necessarily restricted to weapons, but tomes, scrolls, bones, etc. Clerics and paladins could wield such objects with greater power than lay people and with greater benefits against opposing religions/ factions.

Just to be clear; from my understanding, there will be 3 different types of resting in P:E (potentially). There will be recuperative resting in Cities & Towns, & Camping; both of which will hopefully be modeled in the Darklands style; or some variant. There may also be resting in dungeons. The nature and purpose is yet to be determined. I'm not necessarily for the latter, and if it is in the game, I would prefer it only be available under semi-logical conditions; after you've completely cleared a level or, as Nonek mentioned, if there are abandoned areas of dungeons, etc.

^ Sure, if there is real risk in casting or being hit by such a spell. As long as the spell fits into the game world, that's fine. I think that people get nervous when they perceive Obsidian wandering away from IE and D&D type gaming. But the game system can have a different internal logic, and potentially be much more challenging. With no resurrection, no healing potions and slow regeneration of health points, I think death will have real consequences in P:E.

That's... not true. We've *got* The stated rationale by PE's lead designer on this very thread. No need for guess work. Sawyer doesn't want death spells because he believes that most gamers are crappy players who will just reload if something bad suddenly happens to their party members. ie. "degenerate gaming", as he calls it. He's infatuated with this topic. Every single one of his design decisions is based on trying to "cure" the masses of their bad habits. (and no, his "hard counter" argument is not relevant. It's a red herring. Players use hard counters for everything, including basic melee) Personally, I see nothing but failure coming from such a mindset. He should be focussing on creating a *fun*, dynamic system with all the options, and less about trying to second guess the save scumming degenerates among us. I'm aware of that quote, but it has to be viewed in the context of larger game design decisions, and degenerate gameplay is not the only root cause, and likely not the driving force. Degenerate gameplay issues are likely a test factor, as are likely other concepts like, 'intuitive', 'fun', etc.

@ Morgulon The Wise Thanks, there is a a design rationale Obsidian is following for not including death spells and it revolves around the difference between tactics and strategy. Yes, death spells are a tactic, but in a game where there is resurrection, there is really no strategic benefit. Much of what I have understood as Obsidian's intent in P:E is to make the the game not just tactically interesting, but also strategically challenging as well. A game where death is a temporary effect or where party members chug potions between encounters cheapens resource management; thus the dual HP and no-resurrection/no death spells. @ Bartimaeus I understand your concern, but D&D is just one gaming system (one that wasn't designed for CRPGs ). The IE games, to me and anyone who knew the PnP rules (likely), weren't much of a challenge in terms of death spells. There are a lot of other ways to handle debilitating effects to party members, especially in a game without resurrection, that can be just as punitive; or even more so.

This, if realised well, may be an excellent system. I hope we soon learn more about what else we'll be able to do when resting. Has anything regarding resurrection changed since this post/ topic? My understanding is that there is no resurrection or raise dead in P:E. They are looking into perma-death for certain modes, possibly even as the default. The point being, that unlike a D&D game, which Project Eternity is not, the design goal is prevent trivializing player death. Thus the dual hit point system, no-resurrection, etc.

I really have to create some time to play Knights of the Chalice...Although the graphics worry me a bit. As to your point; while I don't think Obsidian will do anything like not letting players leave a dungeon until it is complete, I do hope for some high difficulty areas. Personally, I would prefer levels to be designed so that there are fewer fights that are tactically challenging and have no grinding through mobs unless there is a compelling narrative reason. In fact. i would love it if in certain dungeons, or dungeon areas there were encounters designed in such a way that the opponents could retreat while remaining engaged in combat so that a fight might occur over a series over rooms as opposed to the room to room, clear out mob x, format that is so common. So instead of the pyramidal, trash mob, to competent mob, to elite mob, to mini-boss (or boss); there would be a sort of continuous fight with potential ambushes, traps, etc. NWN 2 tried to do something like this in the Bonegnasher Lair (I think), but it came off as grindy, but IWD 2 had a few tough slogs of this type. Some of this is AI related, and some level-design, but this is one area I think Obsidian will do a good job.

Cool, I figured it would be something like this. One thing I'm wondering is how much information will be provided by the combat/ dialog log. Will to hit and damage calculations or that various factors involved in passing a skill check be displayed? Some people are really going to want to see this type of information, and others are going to be very against it.

^ This. One thing that I never really liked about D&D was the tying of attributes to classes to feats & skills. I think the reverse, in terms of causality, makes a great deal more sense; work on certain skill sets and you get better at them. The resultant changes in attributes can happen occasionally, or even circumstantially. Since PE isn't being based on a tabletop RPG, I would imagine that the skill checks could wind up getting quite complicated at times, which is fine.

I don't uderstand why sub-menus that are opened from bottom-center are more problematic then those that are opened from the right bar. Additionally, without knowing the exact game mechanisms and taking DA as an example, the bottom-center can be width enough to eliminate the need of sub-menus. It's fine if the buttons are on a small frame or organized a la DA; but I was referencing the latest UI by Obsidian where a good chunk of screen space along the bottom is already occupied. They might find a solution to this by getting rid of some of the decorative elements thus freeing up space for sub-menus within the bottom frame.

Considering what we know about the game, I'm leaning towards fixed attributes. We know that there will be a dual hp system in which stamina will decrease more rapidly than health, but will also replenish between encounters. It also seems like spell casting will be based on soul power as opposed to straight up thresholds tied to ability scores. Couple these with Obsidian's desire to make all stats relevant (at least marginally) to all classes, and rising attributes may not make a lot of sense. At least in the D&D buy a point every x level manner. One thing that could be done with attributes in a system like this is to have them altered by skills and feats as an abstraction of the, "learning by doing" system. For example, a fighter might start with a 50 score in stamina, a rogue 40, and a mage 35. Over the next 3 levels they take the feats; power attack (f), Dodge (t), empower spell (m) (sorry about using D&D nomenclature). They also add points in the following skills; Style: Shield Combat (f), Acrobatics (t), Armored Casting (m). The effect on traits could then be: Fighter - 1 strength point for Power attack, 1 stamina point for Combat Style Thief - 1 Agility point for Dodge, 2 stamina points for (or 1 point attribute increase ) acrobatics Mage - 1 Stamina point for Empower Spell, and 2 Stamina points for Armored casting. At 3rd level the resultant stamina scores would be: Fighter - 51, Rogue - 42, Mage - 38 This could be done independent of attributes for Stamina and health; it could also be fine tuned to increase attribute scores infrequently (like 1 stamina point for 5 ranks of armored casting, etc)

For that reason I think that placing most of the buttons and the quick slots on the bottom of the U will be a better idea (portraits on the left or right vertical bar will mostly be used for monitoring). I believe that in most cases (especially if one like to center its party on screen during combat) mouse travel from character-model to bottom-center will be shorter and additionally I find a horizontal buttons-bar to be more comfortable to use. Certainly bottom center for buttons is most convenient. Unfortunately, Josh Sawyer stated that they don't want excessive mouse travel from portraits to buttons. My main motivation in posting these options is driven by the fact that I really dislike the portraits running horizontally on the bottom and buttons being situated above. Also, bottom center can be a problem depending on hoe sub-menus are handled and the depth of the bottom frame. In that particular screen shot you can see more of the south corridor, yes, but what if there were more corridors to the South West and North East? If you stack up those UI elements in the U-shaped interface then you'll find that it covers more of the screen than the original. Plus, there's a lot of empty space needing to be filled with buttons to be useful. If we're talking BG buttons, then a lot of them only need to be on-screen temporarily. The problem with the U-shape is that it maximizes the distance between buttons. When these buttons need to be used frequently, the user will constantly be moving their mouse from the left side of the screen to click a button, then to the right side to click another button. This is a lot of mouse movement and will be tiring in long gaming sessions. Imagine exchanging books between two book shelves on opposite sides of a 20x20' room by taking one book off the shelf at a time. It wasn't very noticeable in BG's low resolutions but it will definitely be annoying on a high resolution widescreen. With regards to total space; it depends on whether the screen will stay centered on the party or selected party member, in which case it will scroll, so the right and left sides will always emerge as the player moves. If they decide to go another route, you're right, but usually space in the middle of the screen is at a premium. With regards to the second point; the U-shaped layout I included has all of the most used buttons along wth the portraits. the only buttons opposite would be for less used functions likes formations, settings, etc. That is getting into the finer points of UI design. There is no reason that all the important buttons couldn't remain close to the portraits in this type of layout. Also, clicking portraits, in reality, will likely be the least used manner in which players will interface with the characters on screen. Most of the time they will click on the character model or hotkey the number. But regardless, a U-shaped frame UI can be nearly as efficient as one running along the bottom. Maybe moreso when you consider that clicking on some buttons might result in pop-up sub-menus; which in the U-shape (or right justified) would be along the side of the screen and not in the middle where a bottom justified UI would have them, further impeding vision. Hotkeys are very useful, and players will make use of them the more familiar with the game they get, but until then nubs will be using their mouse. Otherwise, why would we have buttons at all? If all that matters is screen real estate then they should do away with interfaces, keep a minimalistic HUD and create simplistic, easy to remember controls. Like you said, all the important buttons can fit on one side. Why do we need another side at all? Why not have a single, vertical menu, then? You would have the exact same amount of screen space if you merged the left side of the U-shaped interface with the right, and even more if you removed the empty part of the interface at the bottom of the screen. The dialogue box obviously wouldn't be able to fit in it, but it could be collapsed at the bottom center of the screen, and any popup menus would be along the side, still. I'd be happy with a UI that could be customized to run along either one side or the bottom. I'm presenting a U-shaped option mainly because it is reminiscent of the IE look (at least 3 of the games). Also, one of the earlier posts I made in this thread, and an idea that has been mentioned by a few others, is the desire to have a transparency slider for the frame. Something like this, but with larger portraits:

In that particular screen shot you can see more of the south corridor, yes, but what if there were more corridors to the South West and North East? If you stack up those UI elements in the U-shaped interface then you'll find that it covers more of the screen than the original. Plus, there's a lot of empty space needing to be filled with buttons to be useful. If we're talking BG buttons, then a lot of them only need to be on-screen temporarily. The problem with the U-shape is that it maximizes the distance between buttons. When these buttons need to be used frequently, the user will constantly be moving their mouse from the left side of the screen to click a button, then to the right side to click another button. This is a lot of mouse movement and will be tiring in long gaming sessions. Imagine exchanging books between two book shelves on opposite sides of a 20x20' room by taking one book off the shelf at a time. It wasn't very noticeable in BG's low resolutions but it will definitely be annoying on a high resolution widescreen. With regards to total space; it depends on whether the screen will stay centered on the party or selected party member, in which case it will scroll, so the right and left sides will always emerge as the player moves. If they decide to go another route, you're right, but usually space in the middle of the screen is at a premium. With regards to the second point; the U-shaped layout I included has all of the most used buttons along wth the portraits. the only buttons opposite would be for less used functions likes formations, settings, etc. That is getting into the finer points of UI design. There is no reason that all the important buttons couldn't remain close to the portraits in this type of layout. Also, clicking portraits, in reality, will likely be the least used manner in which players will interface with the characters on screen. Most of the time they will click on the character model or hotkey the number. But regardless, a U-shaped frame UI can be nearly as efficient as one running along the bottom. Maybe moreso when you consider that clicking on some buttons might result in pop-up sub-menus; which in the U-shape (or right justified) would be along the side of the screen and not in the middle where a bottom justified UI would have them, further impeding vision.

Ok, back to the topic. I took the liberty of putting the UI mock-up on a 16:9 screen of the dungeon vertical slice to see how it would affect the scene. Here is the result: Compare that to a U-Shaped frame: I'm not sure what others might feel, but for me, at that aspect ratio; there is quite a difference in the resultant viewable area in the central part of the screen. This isn't an aesthetic argument, or a minimalism, modern vs. retro issue. The game designers and majority of backers have made it clear that a UI reminiscent of the IE game would be used. These are two examples that follow the IE "style" and I'm really preferring U-shaped or a right justified UI.

The dialogue system in SoZ worked primarily because of the different conversation skills in D&D: bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate. From what I've read, Josh was leaning against using skills of this type in P:E conversations. I'm assuming that skill checks still may be used to determine insight into subject matter; like lore, alchemy, etc. That was more what I was thinking of with regards to the SoZ type interface; when applicable. SoZ was an expansion with not a great amount of meat on its bones in terms of depth, but some of the mechanics like conversation and overland exploration were quite well done.