Sylvius the Mad

I want direct control over what my party does, and speaking is a thing they do. Internally, I don't mind if they voice dissent or raise concerns or argue, but when dealing with the world the party speaks as one.

That's not even close to the same thing. The PC is still initiating all of the conversations, and the game assumes that he is the one speaking. The Baldur's Gate model is what I'd like to see. Imoen had 17 Charisma, so she got to talk to people.

If I wanted to play with other people, I'd play tabletop games. Every day, I don't do that. That suggests to me that I have no interest in multiplayer.

But a buckler isn't supposed to absorb the damage. A buckler deflects the blow, and because it's so small and light it's possible for the user to move it very precisely to achieve that end. Against the Ogre with the mace, that should still work (though I could also imagine a strength requirements to deflect blows beyond a certain level of force). And for things like dragon attacks, I'd suggest making those sorts of attacks un-deflectable, so a buckler would be worthless. But if your dex-based character is getting stepped on by a dragon, you have bigger problems than equipment selection.

This is vital. In any party-based game, the party should be able to have as its spokesperson the party-member best suited to the role. Forcing the PC to do all the talking is a terrible idea. I recall during DAO's long development I asked BioWare if they were going to allow us to use any party member as party spokesperson, and they actually denied that any of their games had ever done that. Of course, they were wrong - the option is actually documented in the Baldur's Gate manual, and exists unchanged in BG2. But David Gaider, who wrote much of BG2, had never known about it. Furthermore, forcing the PC to act as party spokesperson often results in the game treating him like he's the de facto party leader, which also shouldn't be mandatory. And that can result in the game's mechanics treating the PC differently (skill points, death, etc). And if the game assumes he's the leader, often he's not allowed to be in any party position but the front, which limits what sorts of tactical formations are available. I very much hope that any party member can act as party spokesperson. I very much hope that any party member can be the one speakig the player-selected dialogue.

Any feature I will never use is a wasted feature. I think the last time I actively played mutliplayer was when I set up a LAN game of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri in 1999.

I wasn't sure I was going to support Wasteland 2, concerned that it would be too modernised, but then I visited the Kickstarter page and saw they'd put up the original Wasteland box cover art. The nostalgia hit me like a tsunami and I immediately gave them all my money.

I suspect a greater proportion of PE backers have played an IE game as compared to the number of Wasteland 2 backers who have actually played Wasteland. I played both.

For death, I like the Baldur's Gate approach. If you're dead, you're dead. You don't get back up again without some sort of extreme intervention. But I didn't like how BG handled PC death. I understand why it did, but it diminished the game somewhat. I'd like to see the party be able to carry on even if the PC is dead.

As a corollary, I'd also like to see little or no use of the doors-magically-locking-behind-you-for-no-reason method of keeping a combat encounter contained in a single location. Running away should always be an option.

Care to point it? I'm genuinely curious now. By any chance it was something reagent-based like for the old Ultima games? It was.

I proposed a magic system less complicated than this and got shouted down for trying to turn PE into an alchemical lab simulator (which was a fair criticism). I don't think this will fly. But I would totally play Lockpicking: The Lockpickening

I really don't like it when a game's rules in combat and out of combat operate fundamentally differently. This manifests in movement rates, health and mana regeneration rates, the ability to use certain kinds of abilities - all because the game has decided that combat is or isn't taking place. Aside from straining credulity, this can lead to some strange situations in party-based games where one party member is nowhere near an enemy, and yet because some party member is near an enemy the entire party is restricted in what they can do or even how the rules governing their reality function. Please don't do that. I'd like to see very little mechanical difference between combat and non-combat situations.

I just voted up your question without even reading it. I'm sure it's good.

I like wizard robes. I would hope they are included, even if not mandatory.

If there's a resting mechanic, I'd like to see the inclusion of random encounters that can interrupt resting, but aside from that I'd be content with only scripted encounters.

I don't think there is anything. I've already pledged enough to get everything I would want from the rewards, and the game is already getting made to specifications I deem adequate. I see no reason why I would pledge more.

Okay, this update is unequivocally good news. I love that we'll be able to set various gameplay preferences independently. That's something all games should offer, but basically none of them do. Great job, Obsidian.

That's a good point, and a point in favour of not granting companions free XP just to match the PC. The companions don't all start at level 1. Even if they're not scaled, simply having higher level companions encounter the PC as he moves farther from the starting location neatly solves the level 1 companion problem, but without straining credulity. That said, I really don't like it when companions have abilities pre-assigned. I like to do that myself in all cases.

Its a separate option when you start a new game. and it treats you like you know absolutely nothing. Yes. Xan shows you around.

I hate pointless/sensless artificial limitations. But level cap really isn't one of them. reaching the level cap is typically a sign of a poorly paced game though. But if the companions don't gain XP unless they're travelling with you, then a higher cap would mean that some characters could never reach it. And, as I've been telling BioWare for years, pacing isn't the designers' job. Pacing is the player's job.

Not all of the combat encounters can be challenging without making the game world feel contrived. If all of the encounters are challenging, then either the game is extremely linear, or all of the content is scaled to your level. Neither of those is okay. As such, there will usually be content that is beneath you, and there will usually be content that is beyond you. All you need do when you first switch to that new level 1 companion is avoid the more challenging content. Moreover, if you switch regularly, this problem never occurs, as characters that are only slightly behind you quickly catch up. I would agree. No one is advocating grinding. grinding consists of fighting trivial encounters for their own sake. Why would anyone do that? But in an unscaled game, there often exist trivial encounters that are worth facing for other (quest-related) reasons. If they were subject to the same risks associated with gaining XP as the PC is, that would be fine. But they're not. They gain XP entirely risk-free. They never find loot. They never complete quests. What are they doing? And why isn't that risk-free XP available to the PC? Way to downplay the other side's issues. Occasional. Slightly. Why do you think that's true?

I don't think many players are immersed yet when they're still at the main menu. I agree this would be odd if it were accessible from an in-game menu. I don't think that is what's being suggested, though. I'm thinking more of a stand-alone tutorial like in the Total War games.

With proper documentation, a tutorial shouldn't be necessary. But assuming there will be a tutorial, I would prefer it be entirely separate. EverQuest had a stand-alone tutorial when it was released (it was removed from later versions because players were using it to explore high-level zones using a mod called ZoneWalker), and it worked really well.

In BG1, especially, how difficult those "wandering monsters" were depended very much on when you met them. If you travelled east out of Beregost early in the game, the Vampiric Wolves there would almost certainly kill you. Similarly, heading south from Candlekeep rather than staying on the road led you to Droth the Ogre Mage. Other enemies that could be reached early in the game that would be very difficult for a low-level party to defeat included Ankhegs and Sirens.