Shevek

Well, the adventurer's hall is the only reason I increased my pledge amount. I love the thing. If you don't like it, do not use it.

Personally, I don't think that "save points" are the only solution to making rest a viable mechanic. I am not entirely against them but I can see how some would take issue with them. I like Uomoz's suggestion of having some random encounters be predetermined as opposed to when you hit the rest button. This would not deny anyone the ability to save/load, it would just reduce the effectiveness of that as a tactic. I am sure the devs are looking at similar solutions to issues with lockpicking and other systems that can be trivialized by abuse of save/load. Ultmately, though, it boils down to the gamer stepping up and not abusing every single thing they can to get ahead.

I hope you are right.

the amount of times you fail to win a battle and have to reload is not an indication of anything. the encounter may be unbalanced or you may just suck/rock or you may be trying to get past enemies you are not strong enough to face yet or you are facing enemies that are too weak and so on. the right thing for me is to have combat that is hard but not impossible. if you play your cards right, you can pass all battles without ever having to reload, but you must really play good, not just charge in and spam some skills and see all enemies fall like flies That is not the way the IE games worked. There were many variables: poisons, getting mazed, confused, spell protections, stealth failing, etc If you get a series of bad rolls or the enemy gets a series of especially good rolls or both, combat could go either way irrespective of your skill.

I don't have definite answer for that. But if you need reload 25 times to get past an encounter then there is in my opinion a design flaw, because I don't think that most of the gameplay time should consist same fight over and over again, especially in rpgs where combat should not be the main point of the game. But of course there should be risk of dying to force player to plan his or her actions in combat and even considere non-combat options. I think that balance is the key, but I don't have enough game design skill to say how to achieve that balance. 25 times = hyperbole I was just replaying some BG1 last night. I had to reload a few times at a miniboss encounter at the Ice Prison (part of the TotSC xpac). Each time I modified my tactics until something worked. I actually enjoyed the process. I am not a save/load addict by any means. Still, trying an encounter a few times until something works makes victory seem a bit sweeter since its so hard to attain.

Nice. That would be a great fix.

I do not believe you fully read my previous post. I listed many said instances. I will list them again for you, I guess. Save/load trivializes: Getting ambushed during travel, traps, pc/npc death, randomized loot, pickpocketting, encounter dynamics, etc. Hell, one could argue save/load trivializes all risk associated with exploration and to a certain extent trivializes things which mitigate that risk such as stealth and spells like wizard eye. Save/load trivializes most consequence based dynamics. All those things I listed become mere inconveniences by your definition, so should the devs eliminate them? I suppose you would say yes but I do not think it is good design to get rid of something because some gamers cannot control their own abuse of save/load. Should we then get rid of all consequences because one can simply reload a save? Designing around what weak willed gamers do or do not do is not the best design. In any case, it does not seem you wish to engage in a dialogue. If you did, you would have read the posts you quoted. We can just agree to disagree, I think.

I vote BG1 style world.

Well, that save/load issue is not just for resting but for just about every aspect of the game (from randomizing loot, to boss encounters, to character death, to traps, to being ambushed during travel, to everything else). I concur its an issue (I acknowledged it in my original post) but the issue is not with resting it is with saving (hence why there is an ironman mode). I would like to see the devs come up with a fix for the issue (beyond the no save mode) because if they simply remove everything that save/loading undermines, they would end up removing most of the game. Perhaps save/loading is one of those things that gamers must police themselves from doing. If they do not, then they only really cheat themselves.

I think we have to agree to disagree. I do not see how it is better to limit resting to inns - particularly in larger dungeons with Watcher's Keep in BG2 or when one travels long distances like the Cloakwood series (Cloakwood 1, 2, 3, 4, plus various levels of Cloakwood Mines) in BG1. A good rest system would go a long way to improving various aspects of the game as well.

I dunno, I am not a huge fan of randomized dungeons. I mean, it could work but that would add dramatically to the development time. It just doesn't seem worth it to me. Also, the IE games were about well crafted encounters and locales that were painstakingly made. A randomly generated space just would not seem right.

To a certain extent, I think the way cRPGs work currently with respect to the economy is good. I mean, ya, the player can amass large quantaties of cash. Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't the player want his character to get filthy stinking rich? I do think that a skill should be tied to buying and selling (as you mentioned). Looking at your other suggestions: 1. BG already reduced the money they gave you when you sold them many of the same item. I would agree that shopkeeps should have limited funds but they should regen back over time. 2. I don't like multiple kinds of currency. That tends to make trading a headache. 3. I would prefer if ALL merchants bartered AND sold for gold. 4. I don't like the idea of bartering with everyone. I have played games that did this but I am not a fan of going around trading stuff with everyone I can. I feel it breaks immersion a bit.

I think the Wizard spell you are thinking about is Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound. I am unsure if Clerics had anything similar in DnD. Generally speaking, I figure there should be many ways to protect camp. Using survival skills, casting spells, setting traps, setting watch, etc etc could all help mitigate ambushes or lessen their impact. The key here is to ensure there are multiple ways of tackling that problem so any class has the ability to shine. Also, none of these solutions should invalidate or lessen the contribution of others (additive bonuses, in other words, that do not trivialize the challenge). On a related note: By making it so players mitigate attrition (fatigue, disease, etc, etc) at camp as opposed to just with spells or potions, you also bolster the usefulness of non-combat survival skills and allow multiple paths to success. The Heal Skill, for example, has been pretty much useless in every 3E game. Doing something like this might make that skill (and similar skills like Alchemy or Herbalism) actually useful. This gives the player an additional venue outside of combat to contribute the group's success.

It reduces the need to rest but it does not eliminate it. Also, Sawyer mentioned at some point (damned if I can find it) that Cain had mentioned having a fondess for the RP value of a resting mechanic [i could be wrong about this; I have not been able to the quote]. Edit: I would argue that since less rest is needed, that makes including such a system as this a GOOD thing. Players would only need to do this from time to time when they need those higher tiered daily abilities or to deal with certain status ailments, fatigue, morale, etc etc (whatever forms of attrition the devs wish to throw at us). Seasoned adventurers may not be caught unawares by weak targets. However, the player does not start off seasoned; he starts off at level one. Also, the player delves ever deeper into more dangerous terrain, he levels and so do his enemies. These enemies are then increasingly able to overcome the player's camp preparations. This is why skill checks for this sorta thing are required in pnp games.

I would say the campsite is wherever you set up camp. The view would just show your campsite from the same isometric perspective as you play the rest of the game. Though a camping UI or menu system might pop up to the side. Thats exactly what I am talking about. Tieing rest to more game systems and making it more than a simple rest button.

That's the idea. And as I wrote in my Formspring post, your lower level spells aren't unlimited. You will still temporarily lock out all spells of that level once you've cast enough of them. This sounds awesome.

in Arcanum, you spent advancement points on crafting. Devs have stated that crafting and combat will use different advancement pools. Additionally, they have stated that players will advance in noncombat SKILLS. This is different than purchasing crafting abilities (or schematics) with advancement points. Also, Arcanum's crafting was very good but I always felt the entire schematic thing was there to fit the steampunk setting. This being a fantasy world, crafting may benefit from a different approach (perhaps apprenticing for crafting masters, etc?).

I love the new proposed magic system. Some spell charges recharge over time and others are regained through rest. It is a system that I think makes alot of sense. It reminds me of the 4E encounter skills and daily skills. Still, now there is the issue of rest and how the devs will avoid the original issue of rest spam. The issue of rest spam arises when rest is but a simple button the player presses and is then instantly transported 8 hours into the future. If he is ambushed, the player can simply reload to a quicksave taken just before rest. I have a couple thoughts on this: 1. Resting should be a RISK 2. Resting could be an oppurtunity to add an interesting layer of gameplay 1. Resting should be a RISK Setting up a camp should only be done when one MUST. Players should be so exhausted that they should take the RISK to sleep in a dark forest/dungeon/alternate plane/whatever when common sense suggests that such action would be foolish. The IE games tried to do this through random ambushes and the like. I would argue that this should be expanded upon and that negative consequences should not be something that is easily trivialized. How so? I do not know. Whatever the devs do, the player should always weigh the risks of resting against its benefits. It may be safer to rest in the day in some areas or at night in others depending on what creatures inhabit which areas. The upper levels of the dungeon may be safer than the lower levels. It may be safer to rest in a place where players could bar a door and enclose themselves in a room, etc. They may consider adding skill checks (survival? dungeoneering?) but that may lead to some skills becoming "must haves" (bad thing?) so who knows. 2. Resting could be an oppurtunity to add an interesting layer of gameplay This is a somewhat silly suggestion but I wanted to toss it out there. Again, I put the following merely as a humble suggestion. I am sure that whatever the devs do will be just wonderful. Everything we have heard so far has sounded better and better. Anywho, as cRPG gamer, I have often wondered why rest tends to be relegated to being a simple rest button. Setting up camp and interacting around a warm fire are things that are often fairly prominently portrayed in most fantasy fiction. It would be interesting if, at camp, players could do things like ACTIVELY tend to wounds, treat afflictions, have npc interactions, and so on. It could look cool too. You initiate rest, a small campfire appears (if it is dark), your companions gather about and go into camp mode to decide what to do with the current rest session. This opens up some possibilities. One of the party may be suffering from a disease and this could be a time to treat it prior to moving on. You could interact with NPCs here and they might also interact with one another. If there is fatigue, those who are more tired may rest more while those with more vigor may be chosen to gather herbs or take a turn at the night watch. Certainly, I am not advocating ALL or even ANY of these things. I am just spit balling ways to make rest more than a rest button. Obviously, if players rest very often this kind of thing would be a hindrance to gameplay and an annoyance. Still, if a player does this only a few times during a given play session, I think it could be pretty cool.

I love the new system. It really seems like the best of both worlds.

Its basically 4E at will, encounter and daily powers. The 4E system wasnt perfect (hence why WotC are developing ANOTHER system with DnD Next) but it did seem designed with real time video games in mind.

Frankly, I would perfer if the pet stayed at the house curled up by the fire and greeted me every time I walked through the door.

I would pay money NOT to have a blue glowing orb float around me as I travelled. Give me a hound or a hawk.

Feargus suggested earlier they will add a stretch goal to turn the player house into a strnghold that may vary by class (like in BG2). I love the amount of back and forth on these forums and the kickstarter comment section.

I wonder if Paypal donations count towards the number of backers. Feargus just suggested it did on the KS comment section. That is awesome for the megadungeon.

This poll is somewhat flawed. The first option should be just YES or NO. After that a second question, if YES then pick one the X options. Anywho, I like what Tim is putting forward. It is basically a variant of the 4E rules for handling magic and abilities - At-will, Encounter and Daily powers.