Overreaction theater!

[Monte Carlo]

What does that have to do with anything?

 

The answer to that is everything. The IE was designed specifically to turn the pen & paper D&D game into a computer game iteration. Implicitly and unambiguously. Everything you see in the Infinity Engine game mechanics was shaped around the requirement to emulated 2nd Ed. AD&D.

 

For example, are you telling me that the Planescape Fans here, who are many, give a fig for THACO and six-second combat rounds and specialist mages? No.

 

A game doesn't have to use D&D to have similar rules and mechanics.

 

No, that's true. Many role-playing games use tropes like strength and hit points (hardly any, interestingly, use Vancian magic). Project Eternity, I suspect, will use many of these tropes. But having read the same material you have, and the same comments from developers I'm seeing something different - that is to say a commitment to making a game with mechanics more elegantly calibrated for the computer, not shoe-horned into AD&D.

 

So the insistence that this game be a D&D clone is strange. Not to mention possibly legally hazardous from an IP perspective. Metiman is being irrational in how he frames his argument and interprets views at variance with his own. He has fixed his interpretation on a very narrow perception of what is known. So I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if he feels so strongly about it that he doesn't waste his time.

[Monte Carlo]

If you despise 2nd and 3rd Edition D&D and the IE games used those game mechanics then yes I think it is fair to say that you dislike the game mechanics used by IWD, BG2, and PS:T.

 

Newsflash. I love D&D. I played pen and paper 3E and thought it the best version of the game. In other news, I like red wine and white wine.

[NOK222]

In other news, I like red wine and white wine.

 

But you can't! That goes against my preconceived notions!

 

Not to mention possibly legally hazardous from an IP perspective

 

How close to DnD can this get before Hasbro gets ansty?

[Merin]

 

If you can't live with that then don't back the project.

 

Seriously, it's that simple. And if it isn't, do what the anti-firearms fundie did and just go.

 

Really. I think one of my pet peeves right now in these forums are the people who say they haven't pledged, and then some combination of words like "won't rule out cool downs" happen and they make a bigger huff about definitely not pledging now. Another pet peeve would be the ones who say "I already knew long ago I wasn't going to back this project" and then they still start threads and make numerous posts trying to shoot down what they don't like and promote what they do.

 

As pledgers we don't have a say... but Obsidian is listening anyway, by their choice, and will shave some edges off here and there based on what they feel the community wants. In the end, they will make their game, but when it comes to things they aren't sure which way they should go to please their audience, they'll look to the forums.

 

Like other Kickstarter campaigns I wish there was a "pledgers only" forum so they could take the temperature of people who put their money where they mouth is. Of course keep the public forums open and engage with the general public....

 

... but for that temperature taking? Pledgers only, please.

[SqueakyCat]

@ merin

 

I find that kind of exclusivity wrong. Bioware is well-known for limiting posters by using that tactic.

 

Many people (possibly much wiser than me) are waiting for additional details before pledging. Their voices should be heard as well.

 

As soon as The Order of Obsidian put out an 'exclusive' poll only for their members, I asked to have that distinction removed from my profile. I do not condone 'exclusivity' as a means to drown out potential pledgers voices.

[Monte Carlo]

How close to DnD can this get before Hasbro gets ansty?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but Hasbro / WotC have traditionally been very cute around their IP (and with good reason). For example, the OGL (Open Gaming Licence) always specifically excluded computer games. And the older iterations of D&D are still active IP.

 

So if I were a Hasbro lawyer and sniffed blood in the water, I might want to do a bit of a litmus test and see how close this product sailed to the wind with regards to being a D&D-esque product to the point where there were copyright infringements. I am sure Obz has a lawyer (traditionally these issues would be managed by the publisher I suspect).

 

Am willing to be corrected, but saying "this is just like an IE AD&D game" is like a red flag to a bull. I'd steer well clear.

[NOK222]

I find that kind of exclusivity wrong. Bioware is well-known for limiting posters by using that tactic.

 

And then ban people for "trolling"

[SqueakyCat]

I find that kind of exclusivity wrong. Bioware is well-known for limiting posters by using that tactic.

 

And then ban people for "trolling"

 

Pledges are still coming in for now, so they don't even know exactly who has pledged yet to set up a separate forum even if that is their desire.

[Merin]

@ merin

 

I find that kind of exclusivity wrong. Bioware is well-known for limiting posters by using that tactic.

 

Many people (possibly much wiser than me) are waiting for additional details before pledging. Their voices should be heard as well.

 

As soon as The Order of Obsidian put out an 'exclusive' poll only for their members, I asked to have that distinction removed from my profile. I do not condone 'exclusivity' as a means to drown out potential pledgers voices.

 

I said -

Of course keep the public forums open and engage with the general public....

 

... but for that temperature taking? Pledgers only, please.

 

Which is to say that they keep what they have, but when they start asking "do you want X or Y" (if they ever go that route), then it should only be for backers.

 

If someone didn't back it, they don't get to be part of that conversation. I'm sorry if that comes across as elitist on some level, but I really think that's the best way to dial down a bunch of the static. If you pledged to the game, you want it to succeed and are somewhat invested and have shown that you care.

 

It takes nothing to make an account on a forum and try and just troll.

 

I should make a correction, though - the "pledgers only" forums tends to be a post-KS-campaign thing, and that's what I meant. Even if I wish people who weren't ever planning on pledging would just, you know, not post in the forum of the game they don't want anything to do with.

 

I find that kind of exclusivity wrong. Bioware is well-known for limiting posters by using that tactic.

And then ban people for "trolling"

 

Yeah, if there's anything the BSN does right, its much better at dealing with trolls.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Merin

[SqueakyCat]

I won't engage you any further as you cherry-pick posts to explain yourself. The intent of your post was clear.

 

Really. I think one of my pet peeves right now in these forums are the people who say they haven't pledged, and then some combination of words like "won't rule out cool downs" happen and they make a bigger huff about definitely not pledging now. Another pet peeve would be the ones who say "I already knew long ago I wasn't going to back this project" and then they still start threads and make numerous posts trying to shoot down what they don't like and promote what they do.

 

And, yeah, it came across as elitist.

[GhostofAnakin]

One thing that some folks should probably do is just not pledge until they've heard enough information first. That way they don't have to pledge, then read a new update and come onto the forums and say they're lowering their pledge (or not pledging, period) because of some feature not being what they want.

 

I think that's where the sense of overreaction comes from. If you want a clearer understanding of what the game will feature or not, that's perfectly reasonable. So don't pledge until you have as much information about the game as you need to make an informed purchase. Otherwise it comes across as kind of childish to keep posting about how you're lower or removing your pledge each time a new update comes up that doesn't go how you want it. *shrugs*

[Monte Carlo]

They should read Update 15 and get their credit cards out.

[Merin]

I won't engage you any further as you cherry-pick posts to explain yourself. The intent of your post was clear.

 

Really. I think one of my pet peeves right now in these forums are the people who say they haven't pledged, and then some combination of words like "won't rule out cool downs" happen and they make a bigger huff about definitely not pledging now. Another pet peeve would be the ones who say "I already knew long ago I wasn't going to back this project" and then they still start threads and make numerous posts trying to shoot down what they don't like and promote what they do.

 

And, yeah, it came across as elitist.

 

I should make a correction, though - the "pledgers only" forums tends to be a post-KS-campaign thing, and that's what I meant. Even if I wish people who weren't ever planning on pledging would just, you know, not post in the forum of the game they don't want anything to do with.

 

What you call cherry-picking, which means selectively choosing stuff, usually out of context, and ignoring other evidence...

... I actually would call trying to quote all the relevant stuff and give it context.

 

For example - cherry-picking would underlining the point you did to imply that I want non-pledgers to be shut out or ignored. Instead of, you know, seeing where I specifically said that they should still have the public forums and have the developers engaging with them.

 

And I stand firmly by the statement that if you aren't backing the game, have no intention of backing the game, that you should not be causing trouble for those of us who are considering backing or already did. Would it be my right to go on a Call of Duty forum and state my dislike of FPS games and modern day military settings? Sure. Should I go over there and @#%@ in their cornflakes for no good reason other than to stir up trouble? No, I should be rightly warned and, if I ignore the warnings, banned.

 

But that's fine... you can view my statements in whatever light you wish. And not respond to me. But don't expect me to leave unanswered an attempt to misconstrue my intents.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Merin

[NerdBoner]

unf unf unf...we're getting psionics you pitiful girly men!

 

you know how many years I waited for an rpg to do psionics?! huh?!

 

/overreaction

[metiman]

If liked both white and red wine, I wouldn't whine about how much I hate red wine. If a kickstarter project promises that they are going to make the best red wine ever, something just like the classic red wines, I wouldn't be expecting white wine.

[RosesandAshes]

If liked both white and red wine, I wouldn't whine about how much I hate red wine. If a kickstarter project promises that they are going to make the best red wine ever, something just like the classic red wines, I wouldn't be expecting white wine.

 

I don't even drink so I don't care whether someone likes red wine or white wine or whatever.

Oh wait, is this still an analogy? In that case, I like that Obsidian is planning on making the best red wine ever, but I don't expect it to be an exact clone of classic red wines. I want it to take the best of the classic red wines and give it their own twist.

[alanschu]

If you despise 2nd and 3rd Edition D&D and the IE games used those game mechanics then yes I think it is fair to say that you dislike the game mechanics used by IWD, BG2, and PS:T.

 

 

Yes, but if you love great settings, fantastic characters, and excellent writing, if AD&D is just "meh" to you you can still love a game like BG2 or PST.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm just glad the high tier backers ($1000.00+) are getting their own private forum on the Obsidian forums.

[Gorth]

I'm just glad the high tier backers ($1000.00+) are getting their own private forum on the Obsidian forums.

Where did you see that?

 

Not that I mind, mind you. Just didn't see that mentioned anywhere on the pledge tiers.

[Merin]

I'm just glad the high tier backers ($1000.00+) are getting their own private forum on the Obsidian forums.

Where did you see that?

 

Not that I mind, mind you. Just didn't see that mentioned anywhere on the pledge tiers.

 

I wouldn't be in that group... but I'd still be for it.

[Madzookeeper]

I'm just glad the high tier backers ($1000.00+) are getting their own private forum on the Obsidian forums.

Where did you see that?

 

Not that I mind, mind you. Just didn't see that mentioned anywhere on the pledge tiers.

 

 

i'm seriously curious about that one as well...

[Silver6986]

Emotional responses to ridiculous and outlandish suggestions made by your peers is the norm on the interwebz methinks

 

But yes, a level or rationalism throughout would be greatly appreciated, usually leads to better writing and therefore betting reading of other opinions.

[Silver6986]

I'm just glad the high tier backers ($1000.00+) are getting their own private forum on the Obsidian forums.

 

Whoa, I smell bull****.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Gorth
Language

[GhostofAnakin]

I'm just glad the high tier backers ($1000.00+) are getting their own private forum on the Obsidian forums.

 

There's only a total of 116 backers in that tier. If that's true, it's going to be an incredibly quiet forum.

[Giantevilhead]

The funny thing is that people are overreacting to misinterpretations of suggestions and ideas. They create false dilemmas, straw-men, and non sequesters and attack those rather than the suggestion/idea itself.

 

People act like if having level scaling means that everything scales exactly to your character's level instead of something like NV where there's only limited level scaling. They act like if the game has guns then there are going to be automatic weapons. They act like if the developers take some inspiration from other games, they'll make Project Eternity into an exact carbon copy of those games. They act like if there's greater inclusiveness for gays then the whole game is going to be about gay sex.