My thoughts on project Eternity

[Tamerlane]

Like you're going anywhere.

 

And just when you think you got out...

Edited January 30, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Helm]

We haven't all left, there are still quite a few here. But I am the most vocal of them all.

 

I am the harbinger of the vexation. Also known as the forum troll by those who love the dumbing down and drastic modernization of PE.

[Stun]

btw, even if you get the experience on the fly or after the session has ended you still got your combat xp! Always!

Yes.

 

Actually, I was under the impression (from watching The early PE updates with Tim Cain) that, technically speaking, you WILL get EXP for kills.... If it happens to be at the end of a combat-related quest. For example, lets say some guy in town sends your party on a mission to clear out a cave. Well, if that cave is full of goblins, and you kill them and report back, THAT is when you'll be getting your EXP.

 

But of course, since you're getting your exp in a deferred lump sum manner (ie. quest experience), instead of getting it immediately after dropping 1 goblin at a time (xp per kill), some people here are getting all up in arms.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Helm]

^

There is no xp for combat. Not on the fly or after you have finished a quest. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

 

This decision must have been made well into the Kickstarter or afterwards. I didn't even know about it until recently.

[cyberarmy]

You are telling somebody who doesn't like the dumbing down and drastic modernization of PE to move on to Dragon Age 3? Lol, how contradictory.

 

But somehow it might actually be a good idea, I bet Dragon Age 3 is going to have more in common (mechanics) with the IE games than PE will.

 

But don't worry, practically all of the backers who have realized that we are not getting what Obsidian promised have already moved on to greener pastures. Can't change it now, Obsidian has our money. Let the few stragglers declare their disappointment before they leave.

You really believe that bolded part? Even a little?

And what dumbing down? What do you know about the game that we don't?

[BruceVC]

 

You are telling somebody who doesn't like the dumbing down and drastic modernization of PE to move on to Dragon Age 3? Lol, how contradictory.

 

But somehow it might actually be a good idea, I bet Dragon Age 3 is going to have more in common (mechanics) with the IE games than PE will.

 

But don't worry, practically all of the backers who have realized that we are not getting what Obsidian promised have already moved on to greener pastures. Can't change it now, Obsidian has our money. Let the few stragglers declare their disappointment before they leave.

You really believe that bolded part? Even a little?

And what dumbing down? What do you know about the game that we don't?

 

 

Yeah I'm also a little confused, what do you mean by "dumbing down"?

[Stun]

^

There is no xp for combat. Not on the fly or after you have finished a quest. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

This isn't true. All we've been told on the matter is that you simply won't get experience per kill. But completing a combat based quest will, in fact, yield exp, since that constitutes an accomplishment.

 

Update 7 with Tim Cain

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts?page=7

Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count.

[Helm]

 

^

There is no xp for combat. Not on the fly or after you have finished a quest. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

This isn't true. All we've been told on the matter is that you simply won't get experience per kill. But completing a combat based quest will, in fact, yield exp, since that constitutes an accomplishment.

Yes it is. Kill all, kill some or kill none. You always get the same amount of xp. Not to mention that people hate generic bounty hunter quests like the one you just mentioned.

 

And the game will not have any bounty hunter quests (or hardly any) anyway, because that would force the player to do something he doesn't like just for xp. According to Sawyer forcing a player to do something he doesn't like is degenerate gameplay. You know, the obligatory combat in Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale was, um, degenerate gameplay according to Sawyer. No wonder he hates BG.

 

So, you can basically ignore every combat situation. Unless it is an elite mob with good loot perhaps. Other than that? don't waste your time.

 

Yeah I'm also a little confused, what do you mean by "dumbing down"?

 

You can start reading here.

 

It's all there.

[Calmar]

 

 

No exp for kills.  If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring.  

You mean....no point in murder-grinding.... which is a staple of  modern RPGs and MMOs, and IMO needs to be toned down about 20 notches.  its a stupid, mindless concept.  There's a bajillion other ways to gain exp in a role-playing game, but most have been completely  forgotten over the years, and  the result?    We've now  got people like you  who don't  know what role-playing even is  -  that actually  equate killing exclusively with EXP, to the point where they cannot conceive of other ways to gain levels.   Play Planescape Torment sometime and you'll see how wonderful it is to get  your exp from talking  (for example) instead of just racking up kills.

 

Oh, and there's  a whole lot more to exploration than  just going out  and making things die.  Not sure why you even brought up exploration, as the concept itself is virtually unrelated to combat.

Lol, that's rich, son.  I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive.  Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s.  I know a thing or two about role playing.   EXP for kills has been around since the beginning.  Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

 

You mean you've been hanging around with Gygax, Arneson and the other first-generation RPG gamers? That would be cool.

 

The (surprising to me) fact is indeed that D&D originally seems to have completely lacked what we nowadays believe to be good old-fashioned role-playing. The game was apparently all about fighting your way through huge dungeons and collecting tons of loot. No complex storylines, no elaborately developed characters, no deep in-character interactions with PCs and NPCs - just dungeon crawling and killing monsters and looting their treasure. Not the kind of game I'd like to play really, but knowing this helps not to take role-playing too serious now.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Calmar

[PrimeJunta]

That's true. Original D&D had no noncombat mechanics at all, and the published modules were dungeon crawls or their aboveground equivalents. All this nonsense about characterization and factions and motivation and what have you has been put in later.

 

I would find original D&D dungeon crawls pretty boring nowadays. I'm pretty amazed if someone finds it exciting after doing it for 40 years actually.

[Helm]

 

 

 

No exp for kills.  If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring.  

You mean....no point in murder-grinding.... which is a staple of  modern RPGs and MMOs, and IMO needs to be toned down about 20 notches.  its a stupid, mindless concept.  There's a bajillion other ways to gain exp in a role-playing game, but most have been completely  forgotten over the years, and  the result?    We've now  got people like you  who don't  know what role-playing even is  -  that actually  equate killing exclusively with EXP, to the point where they cannot conceive of other ways to gain levels.   Play Planescape Torment sometime and you'll see how wonderful it is to get  your exp from talking  (for example) instead of just racking up kills.

 

Oh, and there's  a whole lot more to exploration than  just going out  and making things die.  Not sure why you even brought up exploration, as the concept itself is virtually unrelated to combat.

Lol, that's rich, son.  I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive.  Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s.  I know a thing or two about role playing.   EXP for kills has been around since the beginning.  Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

 

You mean you've been hanging around with Gygax, Arneson and the other first-generation RPG gamers? That would be cool.

 

The (surprising to me) fact is indeed that D&D originally seems to have completely lacked what we nowadays believe to be good old-fashioned role-playing. The game was apparently all about fighting your way through huge dungeons and collecting tons of loot. No complex storylines, no elaborately developed characters, no deep in-character interactions with PCs and NPCs - just dungeon crawling and killing monsters and looting their treasure. Not the kind of game I'd like to play really, but knowing this helps not to take role-playing too serious now.

 

Roleplaying

 

RPG = Role Playing Game

[Stun]

 

This isn't true. All we've been told on the matter is that you simply won't get experience per kill. But completing a combat based quest will, in fact, yield exp, since that constitutes an accomplishment.

Yes it is. Kill all, kill some or kill none. You always get the same amount of xp.

Not to turn this into a semantics argument, but a quest that rewards you for, say, clearing out a troll infested castle (ie. killing mobs) is.... rewarding you for killing mobs. The fact that you can also get the same exp for peacefully talking the trolls into leaving is... beside the point.

Not to mention that people hate generic bounty hunter quests like the one you just mentioned.

Hilarious that you'd say this in light of your multi-page condemnation of J. E. Sawyer's opinions on BG2. BG2 was ~75% "bounty-hunter" quests. Are you suggesting that we all share Sawyer's opinions on BG2? Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Calmar]

 

 

You mean you've been hanging around with Gygax, Arneson and the other first-generation RPG gamers? That would be cool.

 

The (surprising to me) fact is indeed that D&D originally seems to have completely lacked what we nowadays believe to be good old-fashioned role-playing. The game was apparently all about fighting your way through huge dungeons and collecting tons of loot. No complex storylines, no elaborately developed characters, no deep in-character interactions with PCs and NPCs - just dungeon crawling and killing monsters and looting their treasure. Not the kind of game I'd like to play really, but knowing this helps not to take role-playing too serious now.

 

Roleplaying

 

RPG = Role Playing Game

 

Like it or not, D&D originally simply wasn't about what we consider role-playing today. Remember that D&D developed from table top wargameswhere players moved platoons of archers, knights and pikemen. Playing one single adventurer in a dungeon crawl was a fundamental evolutionary step.

I guess we have to agree with JRRNeiklot; without the combat at its core it would just be a story game.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

No exp for kills.  If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring.  

You mean....no point in murder-grinding.... which is a staple of  modern RPGs and MMOs, and IMO needs to be toned down about 20 notches.  its a stupid, mindless concept.  There's a bajillion other ways to gain exp in a role-playing game, but most have been completely  forgotten over the years, and  the result?    We've now  got people like you  who don't  know what role-playing even is  -  that actually  equate killing exclusively with EXP, to the point where they cannot conceive of other ways to gain levels.   Play Planescape Torment sometime and you'll see how wonderful it is to get  your exp from talking  (for example) instead of just racking up kills.

 

Oh, and there's  a whole lot more to exploration than  just going out  and making things die.  Not sure why you even brought up exploration, as the concept itself is virtually unrelated to combat.

Lol, that's rich, son.  I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive.  Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s.  I know a thing or two about role playing.   EXP for kills has been around since the beginning.  Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

 

You mean you've been hanging around with Gygax, Arneson and the other first-generation RPG gamers? That would be cool.

 

The (surprising to me) fact is indeed that D&D originally seems to have completely lacked what we nowadays believe to be good old-fashioned role-playing. The game was apparently all about fighting your way through huge dungeons and collecting tons of loot. No complex storylines, no elaborately developed characters, no deep in-character interactions with PCs and NPCs - just dungeon crawling and killing monsters and looting their treasure. Not the kind of game I'd like to play really, but knowing this helps not to take role-playing too serious now.

 

Roleplaying

 

RPG = Role Playing Game

But Helm he is talking about RPG in the context of what the original D&D use to be, and I agree with him. I use to play D&D in the later 1980's and I remember it being more about the exploration, dungeon, monsters and the loot than the complex narrative and interaction between characters. Nowadays we have both in our RPG and I so consider them superior

Edited January 30, 2013 by BruceVC

[PrimeJunta]

Combat mechanics -> storytelling mechanics is how RPG systems in general have evolved, both tabletop and cRPG. I know my campaigns became a lot more fun for everybody when I picked up the original Star Wars rulebooks, which had pretty solid sections on "story mechanics" -- the notion of "script immunity" for example which is pretty crucial to most enjoyable PnP RPG experiences. Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu advanced things a lot too.

 

It might be fun to do an old-school D&D dungeon crawl once, just as a reminder of where we came from, but I'd hate to go back to that as the core experience. You can have great RPG experiences with no combat at all, but combat without role-playing becomes mindless tedium. IMO natch.

[Helm]

 

 

 

 

This isn't true. All we've been told on the matter is that you simply won't get experience per kill. But completing a combat based quest will, in fact, yield exp, since that constitutes an accomplishment.

Yes it is. Kill all, kill some or kill none. You always get the same amount of xp.

 

 

Not to turn this into a semantics argument, but a quest that rewards you for killing mobs is.... rewarding you for killing mobs. The fact that you can also get the same exp for handing the quest differently is beside the point.

 

 

Yes. Obviously. Even though bounty hunter quests are shunned upon.

 

So do you think Josh should reward you for killing all the mobs so that you can always get this xp? Or what is your argumentation?

 

 

Not to mention that people hate generic bounty hunter quests like the one you just mentioned.

Hilarious that you'd say this in light of your multi-page condemnation of J. E. Sawyer's opinions on BG2. BG2 was ~75% "bounty-hunter" quests....

 

 

What? lol

 

"Go kill 20 orcs for 500 xp" was 75% of the game? lol. More like 0.1%.

[Stun]

What? lol

 

"Go kill 20 orcs for 500 xp" was 75% of the game? lol. More like 0.1%.

That's....not the example I gave. The example I gave was "clear this cave" Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Helm]

Like it or not, D&D originally simply wasn't about what we consider role-playing today. Remember that D&D developed from table top wargameswhere players moved platoons of archers, knights and pikemen. Playing one single adventurer in a dungeon crawl was a fundamental evolutionary step.

I guess we have to agree with JRRNeiklot; without the combat at its core it would just be a story game.

What are you trying to say? That only settings like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms allowed the player to roleplay? That is not true, you were always supposed/allowed to roleplay. You were supposed to use your imagination, that was the whole point of D&D.

 

TSR suplied the mechanics, the player and DM did the rest. That is why it is called a role-playing game.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

 

 

 

What? lol

 

"Go kill 20 orcs for 500 xp" was 75% of the game? lol. More like 0.1%.

That's....not the example I gave. The example I gave was "clear this cave"

 

Ok, so I clear the cave. I just kill everything in the way. I am rewarded for doing so. In total 1% of the game is made up of "clearing your path" quests.

 

So, what is your point then? Forcing the player to clear out every cave so he can get xp for killing is a solution to not having combat xp?

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Stun]

 

 

What? lol

 

"Go kill 20 orcs for 500 xp" was 75% of the game? lol. More like 0.1%.

That's....not the example I gave. The example I gave was "clear this cave"

 

Ok, so I clear the cave. I just kill everything in the way. I am rewarded for doing so. In total 1% of the game is made up of "clearing your path" quests.

Nonsense. Lets take a look at the main plotline for BG2

 

Chapter 2/3 - If you side with the Thieves guild they ask you to go clear out Bodhi's lair. if you side with the Vampires, you're asked to go clear out the Thieves guild

 

Chapter 4 - your quest is to fight your way out of the Asylum (literally. Bhodi informs you that you're her rat in a cage and your goal is to try and escape, by fighting.)

 

Chapter 5 - The gnomes ask you to kill a demon. Then Adelon asks you to infiltrate a drow city, which means you deal with the matron mother---who asks you to go clear out a nearby cave and get some boss' blood.

 

Chapter 6- You're asked to clear out Bhodi's lair again

 

Chapter 7 - you're asked to clear Suldanessalar of irenicus's minions -then you're asked to clear the tree of life of Irenicus's minions ---then you go to hell and have to fight Irenicus and his minions.

 

And that's just the critical plotline. Would you like the laundry list of "clear area x" side quests in BG2? Or better yet, would you like to Discuss Throne of Bhaal, which was 100% "clear this area" quests?

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Helm]

And? Where are the bounty hunter quests that make up 75% of BG2 that you promised me? i.e. "go kill 20 orcs for 500 xp"

 

I still don't get your point though. Yeah, you got xp for clearing some areas in BG2. And? What is your point?

[locomotron]

It could be me, but I don't think it was common practice to award XP on the spot during DnD sessions, usually exp was awarded after the session, and then exp was calculated per encounter, not "per monster", meaning you could get exp for avoiding or talking down an encounter.

 

Could be me, but that's how I've always played it, and I found that satisfactory, and that's also how I'd like to see it in PE; you get experience per encounter, not per monster, I'd even be fine to receive it after quest completion, as long as it does reflect the challenge the quest presented.

[Helm]

^

It wouldn't really matter to me, xp per monster or encounter, I wouldn't really care.

 

But sadly, as you know, you will not get any combat xp in PE at all.

[Stun]

And? Where are the bounty hunter quests that make up 75% of BG2 that you promised me? i.e. "go kill 20 orcs for 500 xp"

I never brought up bounty hunter quests. You did.

I still don't get your point though. Yeah, you got xp for clearing some areas in BG2. And? What is your point?

My point is that Josh and Obsidian will not be able to avoid putting combat-based questlines into PE, and since we WILL be gaining exp rewards for completing quests, then that means we will literally be getting EXP for killing things, we'll just be getting it when that quest is completed instead of after every enemy we kill (which btw, does nothing but promote the grinding game)

 

I don't understand the butthurt you people have with such a system. It doesn't make killing things pointless (or whatever the gripe is) since the classic #1 reason for killing something in an RPG is still there: Loot.

 

I don't know about you, but my motivation for killing Drizzt in BG1 was NOT to "gain 12,000 exp", but to get his shiny weapons.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Althernai]

And that's just the critical plotline. Would you like the laundry list of "clear area x" side quests in BG2? Or better yet, would you like to Discuss Throne of Bhaal, which was 100% "clear this area" quests?

I think you are failing to make a distinction between "go through an area" and "clear an area". A lot of modern games (MMOs, but also others that copy from them) have quests that explicitly require you to kill N monsters in an area and/or loot X items that only they drop. The Baldur's Gate series wasn't entirely free of this, but it was much more rare. Yes, the basic game mechanism was that you were sent into areas with hostiles, but how you got through those areas was usually up to you. If you so desired, you could cast Invisibility on your entire party and the game would respect that. Very few people did this because, unlike in most MMOs, clearing areas in BG2 was actually fun (and because you got XP for killing stuff), but it was certainly possible. You did usually (though not always) have to fight whatever was at the end of the area, but that's not the same thing as a bounty hunter quest.