Would you like to see Fate Points in Project Eternity?

[Labadal]

During my playthrough of Arcanum of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, I came to think about Project Eternity. I guess this will hapeen with most of these party based games until PE actually releases. Anyway, I got myself into an awkward situation. I needed to steal an item but my pick pocket attempts were failing over and over again. I was about to forget about the quest, but then I remembered that I had some Fate Points I could use. I hadn't been thinking about them, because I was only going to use them if I somehow managed to get stuck in the main story. So I used one and it solved my problem. I've used it to solve one quest out of 50ish. part of me feels like I was cheating, but the other part feels relieved that the quest finally got completed. So what do you guys think? Should there be a system like his in Project Eternity? it would be completely optional and the player wouldn't have to use it if he/she didn't want to.

 

What I mean by Fate Points for those that haven't played Arcanum.

Fate points aren't really critical to finishing the game, but they certainly
are convenient. If you have lots of followers, then the best place to use
them is probably to force good reactions from your followers, so they don't
get mad at you and leave. It's also useful sometimes to use a fate point to
guarantee a success at picking a pocket or picking a lock.

 

[rjshae]

Perhaps for the hardcore mode where you can't reload the game.

[Auxilius]

Good idea. It's frustrating to give up a quest just because your party doesn't have the required skill.

And that's not the only problem that may arise.

I remember the quest to become a master at Throwing in Arcanum. You have to go through a big bad maze to get the best throwing weapon of the game. Then you give it to the quest giver, she tells you you're a master now and the quest is done.

Except you're short one hell of a weapon. If it weren't for Fate points and the ability to guarantee success at Stealing, I'd had to kill her or travel through the whole continent to find and hire a Stealing expert. Not the best options.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No.

 

The less PE takes from Arcanum, the better.

Edited March 23, 2013 by KaineParker

[Sandro G Meier]

Depends how the fate point system fit in, according to the original Arcanum, fate point is a good system to encourage you to deal with the quest in a different way(may be good or evil way). And the motivation is the big effect that the points takes.

Plus, in Arcanum most of actions was held by your protagonist, in another case, Let's say "we", companions most like followers, them are not under your control, even when one of their skill is higher than you, sometime you still can't rely on they to steal something, convince someone and somehow pick some locks(according normally Virgil will fail on that...), so the fate point make a big deal on that, you don't need waste skill points on those skills you don't want spend on, fate point offer a alternative way to solve something(suppose you don't want pick everthing for the NPCs).

However, as a class based IE rpg, you can take  control all of your party, so you don't need worry about "Ah, I don't have a pockpick/lockpick skill", as that time your companions will make up this for you, which I think will lower the effect of the fate point. It may still have some effects really helpful(eg. improve the relationship with companions/NPCs.) But still need more other uses to get a meaningful role.

[Labadal]

No.

 

The less PE takes from Arcanum, the better.

I'm curious, why do you feel this way? Arcanum may do some things wrong, but it does things that are great.

[AGX-17]

No.

 

The less PE takes from Arcanum, the better.

I agree with this, aside from the character creation backgrounds.

 

 

No.

 

The less PE takes from Arcanum, the better.

I'm curious, why do you feel this way? Arcanum may do some things wrong, but it does things that are great.

 

 

It fools you into thinking tech is equally viable to magic and fantasy melee combat when in fact the mechanics are not and tech/guns/etc. are inferior to magic and swords. That's my big beef with Arcanum.

 

Unrelated to that post, about to go on a tirade on Auxilius' mention of Throwing: throwing knives or whatever is not a viable combat option given the setting, anyway. It's always been perplexing to me how many RPGs have a throwing skill when the last time that was useful in military operations was in the ancient/classical era, and even then either civilized or barbarian forces just threw their pilae, javelins, spears or axe/s at the start of a battle to weaken the defenses of the enemy's front and then proceeded in standard infantry fashion. Thrown spears or javelins are paleolithic weapon systems. A steampunk setting has no real justification for a throwing skill. No soldier has been trained specifically to throw things in hundreds of years. Throwing hand grenades is not an acceptable defense, either, because throwing skills in RPGs typically focus on sideshow tricks like throwing knives.

Edited March 23, 2013 by AGX-17

[Labadal]

The funny thing is that I'm currently playing it and I'm not really using magic at all. I'm melee combat focused and have a lot of charisma + persuasion to be able to have as many companions as possible. Most enemies die before I even know what hit them.

 

I like:

-Fate Points

-Backstories

-Character customization

-Being able to have so many companions (Unfortunately many of them don't add much to the story)

-The waypoint system you can use when you are not on the world map.

[Auxilius]

The correct way to fight in Arcanum is to throw chakrams at people. You're dealing with them from a safe distance and you don't need any ammo or mana points to do so. Once you get 21 dex (Max dex in fact) and use (if you wish so) the first spell of the Fire Arcane to go until 25 and/or get some dex enhancing items like the Charged Rings (second level of Electricity Tech Tree), the PC is virtually unstoppable.

 

And I agree the waypoint system is something that should be copied.

[AGX-17]

The funny thing is that I'm currently playing it and I'm not really using magic at all. I'm melee combat focused and have a lot of charisma + persuasion to be able to have as many companions as possible. Most enemies die before I even know what hit them.

Which doesn't conflict with my assertion in any way. Tech is inferior to primitive/fantasy means in Arcanum, whereas in theory it should be effectively equal but with different tactics and its own balance of strengths and weaknesses compared to the rock-banging primitive side of the coin. Edited March 23, 2013 by AGX-17

[Labadal]

I do agree that tech is inferior, but you can complete the game with a tech focused character too.

 

I'd kill for a new Arcanum style game. Make tech as viable as magic and develop the game around turn-based combat and make companions interesting. There are only a few interesting ones in Arcanum. Fix that, and I'd probably have my dream game.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm curious, why do you feel this way? Arcanum may do some things wrong, but it does things that are great.

I feel that the less PE takes from Arcanum the better off it will be because I find Arcanum to be a terribly designed game.

 

For one(as AGX-17 already mentioned) Tech is inferior to magic/primitive. In virtually every way, magic beats tech. There is no argument that a Tech character can perform at the same level as a magic. Some people may like that because "LOL unbalanced is goodz!", but IMO there should have been at least some advantages to playing a tech character aside from being allowed to ride on trains.

 

Secondly, the combat system is horribly designed. Critical failures occur at an extraordinarily high rate, the turn-based combat is not tactical at all, and the real time combat has no pause option. I can't think of another party-based RPG that has a worse combat system.

 

Thirdly, Character Creation/Leveling is also designed quite badly. They should have taken a page from GURPS and while using the same resource to advance attributes, skills, spells, etc. have different requirements for each. That way if one wanted to play a mage, they wouldn't have to choose from learning more spells or beefing up their magical ability(by advancing attributes) and the level cap could be quite a bit lower.

 

Essentially, Arcanum suffers from balance issues. While the setting intrigued me, the atrocious mechanics prevented me from enjoying the game or playing it for more than 5 hours.

[Labadal]

I have agreed that it did those things wrong. We know Eternity isn't looking at Arcanum for battle system inspiration. I'm also fairly certain I read somewhere that Troika wanted turn-based combat, but the publisher forced them to implement real time as well. That doomed the combat system right then and there. We also know that Project Eternity is not looking at Arcanum for inspiration on how to develop your character. Arcanum does not use a class system.

 

This doesn't mean Arcanum didn't do some things right, like I listed in one of my earlier posts. I just want Eternity to take the good things from other great late 90s/early 00s crpgs and then combine that with new ideas.

[PrimeJunta]

@AGX-17, those are pretty superficial criticisms IMO. They're not fundamental to the setting or the design ideas in it.

 

The magic/tech balance thing is simply a balancing issue -- either nerf magic or make tech more powerful; problem solved. I'm surprised nobody's (apparently) modded this in, as it should be technically dead easy; just adjust some constants here and there. (Lots of playtesting though.)

 

The throwing thing is a simulationist criticism. It's only valid if you accept the premise that a game ought to be realistic. I accept that premise for certain types of games -- for example, I like Rome: Total Realism a lot more than vanilla Rome: Total War, precisely because it strives to be more realistic; no flaming pigs and what have you, but lots and lots of different flavors of spearmen.

 

However, that doesn't apply to most games IMO. Some games are designed for the gameplay: chess, to take an extreme example, is not a particularly accurate wargame, but it's a fantastic game in its own right. Others are designed with other goals in mind. A cRPG for example can be any number of things -- it can strive for verisimilitude (low-fantasy, with a clearly-defined set of rules governing how magic operates, for example), whimsy (like Arcanum or Fallout), surrealism and atmosphere (like Torment), high/heroic fantasy (most of the IE games other than Torment), and so on. The verisimilitude/realism requirement applies to each of these to different degrees.

 

Where will P:E stand? We'll see when we'll see, I guess. Going by the chatter in the weapons and armor design thread, though, it seems like they are going for a degree of verisimilitude in that. If that's the case, then yeah, throwing daggers should have pretty limited utility.

 

That said, what I would really like to see is a variety of scenarios with different constraints on what you can do. Almost all fantasy cRPG's are really monotonous in this respect -- other than the obligatory "you've been thrown in jail and lost all your gear" episode, you go into every battle fully kitted for combat. I'd like to see other situations as well: stealthy assassinations at the royal ball, cities where only guards and nobles are allowed to wear armor and carry weapons openly, that sort of thing. This would open up a huge and rich range of gameplay and character concepts -- daggers, for example, would suddenly be extremely useful in circumstances where you can't carry a sword or spear, nor wear armor. A master knifefighter would be deadly, where your master swordsman would be in real trouble without his sword.

[Jarmo]

 

That said, what I would really like to see is a variety of scenarios with different constraints on what you can do.  

 

This yes!

And is it becoming my trademark to make Fallout NV references in every post, but I really liked the simplified way this was done in the casinos. Check out bigger weapons when you enter, get them back automatically when returning. Depended on sneak skill there, but could work just as well with other restrictions. Oh, you've been dubbed a knight so a sword is fine. But still can't go to a cafeteria with a halberd.

 

More back to the topic. Fate points would be fine IMO.

Usually I make my own fate points/save points through save/reload, but a less cheaty way would work ok. 

Don't know the full concept, but can't see why they'd be a bad thing. Basically just introducing a way to lessen the impact of chance,

which you'll otherwise adjust by reloading an older save.

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah. Most fantasy cRPG's which have people traipsing around in full plate armor toting claymores are silly when you think about it. That's like driving into downtown NYC in a main battle tank, then going shopping at Macy's in a heavy flak jacket and kevlar helmet while toting an assault rifle and a belt full of hand grenades and extra clips. I have a feeling Mr. Bloomberg would have something to say about that.

[Lephys]

Yeah. Most fantasy cRPG's which have people traipsing around in full plate armor toting claymores are silly when you think about it. That's like driving into downtown NYC in a main battle tank, then going shopping at Macy's in a heavy flak jacket and kevlar helmet while toting an assault rifle and a belt full of hand grenades and extra clips. I have a feeling Mr. Bloomberg would have something to say about that.

Granted, if downtown NYC could feasibly be attacked by orcs at any moment, it would probably be slightly more normal to carry such stuff around. In modern society, we're more worried about what that one person could do with a tank and weaponry than we are about thousands of enemy soldiers (much less creatures) pouring out of the woods and slaughtering a town. Edited March 25, 2013 by Lephys

[PrimeJunta]

I've been to a war zone, and my wife grew up in one. Openly armed people who are not part of the armed force -- militia or regular military -- that is in control of a zone tend to get shot on sight. Fully-armed freelance adventurers are not tolerated at all. You do see a lot of the particular armed faction that's in control of course; a part of that control is showing up and asserting your monopoly on the use of force. There are mercenaries, but they only gear up after they've got a contract with the local warlord, and then only when they're on an operation.

 

Even in anarchic situations you get militias who set up zones of control. The block in West Beirut where my wife grew up was controlled by an extended Druze family which turned into one. They kept the other militias out and the people in safe, more or less. When a heavily armed regular military showed up -- the Israelis in 1982, the Syrians on several occasions -- they tucked the Kalashnikovs and RPG-7's under the beds and faded out sight, only to pop back when the regulars left. Carrying even a concealed weapon if you're not part of the militia would have been extremely risky as you're likely to be stopped at a makeshift checkpoint and patted down, and militias tend to deal with such stuff harshly. Hell, sometimes they'd shoot you just because they were having a bad day.

 

I'm fairly certain the same logic has applied to every war zone everywhere, more or less, barring interludes of pure every-man-for-himself chaos. If you're part of the force that controls the ground you're on, you're armed. If you're not, said force makes sure you're not armed.

 

So there's almost invariably a single group asserting monopoly of use of force in an area. If there are two, you get a battle. Unaffiliated, fully-armed individuals are not tolerated; they're treated as enemy combatants by default.

 

Which is why being a skilled knifefighter or unarmed combatant is a much more practically useful art of violence nowadays than being a skilled swordsman, even though a katana is an obviously deadlier weapon than a fist, foot, or butterfly knife.

[Lephys]

^ I'm really not trying to snuff out all your points or anything, because they're good, and you clearly know more than I do about actual, real-life warzones. However, I wasn't so much referring to a warzone as I was to fantasy-only things, like orcs. In reality (and often in verisimilitude), everyone is just people, so you don't know who's a hostile and who isn't. But, in a specific fantasy setting (such as one with orcs or other such threats that don't readily exist in real life), you DO know who's an orc and who isn't. The threat isn't so much concealed weapons as it is WHO is concealing them.

 

Granted, that doesn't mean everyone can just wander around with 18 sword-chucks being flailed about in public. I agree with you on that, and believe that there should be more verisimilitudinous restrictions on such things. I mean, people still exist and the necessary organization/regulation of people still exists with them, despite whether or not orcs/kobolds/gnolls/trollocs/uruk-kai are lurking about.

 

All I meant was that the standards would probably be a little more lax in a setting in which existed a constant, clearly-discernable threat.

 

Just look at rural places. Everyone's got pocket knives and shotguns, for various reasons. They might live in an area populated by wolves and/or bears, and they have to look out for themselves. There aren't city walls to protect them... just their own 4 house walls. Also, there are fewer people, so everyone can get to know each other and keep an eye on each other more easily (whether intentionally or just as a side-effect).

 

So, yeah, the more people there are (and, thus, the more organization of people, as in cities and such), the more your weapon-toting probably isn't going to be tolerated.

 

You know, it'd be interesting if you sort of almost had licenses to cover that. Just like in real life. "Hey, you can't have that fully-automatic assau... oh, you're a mercenery, with credentials to be here? Alright, your stuff checks out. Go ahead." You know... they'd check you every time, but, after doing certain things for that city (or the City Guard faction, or some high-enough-ranking official, etc.), you pretty much get priveleges, because it's known that you're trusted to handle you and your own with care inside those guards' city.

 

I know this was touched on by some others. I just like the idea. Because, I like the "check in your weapons at the door" thing, or maybe even peace-tying or something, but I'd hate to see "But... I saved this city from a dragon, single-handedly, using THIS very sword!" -- "Nope, rules are rules. You can never, EVER carry a weapon around in here. Basically, for you, Mr. Player, that means NO COMBAT SCENARIOS IN THE CITIES! MUAHAHAHAHA!" happen. Obviously that's the one extreme, so I don't see it quite going THAT far. But, you know, you don't want the game to feel like the world's so orderly that you just literally never, ever get to use weapons and armor inside a city without being SEVERLEY unlawful/chaotic or only in extreme circumstances (like when the City Guard Barracks is exploding in an attack...)

[PrimeJunta]

Pocket knives and shotguns in rural areas are tools, not weapons. I'm sure back in the day hunters carried bows, knives, and axes.

 

But you don't see people in full combat armor, with assault rifles and hand-grenades.

 

Also I think you may have misunderstood me: I'm not calling for "no combat scenarios in cities." Quite the contrary: I'm calling for different combat scenarios in cities. Back-alley gang wars, fought with knives and cudgels without armor, rather than longswords and longbows and full plate. A palace coup, where you infiltrate the royal ball, stealthily assassinate a couple of key people, and then take control. That sort of thing. Not because it's more realistic -- although it is -- but because it would provide more variety, support a wider range of character concepts, and just be fun. This would have to be fully supported by the character system of course; you could have a specialized warrior who's deadly with an arquebus and pollax, a specialized commando lethal with cloak and dagger, or one who's pretty good at both, with the appropriate tactical consequences.

[Lephys]

Pocket knives and shotguns in rural areas are tools, not weapons. I'm sure back in the day hunters carried bows, knives, and axes.

 

But you don't see people in full combat armor, with assault rifles and hand-grenades.

 

Also I think you may have misunderstood me: I'm not calling for "no combat scenarios in cities." Quite the contrary: I'm calling for different combat scenarios in cities. Back-alley gang wars, fought with knives and cudgels without armor, rather than longswords and longbows and full plate. A palace coup, where you infiltrate the royal ball, stealthily assassinate a couple of key people, and then take control. That sort of thing. Not because it's more realistic -- although it is -- but because it would provide more variety, support a wider range of character concepts, and just be fun. This would have to be fully supported by the character system of course; you could have a specialized warrior who's deadly with an arquebus and pollax, a specialized commando lethal with cloak and dagger, or one who's pretty good at both, with the appropriate tactical consequences.

I fear it was you who misunderstood me (probably my fault... I'm not being sarcastic).

 

To clarify, I wasn't meaning to suggest you were calling for no combat in cities. I only meant to point out a point on the scale we're dealing with that we don't want to reach.

 

Like I said, I agree with the in-game representation of the real-world practice of equipment regulation within populated areas.

 

That was my mistake for my post seeming like a counter-argument directly to your argument.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The problem I see with weapon regulation in cities is that it only severely hinders warrior classes, while Ciphers are close to their full potential and Wizards are still able to cast spells. So while the angry Barbarian may not be able to slaughter half the town on a whim, the Cipher could still mind control them(or whatever the hell else they can do) unimpeded by the loss of their weapons.

 

Unless Ciphers require some easily identifiable item to utilize their abilities.

[Lephys]

The problem I see with weapon regulation in cities is that it only severely hinders warrior classes, while Ciphers are close to their full potential and Wizards are still able to cast spells. So while the angry Barbarian may not be able to slaughter half the town on a whim, the Cipher could still mind control them(or whatever the hell else they can do) unimpeded by the loss of their weapons.

 

Unless Ciphers require some easily identifiable item to utilize their abilities.

Good point. I shall once again reference Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. In it, all magical people used the same magical Source (simply called "The One Source"), and were simply called "channelers." BUT, they could detect channeling. So, they kind of acted as sentries in camps and cities and such. They could then "shield" other channelers (if they were strong enough, or if they outnumbered the other channeler, or caught him/her off-guard).

 

So, anywho... It could be possible that there are what amounts to guards and sentries of various classes throughout cities. Granted, they can't make you check your magic, or your soul powers, at the gate. But, that's pretty much true of all classes. Also, there are ways to deal with that. Like I said, your physical weapons could simply be required to be peace-tied, rather than removed from your person.

 

But, another thing to consider is, in real life, you can have people check weapons at security checkpoints, but what do you do about people who are lethally skilled in martial arts? Sure, they don't have range (unless they've concealed some kunai or shurikens or something), but, in a crowd or an interior locale, they could easily take plenty of people down before anyone stopped them. Life just isn't fair, I suppose. Heh. There's only so much you can do.

[Jarmo]

Medieval times. Lots of people would wear arms openly, but only the likes of daggers and such. Self defence stuff to ward off robbers and such.

Nobility would be allowed to carry swords, but I doubt many would stretch that to include 2-handers.

(though in fantasy realm with dvarves and axes and scotsmen with claymores that might stretch a little)

 

Mercenaries would carry arms if duty required it, say you stand in guard in front of a manor, nobody will mind your pollaxe, but you don't go shopping with it.

Generally mercenary camp would be outside town and heavy weapons stored there. Obviously individual mercenaries would cause disturbance and friction with the authorities, see if someone is brave enough to tell them to leave the axe in the camp. But basically, in their free time, mercenaries and imaginary adventurers would be limited to daggers or tiny short swords.

 

And yeah. This would put the sweihander specialists in disadvantage and make the knifefighters and monks shine.

And I really doubt the authorities would look nicely at tossing fireballs in middle of a town made of straw and wood!

Let's welcome back the magic restrictions of BG2!

[PrimeJunta]

The problem I see with weapon regulation in cities is that it only severely hinders warrior classes, while Ciphers are close to their full potential and Wizards are still able to cast spells. So while the angry Barbarian may not be able to slaughter half the town on a whim, the Cipher could still mind control them(or whatever the hell else they can do) unimpeded by the loss of their weapons.

 

Unless Ciphers require some easily identifiable item to utilize their abilities.

That's kind of the point, don't you think?

 

Character differentiation doesn't mean anything if every build will be as good in all circumstances. I'd much rather see a game where a ranger is genuinely more at home in the wilderness, a well-bred rapier-carrying noble in the royal palace, and a rough knife-wielding street thug in the back alley.

 

This kind of diversity would make for much better replayability and would encourage you to build a diverse, well-rounded party. The only real pitfall is that you'd have to be careful to avoid situations where your critical path is completely blocked due to your character concept, but I think the Obsidian devs are smart enough to avoid that.