Jump to content

Some thoughts I had after playing Icewind Dale 2


Recommended Posts

So hey all, new former user, and this is my first post.

 

I have always loved party tactical RPG's in the infinity model and I have played most of the more common ones: Balder's Gate, 1 and 2 (With expansions), Icewind Dale 1 and 2 (just finishing second) Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 with most expansions, and Dragon Age 1, which I kinda consider a spiritual successor (lets not talk about DA 2. I am over it, I swear).

 

I am currently finishing Icewind Dale 2, and I had some suggestions that resonated throughout most of the games, at least I think. Forgive me if some of these ideas were implemented in late stage Neverwinter Nights 2 expansions, its been a while.

 

Also I am aware that many, if not all of the ideas have previously been mentioned (yes, I searched through the forum to find them all). However, they tend to be disjointed and spread over many threads. Therefore, I think there is still some value to centralizing these suggestions.

So with that long preamble, here are my top 5 or suggestions for Project Eternity

 

1) Marco or Function spell casting.

I believe it was mentioned that this was a feature in Storm of Zehir (which is one of the ones I have not played yet), and it may have been in some others, but I can't remember. If so, I really, REALLY hope its included in Project Eterniy, if there are many "buff" spells to be used.

 

Basically, what this is a programmable button where you can tell your caster  (or anyone really) to perform a series of spells or other abilities in a designated order. The main use of this is for "buffing" or using a series of enhancement spells common cast at the beginning of the day or before a strong fight (yes I realize most people know this, but I don't want to leave new people out of this discussion). In older I.E. you had do this manually and as you got higher and higher level, it takes longer and longer (as one forum user suggested "longer than the fight sometime").

 

I would love to see in fact more than 1 button or macro, so that you could things like "day buffs, medium encounter buffs, hard encounter buffs, sneaking, ect). It might save alot of time and eliminate a fairly tedious but necessary part of the older games.

 

2) Party Speaker or Spokesperson.

 

I actually prefer the Icewind Dale over Balder Gate model where you did not have 1 protagonist but instead were "the entire party." I know there are narrative tradeoffs for this, but something I liked. Nevertheless, Obsidian is going with the later direction, and that's cool with me. Still, I would very much like to have the OPTION of a party speaker, someone who could use their diplomacy/bluffing/intimidate/racial advantages for specific conversations that does not have to be the main character.

Yes I know this issue has been debated quite a bit, but for me, it just seems to make logical sense that if you have a very good diplomatic character why would you not have them speak for the group?  The trade off might be they can only say things you might not like, but hey that would be a interesting wrinkle sometimes....

 

Now I get how certain conversations, for plot reasons, may have to be scripted only for the main character, but for bargaining with the merchant, please can we have my crazy good bard equivalent party member do it, and not my surly wizard character?

 

Also, can we not have the every enemy auto lock into conversation with the first person they see? My tank's are rarely the best conversationalists.....

 

3) Auto inventory organizer.

 

We have seen it in many new games, but I really do hope they add here: a button (or buttons) that lets your inventory be sorted by type at least, so you don't have to manual arrange everything.

 

4) Party moves in group and has some intelligence when doing so.

 

This is a pathing complaint, which I know they are hard at work on, but again just finishing Icewind Dale 2, so going from that.

 

Someone on the forums already suggested a "move at the slowest party member button" or "lock formation button"  to prevent fast character from getting to enemies 3 minutes before the rest of your party when you select "move all" and then getting annihilated. I think this is very good idea, but taking it one step further:

 

 Can we also have party members NOT wander over discovered traps to get somewhere...It make me cringe when the entire party wanders through the swinging spikes again and nearly dies to get somewhere because its a 1 second shorter route....

 

Please give them a modicum of sense? Please?

 

5) Some logical correlation between merchants and game play

 

"Thank you for saving my son's life and going to save the entire world. But I am afraid I still need to charge you full price for the items necessary to do so...which I as a humble craftsman in nowhereville just happen to have all of....oh and if you kill me, all the items I had to sell magically disappear, except for 1 or 2 token ones."

 

Raise you hand if this happened to you while playing IE style games. Raise both hands if its happened more than 10 times, or at least some variation of this.

 

I am not asking for full scale mercantilism or capitalist theory in Project Eternity but some internal logical would be nice. Maybe merchants in the city have generally better items you can't afford early, and keep them in a secure vault or heavy very heavy guards. And maybe if you help them alot you get a very nice discount, or even the town gives you what they can spare for free if you are going to save the world and they know it. It would be a nice change.

 

Anyway, I hope nothing I said here indicates that I am not greatly looking forward to this game and love the IE experience. These are all relatively minor annoyances, but I hope they can be dealt with to make the gaming experience even better.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IWD 2 is my favorite game - a perfect runtrough rpg that provided no replay value,but made me immerse deepest than any other game. It gave full control over every party member and you could shape them to your liking,write any biography you imagined and set sail. The strongest positive thing in Dale 2 was

 

 

 

2) Party Speaker or Spokesperson.

 

I actually prefer the Icewind Dale over Balder Gate model where you did not have 1 protagonist but instead were "the entire party." I know there are narrative tradeoffs for this, but something I liked. Nevertheless, Obsidian is going with the later direction, and that's cool with me. Still, I would very much like to have the OPTION of a party speaker, someone who could use their diplomacy/bluffing/intimidate/racial advantages for specific conversations that does not have to be the main character.

Yes I know this issue has been debated quite a bit, but for me, it just seems to make logical sense that if you have a very good diplomatic character why would you not have them speak for the group?  The trade off might be they can only say things you might not like, but hey that would be a interesting wrinkle sometimes....

 

Now I get how certain conversations, for plot reasons, may have to be scripted only for the main character, but for bargaining with the merchant, please can we have my crazy good bard equivalent party member do it, and not my surly wizard character?

 

Also, can we not have the every enemy auto lock into conversation with the first person they see? My tank's are rarely the best conversationalists.....

 

 

This was gold. It can still be,it can be even better.

It would be perfect if they make it so that you can redirect the role of speaker to a party member that can more successfully deal with the situation,not just drop in with a comment. NWN 2 irritated me with the focus on PC. It's stupid. Of course I would like my barbarian/fighter do the intimidate check if I see it as best solution but lack the skill myself (example). That's what a party engaging in a conversation should look like. The rugged ones threaten,the smart ones say the smart stuff,etc.

 

Of course it is not logical that you are a squishy wizard physically threatening someone. But threatening while a large,nasty barbarian wielding axe taller than all stands besides you is resulting in an answer like - "How about no?". See,it is logical that the mentioned barbarian grins and says "Wuts dat,Axe? U no likes him?? AWWWWW",making a successful check for the party.

 

I would very much love to have those unrealistic approaches out of the picture. The skill checks should be made so that class restrictions should stand for individual only, not the party. If someone with the required skill is present in the party,I see no reason that it would be bad if that party member deals with the check.

  • Like 4

Lawful evil banite  The Morality troll from the god of Prejudice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, if you want to intimidate, your party would have to check if they are intimidating enough. I like that. You could hoard intimidating or smart attributes in your group for example to rule that skill checks in your way. So you dont have to push your charisma 19+ paladin forward whenever you want to get things for sure

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only strictly gamplay-design type problem I see with different party members just always making skill checks when needed is that, between 6 people, you're probably going to have a high value in every single necessary skill/trait. Got a Warrior? Well, you're set on Intimidate. Got a Wizard? Well, you're set on Arcane lore, etc. Got a Rogue? Well, you know when people are lying, and you're set on bluffing. Got a Ranger? Well, you know all about Wilderness lore and Tracks and such.

 

I only worry that, potentially, you'd run into a "there's no such thing as a bad skill check for my party" situation with the entire playthrough. I think it would be interesting to maybe add an additional layer to that system (because I'm all for a Warrior getting to intimidate, even though he's not the player's main character), such as group checks. Maybe having 5 highly-intimidating people will be necessary to effectively intimidate, say, a group of bandits (I mean, would 1 burly Warrior REALLY be THAT scary to 5 even decently-burly Bandits?). Or, if there's some ridiculously elaborate rouse going on between several people, maybe each skilled-at-Bluff/Sense Motive person in your party allows you to discern yet another clue/detail about what's being lied about and why (such as, "I noticed he seemed to flinch every time the word 'mansion' was mentioned," or "I think he's trying to make it seem like we've figured things out, so that we'll remain confused... it's a tactic I've used a lot," etc.)

 

I just think a range of effectiveness needs to be maintained somehow. Not in EVERY scenario, but throughout the game, in general. So that, there are SOME situations that require more than just someone who's skilled at something to effectively skill your way through. I would even go so far as to say it might be neat if there are some locks/traps that require multiple skilled lockpickers/trap-handlers to disable/bypass. But, that may be pushing it, heh (the idea interests me is all).

  • Like 3

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for giving it a thought. I was too tired last night to fully contemplate on this,nor do I wish to do it alone. Bottom line is that I think that there is enough pointers that so-far conversation system is not exactly the best. The collective skill checks for the party... it might work,it would require work but not as much work as doing each dialogue by switching trough party members as I first said.

Yes,I noted that ultimately there would be danger of having every conversation a (quote) "there's no such thing as a bad skill check for my party" situation,but that doesn't mean that this would be bad. In NWN 1 & 2 I buffed myself often to get a check done,as many of us did,I'm sure,just to get a successful check on a situation. But I want to justify this need to "lemme reload and see if I can do it with fox cunning on" that most people will try to pull. Let me test my intelligent wizard's check - I am a party leader,situation's outcome is in our interest and he is in my crew - why screw the logic and not let him do it? And this can be displayed as "<WIZARD> present in party - checks on INT/lore/spellcraft are based on his,as he has highest points in those".

 

The sense of dealing with something as a true party is much needed,I think.

 

Of course there would be a need to do all this carefully,some situations should not allow the effective use of this. There should be no party keen enough to discern lies of an entire rogue guild,no party intimidating enough to scare off a barbarian tribe,nor intelligent so that they decipher ancient tomes of a people so ancient that the lack of info on them makes it impossible to lore your way through in a few hours.

Lawful evil banite  The Morality troll from the god of Prejudice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea for whole-party dialogue contributions is full of potential, although for roleplaying purposes I do tend to like my personal character to be focal in the dialogues. I like the idea that in situations where a certain character's nature is relevant to the discussion, though, you might get a bonus conversation option where they speak. And hey, maybe sometimes a character might feel so strongly they actually interrupt (used sparingly and non-obnoxiously). To avoid the issue of 'With a six man party, I am great at everything', the contributions of other party members should be tied specifically to character. So having a barbarian who is hugely intimidating doesn't guarantee you'll simply be able to cruise through intimidating anyone you wish, because the conversation option for him to involve himself would only come up when he'd be particularly compelled to make a threat. So if you're just trying to beat cheaper prices from a smith, you can't have him throw his muscle around, but perhaps he hates Orlans, and the smith is an Orlan. Then  the '[intimidate; Barbarian] Blaa...' option comes up along with the usual ones.

 

I like to be the focus of the dialogue because I want to feel like I am roleplaying my individual character. But I do like a mechanic that actually makes it feel like the whole party is present and has opinions, rather than simply all standing back and nodding in silent agreement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, in Storm of Zehir, your party members not designated as speaker would have an opportunity to chime in in a dialog panels by having a note by their portrait.  

 

PE could do the same thing, and to address the potential for party members having every skill to unlock conversation options; that could affected by influence, factions, etc.  In other words, if your PC doesn't pass an influence check with the party member in question, they may not offer their insight.  Likewise if the potential questgiver/person of interest is from a rival or even disliked faction.

 

Here is a description of the system from an interview with Anthony Davis:

 

http://www.gamefront.com/obsidian-dev-posts-example-of-storm-of-zehir-party-conversation-system/

Edited by curryinahurry
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all.

 

I find it interesting that the only comments I received were on the dialogue/party system. I am curious if that's because everyone agreed with the other point I made or just everyone is much more passionate about this subject. Love to here what posters think,

 

On to dialogue speaking system, as someone who does and has done a fair bit of paper roleplaying, its interesting tension when there is party speaker with actually people and their characters involved and present. In some groups everyone keeps silent except for the Speaker and NPC(s), in others everyone has their characters interject all the time, either in game or out of game, and in most its somewhere in between.

 

One neat way I think this could be achieved is have an option of “Party Aid” in conversation. What this would do might be to have options for Party members to use their skills on their own inatatives to help the speaker (or main PC, if there going that way.) For example, your rogue could whisper an aside to you “I think he is lying,” your barbarian could start flexible his muscles to make a subtle intimidate check, or the wizard could even caste a truth spell.

 

I think this could work very well, but would require a very high AI intelligence for your party AND the ability to turn it off and on, as some players probably would not like item, and most would not want it all the time.

 

I am not sure on how a more direct “combined skill checks” can work in sem-logical in game way without telepathy (which not ruling out) as how would you work there skills into your conversation without the NPC(s) realizing, getting offended, and/or out and out leaving or attacking you. I mean imagine if you walked into a shop and the in middle of purchases 5 friends kept interrupting with their comments and accusations.....though it might be funny for a little while.

 

Still I would just be happy enough with the party speaker who did not have to be me in all situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my fault,yaminsoul. I actually wanted to say more on everything you said from 1) to 5),but I was really tired,worked overtime so that I wouldn't have to drag the job over to day two.. as result I posted what I could before collapsing into deep slumber.  :blush:

 

In short - I agree with all the points you made,even personally happy that someone is playing my favorite game in the year 2013. More on this later,when I find the proper time.

Lawful evil banite  The Morality troll from the god of Prejudice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only strictly gamplay-design type problem I see with different party members just always making skill checks when needed is that, between 6 people, you're probably going to have a high value in every single necessary skill/trait. Got a Warrior? Well, you're set on Intimidate. Got a Wizard? Well, you're set on Arcane lore, etc. Got a Rogue? Well, you know when people are lying, and you're set on bluffing. Got a Ranger? Well, you know all about Wilderness lore and Tracks and such.

 

I only worry that, potentially, you'd run into a "there's no such thing as a bad skill check for my party" situation with the entire playthrough. I think it would be interesting to maybe add an additional layer to that system (because I'm all for a Warrior getting to intimidate, even though he's not the player's main character), such as group checks. Maybe having 5 highly-intimidating people will be necessary to effectively intimidate, say, a group of bandits (I mean, would 1 burly Warrior REALLY be THAT scary to 5 even decently-burly Bandits?). Or, if there's some ridiculously elaborate rouse going on between several people, maybe each skilled-at-Bluff/Sense Motive person in your party allows you to discern yet another clue/detail about what's being lied about and why (such as, "I noticed he seemed to flinch every time the word 'mansion' was mentioned," or "I think he's trying to make it seem like we've figured things out, so that we'll remain confused... it's a tactic I've used a lot," etc.)

 

I just think a range of effectiveness needs to be maintained somehow. Not in EVERY scenario, but throughout the game, in general. So that, there are SOME situations that require more than just someone who's skilled at something to effectively skill your way through. I would even go so far as to say it might be neat if there are some locks/traps that require multiple skilled lockpickers/trap-handlers to disable/bypass. But, that may be pushing it, heh (the idea interests me is all).

 

Methinks looking at the highest and lowest stat might be proudent, as well as the overall average.

But the highest stat should have the most influence, since generally the person with it will gerate most attention.

  • Like 2

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1) Marco or Function spell casting.

 

 

3) Auto inventory organizer.

 

4) Party moves in group and has some intelligence when doing so.

 

 

5) Some logical correlation between merchants and game play

 

 

1) Being preferably a cleric/priest,I was accustomed to always cast atleast bless/deathward/circle against alignment before venturing anywhere. Mages always had mirror image on if they used crossbows or stoneskin if they used staffs. Sure as hell wouldn't mind a "custom set of buffs" buttons/slots to shorten the time required for me to manually prepare the ultimate party buffing.

 

3) At least this,if not inventory split to sections like armor/weapons/potions/misc that the merchants have usually. Auto-arranged,naturally.

 

4)Sawyer said that out-of-combat speed is likely to be limited to a slowest party member,but there is one more option that I find a must :

when trap is detected,make all party stand ground until it is disarmed or I order a character myself to walk over it. Plus I like my autoattack on,so it was a drag when someone from the party charges in across the spotted trap to attack an enemy. The spotted trap is discovered so that all party can see it,right? At least,when someone detects it he should "tell" others,no? It would seem real enough it makes them stop (a priority action) without me having to pause and order individually,which usually happens when it's already sprung.

 

5) Ah,the merchants. If one wants to rob them by simply killing them,the proper penalty would be a major reputation decrease,even a sort of perk like "merchant slayer" if this becomes a habit. Items should stay. Any action you did,however,to benefit their trade in the times of trouble should be also recognized. Discount,item given as a token,etc.

Lawful evil banite  The Morality troll from the god of Prejudice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   At certain points in Mask of the Betrayer, if your character failed a skill check, sometimes your party members would make the skill check for you if you had enough influence with them. I believe Gann did that if you failed a skill check with the devils in the academy. He only helped you with a skill check on that occasion, because he felt like it, and even then only if he liked you enough. Such as system would be the most natural in my opinion, giving your party members some autonomy, though it should be employed on a greater scale. For example, a selfish party member might help you manipulate someone in order to get a better reward, but refuse to do so when he has nothing to gain from it. A violent party member might refuse to intimidate someone, because he or she is looking forward to the fight. Perhaps you could try to forcefully persuade a party member, but loose some influence with them in the process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methinks looking at the highest and lowest stat might be proudent, as well as the overall average.

But the highest stat should have the most influence, since generally the person with it will gerate most attention.

While that's a valid way to handle it, I still worry that you'd get to some guy who is a 6 out of 10 on Bluff difficulty, and Rick the Rogue can single-handedly Bluff his way past a 10, but your main character can't even bluff past a 1 (let's just assume a 2-person party for example's sake), so now the game goes "Oh, well, in that case, you get a 5, so you fail to successfully Bluff this guy, whom Rick the Rogue could've single-handedly handled on his own."

 

That would leave me wondering things like, "Wait, was Rick the Rogue magically WORSE at Bluffery because I was in proximity? Did I emit a truth aura? Was my character required to participate in the Bluff, and that's what screwed it up?"

 

Etc. Although, heh, having said that... Now that I think about it, if the main character HAD to be present, I suppose his inability to keep a straight face or, for lack of a better phrase, "play it cool" during the Bluff (even though he's not participating in it, with his mouthial sounds) would negatively impact the effects of the Bluff, regardless of Rick the Rogue's exquisite Bluffery prowess. So, there's that alongside my concern.

 

Hmmm... Okay, different example, to check: Strength check, against a door. If your 20-STR Warrior tried to take down the door, and your 5-STR Wizard main character took his check down to... crap, I used uneven math... 12.5? And he failed to take the door down, that wouldn't make much sense.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't EVER get some use out of taking the mean (as per Bluff example, above). So, yeah... still a pretty valid method to consider, I'd say.

 

I think we can at least agree that it would seem some form of interaction between the skill/stat ratings of different characters (even if indirect) should probably exist when the party's doing things.

 

I still believe that having at least some instances of checks that can only be successfully overcome by multiple skill/stat scores in tandem would be interesting. Sticking to common examples, maybe there's a big door that your Warrior can't break down, even with his 20 STR. But, alas! Your main character is ALSO a burly Warrior! (I know the class is kind of arbitrary...). Okay, so, your main character is a whatever... point is, he ALSO has high STR (we'll just go with 20). Well, in-so-far as the math behind the door breaking down is concerned, you need a total of 36 STR. So, with the two of you, you manage to break it. But, if your main character had only had 10 STR, you couldn't have done it.

 

Basically, at least in THOSE instances (which don't have to be all instances of skill/stat checks in the game, obviously), it handles the "Wait, why is my skill/stat value the only one that matters?" dilemma, regardless of whether or not you're asking it for your main character, or another party member. Or, to put it another way, allowing the player to choose which member of the party gets to make a check handles the "Only the main character's skills/stats matter" problem, but the problem of only one person's skills/stats mattering at any given time is still an issue. Because, why COULDN'T multiple people attempt the same thing in conjunction, when appropriate? (Clearly, 3 people cannot pool their Archery accuracy to make a single shot, cooperatively)

 

Sorry, I know that was long-winded of me. (What else is new? :) )

Edited by Lephys
  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different checks could always look to different measurements, or even a combination. So busting a door down might be 'If any two party members have a combined STR of 30'. Bluffing a guy might be 'If at least one party member has a bluff of 18, the average bluff of the party is 10 or more, and nobody has a bluff of 3 or less'.

 

I don't actually think that's a great or particularly feasible idea, but I figured I'd mention it in a spitballing sort of spirit.

 

That said, it would be neat if you had your usual bluff outcomes of, like, 'Eh, sure, I guess...' and 'Nah, I don't think so...' but if you had Johnny Honest in your party, whose character shtick is that he's an awful liar, instead you get a new outcome of 'You're obviously lying, that guy just burst out laughing.'

Edited by Eiphel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of skill checks, yeah, some I can see logically working with "aid other" idea, i.e. your party can work together do lift stuff, clear boulders, even help each other climbing through ropes and picks. In social situations it becomes harder, because as mentioned before people usually want to talk to one or two people, not 6.

 

But remember the more kind of complex skills checks we add here, the harder it is to script and code. While it might be cool to see this, skills in the IE games were never a huge deal except really the thieves set (hide/search/disarm trap) and once in a while diplomacy set. If oblivion wants to go into this heavily to make these kind of pen and paper syngery work, that would be cool, but I don't think its a huge deal.

 

Re Nemir (thanks for responding to other ideas) by the end of Icewind Dale 2 there I think about 12 spells I cast upon waking up, from 4 different party members, and then about 20 before battles....and that was just in regular game before Heart of Fury

 

In terms of disarming traps/movement yeah that would be nice, but for example there are some hazards you cannot disarm or areas you have not been and have monsters. I would like some scripting that said "don't go there even if it is the shortest route"

 

The merchants thing is just a grip at rpg laziness in designers to prevent merchant ganking and proper item per level/area ratio. I would this done in a more organic, less programed way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In terms of disarming traps/movement yeah that would be nice, but for example there are some hazards you cannot disarm or areas you have not been and have monsters. I would like some scripting that said "don't go there even if it is the shortest route"

 

 

The matter of caution is left for us to mimic entirely rather than it is being scripted as something characters do automatically. Listen,sense motive,search - even wilderness lore/survival need to be imagined more automatic in execution and connected to one another in a more natural way,plus the imperative on cautious approach. If someone with wilderness lore determines that there are dangerous creatures about,and party is keeping a formation or limited in movement speed (avoiding party scattering is for the sake of caution more than else), then it is logical that when someone from the party hears something behind the closed door they should not start running around or opening doors just because auto attack is on. Without auto attack it is closer to a puppet mode,so we need a finer balance if the automatics are imagined to help us ingame. This is the crucial flaw in the system, and that is why I believe it needs to be reworked. It's not a matter of powerplay versus caution,it's only logical. Maybe a simple all-party commands like stand ground/attack on sight/etc. will help alone,I don't know,but something needs to be done.

Lawful evil banite  The Morality troll from the god of Prejudice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of skill checks, yeah, some I can see logically working with "aid other" idea, i.e. your party can work together do lift stuff, clear boulders, even help each other climbing through ropes and picks. In social situations it becomes harder, because as mentioned before people usually want to talk to one or two people, not 6.

Ahh, but, riddle me this: If you hear something that you doubt from one person, do you not doubt it more than if you hear it from 17 different people? I'm not saying "All social things should always use aggregate skill values from your whole party." I'm just saying that I think that's definitely worth considering. Like I said, though, you and a friend can't combine your aiming prowess into the same bow shot, or merge your consciousness on Perception checks. Certain things obviously don't really stack in effect.

 

 

But remember the more kind of complex skills checks we add here, the harder it is to script and code.

 

Ehh... when it comes down to it, it's really all just math. I mean, I get that it's more writing, etc. for dialogue and the gameplay to visually and audibly represent the different outcomes and happenings, but... still. The game already knows what everyone's skill levels are, and what value it's looking for to determine what outcome to represent to the player. It's simply a matter of whether or not it collects rolls from/performs math with all the values and looks for a higher total check difficulty value or not, really. The slightly different lines and such would be minimal, as you'd already have these in a game devoid of any manner of combined skill checks.

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Nemir:  Cautious movement scripting would be excellent as a feature you could turn on and off (becuase you know some people are going to want to just play "I told them to move there, move their d**m it.) but I would just like better pathering which incorperates hazards or potential hazards and priotizes safety over spead, if I check that button.

 

Re Leyphs: Eh, now we are getting to close the "realize versus gameplay" debates, but what I meant was that if your trying to bluff/convince someone the party members chimming in who are bad at diplomacy is not going to help and also does not make sense in social situation context. IF they want to implement a synergy/party composite system for many checks I would be fine with that but again all I really wanted was the party speaker idea. Everything else is gravy :)

 

As to the scripting, it is also triggers, as they have to program triggers for every party member and every potential created allies to check these stats for every potential skill checks. Not sure how much coding that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the scripting, it is also triggers, as they have to program triggers for every party member and every potential created allies to check these stats for every potential skill checks. Not sure how much coding that it is.

Yeah, I just meant that they've already got a trigger that checks for the 7,000,000 different possible main-character variants it's possible to make, so you'd think it wouldn't be that bad to work in 5 other static companions' check values, if they so chose.

 

And I realize what you meant on the people chiming in thing. Sometimes there would be a reason to have multiple people try something, and I think, in those situations, there should be the potential for increased effectiveness coming from combined skill/stat values. And there are times when it only make sense for one skill/stat value to matter (like with a bowshot's precision, or the pick of a lock, or a perception check, etc.). THEN, there are times when multiple people COULD affect a skill/stat check, but you'd only want one person to do it because of other people's low skill values. But, even within that, there'd be times when they'd have such a low score, it would affect them. Or, you now, times when everyone's skill would HAVE to have some effect. I mean, if you're terrible at acting, I can't just act FOR you if we've both got to act our way past some guards.

 

However, in that last case, the lower numbers would most likely be lessened. Basically, there'd be a a different way of determining the outcome of that, instead of the "You need 40 for this, and you have 3 people, each with 14, so you made it." You'd have a different check value. Probably a little lower. I just think it'd be interesting if (like in the case of your entire party infiltrating some place disguised as servants or something), you could have a variety of outcomes based upon your overall party scores. If you HAPPEN to boost everyone's Charisma (to roll with D&D stuff), and you beat a total of 40, then maybe you manage to pass for higher-tier servants with better access to the palace/event. Whereas, between 30 and 40, you can only pass as lowly kitchen servants or something. And below 30, you can only pass as stable muckers. So, as the top-tier servants (maybe servers, or... I dunno... the kind that are trusted to actually stand around the nobility themselves in the event that they need anything), you'd have the easiest/best access to the facilities, without being questioned or anything. As kitchen staff, you can only make small forays out into the nobles' area, but you can also easily get out to the stables if you need to (to throw out scraps, etc.). As stable muckers, you have to figure out how to get into the palace itself, THEN into the nobles' area.

 

It would still be possible... it would just be trickier to spy on people/find anything out/do anything if people think you're supposed to be out in the stables all night, covered in horse poop, than if you're a kitchen servant or, better yet, a "personal servant" (I don't know what they're called, but they're not the kind of personal servant that goes with the noble when the event is over. They would be palace staff, but trusted with a lot more tasks than JUST kitchen tasks or JUST stable tasks.)

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting, because what you are saying above has long been a staple of table top roleplaying. IE differing type of skill checks (though hitting things is usally an entirely different mechanic), some which are unique to the character, some for whole party and some in between. It has never, however, really been implented in an IE game 2 reasons I think.

 

1) After Icewind Dale 2 "You" were always a single protagonist, not a group of character, so I suspect the developers wanted to emphasis your skills more than the parties, and not make you check all of theirs all the time.

 

2) "WE HAVE TO CODE WHAT?!!!"  :)  or the progammers did not want to scripts all the shuttering amounts of triggers this would require.

 

IF Project eternity has this, great, but we shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for what it's worth:

 

1) I'm not suggesting forcing the checks of the whole party's skills every time. I merely gave an example of a time when that might actually occur (in other words, very occasionally, your whole party's skillset might be checked, no matter what. Occasionally...)

 

2) I really don't think it would be as much of an ordeal as you think. These values are in what amounts to a spreadsheet, and the code goes "Here's a list of the characters skills you need to check," and for each one, it runs the "check such-and-such skill table cell at E1." It takes a computer all of a fraction of a second to do that, to 6 characters, or 60, really.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when if comes to conversations, there are some things that can be passively used by the party, but others should need the proper person to take action

if the tiny halfling thief, stands in front of a half-orc barbarian party member, that constantly touches lovingly his 6 ft long sword and mutters "are you thirsty for blood my precious?", and uses intimidate on the human merchant, the presence of the barbarian should be enough to convince him

however if the half-orc tries to bluff, the presence of the halfling wont make it convincing. in that case you should have the option to nod for help at the thief, who will come up with a convincing bluff, however you will have no way to know what he's gonna say and may get saved or end up in more trouble than you would if you had given a straight answer

  • Like 1

The words freedom and liberty, are diminishing the true meaning of the abstract concept they try to explain. The true nature of freedom is such, that the human mind is unable to comprehend it, so we make a cage and name it freedom in order to give a tangible meaning to what we dont understand, just as our ancestors made gods like Thor or Zeus to explain thunder.

 

-Teknoman2-

What? You thought it was a quote from some well known wise guy from the past?

 

Stupidity leads to willful ignorance - willful ignorance leads to hope - hope leads to sex - and that is how a new generation of fools is born!


We are hardcore role players... When we go to bed with a girl, we roll a D20 to see if we hit the target and a D6 to see how much penetration damage we did.

 

Modern democracy is: the sheep voting for which dog will be the shepherd's right hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent example, Teknoman2!

 

Your convincing-with-words character could lack the physiological scariness and 6ft blade necessary to really drive home an intimidate, but your 7ft-tall Barbarian who's got the scariness could lack the convincingness of tongue to describe just how menacing and brutal he can be (Hell, your Barbarian could, as a character, be totally against killing this guy because he's innocent, so he'd have even MORE trouble lying about how torturous he can be when he doesn't even believe in torture, etc.).

 

In that case, it could even be a combo between your Barbarian's Strength (and/or equipment, etc... whatever affects intimidate, or an intimidate skill itself?) and your Thief's bluff/charisma/intelligence. Even if it's as simple as "If you have enough Bluff capability, you get these additional options for bluff attempts, and if there's a 15-or-higher intimidate value at play with anyone else in your party, you get these additional options for Bluff + Intimidate combo.)

 

A sort of skill synergy. I like it!

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with 1).

 

Instead, I would like this see buffs be stronger and last for a shorter time. This combined with a limited amount of casts per battle would make buffs part of the tactical gameplay.

I would really not want to see macros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...