Are we getting the PE we were led to believe was on the horizon during the KS?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm getting an isometric RPG from Obsidian with total creative freedom. IIRC,that is what they promised in the Kickstarter. If anything, they seem to be gutting the parts I hated about the IE games and replacing them with things I would probably like better.

[Greensleeve]

-long, snipped post. For space-

 

I honestly cannot understand your position. In my opinion, the things you are describing as good things are the things that make it excruciatingly hard for me to go back and re-play these games. The things you are describing about mages and fighters are the worst things about the IE games. Having more active fighters is one of my number one wishes from PE. Them being fire and forget is something I absolutely abhor. 

 

I do however agree with enjoying the math being accessible to me, without it being hidden behind the scenes. 

Edited July 31, 2013 by Greensleeve

[Larkaloke]

So far I am on the whole quite happy with what I'm seeing. It's not exactly like any of the old Infinity Engine games in particular, but I certainly wasn't expecting that. It couldn't have been. It was obviously not going to use AD&D rules, so it had to be something different.

 

The three most important aspects to me of those games all seem to be there to varying extent: isometric gameplay, character creation/customisation, Infinity Engine-style dialogue, and as a bonus the ability to make more than one character.

 

There are some things I'm not so wild about. I don't like cooldowns or activated abilities, as a rule (spells feel different than that to me). There have been games where I find them reasonable enough I can ignore them, and I hope for this to be one of them -- it also sounds so far like one won't necessarily have to use those abilities for any given character. That's fine with me. I'm leery of the attribute system from what little we've heard of it, but I withhold judgement on it until I see more, and have no doubt I'll be able to enjoy the game even if it turns out to be not to my liking at all. Similarly, I'm not wild about crafting in general -- it usually ends up either useless or too powerful -- but even if I don't end up liking the crafting system, I can ignore it.

 

Basically, the roleplaying aspects and the general feel of the game seem very much as was always stated, and they and the story and world and all seem like they're going to be cool and interesting. In a roleplaying game, those things are the most important to me. I'm very fond of combat as well, but I've played and enjoyed roleplaying games where I could barely stand the combat before, so I know it isn't as important to me -- and there are also aspects of the combat that seem like they'll be pretty cool to me.

 

I did enjoy combat in Baldur's Gate and the other games. I still do. It wasn't and isn't nostalgia, because there was none of that when I started playing them and I enjoyed them from the beginning, and I still prefer it to many newer games. It's not the only type of combat I enjoy, however, and since it was never going to be like that (not AD&D), I'm mostly just interested to see what they come up with and don't believe I'll know whether or not I enjoy the combat until I have actually played it.

 

Basically, everything that I actually had as an expectation seems to be happening. The other things, the specifics of the mechanics, mostly seem to be shaping up in a way that I'm happy with as well, which is nice -- though there are a few things I've concerns about, but no concerns that are large enough that they seem to have the potential to cause me to not enjoy the game.

[Blarghagh]

I'm getting an isometric RPG from Obsidian with total creative freedom. IIRC,that is what they promised in the Kickstarter. If anything, they seem to be gutting the parts I hated about the IE games and replacing them with things I would probably like better.

 

I agree with this 100%. I want to have something with the feeling of the Infinity Engine games, not the exact mechanics. Especially not the exact mechanics.

[Malekith]

The funny thing is that the "IE mechanics" is a myth. The IE games didn't had the same mechanics. PS:T was different than BGT and IWD, while IWD2 was yet again diffirent.

 

As for fighters being fire and forget, PE will have it. YOU are the one to choose your characters talents. If you want comletely passive, just choose only passive talents.(i prefer completely passive fighters also). If you want your mages to be completely weaklings in physical combat, quess what...you can!

 

The difference is that PE will also provide the choice for those that want it to have a little more active fighters, and a little more passive mages. No one forces you to make your characters that way.

[Ignatius]

I have no concerns in the slightest.

[Monte Carlo]

d00d it has a really, *really* big dungeon and a Baldur's Gate-sized city.

 

Chill.

 

Really. Just chill.

[Hamenaglar]

 

-long, snipped post. For space-

 

I honestly cannot understand your position. In my opinion, the things you are describing as good things are the things that make it excruciatingly hard for me to go back and re-play these games. The things you are describing about mages and fighters are the worst things about the IE games. Having more active fighters is one of my number one wishes from PE. Them being fire and forget is something I absolutely abhor. 

 

I do however agree with enjoying the math being accessible to me, without it being hidden behind the scenes. 

 

 

You know, I honestly cannot understand your position either. I loved everything about IE games. To each his own I guess. But I could understand if Obsidian wanted to improve the combat mechanics. That is build on AD&D (much like DnD 3rd edition did). Now I understand there are problem with licences (although much of 3rd eidtion is under OGL).

 

What I want to say, it seems to me that Obsidian doesn't want to tweak and improve the system. It just seems they are going out with the old and in with the new. Cooldowns, per-will abilties and stuff.

 

Why are they taking out the old attributes system. that worked so well in a number of RPGs? Why are all classes proficient with all weapons. Why are they inventing new mechanics when there are already old existing mechanics that work well (the new engagement system vs. attacks of opportunity). A change here or there is fine. But this is full on rebuilding mode.

 

It's just that it seems to me that Mr. Sawyer didn't really enjoy playing IE games (or at least wouldn't enjoy playing them now). It also seems to me, like a lot of people here wouldn't enjoy playing them now. That's fine, but then they should have made it more clear during the kickstarter.

 

I feel (please note the word feel which, instead of think, meaning that I'm acting emotionally rather than rationally), I feel I've been promised an IE game and what I'm getting is a game in an IE wrapping, but a different thing underneath.

[Lephys]

Are we getting the P:E we believed during the Kickstarter? Who knows.

 

Are we getting the P:E we were led to believe during the Kickstarter? Absolutely.

[alanschu]

It's just that it seems to me that Mr. Sawyer didn't really enjoy playing IE games (or at least wouldn't enjoy playing them now). It also seems to me, like a lot of people here wouldn't enjoy playing them now. That's fine, but then they should have made it more clear during the kickstarter.

 

I enjoyed playing the IE games.  That doesn't mean that I'm not open to a combat system overhaul.  The combat was never what I liked about the IE games, and I wouldn't agree that the attribute system of AD&D really worked all that well either (other systems, like SPECIAL, I think are much more interesting and better fleshed out in their CRPG experiences).  And as such, we come full circle back to the problem: what people like about the IE games isn't the same.

 

You feel that, thus far, what is presented is not what you would like.  It doesn't feel like an IE game anymore.  For me, it still does, because I haven't seen anything that indicates that the important stuff I loved about the IE games has really changed.  So who is right?  And how do we reconcile this?  I'd be disappointed if they just took Infinity Engine and wrote a new story campaign for it, but you would be happier.

 

 

The reality is that, by stating "we want to make a game in the vein of the IE games," there was no way that they were going to please all the fans of those older games.  I would consider it unfortunate if they didn't look to change things up.  There's nothing saying that I may not find combat in Project Eternity way better than I did in the old IE games.  In fact, there's nothing saying that you won't actually like it more, either.  That said, maybe it won't be as good.  I don't know, but I find the anticipation of what may come a lot more interesting.

 

The idea of effectively just taking the Infinity Engine and writing a new story for it is much less appealing to me.  I can also appreciate that, as a content creator, Josh and Co. may just want to try out some stuff that they think will be a lot of fun.

 

 

The only advantage using something like 3rd edition would provide, for me, is that I would know what I am getting.  Which isn't something putrid, but also isn't something that I find particularly interesting either.  It definitely won't make me go "Ooo, what sort of interesting things could they do with this that I have never seen before?"

Edited July 31, 2013 by alanschu

[Hamenaglar]

 

I enjoyed playing the IE games.  That doesn't mean that I'm not open to a combat system overhaul.  The combat was never what I liked about the IE games, and I wouldn't agree that the attribute system of AD&D really worked all that well either (other systems, like SPECIAL, I think are much more interesting and better fleshed out in their CRPG experiences).  And as such, we come full circle back to the problem: what people like about the IE games isn't the same.

 

You feel that, thus far, what is presented is not what you would like.  It doesn't feel like an IE game anymore.  For me, it still does, because I haven't seen anything that indicates that the important stuff I loved about the IE games has really changed.  So who is right?  And how do we reconcile this?  I'd be disappointed if they just took Infinity Engine and wrote a new story campaign for it, but you would be happier.

 

 

 

You are right, ofcourse. We obviously loved different aspects of the IE games. I think Obsidian shouldn't have mentioned IE games at all in their campaign, or should have made it more clear what kind of changes they intend to make. For instance I have no issues with the new Torment. From the start it was clear what they wanted to accomplish, that they would change the setting, where they would follow the spirit of the original torment. Obsidian didn't make it as clear and that's why I think there are some disappointed people.

 

The reality is that, by stating "we want to make a game in the vein of the IE games," there was no way that they were going to please all the fans of those older games.  I would consider it unfortunate if they didn't look to change things up.  There's nothing saying that I may not find combat in Project Eternity way better than I did in the old IE games.  In fact, there's nothing saying that you won't actually like it more, either.  That said, maybe it won't be as good.  I don't know, but I find the anticipation of what may come a lot more interesting.

 

The idea of effectively just taking the Infinity Engine and writing a new story for it is much less appealing to me.  I can also appreciate that, as a content creator, Josh and Co. may just want to try out some stuff that they think will be a lot of fun.

 

Maybe, that's just it. From the changes they've announced so far, I don't see them as being fun to ME. Perhaps, I would be more happy if the changes they were announcing were something I like (I probably would). Does that make me hypocritical? Maybe. Probably. From what they've announced so far it seems like it would be similar to Dragon age: Origins, which was also a supposed modernization (and a spiritual successor) of Baldur's gate. But that game just wasn't that much fun to me. It's hard to judge on the limited information that we have. For a long time, I was hoping of getting an oldschool game in a modern wrapping (wasteland 2 might be it, shadowrun returns was also cool). What I'm concerned is that I'm getting a modern game in an oldschool wrapping.

 

Again it's hard to judge without actually playing. But after being (more or less) burned with Fallout 3, DA:O, Witcher 2, I became very sceptical.

[Elerond]

 

 

I enjoyed playing the IE games.  That doesn't mean that I'm not open to a combat system overhaul.  The combat was never what I liked about the IE games, and I wouldn't agree that the attribute system of AD&D really worked all that well either (other systems, like SPECIAL, I think are much more interesting and better fleshed out in their CRPG experiences).  And as such, we come full circle back to the problem: what people like about the IE games isn't the same.

 

You feel that, thus far, what is presented is not what you would like.  It doesn't feel like an IE game anymore.  For me, it still does, because I haven't seen anything that indicates that the important stuff I loved about the IE games has really changed.  So who is right?  And how do we reconcile this?  I'd be disappointed if they just took Infinity Engine and wrote a new story campaign for it, but you would be happier.

 

 

 

You are right, ofcourse. We obviously loved different aspects of the IE games. I think Obsidian shouldn't have mentioned IE games at all in their campaign, or should have made it more clear what kind of changes they intend to make. For instance I have no issues with the new Torment. From the start it was clear what they wanted to accomplish, that they would change the setting, where they would follow the spirit of the original torment. Obsidian didn't make it as clear and that's why I think there are some disappointed people.

 

In my opinion Obsidian did make it quite clear that they intend to make spiritual successor to IE engine games that takes high-level ideas that make those games feel as they feel, but they will not use any of the rule systems or setting that IE games used but instead they will make new rule system and setting from scratch. They metioned that setting will have familiar elements so that players can easily identify things, but that everything has new twist that make setting different from other fantasy settings. And for rule system they told what were their high-level goals what they want to achive with it and they even gave some examples of ideas that what they had in that time.

 

But I would say that it is way too early to be disappointed to PE as we know very little details about how it's system will work as whole, so it is very difficult to judge what kind experience system will give to players.

[Greensleeve]

 

 

-long, snipped post. For space-

 

I honestly cannot understand your position. In my opinion, the things you are describing as good things are the things that make it excruciatingly hard for me to go back and re-play these games. The things you are describing about mages and fighters are the worst things about the IE games. Having more active fighters is one of my number one wishes from PE. Them being fire and forget is something I absolutely abhor. 

 

I do however agree with enjoying the math being accessible to me, without it being hidden behind the scenes. 

 

 

You know, I honestly cannot understand your position either. I loved everything about IE games. To each his own I guess. But I could understand if Obsidian wanted to improve the combat mechanics. That is build on AD&D (much like DnD 3rd edition did). Now I understand there are problem with licences (although much of 3rd eidtion is under OGL).

 

What I want to say, it seems to me that Obsidian doesn't want to tweak and improve the system. It just seems they are going out with the old and in with the new. Cooldowns, per-will abilties and stuff.

 

Why are they taking out the old attributes system. that worked so well in a number of RPGs? Why are all classes proficient with all weapons. Why are they inventing new mechanics when there are already old existing mechanics that work well (the new engagement system vs. attacks of opportunity). A change here or there is fine. But this is full on rebuilding mode.

 

It's just that it seems to me that Mr. Sawyer didn't really enjoy playing IE games (or at least wouldn't enjoy playing them now). It also seems to me, like a lot of people here wouldn't enjoy playing them now. That's fine, but then they should have made it more clear during the kickstarter.

 

I feel (please note the word feel which, instead of think, meaning that I'm acting emotionally rather than rationally), I feel I've been promised an IE game and what I'm getting is a game in an IE wrapping, but a different thing underneath.

 

 

See, things is that AD&D and 3.5 had a lot of design problems. 3.5 more so than AD&D, I want to say, but I think that's just due to inexperience with the system. Given the system you say they should improve upon, they more or less have to throw it all out if they wish to create something really quite good, particularly given Josh Sawyer's design sensibilities (which I feel myself agreeing with more often than not). Don't get me wrong, I love 3.5 and the things that system have done. But a fair bit of it is either a) very different from a so-called core D&D experience, or b) despite the system, not because of it. 

 

As for the more specific things you point out... Well, the attribute system doesn't work all that well, it's typically just there. In the worst situations, the attribute system actually just hinders character building potential, in the best it's there. 

Making all classes proficient with all weapons, doesn't bother me. Sure, I would've liked to see some form of proficiency system, but it doesn't really in any way affect me. Weapon specialisation capabilities will be more important to me than baseline proficiencies. 

You do realise that the engagement system is probably the closest possible adaptation of the AoO system into a non-turn based RTwP game we could ask for? It is basically the same system in every meaningful way. 

 

To me, D&D is a flawed system. It seems to be as though Obsidian, and Josh in particular, agree with my gripes about the system and wish to fix them. It also seems as though the proposed fixes, or replacements maybe, are very much in line with what I consider to be good design. 

 

I feel as though I was promised an isometric game with hand-drawn maps, developed by Obsidian Entertainment, that would try to recapture the magical feeling (now this is incredibly hard to pin down. I do not think it has anything to do with mechanics though) of playing the IE games. One of the things I was most scared of early on was that they would keep to close to D&D when it came to the mechanics. When it became evident that wouldn't happen, I feel incredibly content with the direction the game is being taken. 

[Lephys]

Maybe, that's just it. From the changes they've announced so far, I don't see them as being fun to ME. Perhaps, I would be more happy if the changes they were announcing were something I like (I probably would). Does that make me hypocritical? Maybe. Probably. From what they've announced so far it seems like it would be similar to Dragon age: Origins, which was also a supposed modernization (and a spiritual successor) of Baldur's gate. But that game just wasn't that much fun to me.

Dragon Age: Origins wasn't lacking because it was supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Nor did it suffer simply because it attempted to make mechanical changes. Its deficiency was mainly in its execution, not in its goal.

 

If someone fires a gun at a target, and misses, that neither means that the target is unhittable, nor that the usage of a gun is a flawed method for striking the target.

 

I can't tell you that you should probably like what you know about P:E, but I can tell you that there's probably no reason to worry about P:E being much at all like DA:O.

[Silent Winter]

So far I'm pretty hopeful about the end-result.

I really don't mind a new combat system, so long as it's fun to play and not just 'different' for the sake of it - from what I've heard so far, we're getting.the fun version.

The world, lore, classes, races and creatures that we've seen have the right 'spirit' to me and the screenshots look fantastic.

Too early to tell of course but I'm looking forward to finding out

[SymbolicFrank]

Balanced characters and abilities are for when you play with or against other players: everyone should be just as good at anything as everyone else.

 

When I'm the only human in the game, I want as much diversity as possible.

 

I don't want the ultimate best pwn build on all my party members. Because it's not a competition. I want to be amused.

[Chrononaut]

So D&D, a system played and tested by millions, and designed over periods of years, is a "flawed" system, yet somehow a bunch of crunching video game developers on a short development timetable and shoe-string budget are going to make something better, either more complex or more balance (or both)?

 

The arrogance of making a KS project based on namedropping Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, and then proceeding to not even take inspiration from the rules in those games (D&D license notwithstanding, I mean taking inspiration so the rules feel familiar to d20 players) in some kind of delusional belief that they can magically create a better RPG ruleset in 21 months than the TSR/WoTC guys could over a much, much larger design and playtesting period.

 

Not only is it greatly offensive to namedrop those games and then slag all over AD&D/3.5 once the KS is over (D&D is a terrible system, blah blah), it's also arrogant because the chances of OE coming up with a character system of comparable scope, depth and complexity, AND make it balanced.... Well if you believe that, well I've got some special coolaid in my truck to sell you.

 

Just look at all OE's games, all of them had relatively simplistic character systems, New Vegas was the closest they ever got to complexity but it was still just another single-character RPG and thus not even close to what it requires to design a RPG system required for party gameplay. Unless of course you're perfectly fine with an "RPG" with a shallow character system, "classes" with a few unique special abilities Warcraft III heroes-like. You can say "Oh but the guys at OE were at Black Isle and made IWD/PST", and yeah sure, but they had D&D rules laid out and they could focus on content, they don't have that luxury this time.

 

I won't say it's impossible, but if you people think JE Sawyer is going to design Dungeons & Dragons: Ultimate Fixed Edition crunching in a few months of pre-production.... Even Wasteland 2 has MSPE basic rules to work with, they didn't have to design a system from the ground up (plus its original designer Michael Stackpole on-board), Numenera: Tides of Torment also has Monte Cook doing his P&P game which the designers have to base Torment on. Shadowrun Returns ditched using the tabletop rules for their game and ended up with a very simplistic and linear character system (which funnily enough is also unbalanced as hell).

 

There's a reason the D&D license was the golden goose back in the day, it's because video games have tight schedules and designing a ruleset which isn't complete **** in that timetable when you've got programmers and artists working is not viable. I wonder if you guys think PE will magically have a good ruleset just because no evil publisher, the reality is (from OE's record) it won't be good.

 

Licensing D&D or Pathfinder is probably the only way this game could of been better than the IE games.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Chrononaut

[tajerio]

So D&D, a system played and tested by millions, and designed over periods of years, is a "flawed" system, yet somehow a bunch of crunching video game developers on a short development timetable and shoe-string budget are going to make something better, either more complex or more balance (or both)?

 

I won't say it's impossible, but if you people think JE Sawyer is going to design Dungeons & Dragons: Ultimate Fixed Edition crunching in a few months of pre-production.... Even Wasteland 2 has MSPE basic rules to work with, they didn't have to design a system from the ground up (plus its original designer Michael Stackpole on-board), Numenera: Tides of Torment also has Monte Cook doing his P&P game which the designers have to base Torment on. Shadowrun Returns ditched using the tabletop rules for their game and ended up with a very simplistic and linear character system (which funnily enough is also unbalanced as hell).

 

There's a reason the D&D license was the golden goose back in the day, it's because video games have tight schedules and designing a ruleset which isn't complete **** in that timetable when you've got programmers and artists working is not viable. I wonder if you guys think PE will magically have a good ruleset just because no evil publisher, the reality is (from OE's record) it won't be good.

 

Licensing D&D or Pathfinder is probably the only way this game could of been better than the IE games.

 

The problem with the D&D system is that balance never seems to have been a concern of the designers.  There's maybe a little sweet spot somewhere in the levels 5-7 range where most of the core classes are moderately well balanced with one another, but the rest of the time classes are all over the place.  If balance is important to you as a player (which it is to me) or to you as a designer (which it seems to be for Obsidian) then the D&D ruleset is deeply flawed.  Not to mention the number of non-intuitive traps in character building, nor the frankly bizarre approach to CR.  It's also frankly preposterous to say that D&D is not a "flawed" system, because to say that it is not implies that no other ruleset need ever be designed.  If you believe that, that's fine, but it's also delusional.

 

Moreover, all iterations of the D&D ruleset are open to flaw mitigation by the action of the DM, and are indeed designed with that in mind.  One of the reasons D&D has never translated peculiarly well to cRPGs is that there isn't a DM there to soften, fudge, and apply the rules creatively in order to produce a better game experience for the players.

 

I also believe that WotC is not interested in licensing rule editions for D&D that are not the current edition, though of course I could be mistaken.

 

And I do think that Josh & co. can design a better ruleset for Project Eternity than that of D&D, because they are designing it expressly for the cRPG they have in mind, instead of trying to shoehorn a generalist ruleset into a specific product.

[Chrononaut]

I wasn't saying that D&D isn't a flawed system, and changes to rules are almost expected when translating them to computer to fix real or perceived flaws.

 

I just think that it's ridiculous to think OE will design an RPG ruleset better than D&D in a few months or pre-production, it flies against all common sense. They may end up with a more "balanced" system, but if that system is just rock/paper/scissors and barely any depth, what's the point. Arcanum has one of the most unbalanced character systems ever in a cRPG, does that mean I would prefer go play Diablo II with it's perfectly patched balance? No. There are no traps in D&D, the system just relies on common sense and logic in the player (ie making a Fighter who isn't strong is a bad idea), PE seems to be more designed around making even the most stupid character choices "viable" to lower to bar to entry for more casual players.

 

Over-emphasis on balance is also a bad idea in general, and one that should be way down the list in a single-player RPG without even co-op.

 

And for your information, D&D 3.5 was released as open-game license a long time and can be used by cRPGs, so no need for an official D&D license.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Chrononaut

[Monte Carlo]

Chrononaut, hi. It's great to see another D&D fan on the forum.

 

And AD&D v1.0 is still great, hell I could crack open my books with all the home-brew rule annotations and have a great game right now. I liked 3E, not 3.5, loathe 4 (never played 2) and agree with you about Pathfinder...

 

...but I have an issue with your post.

 

I wouldn't want Gary Gygax to design a CRPG ruleset and I would be leery, TBH, to play a pen and paper game designed by OE. On is designed for computers to figure out everything, the other by wet-ware.

 

So for me a pen & paper, turn-based ruleset will never be optimal for designing a computer game. The reason folks did it back in the day was for reasons of brand recognition and affection for D&D in the round. It certainly wasn't because D&D was an optimal ruleset for computer games.

 

So, D&D fan! Yay. But kinda grognarding around arguing that PE owes itself a dollop of D&D? Boo.

[C2B]

So for me a pen & paper, turn-based ruleset will never be optimal for designing a computer game. The reason folks did it back in the day was for reasons of brand recognition and affection for D&D in the round. It certainly wasn't because D&D was an optimal ruleset for computer games.

 

Pretty much.

 

It will be interesting to see if Obsidian made a robust system, though. That's certainly a valid point to worry about.

Edited August 6, 2013 by C2B

[tajerio]

Over-emphasis on balance is also a bad idea in general, and one that should be way down the list in a single-player RPG without even co-op..

 

Well, over-emphasis is always bad--the question is how much is too much.

 

I still think balance plays a very important role in single-player games.  When I'm deciding who to bring around in my party, balancing the classes well means that I don't have to make a choice between greater or lesser combat viability--I make a choice between different kinds of combat viability.  Then the question is not, "do these classes, as created by the designer, make it possible for me to have a good combat team," but "do I, as the player, have the skill to create a good combat team from these pieces?"  When I'm deciding to replay, if the classes aren't balanced well my replays will be limited, because I don't like to gimp my combat ability right out of the box.

 

Some people, it appears, want to have imbalance and feel that making choices between greater or lesser combat viability for the sake of other, usually peripheral benefits is essential to a cRPG.  While that's definitely a legitimate viewpoint, in a game wherein the principal focus is combat (as Josh has said) I think that presenting that sort of imbalance harms the game deeply.

Edited August 6, 2013 by tajerio

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Chrononaut, hi. It's great to see another D&D fan on the forum.

 

And AD&D v1.0 is still great, hell I could crack open my books with all the home-brew rule annotations and have a great game right now. I liked 3E, not 3.5, loathe 4 (never played 2) and agree with you about Pathfinder...

 

...but I have an issue with your post.

 

I wouldn't want Gary Gygax to design a CRPG ruleset and I would be leery, TBH, to play a pen and paper game designed by OE. On is designed for computers to figure out everything, the other by wet-ware.

 

So for me a pen & paper, turn-based ruleset will never be optimal for designing a computer game. The reason folks did it back in the day was for reasons of brand recognition and affection for D&D in the round. It certainly wasn't because D&D was an optimal ruleset for computer games.

 

So, D&D fan! Yay. But kinda grognarding around arguing that PE owes itself a dollop of D&D? Boo.

While I agree with your position on OE and Gygax designing rulesets, what do you mean when you agree with Chrononaut about Pathfinder? Perhaps it is because I'm mildly drunk, but he didn't seem to say much about the system.

[Monte Carlo]

^ He said that Pathfinder, were you to base a computer game on a ruleset and keep the IE vibe, would be the way forward. I agree. Pathfinder rocks. It could be McGuyvered into a decent CRPG, but I keep coming back to the point, why pimp your Porsche into a truck when you could just buy a truck?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Monte Carlo

[Chrononaut]

To be honest, I just think d20 is a simple yet deep system, it's almost perfect, you just roll and add your statistic on top to see if you pass or fail. It's easy to understand and simple to design content for. And most importantly, it's familiar both for paper/pen players but also for anything who has played D&D video games from the past.