Remove Restrictions and let this game breath

[Goddard]

We keep saying pre-buffing is a chore because we feel it is a chore and it is a very popular belief if we see that every rpg has gone away with pre-buffing and no one seems to bothered by it, untill now

Else it would have been back. At least there would have been the "school" of "pre-buffing is fun" developers who would have used it in their games. But there are not.

You need to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay and, as far as magic goes, you can decide what realism is, pretty much

 

Just because everyone jumps off a bridge does that mean you will as well?

[Sedrefilos]

DnD is DnD. It's just a ga me system. It's not the best by far imo neither it is the canon. You keep implying that Pillars should follow to the earlier steps of DnD for some reason where most people have pretty much move away from that. Even DnD itself!

[Goddard]

DnD is DnD. It's just a ga me system. It's not the best by far imo neither it is the canon. You keep implying that Pillars should follow to the earlier steps of DnD for some reason where most people have pretty much move away from that. Even DnD itself!

Just watch the video my friend instead of making snap judgments.

[Sedrefilos]

 

We keep saying pre-buffing is a chore because we feel it is a chore and it is a very popular belief if we see that every rpg has gone away with pre-buffing and no one seems to bothered by it, untill now

Else it would have been back. At least there would have been the "school" of "pre-buffing is fun" developers who would have used it in their games. But there are not.

You need to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay and, as far as magic goes, you can decide what realism is, pretty much

 

Just because everyone jumps off a bridge does that mean you will as well?

 

Well, that implies that pre-buffing is objectivelly better than buffing during combat.

Also things change over time. Not nescessarily because some say so but because better ideas are introduced and collectively we decided they are for the best.

[Goddard]

 

 

We keep saying pre-buffing is a chore because we feel it is a chore and it is a very popular belief if we see that every rpg has gone away with pre-buffing and no one seems to bothered by it, untill now

Else it would have been back. At least there would have been the "school" of "pre-buffing is fun" developers who would have used it in their games. But there are not.

You need to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay and, as far as magic goes, you can decide what realism is, pretty much

 

Just because everyone jumps off a bridge does that mean you will as well?

 

Well, that implies that pre-buffing is objectivelly better than buffing during combat.

Also things change over time. Not nescessarily because some say so but because better ideas are introduced and collectively we decided they are for the best.

 

 

Yes and I am attempting to objectively look at those changes and talk about them and you are talking about what the crowd is doing, or your personal feelings.  That is why I made a list.

 

1. You don't need to cast all your pre-buffs at every encounter.

2. Removing pre-buffing removes a big part of RPG games.  It removes ambush and you being ambushed.  It removes logical story, meaning your character is so dumb and is perpetually caught off guard.  

3. The game should use intelligent characters to provide clues, isn't that what we got all these skill checks for?  In order to do skill checks and have extra story clues and triggers for fun?

4. In single player games pre-buffing becomes important in conjunction with item storage and counting in game creation.  The game developers can "balance" things by simply counting the number of items given.

5. Removing that game dynamic eliminates many possibilities for more interesting combat.  Dispel magic for example will be virtually unimportant without pre-buffing.  Detect Evil characters now becomes pointless.  A stealth character now always has an advantage over everything because now we only care about what happens in combat and no non-detection, or detect invisibility.   

[Sedrefilos]

 

DnD is DnD. It's just a ga me system. It's not the best by far imo neither it is the canon. You keep implying that Pillars should follow to the earlier steps of DnD for some reason where most people have pretty much move away from that. Even DnD itself!

Just watch the video my friend instead of making snap judgments.

 

Sorry mate, I'm not gonna watch a two hour video about the history of DnD games someone made in youtube. I've played many DnD games, I know how they evolved. I've played other games too. I'm playing crpgs from the mid 90's, I know how the genre is evolving and I know what I want and what I like best from these games. Bre-buffing isn't one of those features.

[Sedrefilos]

 

 

 

We keep saying pre-buffing is a chore because we feel it is a chore and it is a very popular belief if we see that every rpg has gone away with pre-buffing and no one seems to bothered by it, untill now

Else it would have been back. At least there would have been the "school" of "pre-buffing is fun" developers who would have used it in their games. But there are not.

You need to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay and, as far as magic goes, you can decide what realism is, pretty much

 

Just because everyone jumps off a bridge does that mean you will as well?

 

Well, that implies that pre-buffing is objectivelly better than buffing during combat.

Also things change over time. Not nescessarily because some say so but because better ideas are introduced and collectively we decided they are for the best.

 

 

Yes and I am attempting to objectively look at those changes and talk about them and you are talking about what the crowd is doing, or your personal feelings.  That is why I made a list.

 

1. You don't need to cast all your pre-buffs at every encounter.

2. Removing pre-buffing removes a big part of RPG games.  It removes ambush and you being ambushed.  It removes logical story, meaning your character is so dumb and is perpetually caught off guard.  

3. The game should use intelligent characters to provide clues, isn't that what we got all these skill checks for?  In order to do skill checks and have extra story clues and triggers for fun?

4. In single player games pre-buffing becomes important in conjunction with item storage and counting in game creation.  The game developers can "balance" things by simply counting the number of items given.

5. Removing that game dynamic eliminates many possibilities for more interesting combat.  Dispel magic for example will be virtually unimportant without pre-buffing.  Detect Evil characters now becomes pointless.  A stealth character now always has an advantage over everything because now we only care about what happens in combat and no non-detection, or detect invisibility.   

 

This is going in circles. You keep adding the same list, people here, including me, are saying why they believe pre-buffing is not good. There's nothing more to say and there's nothing to be done.

[Goddard]

 

 

DnD is DnD. It's just a ga me system. It's not the best by far imo neither it is the canon. You keep implying that Pillars should follow to the earlier steps of DnD for some reason where most people have pretty much move away from that. Even DnD itself!

Just watch the video my friend instead of making snap judgments.

 

Sorry mate, I'm not gonna watch a two hour video about the history of DnD games someone made in youtube. I've played many DnD games, I know how they evolved. I've played other games too. I'm playing crpgs from the mid 90's, I know how the genre is evolving and I know what I want and what I like best from these games. Bre-buffing isn't one of those features.

 

The title is misleading.  It is actually really the history of RPG games at least early on and then morphs into more focused into D&D or semi-related games for obvious reasons of over saturation. 

 

I am not insulting you saying you know nothing.  I just thought it was be enjoyable and provide us with a basis for discussion.

[Goddard]

 

 

 

 

We keep saying pre-buffing is a chore because we feel it is a chore and it is a very popular belief if we see that every rpg has gone away with pre-buffing and no one seems to bothered by it, untill now

Else it would have been back. At least there would have been the "school" of "pre-buffing is fun" developers who would have used it in their games. But there are not.

You need to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay and, as far as magic goes, you can decide what realism is, pretty much

 

Just because everyone jumps off a bridge does that mean you will as well?

 

Well, that implies that pre-buffing is objectivelly better than buffing during combat.

Also things change over time. Not nescessarily because some say so but because better ideas are introduced and collectively we decided they are for the best.

 

 

Yes and I am attempting to objectively look at those changes and talk about them and you are talking about what the crowd is doing, or your personal feelings.  That is why I made a list.

 

1. You don't need to cast all your pre-buffs at every encounter.

2. Removing pre-buffing removes a big part of RPG games.  It removes ambush and you being ambushed.  It removes logical story, meaning your character is so dumb and is perpetually caught off guard.  

3. The game should use intelligent characters to provide clues, isn't that what we got all these skill checks for?  In order to do skill checks and have extra story clues and triggers for fun?

4. In single player games pre-buffing becomes important in conjunction with item storage and counting in game creation.  The game developers can "balance" things by simply counting the number of items given.

5. Removing that game dynamic eliminates many possibilities for more interesting combat.  Dispel magic for example will be virtually unimportant without pre-buffing.  Detect Evil characters now becomes pointless.  A stealth character now always has an advantage over everything because now we only care about what happens in combat and no non-detection, or detect invisibility.   

 

This is going in circles. You keep adding the same list, people here, including me, are saying why they believe pre-buffing is not good. There's nothing more to say and there's nothing to be done.

 

 

I don't believe anyone has addressed what I brought up.  I keep saying the same thing because no one is countering my points.

 

They just keep saying, "I cannot be troubled to click the left mouse button 3 to 5 times and don't like it".  

[Lord_Mord]

 

I keep saying the same thing because no one is countering my points.

 

They just keep saying, "I cannot be troubled to click the left mouse button 3 to 5 times and don't like it".

 

OK, look: I'm on your side. I do like prebuffing, but it is a totally valid argument that prebuffing creates a lot of busywork. And it is also true that either it is a thing everyone has to do or it is useless. If the choice of prebuffing or not does not affect the fight, there is something wrong with the buffs. So in my opinion this is enough counter to your points.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Lord_Mord

[smjjames]

One can also 'prebuff' out of combat when trying to get some conversation option or get through something, I've done that a bunch of times.

[Valci]

Well thats not true Goddard and i think its disingenuous to claim it. I explained at length why i think pre buffing is bad for combat (in my opinion) several pages ago. I'll keep it brief this time around:

 

1. No surprise element in combat. You are guaranteed to get your buffs off since there is nobody to interrupt you... if you are forced to do it in combat theres always a chance you'll get interrupted and you have to adapt on the fly => more dynamic combat situations.

2. Makes certain fights ridiculously easy (see basilisks and prot. from petrification, prot. from fear with mages and dragons, etc.)

3. Makes it incredibly easy to metagame. Once you've done the content once you know exactly what buffs you need and exactly in what situations you need them to beat the content with ease.

4. No pre-combat buffs forces you to chose whether your priest or druid (or other classes) should spend their first few rounds buffing or dealing damage which leads to more tactically diverse choices in combat situations.

 

As to claiming that Dispel magic or Detect evil (who uses that anyway?) become redundant... well no they arent. You simply cast Dispell after you see a monster has cast a buff. The monsters dont start the battles buffed either (unlike certain fights in BG where they were pre-buffed or had instant contingencies) so its an even playing field.

 

All in all it makes choices more important them metagame knowledge imho... but as stated, ive said this all before and probably more... im just too lazy to go back and look for those particular posts...

Edited October 26, 2017 by Valci

[IndiraLightfoot]

Goddard, let's not forget that some of us replying to you have played D&D for years. I'm for instance is a huge fan. I've played the roleplaying game since the very beginning in the 70's, through all editions, up to the current one (5th Ed). As for CRPG-versions of D&D, I'm mad about them. I've played almost every single one ever released. Yes, including Cloudy Mountain for Intellivision or the ghastly Daggerdale game. I regard BG1 and NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer as two of the best CRPGs ever made. 

 

Like Lord-Mord said, I actually like playing D&D with alignment and pre-buffing and the works.

 

However...

 

Is it the best system ever made? Probably not.

Is the alignment system any good if you were to start a new CRPG from scratch? Nah, it belongs in the history books. If you are arguing for an alignment system, you aren't exactly "removing restrictions".

Is pre-buffing a neat idea in a CRPG, which encouraging several playthroughs? I must say, no. The chore of it and the meta knowledge makes it cheesy and often a no-brainer, like that obelisk example from BG1. When you say that pre-buffing is a major part of gameplay, I beg to differ: the RPG part should trump everything.

 

The issue you conveniently avoid is simple:

This is another CRPG, a relatively new one: Pillars of Eternity.

Why on earth are we even discussing pre-buffing, alignment, Detect Evil, etc., in this context?

This thread belongs in the Pen n' Paper section or perhaps the computer games/console games-forum.

Edited October 26, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot

[Guest 4ward]

 Spells are going to be more powerful, but have longer cast times, which can be interrupted, losing you that spell cast. Also from all the videos I've seen we seem to only have 2 casts per spell level, even at higher levels.

 

my concern is that in the later stages of the game where the player also will not be interrupted that much things like movement/repositioning and perhaps also potion drinking will be neglected and that gameplay will be mostly about using abilities (not just spells). Obsidian might think about lengthening the duration of encounters/combat stance like sending enemy waves for boss fights which i‘m not really a fan of. Also, replayability for me is with a game that has managing player's resources like in the old games.

[Skaddix]

Prebuffing works for table tops because its turned based and no one wants to spend the first half a fight buffing when you might have to wait 3-5 players and however many monsters to get back to your turn. So get the buffing done and enjoy the fight. 

[Sedrefilos]

I am not insulting you saying you know nothing.  I just thought it was be enjoyable and provide us with a basis for discussion.

 

It's ok, I didn't took it as an insult, but asking someone to watch a 2 hours video of something he already knows (as it should have been obvious from the coversation) is a bit too much.

I can understand your love for DnD and what you find fun and immersive in the game. I do find fun and immersing the mechanics of Warhammer Quest. Would I want them in a modern game? No way. I can play it and still have fun, I'm sure, but I tend not to stick to the old. When I see something new that makes things better as I see it, I tend to leave the past to the past. In any case, I believe IndiraLightfoot gave the best answer in this thread.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[Guest 4ward]

Goddard, let's not forget that some of us replying to you have played D&D for years. I'm for instance is a huge fan. I've played the roleplaying game since the very beginning in the 70's, through all editions, up to the current one (5th Ed). As for CRPG-versions of D&D, I'm mad about them. I've played almost every single one ever released. Yes, including Cloudy Mountain for Intellivision or the ghastly Daggerdale game. I regard BG1 and NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer as two of the best CRPGs ever made. 

 

Like Lord-Mord said, I actually like playing D&D with alignment and pre-buffing and the works.

 

However...

 

Is it the best system ever made? Probably not.

Is the alignment system any good if you were to start a new CRPG from scratch? Nah, it belongs in the history books. If you are arguing for an alignment system, you aren't exactly "removing restrictions".

Is pre-buffing a neat idea in a CRPG, which encouraging several playthroughs? I must say, no. The chore of it and the meta knowledge makes it cheesy and often a no-brainer, like that obelisk example from BG1. When you say that pre-buffing is a major part of gameplay, I beg to differ: the RPG part should trump everything.

 

The issue you conveniently avoid is simple:

This is another CRPG, a relatively new one: Pillars of Eternity.

Why on earth are we even discussing pre-buffing, alignment, Detect Evil, etc., in this context?

This thread belongs in the Pen n' Paper section or perhaps the computer games/console games-forum.

 

BG1 is very different from BG2 though. You don‘t prebuff before each battle in BG2, when you do then you don‘t use always the same spells but specific ones for the specific encounter. Those spells aren‘t applied to outright win you the battle but to prevent you from being oneshot and enable you to take on the enemy (you still face the wings of tanar-ri or dragon for example), usually those creatues also have allies with them. It creates the impression for the player that he‘s going up against creatures that have deadly abilities, i sorely miss that in modern games.

[Valci]

 

Goddard, let's not forget that some of us replying to you have played D&D for years. I'm for instance is a huge fan. I've played the roleplaying game since the very beginning in the 70's, through all editions, up to the current one (5th Ed). As for CRPG-versions of D&D, I'm mad about them. I've played almost every single one ever released. Yes, including Cloudy Mountain for Intellivision or the ghastly Daggerdale game. I regard BG1 and NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer as two of the best CRPGs ever made. 

 

Like Lord-Mord said, I actually like playing D&D with alignment and pre-buffing and the works.

 

However...

 

Is it the best system ever made? Probably not.

Is the alignment system any good if you were to start a new CRPG from scratch? Nah, it belongs in the history books. If you are arguing for an alignment system, you aren't exactly "removing restrictions".

Is pre-buffing a neat idea in a CRPG, which encouraging several playthroughs? I must say, no. The chore of it and the meta knowledge makes it cheesy and often a no-brainer, like that obelisk example from BG1. When you say that pre-buffing is a major part of gameplay, I beg to differ: the RPG part should trump everything.

 

The issue you conveniently avoid is simple:

This is another CRPG, a relatively new one: Pillars of Eternity.

Why on earth are we even discussing pre-buffing, alignment, Detect Evil, etc., in this context?

This thread belongs in the Pen n' Paper section or perhaps the computer games/console games-forum.

 

BG1 is very different from BG2 though. You don‘t prebuff before each battle in BG2, when you do then you don‘t use always the same spells but specific ones for the specific encounter. Those spells aren‘t applied to outright win you the battle but to prevent you from being oneshot and enable you to take on the enemy (you still face the wings of tanar-ri or dragon for example), usually those creatues also have allies with them. It creates the impression for the player that he‘s going up against creatures that have deadly abilities, i sorely miss that in modern games.

 

 

For me, any system that necessitates previous knowledge to beat an encounter is far from ideal. If you play the game for the first time, that implies that you would have to run into the dragon first in order to see what he casts, he kicks your arse and then you can load and cast the buffs. Meaning that its highly unlikely (almost impossible) that you will be beating one of those difficult encounters on the first try...  which for me is poor design.

[Lord_Mord]

 

For me, any system that necessitates previous knowledge to beat an encounter is far from ideal.

 

So all the text adventures revolving around dead ends and trial and error were bad?

[Valci]

 

 

For me, any system that necessitates previous knowledge to beat an encounter is far from ideal.

 

So all the text adventures revolving around dead ends and trial and error were bad?

 

 

I never played text adventures. Depends what type of game you're talking about. In an RPG where failure to beat an encounter = death... yes. If you get to play on then trail and error is fine i guess. Like for puzzles etc. but if it requires "me" to "die" in order to learn how to beat an encounter (in an RPG no less) then yes, its bad design.

[Lord_Mord]

Well for me BG always was a trial and error puzzle. If I get beaten in PoE it always sucks. I just have to repeat the fight and be quicker and more focused. In BG it often meant: You did something wrong; try again and change your tactics. It was just the way things worked. In my opinion this was a remnant of the early games. Many text adventures revolved around getting killed over and over and always start again from the beginning. Kind of like Planescape Torment but more frustrating. Some of those games were really punishing. Either you like that or you don't. But bad design? No. Just different design. Better design in my opinion as it really made you use your head.

[Valci]

Sorry but if youre playing an RPG ... and you role-play... since, well, its in the name of the genre... then dead is dead. You play Trial of Iron or such... no reload or do-over. That is if you want something punishing. Also, like i mentioned, that type of system only requires you to beat the game ONCE. I think challenging (and having situations be dynamic and unpredictable) is a far better system then something static and punishing... and given the way gaming has evolved i'd say the market by and large agrees with that.

[Skaddix]

If I lost in PoE, I usually ate some food and found a door to blockade with Eder and/or an Offtank while Aloth and the rest lit them up from behind the door.

[Wormerine]

 

For me, any system that necessitates previous knowledge to beat an encounter is far from ideal. If you play the game for the first time, that implies that you would have to run into the dragon first in order to see what he casts, he kicks your arse and then you can load and cast the buffs. Meaning that its highly unlikely (almost impossible) that you will be beating one of those difficult encounters on the first try...  which for me is poor design.

That’s my stance as well. Not that you should win a tough fight on your first go, but if encounter design requires you to die in order to succeed than it sucks (you didn’t cast that spell before going in, YOU DIE). That’s why I hate roguelights with progression (rogue legacy). It is fun to make a one life run and loose because you are not good enough, but going in knowing that you will loose because you didn’t grind hard enough feels bad to me. Going into combat and loosing, not because I made poor imformed decisions during combat but because I entered combat without necessary protection spells and died within seconds feels bad to me. Now you could include that type of gameplay into the game. In PS:T death was part of the story and gameplay. Dark Souls series famously use death, checkpoint and soul drop as a mechanic. In PoE or BG it is no the case though. Death is pernament failure state from which you can not recover. Reloading allows you to try again but it is not part of the game.

[Lord_Mord]

 

and given the way gaming has evolved i'd say the market by and large agrees with that.

 

Be that as it may. I'm totally aware that most people don't like that, as most people do not enjoy to be frustrated. But it is not necessarily an improvement. Just a different approach. And it doesn't matter if it's an RPG or not. Games have to be abstract by nature. So as a gamer you will have to live with abstractions.

 

 

 

In PoE or BG it is no the case though.

 

I'm still waiting for Obsidians Planescape... Less combat. More thinking. More surrealism. More puzzles. More dead ends.