Game News Age of Decadence Demo Released

[Grunker]

Oh please, whoever said the game was unplayable? The only person who ever threw that around was you. And as I've said, if the game is perfectly playable

See my problem? Unplayable and Perfectly Playable are not the only two given states a game can exist in, DU.

No really, explain clearly why this is "big enough" of a problem that it needs to be fixed at all. Because what, you're upset that peoople aren't spending their points immediately and they might :shock: reload and change their minds?

No, I'm concerned that this is so easy to do it's a viable course of action. Players tend to do what's best for them. When it's so easy to just reload and do everything right, of course we're gonna do it? That seems reasonable to me?

You didn't answer why people are choosing to meta-game in this manner

BECAUSE THEY GET BETTER RESULTS

Jesus mate are you really that thick?

Why do you seem to admit that in AoD, those crucial couple of skill-points could make a difference to the game's binary skill checks if invested in the right area (which, duh, is why people are doing this in the first place), then seem to argue that a few skill points doesn't matter?

Fuck you mate, you MUST be trolling me. When have I said anything even close to "skill points doesn't matter"?!

PEOPLE FAIL OR GET SUB-PAR RESULTS IN DIALOGUE WITH CURRENTLY SPEND SKILL POINTS. THEY RELOAD TO GET PERFECT RESULTS. HOW AM I BEING UNCLEAR HERE FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Forcing them to spend SP instantly means they can't have a hoarded amount ready and available at a quick reload's grasp.

Does hearing about other people playing games differently to how you do upset you that much?

It has nothing to do with other players and everything to do with intended gameplay. I tend to play a game as best I can. A game allows me to insta-reload why the fuck should I not use that opportunity? You play a game as it allows you to play it. Not using it is the same as imposing arbitrary difficulty-barriers on yourself if you find a game is too unchallenging.

So we accept that we have a game which has some seriously broken design. No ifs, no buts. And please don't try and now argue that this problem isn't a major issue. You just said as clear as day "big problem", "major design flaw" and "broken as fuck" so for the love of all that is holy, stop your bullshit attempts at weaseling around that

Fuck you and your semantics mate. The only thing I wanted to say was that the above can align with a game being good perfectly fine. PS:T, Fallout and Civilization are all games I love that fall under the above category. I've been re-iterating, what?, 10 times now that I see problems with the game and that this doesn't mean the game can't be good and every single fucking time you've said that you've stated "BUT HOW CAN THIS BE YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF."

Last time: Stop inventing false contradictions in my wording and let's discuss the fucking issue at hand. If you have to paddle on about some semantic crap you're on your own. Essentially:

You cannot on the one-hand use any of those words, only to turn around on the other hand and say "Oh but it's not that bad!! No really!!".

Yes. Yes I fucking can. Of course I can. Of course I can identify a major problem with a game and still say it's not so bad in the context of the game's overall quality.

How I fucking can't is a mystery to me, and what's an even bigger mystery to me is how you're obsessing so hard over this very simple concept.

(which to be honest, given what you've said, unsaid, counter-said and then contradicted yourself saying, isn't surprising).

Wow, I wish I could strawman as beautifully as you. Alas, I'm a simple man left to arguing instead of wasting my goddamn time spraying bullshit.

Again, the problem as Marsal defined it is: "In AoD you have a bazillion skills that are not clearly defined and overlap in their use and usefulness. The quests can be resolved in any number of different ways, with little room for improvisation or player agency. It's essentially a case of tyranny of choices and having no ability to influence their effects after they have been made, without save scumming. [...] Now make a thief? You'll want a weapon skill, a defensive skill, sneak, steal, lockpick, traps, streetwise, maybe critical strike, maybe disguise, maybe alchemy. That's about 7+ skills. To make matters worse, you can't improvise with the sneak skill, either you pass the check or you die."

What you so elegantly fail to comprehend is that I agree with the basic idea BUT THAT IT IS LESS A PROBLEM THAT YOU THINK. You need about 7+ skills to play perfectly. To win at all options.

The skills are not clearly defined. They overlap in their use and usefulness. Multiple skills do the same thing, or at least it seems that they should. So the player is uncertain on which skill to actually put their points into (notice how forced SP expenditure won't help this and will actually exacerbate the problem).

Agreed - except if you accept that you won't win at everything the last part becomes untrue. This does not remove the problem but it is mitigated on forced SP expenditure.

Also, you use Marsal's post to support your thesis here yet he was the one who proposed the instaneous use of skill points.

The quests can be solved in different ways, but only if you've got "the magically correct" skill at the time. You have no idea of knowing what's coming up and again, don't know what to invest into until after the fact (once again, forced SP expenditure doesn't help the player get around this).

COMPLETELY agree. As I've said a couple of times now, the arbitrary save-or-die are not solved by forced SP expenditure, I never said it did. They are bad-bad-bad. I don't understand why they are there and they suck.

There is no room for error. If you fail a skill check - such as you're short a point on something- YOU DIE! You get dumped in impossible combat situations and are forced to reload. There's no "run away" option (Again, how is forced SP expenditure actually going to help solve this?).

Kindly point me to where I said forced SP expenditure solved all problems? It solves the problem of not accepting perfect playthroughs. See the example I provided to VoD - without skill point reloading I'm forced to kill Militades or otherwise deal with him or the second encounter. But it's not a full stop. This is the problem it fixes - it has nothing to do with the save-or-die issue.

The real problem is that there's no way out. There's no "soft landing". It is literally, "oh shit, I died". And the only way for the thief to get passed that check (as a thief, which he's role-playing) is to go back and take those points out of whatever and put them into whatever else.

I completely agree, but I have to ask... How much have you played the demo? Because for me the above happened thrice in a case where I couldn't just reload and do something else (unrelated to skill point spending). As I have said many times it is fucking stupid, and I agree completely that there should be bad consequences INSTEAD of death.

Ok first point, I really like how you completely over-exagerate everything. "I didn't say the game was unplayable!" (when no-one did). "They'd have to reload 10 hours!!", and now "a million years!".[/quote]

It's called I hyperbole mate. Indeed, "a million years" is as clear hyperbole as it gets. It's the same when I call you fucking retarded. I don't really think you're retarded. That's a mental problem that would leave you unable to write the nice comprehensible sentences you're presenting me with.

All your system does is force them to reload much more of the game than they otherwise would have

You are ignoring a few very basic facts here:

1) No, you can just opt to not do the quest that is killing you. I.e. reload to before the quest. Same as you do when you die in an encounter. That's a basic component of most RPGs. Locking the option down doesn't force you to reload more than you would have to in a normal RPG - it forces you to accept that you cannot do everything.

2) We do not have the full game. It is very possible that the open nature of it will offer a "come back later" resolution to some quests. Which is something I would love. I've faced many "dragons" in many games that required reloading and forgetting for an hour and I was fine with it.

On top of this, I agree that the save-or-die checks suck immensely - ESPECIALLY in essential plot-lines. A removal (i.e. redesign) of those might be possible, and I'd encourage them (replace with consequences of different nature).

Quote where I said the game was unplayable.

I concede that I apparantly misunderstood you here (but seriously, saying "the game is broken and needs a redesign" is pretty easy to misunderstand for "the game is unplayable"), so sorry. But given the amount of direct inventions of motives you've done on my part I find it stunning that you think the one point where I misunderstood you is so bad.

That was - and always has been - a strawman you threw up

Wow. Throughout this discussion you've been quoting me saying: "THIS NEW THING I WRITE NOW IS WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING", essentially reading shit into my posts and presenting it as the only true meaning of my words, and now you're accusing ME of strawmen because I misunderstood you once? Seriously?

Right now, the game is too binary. As you've pointed out, it's either all combat or all talky. Not even a little bit of both? It also means the game is too harsh and unforgiving on players who dare to put a point in anything other than their focus.

I agree. Completely.

Well to be honest, I've never been particuarly interested in "choose your own adventure" books with broken combat systems (seriously, this combat system has been tested, right? Did none of the testers bother to try Dodge?). I also prefer RPGs with world exploration and a point to walking around towns (you know, useful loot you can find, stuff you can steal from people - using non-combat skills in the game-world rather than just in dialogue). And yeah, magic dialogue teleportation... In Oblivion they called that fast-travel and AOD's method is actually worse.

I've said my piece on lack of exploration before (a cat is not a dog, and it's idiotic to say that it should be because you say so), but I agree partly when it comes to combat. But again, you're the one accusing me of being bombastic and yet after all your "yeah I never said unplayable" you end your post "IT'S JUST A CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE WITH A BROKEN COMBAT SYSTEM" so we're back to the absolutes.

 

[circ]

2. Perception is an important stat for combat-focused characters. I rolled a standard mercenary and died at the hands of the assassin. I rolled another, took one point out of CON and CHA, raised PER to 8 and tried again. 3 out of three times, I killed the assassin. High PER (8 or more) makes a massive difference to your THC.

Not as massive a difference as str does. I've been trying to kill assassin on and off for an hour with a spear merc. Fast and normal hits on average do 0 damage due to me having 7 str. Using a debilitating move like aim legs rarely hits and doesn't make much of a difference. The problem lies mainly in him managing to do as much as 10-15 points of damage per attack, even though he's wielding a shitty bronze dagger with no dr.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Well to be honest, I've never been particuarly interested in "choose your own adventure" books with broken combat systems (seriously, this combat system has been tested, right? Did none of the testers bother to try Dodge?).

At the time of the preview dodge was completely viable imo. Due to the armor penalties (and no bonuses vs ranged) you just needed higher values quicker, which was possible due to more SP.
Perhaps doing a major rebalance shortly before release wasn't so wise.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

2. Perception is an important stat for combat-focused characters. I rolled a standard mercenary and died at the hands of the assassin. I rolled another, took one point out of CON and CHA, raised PER to 8 and tried again. 3 out of three times, I killed the assassin. High PER (8 or more) makes a massive difference to your THC.

Not as massive a difference as str does. I've been trying to kill assassin on and off for an hour with a spear merc. Fast and normal hits on average do 0 damage due to me having 7 str. Using a debilitating move like aim legs rarely hits and doesn't make much of a difference. The problem lies mainly in him managing to do as much as 10-15 points of damage per attack, even though he's wielding a shitty bronze dagger with no dr.

The assassin is really difficult, perhaps they've overdone there. Otoh the 2 dudes after (Verdanis) are pushovers, so you can use the net on the assassin and don't bother if you have low HP afterwards.
Each point in PER is like +10 to your weapon skill (THC-wise), so perhaps with high PER those aimed attacks become more viable?

 

[circ]

BECAUSE THEY GET BETTER RESULTS

Jesus mate are you really that thick?

Well this caught my attention first off. Better results, or did you mean that they actually survive? A lot of those checks result in you dying, instantly or next to instantly.

 

[Grunker]

You can play a Praetor in exactly this manner. That's a fucking fact. Splitting your skills will still leave you less of a combat giant than a purely combat focused character. That's where your social skills come in, you can for instance use the raiders to raid the Aurelian outpost for you.

Yes, you can. It's just sub-par. I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying it's worse.

You're grasping at straws. Neither is it impossible to play SOME combat-encounters and SOME peaceful solutions nor is it in any way "sub-par".

You're seriously saying it's not strictly worse in a reward/consequences optic to play a guy with two combat skills and two social skills instead of four combat or four social/text ones?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Depends on your definition of "strictly worse". What's *worse* about having the raiders kill the Aurelians, instead of doing it yourself, hmm?

 

[Gord]

The assassin is really difficult, perhaps they've overdone there. Otoh the 2 dudes after (Verdanis) are pushovers, so you can use the net on the assassin and don't bother if you have low HP afterwards.
Each point in PER is like +10 to your weapon skill (THC-wise), so perhaps with high PER those aimed attacks become more viable?

I did not have much problems with him playing a merc. I took one point from CHA and put it into PER, raised hammer to 35 and block to 40. Focusing on power attacks and he should be down relatively fast. Fight is definitely doable, although I did usually lose between 2/3 and half my HP.
Admittedly I did follow a few suggestions from the thread on character creation, otherwise I would probably had a character with less chances in the fight.
The guys in the next fight are easy indeed, what's hard is to keep your ally alive, that took me a lot of reloads.

 

[circ]

Well, not working for me with 7 str 8 dex 6 con 8 per 7 int 4 chr. Power attacks are about the only things that do damage on him, but shit don't land often enough.

Anyway, ally. Why would you want to keep him alive? He gives you a bunch of money if he doesn't make it. Nothing if he survives, that I remember from the one time I got the thieves before he got raped.

EDIT: well assfuck me. Just spammed powerattacks. Missed like a motherfucker but got lucky with str drop on him and he eventually went down. 10 hp left which should be enough for the thieves. Got him down before without powerattacks but only left with 4 hp and that didn't last long.

 

[Gord]

Just because? Challenge factor? Roleplaying?

Which weapon did you use with your merc? I found hammer much better than e.g. spear.

 

[circ]

Just because? Challenge factor? Roleplaying?

Which weapon did you use with your merc? I found hammer much better than e.g. spear.

I'm liking the pushback from spear, so spear. Yeah, I've had a much easier time with hammer for some reason.

Anyway, I managed to save the guy's life again and got 4 sp, which I didn't pay attention to the other time, which is mos def worth more than fucking 100 extra gold.

 

[Gord]

Ah yes, the skill points, had forgot about those...

Unfortunately my Leonidas/Achilles/Hektor guy sucked, so I went back to hammer...

 

[Lumpy]

Depends on your definition of "strictly worse". What's *worse* about having the raiders kill the Aurelians, instead of doing it yourself, hmm?

Don't you need insane social skills for that? Is it even doable for a balanced character?
Furthermore, as a Praetor in the demo, if you've invested that much in social skills, chances are you can't do the first combat either (interception), so you'll talk your way out of that one as well. Leaving you with only the Carrinas quest - a trivial Streetwise quest, and a sub-par combat solution.

So, at least in the main questline, your fighter/talker wouldn't really fight at all.

 

[Marsal]

Okay, so we all agree:
1. there is a problem in the design of the game,
2. rewriting the game is not a realistic solution.

Grunker and I think there exists a (partial) "fix", what do you think, DarkUnderlord? Is the game good enough that we should stop trying to "fix" it or do you think it can't be "fixed" by introducing half-assed solutions? Or is the proposed "fix" not good enough and we should continue the discussion and try to get to some kind of an answer?

Let me suggest something ridiculous.

As I see it, most of criticisms of the AoD Demo come from game not meeting expectations set by previous RPG that look like it ("isometric", turn based). It reminds me of comparing Fallout 3 to other FPP games (Stalker) that results in Fallout 3 looking like an vastly inferior game. Shooting is lackluster, animation is hilariously bad, graphics are sub par and so on. Bethtard answer to this is of course that it's an RPG (we all know that's not much of a saving grace in this case). My point is, would AoD changing "game type" (within a greater RPG genre), if not make it a better game objectively, at least influence our perception of it to make it seem better and more playable? The main criticizm is that it's to random and binary, you pass the check you live, fail and you die. The main strength is replayability. What other type of RPG is similar to that? Rougelikes? Make a character, give it your best shot and see where it gets you. So, why not embrace that and make it the focal point of gameplay?

Given VD's (apparent) unwillingness to change the game to be more forgiving to first time players, why not go all out and make it IRONMAN ONLY?

IIRC, VD said that the demo is about 25% of the game? It can be beaten in at most 30 minutes (if you speed up the NPC animations even faster)? So the entire game is a couple hours long depending on your character choice and playstyle? Sure, a lot of players will rage and quit, but they will do that anyway, as it stands now. It should ensure the game gets "good" word of mouth and becomes notorious for its punishing difficulty (something like Demon's Souls and Super Meat Boy). At least players will talk about it.

This may seem like a stupid suggestion, but I think it should be at least tested. First by the Demo users (as it is shorter than the full game) and then, if it feels good, by the beta testers. It's an easy change to emulate, just don't ever reload, and see how it goes. DU, I know you don't like "forcing player to do things the right way" type of solving design problems, but maybe just think about it, if not test it yourself. I also know that the game can be played this way without enforcing it. I would argue that it's like Arcanum's combat, you either choose RT or TB style and design the game around it, or try to do both and come up way short.

Now, a couple of changes to make it "more fair". This is just on top of my head (like everything else so far). Introduce 2 tagged skills (1.5x the SP effect on the skill value, no effect on synergies). Why? It lets players focus and rely on 2 core skills. Fighting characters will take 1 defensive and 1 weapon skill, raising them faster and making fights easier. Diplomats and thieves will get less of a benefit, because of the number of non-combat skills, but that's fine. Hybrids can take 1 combat and 1 non-combat skill to help influence the combat setup and positioning, should combat be the only remaining option. Different skill thresholds may be also needed (something like 40-60-80, 1-1.5-2-3 SP for skill increase).

TL;DR: MAKE AOD IRONMAN ONLY!!! Retarded, brilliant or meh?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Here are my 2 cents to the "force players to spend their skillpoints" debate.

It's nonsense. First, you have to be aware who designed the game. Vault Dweller. If we have learned one thing from the TW2 spectacle it's that Vault Dweller never spends his skill points in cRPGs unless he has to. Never. He hoards his points and only when he encounters a situation he can't overcome he starts to spend points. So, what a surprise, AoD's design reflects VD's gaming habits.
Second, therefor you are expected to save your points until you need them. It's how the game is meant to be played by design. It's deliberate. Take infiltrating the palace for example. There are a lot of different paths to reach the throne room, each requiring different sets of skills. It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly. It's like a puzzle.
You're trying to fix something that isn't broken because it was intentionally designed that way. Hoard your points, spend them as need arises. Problem solved.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Depends on your definition of "strictly worse". What's *worse* about having the raiders kill the Aurelians, instead of doing it yourself, hmm?

Don't you need insane social skills for that? Is it even doable for a balanced character?
Furthermore, as a Praetor in the demo, if you've invested that much in social skills, chances are you can't do the first combat either (interception), so you'll talk your way out of that one as well. Leaving you with only the Carrinas quest - a trivial Streetwise quest, and a sub-par combat solution.

So, at least in the main questline, your fighter/talker wouldn't really fight at all.

Don't think the requirements were insane last time I've played that (before the rebalancing). Will play Praetor next and see.

 

[made]

It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly.

That's idiotic. Someone jokingly called the game "Reload: The Text Adventure" in another thread. Little did they know that reloading was actually a core gameplay mechanic by design.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

In the meantime I can't do a video walkthrough, but I can show you some images.

First we have a batch of images showing Mercy the Mercenary killing poor, defenseless Aurelian Archaeologists:





Then there's the Imperial Guards end-fight against Antidas. Couldn't do much there due to abysmally low THC with my gladius but I had 8 nets and 20 self-crafted steel handoxes.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly.

That's idiotic. Someone jokingly called the game "Reload: The Text Adventure" in another thread. Little did they know that reloading was actually a core gameplay mechanic by design.

You mean making combat and skill checks so easy that reloading is never necessary because success is guaranteed would be better? It certainly would be more welcoming.

 

[made]

It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly.

That's idiotic. Someone jokingly called the game "Reload: The Text Adventure" in another thread. Little did they know that reloading was actually a core gameplay mechanic by design.

You mean making combat and skill checks so easy that reloading is never necessary because success is guaranteed would be better? It certainly would be more welcoming.

Yes. That's exactly what I meant. I like my games easy and welcoming, so AoD's challenging text adventure parts are clearly way above my head.

Meanwhile, the sane people reading this realize that there is no challenge involved in clicking through multiple choice dialogue, failing a check, reloading, spending some points, repeating dialogue, succeeding, progressing to next skill check... and so on and so on until you beat the game or pass out from boredom.

 

[empi]

There are a lot of different paths to reach the throne room, each requiring different sets of skills. It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly. It's like a puzzle.

Are you serious? Playing through a section, seeing what skill checks there arbitrarily are, reloading and investing your points into them is a puzzle?

hahahahahahahahahahhaha

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly.

That's idiotic. Someone jokingly called the game "Reload: The Text Adventure" in another thread. Little did they know that reloading was actually a core gameplay mechanic by design.

You mean making combat and skill checks so easy that reloading is never necessary because success is guaranteed would be better? It certainly would be more welcoming.

Yes. That's exactly what I meant. I like my games easy and welcoming, so AoD's challenging text adventure parts are clearly way above my head.

Meanwhile, the sane people reading this realize that there is no challenge involved in clicking through multiple choice dialogue, failing a check, reloading, spending some points, repeating dialogue, succeeding, progressing to next skill check... and so on and so on until you beat the game or pass out from boredom.

Not saying these text-adventure parts are super-exciting. There's a reason I tend to stick to combat.

 

[hiver]

Here are my 2 cents to the "force players to spend their skillpoints" debate.

It's nonsense. First, you have to be aware who designed the game. Vault Dweller. If we have learned one thing from the TW2 spectacle it's that Vault Dweller never spends his skill points in cRPGs unless he has to. Never. He hoards his points and only when he encounters a situation he can't overcome he starts to spend points. So, what a surprise, AoD's design reflects VD's gaming habits.
Second, therefor you are expected to save your points until you need them. It's how the game is meant to be played by design. It's deliberate. Take infiltrating the palace for example. There are a lot of different paths to reach the throne room, each requiring different sets of skills. It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly. It's like a puzzle.
You're trying to fix something that isn't broken because it was intentionally designed that way. Hoard your points, spend them as need arises. Problem solved.

Damn right.

All the game needs in this sense is going over all scenes where the effect of failing was worst and adjusting them a bit. maybe giving players a bit more foreknowledge about the seriousness of situation they are going to step in is all it takes.

By the fucking way. i went to raiders with my crap mercenary, failed - GOT MY DODGE INCREASED - failed all persuasion attempts too, went back to Dellar and failed everything i tried with him and it still was not GAME OVER.

And i failed sneaking into, or playing a loremaster at the Aurelians too - and i just went on!
There was a possibility to deal with it later in some other way.


So its not an overbearing design---- THE PROBLEMS ARE ONLY SOME SPECIFIC EVENTS!!!

 

[Vault Dweller]

<snip>

First, great post. Second:

As I see it, most of criticisms of the AoD Demo come from game not meeting expectations set by previous RPG that look like it ("isometric", turn based).

For some reason, people assumed that it's gonna be Fallout with swords, which was never the goal. So, I understand that many people here look at and go "what the fuck is this shit?". As a Fallout/Arcanum clone, AoD fails miserably, but it's not a Fallout/Arcanum clone. It's something fucking else.

The main strength is replayability. What other type of RPG is similar to that? Rougelikes? Make a character, give it your best shot and see where it gets you. So, why not embrace that and make it the focal point of gameplay?

Pretty much. Make a character, take him/her through the game (which doesn't take long), see what happens. He dies, good riddance. Make another. Since the game is short, there is no attachment to your character. You don't create someone who will kick much ass and grow into a hero. You create someone who will die in the next 20 minutes.

Now, a couple of changes to make it "more fair". This is just on top of my head (like everything else so far). Introduce 2 tagged skills (1.5x the SP effect on the skill value, no effect on synergies). Why? It lets players focus and rely on 2 core skills. Fighting characters will take 1 defensive and 1 weapon skill, raising them faster and making fights easier. Diplomats and thieves will get less of a benefit, because of the number of non-combat skills, but that's fine.

Not sure if it's possible (to do without wasting much time), but I'll see what we can do.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's up to you to find out, reload and distribute skill points accordingly.

That's idiotic. Someone jokingly called the game "Reload: The Text Adventure" in another thread. Little did they know that reloading was actually a core gameplay mechanic by design.

You mean making combat and skill checks so easy that reloading is never necessary because success is guaranteed would be better? It certainly would be more welcoming.

Yes. That's exactly what I meant. I like my games easy and welcoming, so AoD's challenging text adventure parts are clearly way above my head.

Meanwhile, the sane people reading this realize that there is no challenge involved in clicking through multiple choice dialogue, failing a check, reloading, spending some points, repeating dialogue, succeeding, progressing to next skill check... and so on and so on until you beat the game or pass out from boredom.

Could it be that the text-adventures are not for you, made?

"Talk your way through the game" has always been a desirable feature for some people. If you can think of a better design than "a lot of skill checks and failures", let me know. I do know that "a lot of skill checks that you easily beat" doesn't work, so "high checks" was the next logical step. Doesn't mean that it's the best to handle it, of course.

Again, it's kind of like roguelikes. You don't play them the same way you play a 'proper' RPG. You explore the design, dying at every step, until you learn what kills you and what doesn't. Naturally, some people like it and some people don't. We made this game for people who do.