Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Rivmusique]

Skill penalties and spell failure aren't happening ...

ah yes, of course not, otherwise there would be the danger that the rule system might be fun

Spell failure is fun? Normal people would avoid it because fuck having spells fizzle, what a waste of a slot. Boring people wouldn't care about stacking it, they would just reload if a fight winning spell failed. And if you can 'play-on' from a few casting failures then the fight is easy shit that doesn't require you to play well anyway, how dull.

 

[Excidium]

That type of miscast is seriously banal indeed. Better to not have any.

 

[set]

"Because the player will just reload" I don't think it's necessarily a good justification for the removal of a mechanic - lots of things can cause that. But I do think a chance to just have a spell do nothing is dumb. If a spell mis-fires, it should do something perhaps unexpected, not necessarily good or bad. Like, a spell to summon skeletons could summon a sword instead on a failed cast - this could be good or bad depending on the circumstance and wouldn't necessarily cause players to reload the game. Enemies having spell mis-fires could also spice things up.

 

[Jaesun]

That would be completely mongoloid. OSR systems are ill-fit for video games, let alone something like PE.

How exactly?

 

[Excidium]

How exactly?

They are generally too simple.

To be more precise, they are much more player- than character-focused, clever thinking rules the day because your stronger character can still easily die and mechanical knowledge does not matter a lot because there isn't much to munchkin about when your character is little more than a 3d6 array.

Needless to say again ill-fit for the type of game they are making which equates dungeon crawling with bumrushing everything you see. It would just be a really random and annoying game.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The difference between someone who doesn't bother with that and someone who gets all the bonuses is huge, as Josh said.

Aaaand? Go on. I feel like the punchline is missing.

Also, example of infinitely stackable bonus, plz.

 

[Visbhume]

Will this game be Oculus Rift-compatible?

 

[coffeetable]

words

roguey is a creepy stalking motherfucker. you, however, are a creepy stalking motherfucker and you spray your badpinions across multiple forums, like some sort of shit geyser

christ, haven't you written a fucking novel by now on all the ways you disagree with an attribute system whose numerics have yet to be defined in a game that's a year from release on a forum none of the devs read. are there some meds you're neglecting to take

 

[Infinitron]

on a forum none of the devs read

I'm pretty sure that you're mistaken about this

 

[Sensuki]

roguey is a creepy stalking motherfucker. you, however, are a creepy stalking motherfucker and you spray your badpinions across multiple forums, like some sort of shit geyser

Haha it's so great when you piss someone off so much. Your attempts to do the same to me fail miserably, cheers faggot.



I know I have a legitimate point about the attribute system particularly on the Perception attribute and I don't need your or whoever brofarts your posts approval on it.

Ignore button is always there, btw

 

[J_C]

Will this game be Oculus Rift-compatible?

Sure, and it will have Kinect support.

 

[aleph]

Spell failure is fun? Normal people would avoid it because fuck having spells fizzle, what a waste of a slot. Boring people wouldn't care about stacking it, they would just reload if a fight winning spell failed. And if you can 'play-on' from a few casting failures then the fight is easy shit that doesn't require you to play well anyway, how dull.

"Playing on" could mean having to use more consumables or something like that. But if you really think "people would reload anyyway" is a valid reason against certain mechanics, you are not worth taking seriously anyway.

 

[Roguey]

So I was not having fun when I played games that offered something like that? Thank you for telling me and the countless others who probably also sought they had fun but actually hadn't.

I doubt you found those particular qualities fun.

Number of times I've put a mage in plate armor in a D&D game: Zero. Not worth it, don't need to do it.
Skill-penalties: Remove heavy armor when it's check time, put armor back on after success. Boring rote stuff.

Somebody who ignores large parts of the rules builds a worse character, so what? And why should there be no more than 3 bonuses, why not no more than 2 or 4?

Balance. The number itself is a loose guideline but, generally speaking, two feels like too little when it comes to customization and four may be too much.

He has made a few exceptions, possibly out of nostalgia pandering. For example, accuracy is determined by level, your dexterity bonus, and spells/abilities, but weapons like clubs and one-handed spears also get a small accuracy bonus that stacks. He'll manage as long as it doesn't get too wild.

Aaaand? Go on. I feel like the punchline is missing.

Also, example of infinitely stackable bonus, plz.

It's a lot easier to tune content when you know what the most-efficacious and least-efficacious characters are and the range between them isn't wide. The reason why high level D&D is impossible to balance is because even the difference between a competently-built character and a super-character is massive.

You can reduce the gulf of efficacy between the bottom and the top without making the range nonexistent. In 3E and 3.5 D&D, you can make characters and parties that are TERRIBLE and will fail at everything constantly. It is much, much more difficult to do that in 4th Ed. That doesn't mean you can't min-max 4th Ed. And it also doesn't mean that you can't have variety in 4th Ed. characters.

If strategic planning is going to be important in some way, there is always going to be a gap between "best" and "worst". As designers, we should design these systems to make that range large enough to make good planning feel good, but small enough to prevent catastrophic failure.

Reducing the gulf between best and worst is extremely detrimental to the experience and the difficulty of the game. The greater the degree of potential failure the greater the feeling of satisfaction when making a strategic success. Homogenization sucks.

By your logic, the larger the gulf, the better the game. I disagree completely.

Pretty much anything from 3.5 is stackable, but to use AC as a concrete example you have armor plus dexterity bonus (which, given enough levels can become so large that armor becomes obsolete), shield bonus, enhancement bonus, deflection bonus, natural bonus, dodge bonus (which stack), and the size modifier. That's eight.

I'm pretty sure that you're mistaken about this

True, but Josh has said he doesn't pay attention to theorycrafting, so it's wasted words other than the vague sense of "I don't like it."

 

[Infinitron]

True, but Josh has said he doesn't pay attention to theorycrafting, so it's wasted words other than the vague sense of "I don't like it."

Why does the sense of "I don't like it" have to be "vague"? If players can explain WHY they don't like something, then that's useful information.

If Josh is reading this now, he's probably mad at you putting words in his mouth

 

[Roguey]

Why does the sense of "I don't like it" have to be "vague"? If players can explain WHY they don't like something, then that's useful information.

If Josh is reading this now, he's probably mad at you putting words in his mouth

Sensuki is being really vague about why he doesn't like it. Something about it being uninspired and not robust--what the hell does that mean?

Community feedback helps determine balance issues, but the community at large does not dictate changes. Besides that, what we hear on forums are often split opinions and obviously only a fraction of total players.

Community feedback does draw my attention to things, but when I examine the problem, I may find that the issue is not what individuals think it is -- or I may decide to fix the problem in a way that is different from what people suggest.

I doubt he'd be upset because I'm going by his previous reaction to the "no misses, all grazes" criticisms. He said himself the most convincing arguments were the "I want to build a dodge-y character and avoiding damage entirely contributes to that" posts and not the "words words words about why hypothetical systems with no misses will always be a complete failure."

 

[Sensuki]

Roguey, you can't honestly say that an attribute from which you only benefit scaling of critical hit damage is a good attribute compared to Dexterity (Accuracy), Intellect (damage) or Resolve (durations) as all three of those attributes give you a benefit every single time you make an attack or every single time you cast an ability with a duration. Perception would only give you a bonus on a critical hit, which has a random chance which likely won't be very high. It's effectiveness would be highly situational.

Now I don't think a bonus to Action Speed as the FOURTH contributor to it would be a bad choice. It's definitely better than Critical Damage currently, and there are probably other better things as well. Action Speed and Effect Reduction are two things I can think of. If there's something else that benefits very often, I'm all for it.

Have you not read my posts on the Eternity forums ?

 

[Roguey]

I'm not going to criticize aspects of a partially-detailed system until it's final. Josh and the other people at Obsidian are playing it themselves so they have a better idea of its strengths and weaknesses and what they can do to improve it than the people reacting to the idea of it.

 

[Sensuki]

That is a cop out answer. Use your brain - the only way it can be 'balanced' is if they make the bonuses HUGE which in turn brings random whopping criticals into the game which is something that I'm sure the majority doesn't want.

They have to change Perception to make it better.

Strength could be left as is, but it is still a sub-par attribute, as far as I am concerned.

IMO Stamina is the more important part of the Health system because it determines longevity in a single encounter, it takes full damage from hits after DT. Health only takes 25% damage. In PE you will likely still be able to rest abuse by retreating back to rest locations and the Stronghold, so to me it seems better to put more points into Stamina. Health doesn't really seem like an attribute that you would ever max, particularly not on higher difficulties.

I would like to see Josh properly fulfill his design goals and a properly balanced system for a change - current one ain't quite there yet, even if it is on the right track.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's a lot easier to tune content when you know what the most-efficacious and least-efficacious characters are and the range between them isn't wide.

It's a lot more boring, actually.

The reason why high level D&D is impossible to balance is because even the difference between a competently-built character and a super-character is massive.

Bullshit, and it should be "balanced" for competently-built characters. Done and done.

That's eight.

Ah, of course. Take the most extreme example which most likely doesn't even happen in a typical play and use it as an example for why the system is broken. I wonder why I even asked.

 

[Roguey]

It's a lot more boring, actually.

Do we have any actual examples of crpgs with this kind of balance? Because I don't recall any, and since they don't exist, how do you know they're boring?

Bullshit, and it should be "balanced" for competently-built characters. Done and done.

MotB was balanced for competently-built characters. Boring game because super-characters blitz through it.

Ah, of course. Take the most extreme example which most likely doesn't even happen in a typical play and use it as an example for why the system is broken. I wonder why I even asked.

Most of my NWN2 characters were AC-monsters.

 

[aleph]

I doubt you found those particular qualities fun.

And there you are wrong. I find it fun when combat is to certain degree unpredictable and I have to plan for the occasion when things go wrong. You can't tell me I am the only one who likes a degree of uncertainty in crpg combat.

Number of times I've put a mage in plate armor in a D&D game: Zero. Not worth it, don't need to do it.

But that actually has nothing to do with armor just with the fact that a mage in D&D (at least AD&D and onward) has a huge amount of defensive spells and doesn't need armor for his defensive value.

Skill-penalties: Remove heavy armor when it's check time, put armor back on after success. Boring rote stuff.

And what do you do in situations where you cannot remove your armor, for example in combat. Or are you just going to tell me that skill use in combat is another No Go?

Balance. The number itself is a loose guideline but, generally speaking, two feels like too little when it comes to customization and four may be too much.

He has made a few exceptions, possibly out of nostalgia pandering. For example, accuracy is determined by level, your dexterity bonus, and spells/abilities, but weapons like clubs and one-handed spears also get a small accuracy bonus that stacks. He'll manage as long as it doesn't get too wild.

Still feels quite arbitrary.

 

[Grunker]

And there you are wrong. I find it fun when combat is to certain degree unpredictable and I have to plan for the occasion when things go wrong. You can't tell me I am the only one who likes a degree of uncertainty in crpg combat.

You don't understand. According to Roguey, it is almost straight up impossible for a game like Blood Bowl to exist, much less it being as popular as it is. The big paradox comes here he has to explain how to construct systems based on player behaviour while simultaneously saying most players are fundamentally wrong not only in their claims but also in their behaviour (i.e. playing the shit out of Blood Bowl for instance). There's no sense in arguing this particular point with Roguey.

As for the rest of the points, I agree with Roguey. I think you're fighting an uphill battle trying to defend spell failure/skill penalties in cRPGs (skill penalties makes sense in P&P). What you really want is meaningful versions of these things, which D&D's weren't. I do think you have a point here though:

But that actually has nothing to do with armor just with the fact that a mage in D&D (at least AD&D and onward) has a huge amount of defensive spells and doesn't need armor for his defensive value.

in that spell failure probably makes sense when armor is a necessity and a mage must wear one to survive, so the spell failure becomes a necessary evil.

 

[set]

I think spell failure is a concept that makes sense in the context of any 'true' roleplaying game. People will never pefectly cast a spell - if you cast the same spell ten thousand times, you will botch it at least once in your lifetime.

A proper implementation of a spell failure is to have unintended consquences, because spells are powerful and require strict discipline (usually) to execute correctly. It's not like an idiot flailing a sword around and getting lucky, it's usually quite the opposite of that.

A proper spell failure has a failed spell cascade into the user using a different spell they know or don't know - a system like this is simple and represents the concept of a spell failure without making it too frustrating. It might even be funny and our player might enjoy himself, even if it forces him to reload. (Oh shit! I just cast fireball on myself and died! Or, oh shit, I just cast some crazy spell I have no idea what it does!)

I think Age of Decadence is a good game to bring up here.

I frequently reload AoD. Even when I min/max characters to make them exceptional at combat, it's still a game of the dice.
And guess what? It's just as frustrating.
Failure and death in any video game, it's frustrating. If death and failure have meaning then you don't want them to happen. Some games give death/failure a meaningless price, so they quickly lose meaning. Some games these days, don't even let you fail.
I reload AoD all the time, but I'm still playing it. I'm not discouraged by death, maybe the mechanics of the game do that? Failing in Dwarf Fortress usually inspires me to just start over again. If PoE were designed well enough, then could we support that extreme? A player starting all over from the start of the game if his party wipes? I know it'd be unpopular for some, but with enough random elements and streamlined features (like, no stupid ten-hour cutscenes or forced scripted events) I could see anyone enjoying themselves trying an open-world RPG over and over again (this is how M&B worked for me).

I think failure is important to any good/successful game... for 'hardcore' gamers anyway. If there's no penalty for failure, then why am I playing this game again? For the interactive storybook portion? To just see the ending?

So, so what if I reload? If I fail, I have to reload. Is the game's goal for me to never fail, or to never reload? If you want death to be meaningful, but not frustrating...? That's a challenge. Death or failure has to make you want to try again.

This is why good games let you run away from fights you can't win and let you come back when you're more prepared.
This is why good games let you fail, they create mechanics that challenge you -- if a spell failing is necessary to balance the defense of a mage character (it probably isn't, but maybe in this case it is), then allow players to mitigate or anticipate the failure of a spell. Incorporate it into tactics and attribute management.

If we don't want players to reload, ever, I think we're trying to be too harsh and controlling to players - as it was, people complained up and down about Shadowrun Return's saving mechanisms, even though they were honestly 'fine'. If we want to encourage no-reloading behavior, then have defeat more than a Game Over screen or a Reload Menu. Dark/Demon's Souls, for instance, asks you go reclaim your souls. I'd say the mechanic there is definitely what they were going for - meaningful death, but recoverable losses. You die, you're stuck with your failure, but you can overcome it and actually become stronger than before. But then again, Dark/Demon's Souls has no manual "reload" feature (at least, if I recall right).

 

[SCO]

I wonder if a 'chaotic' learning spell system could be made fun and non-exploitable.
Lets say every wizard (== low number of slots, or cooldown) spell has a very very minute chance of 'mutating' into another spell, and in addition, those mutations have a small chance of being learned. The spell would be truly 'chaotic' that is modifying or adding a effect, so you could end up with more powerful fireball by accident or a 'iceball' or something.

 

[Ninjerk]

I wonder if a 'chaotic' learning spell system could be made fun and non-exploitable.
Lets say every wizard (== low number of slots, or cooldown) spell has a very very minute chance of 'mutating' into another spell, and in addition, those mutations have a small chance of being learned. The spell would be truly 'chaotic' that is modifying or adding a effect, so you could end up with more powerful fireball by accident or a 'iceball' or something.

You could also have strange things like if your spell "fails" you polymorph into a treant or something with a ton of health/damage resistance but little movement or attack capability until your next turn. There's so much possible that I don't think has been explored at all, sadly.