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

[Sensuki]

Furthermore AD&D was phase-based, so making it turn-based was not a faithful translation.

2E isn't.

 

[Excidium]

On paper it is

 

[Sensuki]

*gets out manual*

LOL so it is. We always used single initiative, roll D10 lowest wins.

 

[Excidium]

*gets out manual*

LOL so it is. We always used single initiative, roll D10 lowest wins.

Yeah AD&D combat RAW is a real mess, I think everyone who played that game house ruled a lot. At least the 2nd edition iteration is edited by a human being and legible

 

[Sensuki]

Yeah those books are actually a fun read. Unlike the later editions.

 

[Excidium]

Yeah those books are actually a fun read. Unlike the later editions.

I mean compared to how the combat rules are written in the 1st edition phb. But yes it's a better read, the art is also more evocative (if shit for the most part in the case of 2nd edition, I think most artists didn't even know they were illustrating a D&D book, like what the fuck is that crap with a wizard and a horse)

 

[Space Satan]

ashtonw said: What role doe sexism play in the cultures of Eora?

Sexism does not play a central role in Eora (the world of Pillars of Eternity, for those who aren’t familiar), but it does come up at times in the region covered by Pillars of Eternity, the Eastern Reach. Aedyran and Dyrwoodan cultures have what people would think of as more traditional Medieval-Renaissance gender roles. Less strict than historical gender roles, but men tend to have more official political power, they do most of the fighting and heavy manual labor, and typically “run things”. Women from those cultures generally perform more domestic manual labor, run households, and are more present in their childrens’ lives. The nearby tribes of Eir Glanfath are more fluid and egalitarian in their gender roles. Also, there are some cultures where the women hold most of the power. Among the Naasitaqi boreal dwarves, women run the villages and do most of the exploring and hunting. Men are in charge of keeping homes and children in order.

thehaddockbanker said: I have always been curious of what WRPG developers think of JRPGs. What JRPGs new or old do you enjoy? If any.

I think due to my tabletop RPG and American/European PC CRPG background, I have had difficulty getting into a lot of JRPGs. In RPGs, I like to make my own character or, if I have a “fixed” character, I like to be able to develop and express that character’s personality in the game. However, I do like some of the tactical combat in JRPGs. Specifically, I really enjoyed Final Fantasy Tactics and Front Mission 4. Strictly speaking, Demon’s Souls and the Dark Souls games are JRPGs, though made with many stylistic elements that seem more “western”. I haven’t played Dark Souls 2 yet, but I loved both Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls. The combat, level design, and atmosphere are all fantastic.

bubbonicus said: If there are things you hate - like for example, fascism, racism, fanatism, other -ism, slavery, child abuse etc. do you still try to make it a viable choice for players in your games? With a goal of representing a different choices players have, a lot of games tend to downplay "evil" and "ruthless" choices in favor of "good" and "venerable" ones. How hard it is to make something you hate and loathe an equal choice for the players and their desire to play different roles in a RPG?

Sure. I think it depends what it is. Something I’ve brought up more recently with designers at work is defining the boundaries of expression for any given game. I.e., determining where the player can take their character in terms of developing their personality, morals, ethics, etc. If you decide that sadism is “in”, you have to develop a consistent method of expressing that in a variety of situations throughout the game. I think “evil” is too abstract to work with, but something like “cruel”, “brutal”,”selfish”, “domineering”, or even “anarchic” are narrow enough to start defining those boundaries.

I believe human beings of all sorts, myself included, are capable of doing abhorrent things in the right circumstances, so I look for places where that alternate me, you, or the stranger on the street might want to engage in what I would normally consider horrible behavior. There are a lot of games where spontaneous cruelty and general nastiness comes across as absurd and silly. Emotions can be unpredictable, so circumstances don’t have to always be tightly controlled, but it’s helpful if an “evil” (broadly capturing a variety of behaviors) response seems to be invited by the situation. This is generally true of all responses/behaviors, but “evil” behaviors are often out of the norm and shocking, so the reader’s/player’s mind puts them under more scrutiny.

enverxis said: Will Pillars of Eternity have a "ready" stance that is used during the recovery time between attacks, similar to what units did in Baldur's Gate when they were "active". A feature that was missing in Icewind Dale, where units looked idle in between attacks.

When we (at Obsidian) talk about this stuff, we use these terms:

* Stance - Refers to a way of holding a weapon (or weapons). A quarterstaff uses a different stance from a dagger.

* Idle - This is the default animation that plays in any stance, whether in combat or not. It always loops and is the thing that other animations come out of and return to.

* Fidget - These animations play occasionally when the character has been idle for too long. It could be the character simply stretching or looking around or it could be something more elaborate (like the knife-flipping in Fallout).

When combat starts in PoE, characters do from their non-combat stance into their combat stances (based on equipped weapons). I don’t think we currently have a lot of combat fidgets, but we also don’t have a lot of dead time in between attacks. BG used 6 second rounds with characters who typically made one attack per round, so they filled in a lot of the space between attacks with “dummy” swings.

 

[Excidium]

tumblr users have to smear their shit even on a CRPG Q&A

 

[Loriac]

[interview about PoE]

a major concern I have about PoE is whether there will actually be a game worth playing if one has to go through so much SJW drivel to get there

 

[Loriac]

*gets out manual*

LOL so it is. We always used single initiative, roll D10 lowest wins.

I had to look up that claim too, I honestly had no recollection that aD&D was based on declaring actions prior to the round starting. I guess that whilst 3e was heavily criticised for being a vehicle to sell miniatures, the focus on concrete combat actions ideally using a battle grid and figures to represent your characters etc was a very good idea (and ironically a return to the roots of the game). Even now I'm having a hard time thinking how you could run this without it devolving into a mess of interpretation from the DM about how combat played out.

Perhaps life follows art, with cRPGs similarly going from turn based to rtwp back now to turn based, just as the chainmail rules -> aD&D -> 3e+ played out. One can only hope of course. Maybe PoE is the darkness before the dawn of the glorious 4th age of cRPGs lol

 

[Excidium]

Fuck you, separated stages for declaring and resolving actions is the best form of turn-based combat

d20/3e is trash

 

[Loriac]

Fuck you, separated stages for declaring and resolving actions is the best form of turn-based combat

d20/3e is trash

I don't see how you'd resolve it with grid based combat though. I can see it working with a more abstract 'blobber' type approach to combat, where you don't have exact positioning etc but on a grid based system you'd have to say 'i swing at this square' for example rather than 'i swing at x' because x may have decided to move concurrently with your action.

You'd end up needing all sorts of reaction rules and what would class as valid alterations to your originally declared intent for this to have any verisimilitude in my opinion.

However, I can understand your point (unnecessary strong language notwithstanding) that declaring actions and then resolving them separately has an intuitive appeal.

 

[Excidium]

I don't see the issue

Fuck you, separated stages for declaring and resolving actions is the best form of turn-based combat

d20/3e is trash

I don't see how you'd resolve it with grid based combat though. I can see it working with a more abstract 'blobber' type approach to combat, where you don't have exact positioning etc but on a grid based system you'd have to say 'i swing at this square' for example rather than 'i swing at x' because x may have decided to move concurrently with your action.

No you wouldn't declare you'd attack a square what sort of clairvoyance shit is that? You'd just adjust your movement if the target's action resolved first, it's not rocket science

 

[Hormalakh]

I know some of you grognards will disagree with me on this point, but I still think its worth making.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66...alyzing-weapons-and-started-to-love-the-game/

Spoiler

This is long, so apologies for the rough draft of my thoughts.



Having followed PoE's development throughout its course, I have seen many of the combat mechanics explained on this site and others by Josh Sawyer. Specifically, the way combat resolution works with armor and weapons and how the different weapon sets work has been explained several times over. However, in all of the discussions, I have always felt uneasy in grasping the "overall picture" with each weapon/armor/other complex system. Quite often, Josh describes a certain weapon based on its characteristics like DT negation, attack speed, damage, etc. but I feel, especially because I don't have the whole system in front of me, that I'm ill-equipped to make informed decisions. Others, probably have an easier time because, well they sit and do the number-crunching and analysis.

The problem I have is that these numbers do not give me a quick understanding of how these weapons should be used. They only give me the details (the minutae that describe the parts, not the whole) and then - I assume - I am to sit and figure out the best scenario to use each of these weapons in. In short, I have to sit and do my own analysis of each weapon, and then utilize that analysis in playing the game, or at least that's my fear when the game comes out. This is the same feeling I got when playing Fallout: New Vegas. Yes, each weapon was "balanced" to some extent, but just playing the game without using guides (which I never did/do) and just shooting from the hip, so to say, you don't really get a feeling that you're making informed choices. Quite often, in most games, there exists a short period of time when the game comes out and where the "strategy" for each weapon is "solved" by a group of players who have the inclination to do so. Until that time, players are expected to "figure it out on their own."

I argue that this sort of weapon analysis is 1) not worth my time to pursue, 2) not fun, and 3) not really where higher-level strategy and tactics comes in. First, as most of the backers (including me) are concerned, we play these games as a hobby and a past-time, not as a full-time job. Increasingly, I find myself pulled at all directions when trying to manage my time in my busy life. When I sit to play a game, I would rather sit and play the game instead of powering up excel to solve simple, but ultimately mind-numbingly boring, analyses of what weapons work best when and where. When playing PnP or other "multiplayer games" a lot of the analysis and first-order break-down of tactical choices are explained to me without my having to sit and analyse them myself. Once that analysis is done, can I truly begin to be "creative" with my solutions to the problems presented to me. The first-order analysis is really more like solving a math problem and lesser order-thinking than having that information and knowing what to do with it and then making tactical choices when situations present themselves.

All this to say that I would hope Obsidian will take the time to explain the benefits and costs of each choice (in a general sense) in layman's terms to players. For example, I want to know that "hatchets, generally, work best against leather armor but are weak against shields" instead of "hatchets are 2+ DT, speed factor of 14, DPS of 56, etc. Yes, the second one is important, especially for that type of nerd who wants to reanalyze the conclusions that Obsidian came up with. But until that analysis is done and given to me, I can't make informed decisions about my choices and actually start to play the game.

So my contention is this: please please please give us an analysis of the weapons and armors in the manual, game encyclopedia, whatever where it explains where it makes sense to use a weapon or armor or other fairly complex system with multiple inputs so that I can begin to make informed decisions. Just giving me numbers and equations, yes, I can figure out "the solutions." But I don't want to. I came to play a game, not do math.

A few points:
1- I do believe there is value in players making those analyses themselves. I just don't want to do it because I don't think it's fun.
2- I don't expect to know everything and for complexity to be "dumbed down" - once a basic understanding of the system is obtained, adding +15 cold and - 10 attack speed on a basic sword makes more sense because I have a baseline to play from.
3- I believe players should be expected to read the manual to find these answers, not just "know" them.

I've just read way too much Sawyer bullshit numbers and glaze over for me to want to enjoy the game. You might think it's "casual" but I don't want to get a PhD in "Playing PoE" to have to play the game.

 

[Excidium]

First, as most of the backers (including me) are concerned, we play these games as a hobby and a past-time, not as a full-time job. Increasingly, I find myself pulled at all directions when trying to manage my time in my busy life.

Stop playing videogames instead of ruining the hobby for everyone else

 

[Hormalakh]

i'm not ruining anything. i don't think saying "swords are good against leather armor, generally" is ruining the hobby. if you want to do the analysis yourself go for it. but i don't want to spend 10 years just learning how to play the game.

grog.

 

[Loriac]

I don't see the issue

Fuck you, separated stages for declaring and resolving actions is the best form of turn-based combat

d20/3e is trash

I don't see how you'd resolve it with grid based combat though. I can see it working with a more abstract 'blobber' type approach to combat, where you don't have exact positioning etc but on a grid based system you'd have to say 'i swing at this square' for example rather than 'i swing at x' because x may have decided to move concurrently with your action.

No you wouldn't declare you'd attack a square what sort of clairvoyance shit is that? You'd just adjust your movement if the target's action resolved first, it's not rocket science

Well, the simplest scenario is you're standing near to a mob. You say 'I move to location x (which is next to where the mob currently is) and attack the mob'. The DM meanwhile declares 'mob will move to y away from you'. Strictly speaking, if the mob's action resolves first then you end up standing at x and the mob at y, without you hitting it.

A reaction modifier might allow you to move to y but not hit the mob, as the DM rules that your character sees that the mob has moved and so automatically adjusts his action to be consistent with the action you originally declared. Or, he might allow you to adjust your move to y and hit the mob, because you can see the mob move first and your action is fully consistent with your original declaration.

I.e. its down to DM interpretation of how the resolution should occur. If you went with the strict interpretation of you only resolve exactly what you declared, then you end up in a situation where you have to anticipate how a higher initiative mob will act compared to your character.

 

[Excidium]

I don't see the issue

Fuck you, separated stages for declaring and resolving actions is the best form of turn-based combat

d20/3e is trash

I don't see how you'd resolve it with grid based combat though. I can see it working with a more abstract 'blobber' type approach to combat, where you don't have exact positioning etc but on a grid based system you'd have to say 'i swing at this square' for example rather than 'i swing at x' because x may have decided to move concurrently with your action.

No you wouldn't declare you'd attack a square what sort of clairvoyance shit is that? You'd just adjust your movement if the target's action resolved first, it's not rocket science

Well, the simplest scenario is you're standing near to a mob. You say 'I move to location x (which is next to where the mob currently is) and attack the mob'. The DM meanwhile declares 'mob will move to y away from you'. Strictly speaking, if the mob's action resolves first then you end up standing at x and the mob at y, without you hitting it.

A reaction modifier might allow you to move to y but not hit the mob, as the DM rules that your character sees that the mob has moved and so automatically adjusts his action to be consistent with the action you originally declared.

I.e. its down to DM interpretation of how the resolution should occur. If you went with the strict interpretation of you only resolve exactly what you declared, then you end up in a situation where you have to anticipate how a higher initiative mob will act compared to your character.

That's not how it works, why do you lie? Nobody plays anything like that, it doesn't even make sense. You attack a creature not a point in space

 

[Loriac]

That's not how it works, why do you lie? Nobody plays anything like that

But my point is that if you have a grid based system, i.e. a tactical map, then you'd have to treat it in this way. Iirc, 2e didn't have so much of a focus on using battlemaps whereas the switch to 3e did.

Anyway, I'll take your word for it that you can play this out using 2e RAW without too much hassle, but I'm just not seeing how you can without a lot of DM interpretation.

 

[Excidium]

Like I said bro nobody sane plays AD&D RAW and I wouldn't either. I think I understand your point, it's that you can't fine tune movement with separated phases and I agree, but I don't think that excludes grids

 

[Sensuki]

TBH I never used a grid until 4E. We did all of 2E and 3E without grids and miniatures. We used some graph paper for maps of areas and stuff, but combat was always done via imagination. I preferred it that way too, it was fun.

 

[Roguey]

Well, the simplest scenario is you're standing near to a mob. You say 'I move to location x (which is next to where the mob currently is) and attack the mob'. The DM meanwhile declares 'mob will move to y away from you'. Strictly speaking, if the mob's action resolves first then you end up standing at x and the mob at y, without you hitting it.

A reaction modifier might allow you to move to y but not hit the mob, as the DM rules that your character sees that the mob has moved and so automatically adjusts his action to be consistent with the action you originally declared. Or, he might allow you to adjust your move to y and hit the mob, because you can see the mob move first and your action is fully consistent with your original declaration.

I.e. its down to DM interpretation of how the resolution should occur. If you went with the strict interpretation of you only resolve exactly what you declared, then you end up in a situation where you have to anticipate how a higher initiative mob will act compared to your character.

When I was designing a pen-and-paper Fallout game, the rules went through heavy revisions. I started out with something similar to the SPECIAL rules used in F3, but those proved to not be that great in a pen-and-paper environment.

In particular, combat felt very clunky and dumb. At the suggestion of Dave Maldonado, I switched the combat system over to a phase-based system like the one used in Necromunda: Move > Charge > Action. AP went away, but sequence was still very important. I reduced the overall damage range of weapons and made character skill more important. This allowed characters with thematic weapons (like revolvers) to be a little more viable. Ranged weapons, guns in particular, had their ranges severely truncated. The ranges weren't realistic, but they actually became meaningful on the hex mat.

The results were terrific. Combat went a lot quicker, people understood it more easily, and when people replayed the actual events of a battle, they seemed pretty sensible. I was very skeptical when Dave suggested it, but going phase-based helped a lot.

The thing I've always (and by always, I mean going back to the original Bard's Tale) disliked about phase-based combat is that selected actions often become impossible due events unfolding before that action occurs. This problem could be exacerbated in a party-based third-person view because positioning and movement are important. Some of that can be ameliorated with separate move and action phases.

In a Fallout tabletop game I ran, there was a move phase and an action phase (with a charge phase in between). Moves were performed in reverse initiative order, which added a nice element to the system. People still took individual turns as they came up, but the "wasted" move situation didn't come up often.

Reverse initiative as in you declare in reverse order so better initiatives can use everyone's already declared actions as a template? That sounds pretty cool.

Yeah. A character who could move farther could still outpace someone, but the character acting "faster" (i.e. effectively reacting to the others) had more control over where he or she went relative to other characters. That combined with the charge phase prior to other actions allowed melee characters to be pretty well-balanced with the ranged characters.

Josh ftw forever

 

[Excidium]

That last paragraph about actions being declared in reverse initiative order is how it works in Storyteller combat, I've always liked it too

The thing I've always (and by always, I mean going back to the original Bard's Tale) disliked about phase-based combat is that selected actions often become impossible due events unfolding before that action occurs. This problem could be exacerbated in a party-based third-person view because positioning and movement are important. Some of that can be ameliorated with separate move and action phases.

Never seen this as a problem, tough luck your reaction times are too slow

 

[Grunker]

That last paragraph about actions being declared in reverse initiative order is how it works in Storyteller combat, I've always liked it too

I've always liked the idea of it, but in practice I've never seen it work that well.

 

[Loriac]

...
Josh ftw forever

Not saying that what he's said on this is bad, but your hero worship is a bit lulzy. Anyone who thinks about a problem for a while should be able to come up with ideas or at the very least workarounds. Well done Josh for being able to the job he does I guess?

Also, whats interesting about the comments is that they haven't actually addressed the inherent weakness of phase based on a combat grid, they simply offer workarounds.

I think also perhaps reading comprehension fail on your part when you quote him saying that PnP adaptations of turn based combat are clunky; of course they are, its because turn-based combat requires a lot a processing to resolve the individual actions throughout a turn. This can be handled relatively easily by a computer doing the work for you, but if you're at a table with a human DM and a bunch of other players, waiting 2-5 minutes for each participant's actions to be individually resolved is obviously not going to cut it. This categorically doesn't apply to cRPGs, because the computer is doing the calculations for you.

What it boils down to is that publishers are afraid that players are too stupid to use or enjoy turn based combat. Josh wasn't being some avantgarde thought leader when he made PoE rtwp; he was hoping that this decision would attract the greatest number of players for his game. I don't blame him for this, its actually sound commercial logic. But I find it objectionable when devotees like you try to paint this as being done on artistic grounds when its anything but.

Perhaps in the final analysis though this boils down to what kind of games you prefer personally; I like turn based games when it comes to strategy / tactical / roleplaying games whereas many people prefer RTS, ARPGs, and RtwP RPGs.