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

[Infinitron]

4E being well-designed is true hilarity. Every class was almost indistinguishable from each other mechanically, which leads to more "balance" which leads Sawyer to say it is well-designed. The reason everything is so homogenous in 4E is that every asset in the system is built from the exact same template and even often consist of the variables. Want to make a new asset (a new class for example)? Simply but in whatever fluff you want in the template. Perhaps create an overall theme to the set of mechanics.

Ultimately though, every set of mechanics will play almost identically.

The man demonstrates once again that he has done the research but that his conclusions are oft-times laughable.

If you examine his sentence carefully, you'll notice that he's also saying that 4E was mechanically less interesting than 3E, even though it was more "well designed" (whatever that means).

 

[Blaine]

4E being well-designed is true hilarity. Every class was almost indistinguishable from each other mechanically, which leads to more "balance" which leads Sawyer to say it is well-designed. The man demonstrates once again that he has done the research but that his conclusions are oft-times laughable.

So we agree on this, just not when I wax hyperbolic and start rambling about Lord of the Rings? That's good to know.

If I were a lead developer, could I be your idol too for reiterating principles that Codexers (among others) have known for well over a decade? Or do I have to convert to feminism first?

 

[Roguey]

If you examine his sentence carefully, you'll notice that he's also saying that 4E was mechanically less interesting than 3E, even though it was more "well designed" (whatever that means).

You misread, he said that 2e is less interesting than 3.x. He thinks 4e is the best but has the most nostalgic memories from 2e despite it being shit and boring.

4E being well-designed is true hilarity. Every class was almost indistinguishable from each other mechanically, which leads to more "balance" which leads Sawyer to say it is well-designed. The reason everything is so homogenous in 4E is that every asset in the system is built from the exact same template and even often consist of the variables. Want to make a new asset (a new class for example)? Simply but in whatever fluff you want in the template. Perhaps create an overall theme to the set of mechanics.

Ultimately though, every set of mechanics will play almost identically.

The man demonstrates once again that he has done the research but that his conclusions are oft-times laughable.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228567592493679921

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. My Earthstrength Warden looks very different from many other Earthstrength Wardens and is better/worse at a variety of things.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/362774131134983616

also don't think the classes feel that similar -- outside of each class possessing the same number of abilities/powers/etc. Even at low levels, my warden and my bard felt very different from each other and very different from the other PCs.

 

[Grunker]

4E being well-designed is true hilarity. Every class was almost indistinguishable from each other mechanically, which leads to more "balance" which leads Sawyer to say it is well-designed. The reason everything is so homogenous in 4E is that every asset in the system is built from the exact same template and even often consist of the variables. Want to make a new asset (a new class for example)? Simply but in whatever fluff you want in the template. Perhaps create an overall theme to the set of mechanics.

Ultimately though, every set of mechanics will play almost identically.

The man demonstrates once again that he has done the research but that his conclusions are oft-times laughable.

If you examine his sentence carefully, you'll notice that he's also saying that 4E was mechanically less interesting than 3E, even though it was more "well designed" (whatever that means).

Wrong. He says 3E is more mechanically interesting than 2E (well, duh).

His definition of well-designed is taken from one parameter - "equal opportunity" or a distinct usefulness for all assets of the system (obviously all assets of the system are useful: they're nearly identical, lol).

He takes a single aspect of system design, one that he personally deems important, and makes that aspect the be-all, end-all aspect of the entirety of system design. I.e. "balanced" = well-designed. What about mechanical diversity? What about tactical variety? What about depth in customization? Nope, those are details. This is akin to the average Codexer who will claim that "combat is all that matters" in the vein of a true Mondblutian or that "RPGs are all about choice" a la Vault Dweller. I.e. take whatever aspect of something you like the most and turn it implicitly into the measurement used to determine whether something is "good."

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. My Earthstrength Warden looks very different from many other Earthstrength Wardens and is better/worse at a variety of things.

No it isn't. It is marginally better/worse. Maybe it can push someone a single square more. Maybe under a certain condition it can deal 1d6 more damage. Maybe it deals a different type of damage. It doesn't function differently in any meaningful way however. Dealing marginally more damage to undead than elements or being able to push someone 3 squares instead of pulling them 2 isn't mechanical diversity, it's minor variety in variables.

Just because there is some form of variety it doesn't mean there is a true mechanical difference. And there isn't. Fundamentally, every class works in the same way and plays in the same way in 4th Edition. Within each class especially, there is almost 0 room for diversification.

Even at low levels, my warden and my bard felt very different from each other and very different from the other PCs.

How so, Josh? Both have the potential to do most exactly the same things. True, your bard can buff and heal a bit better and your warden can probably tank a bit better... but ultimately the variables and values attached to your characters are extremely similar, not to mention that the actual mechanics you use to do these things (tank, buff, whatever) are exactly identical. You have roughly the same amount of HP, the potential to deal roughly the same amount of damage per turn, roughly the same defensive statistics.

If someone calculated the differences in percent - Warden HP as a function of Bard HP and so on and so forth for all class traits - the differences would be nearly non-existant compared to other systems. Balance is quite easy to achieve when everyone is identical.

4th Edition would work for a cRPG because there wouldn't really be anything that bad about having the same mechanics for the whole party - you're playing all six characters so what do you care?

But for six different players trying to contribute different things, the mechanical similarity was a real killer in 4th.

 

[Roguey]

If I were a lead developer, could I be your idol too for reiterating principles that Codexers (among others) have known for well over a decade? Or do I have to convert to feminism first?

Yet tons of people itf gushed over Original Sin and raised over $11,000 for it?

 

[Infinitron]

If you examine his sentence carefully, you'll notice that he's also saying that 4E was mechanically less interesting than 3E, even though it was more "well designed" (whatever that means).

You misread, he said that 2e is less interesting than 3.x. He thinks 4e is the best but has the most nostalgic memories from 2e despite it being shit and boring.

Wrong. He says 3E is more mechanically interesting than 2E (well, duh).

I misread nothing. Look at the sentence:

I have the best memories from 2nd Edition games, but I think the system was mechanically less interesting than 3.X, which in turn was not as well-designed as 4E.

He has two different categories of quality here - "mechanically interesting" and "well designed". 4E was better than 3E in the latter category but not necessarily in the former category.

If 4E was mechanically more interesting than 3E, he would have used those words again. He didn't, so that means he's saying 4E was less mechanically interesting than 3E, by implication.

 

[Blaine]

Yet tons of people itf gushed over Original Sin and raised over $11,000 for it?

I am not among those tons. Divinity 2 was a stonking great pile of manure (I got flamed hard for saying so here on the 'Dex), and I'm not even going to bother following the project until the game's released and I see some impressions... from people who didn't gush over Divinity 2.

May I ask why you're countering with that? Is it because Original Sin is violating Codexian principles in some way, or....?

I can and will strut around like a cock defying anyone on this forum if I feel that they're supporting the decline in any way. Sometimes Codexians wallow in the decline because they're starved of games, it's just how it is.

 

[Infinitron]

Blaine http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/459240994005609482

Can you tell us more about PE's rogue? I know it's a core class and you'd think it should be obvious, but over the years different games have had different concepts of what the rogue class is for. So, how will the rogue in PE play, minute-to-minute?

They haven't changed a lot from when we initially talked about them during the Kickstarter campaign. Combat-wise, they're very good at moving around and through enemies and they have the greatest single-hit damage potential of any class. Out of combat, they can easily fall into traditional roles but can move to other skills without difficulty (which is pretty much the case with all of the classes).

Their Escape ability has been modified to allow them to break Melee Engagement (instead of forcing a target to "lose" them) and Reversal was replaced with an active ability that gives them increased damage that is inversely proportional to the current health of the target (i.e., more damage to targets that are closer to 0 Stamina). As they advance, they gain access to passive abilities that increase their Crit range, make Sneak Attacks easier, and generally turn them into increasingly "spikey" damage combatants while also making them more difficult to engage.

If you try to one-on-one them with hard-hitters, they will tend to get their asses kicked unless their damage spikes fortuitously, but pairing them with pretty much any melee ally should work well as long as you get them away when attention turns to them.

Out of combat, they have inherent class bonuses to Stealth and Mechanics skills, so playing them "the traditional way" with scouting, lock-picking, and trap-finding is a natural fit. Classes like rangers also receive Stealth bonuses and even non-Stealth characters don't receive inherent penalties, so rogues don't need to be solo operators if you want to sneak around. However, they are the only class to have built in bonuses to both Stealth and Mechanics, so that level of proficiency (assuming the rogue focuses on it) can't be duplicated with a character of another class.

 

[Grunker]

Infinitron How do you get "not necessarily more interesting than 3.5" to mean "definetely less interesting"?

If I were a lead developer, could I be your idol too for reiterating principles that Codexers (among others) have known for well over a decade? Or do I have to convert to feminism first?

Yet tons of people itf gushed over Original Sin and raised over $11,000 for it?

Oh Jesus, Roguey, sometimes I wonder if you really are trolling or just fucking blind. The problem isn't that you like Josh or the vision of P:E, but that you are completely unable to give any sort of criticism.

I'm the biggest fanboy of GURPS in the universe, but if asked for criticism I'd sure be able to give some.

If you're just trolling, keep on at it. It's plain for all to see you cause near unlimited amounts of butthurt in some posters, and that's amusing I suppose. If you're serious with your persecution-complex though, then you gotta stop being one-dimensional. Either you're the butthurt-inducing troll who isn't taken too seriously by anyone except those that fall for the troll, or you're a legitimate poster. Can't have both.

You know who you remind me of? Black Cat.

 

[Roguey]

I am not among those tons. Divinity 2 was a stonking great pile of manure (I got flamed hard for saying so here on the 'Dex), and I'm not even going to bother following the project until the game's released and I see some impressions... from people who didn't gush over Divinity 2.

May I ask why you're countering with that? Is it because Original Sin is violating Codexian principles in some way, or....?

Well you were talking about "principles that Codexers (among others) have known for well over a decade" yet they were willing to not-care about any hypothetical single-player-quality-loss of OS.

 

[Mangoose]

I am not among those tons. Divinity 2 was a stonking great pile of manure (I got flamed hard for saying so here on the 'Dex), and I'm not even going to bother following the project until the game's released and I see some impressions... from people who didn't gush over Divinity 2.

May I ask why you're countering with that? Is it because Original Sin is violating Codexian principles in some way, or....?

Well you were talking about "principles that Codexers (among others) have known for well over a decade" yet they were willing to not-care about any hypothetical single-player-quality-loss of OS.

That's because I actually have a real life friend to co-op with, and I have co-oped with before.

 

[Blaine]

Infinitron

There's not much, if anything, there (regarding Josh on rogues in P:E) that I didn't know before. It's just that I have a perhaps irrationally extreme/realism-based view of rogues on the battlefield. Chalk it up to knee-jerk annoyance at rogues becoming combat badasses in recent years/decades. In a world that makes some kind of sense, not even a gymnast could "move through enemies easily", either in large-scale or small-scale combat (different reasons for each). If people wearing leather jerkins and wielding smallswords had any use in an actual battle, then they'd have been utilized on the field at some point in history. They never were, because the fact is that someone in thick armor with a big-ass sword or spear (and preferably a horse) is worth five times his weight in "rogues." Want to flank someone and stab him in the back? I guarantee you a man-hulk on a warhorse with a bardiche will be far more effective.

I know why rogues have been "made viable for the battlefield" for RPGs, I really do. They're interesting, different, and add variety and more playstyles. I just wish they weren't pushed so damned close to parity, even if by different mechanics. A little more Bilbo and a little less ninja would be appreciated.

But I'm gonna stop now, because I am literally the only person interested in P:E who thinks that way.

Edit: And speaking ninja—arguably the best "rogues" in history, even when the legends and bullshit are stripped away—did not fight on the open field of battle if they could help it. There was a reason for this.

 

[Mangoose]

Actually, lightly armored infantry (and not talking about just peasants) was widely used in history - in the form of skirmishers. Of course, the advantage of skirmishers is that the light armor + ranged (throwing) weapons allowed them a lot of mobility, and traditional "Rogues" only have half of that.

Now, it would be very interesting to see Rogues in the form of skirmishers in full, with both light armor AND javelin or something specialization, with emphasis on mobility rather than LEET DEEPS.

 

[Grunker]

^ You're starting to sound like DraQ, Blaine. Avoid this at all costs. Symptoms include starting to favour retarded use-XP systems, arguing for 360 degree realism and making huge posts quoting everything in the previous eighty posts, making sure to tell people how retarded they are for disagreeing with you. Consult your moderator before proceeding.

The vision for Rogues sound fine, though I wish mobility was more in focus than hardline damage

 

[Infinitron]

English archers beating heavily armored French knights to death as they drowned in the mud at Agincourt

 

[Blaine]

I don't want to start a "let's display our armchair 'knowledge' of historical combat factoids" debate. I know it's very bad to rely too much on realism. It was really just a roundabout way to explain part of my reasoning.

The vision for Rogues sound fine, though I wish mobility was more in focus than hardline damage

That would make me a bit happier, yes.

 

[Mangoose]

English archers beating heavily armored French knights to death as they drowned in the mud at Agincourt

Archers are more equivalent to ranged nukers in D&D (or of course bow users).

 

[Infinitron]

The truth is that small scale combat is a very different beast from large scale pitched battle so these examples aren't worth much. Look at fencing and other one on one combat sports if you want real life analogies.

 

[Grunker]

By the way, this is a good point from another thread Roguey: 4th Edition actually has a lot of freedom of build (though not as much as 3.5), it's just that the differences in mechanics and variables (i.e. actual differences in numbers) are so small the build choices and tactical choices in combat have almost no impact. In other words, whether I choose option A or B in my build, or whether I choose to do A or B in combat, the outcome is often more or less identical, and certainly not nearly as impacting as in other systems.

In 3.5, a choice could be between attempting an all-or-nothing control spell, dealing massive AoE damage, teleporting out of combat, summoning a large elemental to manipulate the battlefield for me, or a myriad of other things.

In 4E, the choice is often betweens dealing 2d6+4 damage with a chance of stunning for a turn, dealing 2d6+4 damage and pushing the target 2 squares or straight up dealing 3d6+4 damage.

Ultimately, combat will come down to a grind between the parties who utilize the same powers over and over again with little variety. Finally, someone's big pool of HP is wittled down by the marginal powers, and the fight is over.

This owes a great deal to a focus on balance which was achieved by making every asset in the system similar to the other; less damage variation, less mechanical variety, and more predictability.

 

[Mangoose]

The truth is that small scale combat is a very different beast than large scale pitched battle so these examples aren't worth much. Look at fencing and one on one tournaments.

Actually large scale combat is often a macrocosm of small scale combat. If you look at modern military manuals, similar formations and maneuvers are used across tiers of troop organization, just replace "fire team" with "squad" or "squad" with "platoon." A squad of riflemen with one heavy machine gun is quite similar - in the manner it is employed - to a couple rifle platoons with a heavy weapons platoon.

Back on topic, I believe there is inspiration from historical warfare that have yet been used, yet can be used well in rpgs. The closest analogue to the rogue is the skirmisher, and again the rogue is missing half of the key elements of the skirmisher - medium ranged harassment.

 

[Blaine]

1994, at summer camp, in a cabin on Sunday getting ready to play D&D:

"BARBARIAN SOUNDS TOTALLY RAD, I WANT TO BE THAT ONE!"

Fast-forward to today:

"Does Barbarian do the most DPS?"

Blaine, to his grandkids in 2053:

"And that's the story of how Project: Eternity was made! ...What do you mean, 'what's a computer game'?!"

 

[Infinitron]

the rogue is missing half of the key elements of the skirmisher - medium ranged harassment.

Why missing? Ranged weapon rogues are a common sight in CRPGs.

 

[Cosmo]

And IIRC javelins are among the first weapon tier in P:E (i.e. the one that require the least degree of military training).​

 

[Grunker]

1994, at summer camp, in a cabin on Sunday getting ready to play D&D:

"BARBARIAN SOUNDS TOTALLY RAD, I WANT TO BE THAT ONE!"

Fast-forward to today:

"Does Barbarian do the most DPS?"

Blaine, to his grandkids in 2053:

"And that's the story of how Project: Eternity was made! ...What do you mean, 'what's a computer game'?!"

One of my jobs on the side while studying is playing P&P with kids. I assure you the their reactions are still:

"BARBARIAN SOUNDS TOTTALY RAD, I WANT TO BE THAT ONE!"

...though I guess they don't use the word 'rad' that much anymore

Nostalgia and "youth now-a-days"-mentality, bro.

 

[Mangoose]

the rogue is missing half of the key elements of the skirmisher - medium ranged harassment.

Why missing? Ranged weapon rogues are a common sight in CRPGs.

They were possible but I dunno if I'd say common. The mechanic of sneak attack or backstab motivates one to play the rogue as a melee character. In 3e you could ranged sneak attack, but IMO not even TOEE gave a good range indicator (or grid) to allow you to position for ranged sneak attacks. And then the ability to do a Charge Attack actually gives the tank more mobility than the rogue, who can't dance endlessly out of heavy infantry range like a skirmisher should.

Perhaps the mobility-springattack Rogue is closest to being a skirmisher, in behavior.