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

[Cowboy Moment]

I'm not familiar with GURPS that is true, but I am using 4th Edition as an example in most posts because most of Josh's systems are based on or a derivative of D&D 4E.

My biggest issues so far have been the information about Attributes and the Crafting skill that was removed.

Starcraft is a good example of a balanced game that does use mathematical symmetry across it's systems, but the mechanics for units and races are different.

Terran units can heal and be repaired by other units. Protoss units have a regenerating shield and cannot regain HP and Zerg units regenerate when they're on Creep.

All damage values in the game are fixed and all damage upgrades across all three races provide the same amount of bonus damage or armor to units.

Perhaps you are right though, my complaint is probably more about unification and simplification of systems that were previously discrete if however related (such as there being no mechanical difference between any types of attack or all forms of bonus damage coming from the same stat).

I don't think Starcraft is that good of an example, because a huge part of balance in that game is the mechanical difficulty, which makes units and abilities which would be overpowered with mechanically perfect play (like Psi Storm for example) balanced in practice with human players.

Also, small nitpick, but Zerg units regenerate anywhere, not just on creep.

 

[Sensuki]

Is that the case in SC1 and 2 ? I forget ... been years since I Played. I might be getting confused with WC3 Undead

Anyway I was just using that as an example of mathematical symmetry across systems in relation to Grunker's post.

I'm from a country town in Australia and when I was younger, only D&D was available at local shops. GURPS and other rulesets were not available. Only found out about them much later on on the internet.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Is that the case in SC1 and 2 ? I forget ... been years since I Played. I might be getting confused with WC3 Undead

Yep. It's a fairly common mistake to make though, lots of people believe it. In fact, creep doesn't do anything aside from letting you place buildings on it in SC1. In SC2 it obviously does a lot more.

 

[Roguey]

That's a response to a single part of my post, but at least it's an honest reply. I don't really much care what YCS is full of, the fact is that once 4E went into "playtesting", the results were very bad. People generally liked that all classes had something to do, and there were a few systems people really enjoyed (rituals) but the basic systemics failed: identical tactics were repeated in encounters, players felt no difference when switching between classes and low damage characters fighting high HP monsters meant that every encounter took a very look time to complete, often with players using the same At Will powers again and again and again. Tiered magic items completely drained uniqueness and tactical variety in the item system. Everything became a question of which tier you had; individual item powers were almost insignificant. The fact of the matter is that by solving one problem (lack of balance), 4th Edition completely drained D&D of build diversity, tactical variety and interesting combat and skill challenges.

Josh said the characters he played felt different from each other, and DM-created campaigns (not official modules) were fun. He does agree that combat would eventually become too long and the skill challenges were always terrible.

4E failed for many reasons. Systemic failure was a very big part of it. Otherwise, the people who bought the system would still be playing it, and the system would only have failed commercially. Yet 4th Edition has the least active community, the fewest games played in stores, and even among its fans most have another system they like better.

All P&P games are terrible, it's just a matter of degrees.

You're so keen on ridiculing designers who couldn't give a fuck how the system actually played, yet you defend the one, single system that had had a completely closed development cycle. It was pretty much developed from A-Z behind closed doors and suddenly, BAM, released. There wasn't even much of an internal testing period.

I defend 4e? I've never even played it. It does sound a lot better than previous editions since they made an effort to fix fundamental flaws (as opposed to Pathfinder which just bandaged them).

The fact is that Sawyer ignores player experience when it is convenient, and at other times it is his alpha-omega.

I don't even know what you're getting at. It's not like Josh is copying 4e wholesale or ever suggested he'd do anything of the sort.

 

[Excidium]

Roguey you should refrain from talking about things you don't understand

Specially since Sawyer is your only source of knowledge and he often shits from his mouth when talking about even D&D that he supposedly knows well.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey you should refrain from talking about things you don't understand

Never.

 

[Grunker]

Josh said the characters he played felt different from each other, and DM-created campaigns (not official modules) were fun. He does agree that combat would eventually become too long and the skill challenges were always terrible.

"Josh said" is one of the least compelling arguments I've ever heard.

All P&P games are terrible, it's just a matter of degrees.

Ah, the old "everything is shit." I've heard that from many of the social misfits here. Never thought I'd hear it from you. It's pretty obviously false, and an empty phrase as well.

I defend 4e? I've never even played it.

It's a mighty interesting ability you have to make the observation that all P&P games are terrible, yet it seems you have played or even read almost none of them.

It's almost like... you're talking out of your ass. It boggles the mind how you can even have a string of belief that anyone will take you seriously when you're able to claim with a straight face that "all P&P games are terrible" and on the other flat-out admit that you have almost no knowledge of them, save for some second-hand knowledge of D&D.

(also: yes, you've defended 4E designs on many occasions)

I don't even know what you're getting at. It's not like Josh is copying 4e wholesale or ever suggested he'd do anything of the sort.

Sawyer will often - quite often - refer to player-based experience as the sole basis for a claim. You did it on his behalf the other day regarding party builds in BG2. It's the foundation of his whole "player behaviour is my guiding star" philosophy.

Yet he will just as often - when provided with player experience contrary to an argument he makes - claim that the player is just talking/behaving contrary to fact.

When player experience supports his argument, it is Proof of Design. When it doesn't, it's because players don't know what's good for them, or they don't (according to magical Sawyer's gift of omniscience) have the behaviour they claim to have.

 

[Aeschylus]

Grunker, you realize that at this point you're essentially arguing with an automated trolling algorithm, right?

 

[Grunker]

Grunker, you realize that at this point you're essentially arguing with an automated trolling algorithm, right?

Roguey is surely enjoys a good trolling (and on one or two occasions provide great lulz as a result), but the refusal to acknowledge Roguey even when he makes an effort is just as retarded as Roguey can be in his empty statements, when he treads on infertile argumentative soil.

Roguey often digs through a bunch of shit to construct an argument, and unless you're just here for the lulz, you're an idiot if you think the trolling is all there is to Roguey.

In fact, Roguey probably builds his argument on facts more often than 90% of the Codex. Whether this says more about the general population of the Codex or about Roguey, I'll let you be the judge of yourself.

 

[Roguey]

"Josh said" is one of the least compelling arguments I've ever heard.

Works for me. I'm not going to doubt his word.

Ah, the old "everything is shit." I've heard that from many of the social misfits here. Never thought I'd hear it from you. It's pretty obviously false, and an empty phrase as well.

Is there a single P&P game that is easy to learn, difficult to master and works fine out of the box without a bunch of houserules? No. Ergo, they're all bad.

It's a mighty interesting ability you have to make the observation that all P&P games are terrible, yet it seems you have played or even read almost none of them.

Don't need to open a dumpster to know there's garbage inside.

Sawyer will often - quite often - refer to player-based experience as the sole basis for a claim. You did it on his behalf the other day regarding party builds in BG2. It's the foundation of his whole "player behaviour is my guiding star" philosophy.

Yet he will just as often - when provided with player experience contrary to an argument he makes - claim that the player is just talking/behaving contrary to fact.

When player experience supports his argument, it is Proof of Design. When it doesn't, it's because players don't know what's good for them, or they don't (according to magical Sawyer's gift of omniscience) have the behaviour they claim to have.

What he sees is more important than what people say.

 

[Cynic]

That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say. Retarded even. Spells are per definition made up shit that works according to its own logic, it's most certainly not hard to imagine a spell system where intelligence affects spell damage. Just say that spells require extensive mental effort and more effort=more magic.

And heck, since you seem to be comparing it to D&D, you've presumably already accepted how tons of spells scale with level. And in some Monte Cook edition, didn't intelligence affect the spell penetration or spell DC saving throw or something?

I mean dude, you're using a simulationist argument against a spell system - simulationism is tarded enough in itself, but then you apply it to something that cannot possibly be simulating anything real life. Nigga get real


You know nothing about the spell system or spell power in PE, the last thing you can talk about is balance, jesus christ. After that little tirade, I'm afraid you have no business calling anyone stupid let alone retarded.

His statement that STR is an imbalanced stat in D&D because nothing ever modified spell damage is fucking retarded because spell damage in D&D does not NEED to be modified and in many cases their nature already gets modified by the caster's level. INT and WIS are not less useful stats, they increase the effectiveness of their dependent classes just like STR does for others.

I was attacking his assertions about D&D which were just flat out wrong. By all means make a new system, but if your attitude to an older, tried and tested system are this incorrect, it doesn't hold much hope.

I also disagree that D&D has "dump" stats. If you roll a Mage with less than optimal intelligence but decent strength, you dual class them. A high intelligence fighter will open up more quest option, and also one which has high wisdom will have better saves vs mental attack. None of these attributes are useless.

I haven't played a game which he's designed, I've played ToEE (which Tim Cain had a large hand in) and it had simply the best combat mechanics of any D&D based game since the gold box series. That game makes you rage that the IE games were not turn based. How much better they could have been. It is up in the top 3 for best combat in an RPG ever for me. If Tim has tried his hand at some MMOs who cares? ToEE is a shining achievement in being one of the best iteration of D&D combat rules ever, it was marred by a rushed release and encounter design but the underlying system is incredible.

I'm still very skeptical of how they are going to fit all their discussed mechanics into a RTwP system, I am really keen to see a combat demo.

I admit my shit about INT not logically effecting damage was a bit over the top but I was drunk as fuck after a 14 hour work day.

 

[Grunker]

Is there a single P&P game that is easy to learn, difficult to master and works fine out of the box without a bunch of houserules?

Yes.

Now that I've constructed a compelling argument as solid as your 'no' allow me to do you one better:

I've played Pen & Paper for 15 years, and my student job is playing Pen & Paper with children of the age of 10 to 16.

The number of house rules I have for any campaign I run is 10 or below. For most campaigns, the number is 0. When house rules are used, they're employed because we want something different than the standard way to play the game... you know, like when you mod your fucking PC game.

I play SLA, GURPS, D&D, Warhammer, WoD and more with aforementioned children. Besides kids who do very poorly in school and need extra help, they all learn these rule sets very easily. If I've helped a kid make his character once, he can often make an entire character almost correctly by himself after that. And these are 13 year old kids that have had 3 years of public school english.

Now let's hear your fucking counter argument to that, besides "no."

The truth is no more complex than you have taken this edgy stance and no amount of evidence will ever be able to convince you of anything else. You share this unique trait with the worst part of WCDS and everyone else you despise. Your lack of arguments reveal you for what you are; a religious nut.

 

[Cynic]

Now let's your fucking counter argument to that, besides "no."

Just give up bro.

 

[Excidium]

In fact, Roguey probably builds his argument on facts more often than 90% of the Codex.

You mean by pressing ctrl+f on her Josh Sawyer bible

 

[Infinitron]

I've played Pen & Paper for 15 years, and my student job is playing Pen & Paper with children of the age of 10 to 16.

A perfect background for a Codex moderator.

 

[Grunker]

I've played Pen & Paper for 15 years, and my student job is playing Pen & Paper with children of the age of 10 to 16.

A perfect background for a Codex moderator.

Now that you mention it, I actually forgot to add: "some of whom are autistic"

 

[Aeschylus]

Grunker, you realize that at this point you're essentially arguing with an automated trolling algorithm, right?

Roguey often digs through a bunch of shit to construct an argument, and unless you're just here for the lulz, you're an idiot if you think the trolling is all there is to Roguey.

You know, only a couple of months ago I would have pretty much agreed with you. Now...

Well, whatever. Enjoy your Quixotic quest to change the minds of people who probably don't even believe half of what they're saying.

 

[Grunker]

Change minds? This was never about changing minds. It's about wasting time on an internet forum that could be spend more productively elsewhere

 

[Excidium]

Maybe Grunker would rather argue with Sawyer but Roguey is the closest thing

 

[Grunker]

I also disagree that D&D has "dump" stats.

Give me a single good reason to have a Charisma of above minimum on any character that isn't using it as a caster stat (in video games).

For AD&D, since IE games are the only relevant comparison for this game: give me a single good reason not to give my non-protagonist fighter Wis 3, Int 3, Cha 3.

 

[hiver]

"Josh said" is one of the least compelling arguments I've ever heard.

=>

Sawyer will often - quite often - refer...
Yet he will just as often - when provided with player experience contrary to an argument he makes - claim the opposite.

=>

When player experience supports his argument, it is Proof of Design. When it doesn't, it's because players don't know what's good for them, or they don't (according to magical Sawyer's gift of omniscience) have the behaviour they claim to have.

I just wander how you just blast on while you cant figure out what incredible piles of self defeating, oxymoronic shit youre sperging. For Months already.

And i mean that seriously.

Just fucking look at you and your fucking "telepathic link" to "what sawyer says" and "means" and "really thinks"... for fuck sake.

Youre a psychotic lunatic and if there is anyone taking obvious, ridiculous, invented cacophony like anything relevant in any way - then they are more psychotic then you are!
(roquey doesnt count there because we all know shes psychotic by herself already)

 

[Roguey]

Yes.

Now that I've constructed a compelling argument as solid as your 'no' allow me to do you one better:

I've played Pen & Paper for 15 years, and my student job is playing Pen & Paper with children of the age of 10 to 16.

The number of house rules I have for any campaign I run is 10 or below. For most campaigns, the number is 0. When house rules are used, they're employed because we want something different than the standard way to play the game... you know, like when you mod your fucking PC game.

I play SLA, GURPS, D&D, Warhammer, WoD and more with aforementioned children. Besides kids who do very poorly in school and need extra help, they all learn these rule sets very easily. If I've helped a kid make his character once, he can often make an entire character almost correctly by himself after that. And these are 13 year old kids that have had 3 years of public school english.

Now let's hear your fucking counter argument to that, besides "no."

Those kids don't actually understand the rules, because if they did, they'd be breaking those games through their obvious exploits.

And in my experience, most of those require a lot of upfront reading to truly understand. Sure you can mess around and have a lot of fun with mechanically bad characters, but that's not proper gaming.

 

[Excidium]

I also disagree that D&D has "dump" stats.

Give me a single good reason to have a Charisma of above minimum on any character that isn't using it as a caster stat (in video games).

For AD&D, since IE games are the only relevant comparison for this game: give me a single good reason not to give my non-protagonist fighter Wis 3, Int 3, Cha 3.

Because if you do you're cheating AD&D character generation?

Well IE games kinda forgot to implement ability usage that isn't printed in the respective tables. They also forgot to implement mounted combat, reach and charging and that's why spears and halberds are easily the most worthless weapons in the game

 

[Grunker]

that's not proper gaming.

Pen & Paper players from 1998 called. They want their negatively delimiting "which of us roleplays in the right way" discussion back.

 

[Aeschylus]

Give me a single good reason to have a Charisma of above minimum on any character that isn't using it as a caster stat (in video games).

In a cRPG? None. In P&P? Having a good DM who actually takes the time to customize adventures to include situations that address the strengths and weaknesses of the party, or provides special opportunities to characters with unexpected builds.

For AD&D, since IE games are the only relevant comparison for this game: give me a single good reason not to give my non-protagonist fighter Wis 3, Int 3, Cha 3.

No reason in IE games. In P&P, too many reasons to count. But again, most of it boils down to having a competent DM.