Interview Project Eternity Interview @ Irontower

[Alex]

If you want to just invent rules on the fly, all editions of DnD up to 3.5 are about the same. The advantage of 3/3.5/Pathfinder is how much stuff is built in so you don't have to houserule every little thing.

If I was going to houserule Pathfinder, feats would be the first thing to get out. Level based attribute progression would be next, along with prestige classes and the skill system. It doesn't have the advantage here because it isn't really alike to the game I would like to play. It is not that I find these to be bad fetures, or that I would never play a game with them. I would, I did, and I would again. But they are only useful for a very different style of gaming, one that I find fun, but not the one I would be looking for in PE or that is my favorite.

Using your example, if a character wants to make that attack and doesn't have the power attack feat, you could quickly rule that he has an addition -2 to hit since he's untrained. Nothing is lost, and speed and structure is gained.

Or I could rule that there isn't feats in first place, which is even quicker nd helps me not having to worry about feats ever again.

You're basically saying you don't like structure, but every edition of DnD I've played has been highly structured, you just made rules on the fly to do what you want.

Grunker is right, I don't think DnD is the game you're looking for, certainly, ADnD isn't better about any of your examples compared to 3E.

AD&D at least provides me with a lot of interesting rules that, even if I don't want to use, can still be used as food for thought. Like the section about NPCs in 1e. I wouldn't use that rules, specifically, but I think it is a good starting point to make your campaign a little more about managing other people. The weapons vs armor class table in 1e isn't very good either, I agree. But the idea behind it is sound, and you can make a good table from it. On the other hand, a lot of the stuff 3e provides with feats, prestige classes and what not are about how you can bend the rules in certain ways than about some aspect of the world. Of course, 2e isn't perfect, nor is 3e completely awful. But I still feel 2e beats 3e in this regard.

 

[Grunker]

Still, I have seen much more people willing to mess and break 2e's system than 3e's.

Do you base all your opinions of a system on its modern, mostly retarded, user-base?

 

[Excidium]

About Alex, I think his preference of AD&D is because the overall design philosophy of 3E is like a complete opposite of his style. His fondness for the AD&D settings also probably plays a large part.

"Oh, but Grunker" you argue, "I like minimal rules when making shit up on the fly!" Oh shit... wait... you actually have a point... but... Then why the FUCK are you playing AD&D?

Because AD&D rules are so bad and you have to house rule so much shit to be playable that it's like not having any rules!

 

[Grunker]

About Alex, I think his preference of AD&D is because the overall design philosophy of 3E is like a complete opposite of his style. His fondness for the AD&D settings also probably plays a large part.

Yeah, that's precisely what I have been saying all this time. a) Don't defend AD&D descriptively, b) there are systems better suited to your needs, but if nostalgia and familiarity are keeping you in the game, by all means go ahead. It's keeping me too.

I've reiterated these points many times. I argue with Alex despite this because he maintains that AD&D is a well-designed system and his love of it stems from that.

 

[Lord Andre]

Balance fags in this thread are like Sawyer: they don't know what they want, they only know what they don't want. And they have no clue how to achieve it without making the game suck, e.g. boring.

The only way that cool and fun balance was ever achieved in a game, is the trading card game way. Think Magic The Gathering.
Over time the game has amassed so many components that if an overpowered component is added, then the players usually find a combination of already existing components that counter the new overpowered one. This way stuff that was useless becomes very good and stuff that was overpowered becomes mediocre and then new shit gets introduced and the cycle continues - organic and natural.

In a static single player rpg with limited components and limited combinations of said components there will always be a best build and perfect balance will always mean a boring experience.

A very unbalanced game will suck just as much. There is a sweet spot between the two, one that BG2 found and one that I am afraid Sawyer can't understand let alone find.

 

[tuluse]

Fighters were still boring as fuck to play in BG2.

The emphasis needs to be on making classes interesting and fun to play, not equivalent in power.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure that Sawyer has ever actually said that he wants the game to be "balanced". That's something that people have extrapolated from his talk about how all classes should be "useful".

 

[tuluse]

He's talked about his design philosophy wrt SPECIAL, and he said he wanted every skill to be of equal utility and equally useful throughout the game. So I think people are extrapolating from that.

 

[Alex]

Excidium

2nd edition cut a lot of things, and added a lot of unneeded crap, like kits. But still, I would say 1e is very well designed to the kind of play it aims at. I mean, maybe a few tags on some rules like the armor vs weapons would be nice (though the paladin doesn't work so well without those or equivalent). But once you understand what kind of campaign it tries to create, the rules fit like a glove. I always add in a few house rules cause it is not quite the kind of game I want to play, but there is some wicked good design work there.

 

[Roguey]

I'm not sure that Sawyer has ever actually said that he wants the game to be "balanced". That's something that people have extrapolated from his talk about how all classes should be "useful".

Same thing. Game balance doesn't necessarily mean equality.

 

[Excidium]

Usually it does. Look at guns and energy weapons in New Vegas, for instance. It's just an aesthetic choice. They even added new weapons so that they have similar progression.

 

[Infinitron]

I will ask him about this on Formspring.

 

[Roguey]

Usually it does. Look at guns and energy weapons in New Vegas, for instance. It's just an aesthetic choice.

He also agrees that's redundant and would merge them in a future Fallout game. However, ranged weapons, melee, and explosives are all balanced but all require different playstyles.

 

[hiver]

I'm not sure that Sawyer has ever actually said that he wants the game to be "balanced". That's something that people have extrapolated from his talk about how all classes should be "useful".

Same thing.

What if it means creating more situations where different classes would be actually more useful. Where their abilities would influence the game in different ways than combat?
Solve quests or situations in other ways than combat?

Is that the same thing?

 

[Roguey]

What if it means creating more situations where different classes would be actually more useful. Where their abilities would influence the game in different ways than combat?
Solve quests or situations in other ways than combat?

Is that the same thing?

He wants all classes to be useful-in-different-ways both in and out of combat

 

[hiver]

Doesnt that mean creating more content that isnt about combat?
Rather then just balancing the numbers, rearranging skills and/or making up new ones.

 

[Roguey]

Different classes will have different access to noncombat skills. and they're aiming to make it impossible to cover all the bases with a 6 person party.

 

[Grunker]

Usually it does. Look at guns and energy weapons in New Vegas, for instance. It's just an aesthetic choice.

He also agrees that's redundant and would merge them in a future Fallout game. However, ranged weapons, melee, and explosives are all balanced but all require different playstyles.

"We fucked it up! Better remove it entirely!"

Sounds familiar...

 

[hiver]

Different classes will have different access to noncombat skills. and they're aiming to make it impossible to cover all the bases with a 6 person party.

And what is that different access for noncombat skills going to be used for?
What gameplay, what content?

 

[Roguey]

"We fucked it up! Better remove it entirely!"

Sounds familiar...

Energy weapons will still be there, just as high-tier guns, like they are in Fallout 1/2. Using a separate skill for them is unnecessary. Making a set of ranged weapons play differently compared to another set of ranged weapons seems like a Sisyphean task not worth wasting time with.

 

[tuluse]

If you modeled bullet drop and lasers realistically, it would sort itself out.

Or you make the game isometric, then you don't have to worry as much about "feel".

 

[Livonya]

I actually thought this interview was good, and it almost made me forget my hatred of RTwP. I funded this, so as much as I hate RTwP, I am still hoping the rest of the game is good. And this interview gave me some hope.

 

[Johannes]

Or you make the game isometric, then you don't have to worry as much about "feel".

How so?





Edit: read the interview now, what puzzles me is this:

Personally, I believe AD&D elevated the "glass cannon" conception of wizards to an un-fun place. It's cool that, especially in 2nd Edition, wizards had so many spells to use, but in Baldur's Gate II, I believe it resulted in more-or-less strict combat puzzles rather than loose combat puzzles or tactical challenges. If the only viable way through a fight is to use a specific sequence of spells, that's not something that you tactically opt to do -- it's the thing you must do to move forward. And in many of those fights, the only way to figure out what spells to use is to trigger the fight, get wiped, reload, and try again.

I think we can still have powerful, high-threat wizards in Project Eternity without using rock-paper-scissors defense and counter mechanics. I'd like to present players with challenges that make them think of a variety of solutions. I want them to feel like they can be flexible and adaptive when an unforeseen challenge appears. If the game comes out and I see walkthroughs that all suggest the exact same tactics for going through a tough fight, I believe that's a failure on my part.

... Did we play the same BG2?

 

[Moribund]

Balance fags in this thread are like Sawyer: they don't know what they want, they only know what they don't want. And they have no clue how to achieve it without making the game suck, e.g. boring.

The only way that cool and fun balance was ever achieved in a game, is the trading card game way. Think Magic The Gathering.
Over time the game has amassed so many components that if an overpowered component is added, then the players usually find a combination of already existing components that counter the new overpowered one. This way stuff that was useless becomes very good and stuff that was overpowered becomes mediocre and then new shit gets introduced and the cycle continues - organic and natural.

In a static single player rpg with limited components and limited combinations of said components there will always be a best build and perfect balance will always mean a boring experience.

A very unbalanced game will suck just as much. There is a sweet spot between the two, one that BG2 found and one that I am afraid Sawyer can't understand let alone find.

Yes, by actually playing the system over and over and refining it.

When you just make crap up and hope it works then it's going to be dreck, which is why PE game system is gonna suck, because all JE does is make crap up that's not in any game and sounds kind of stupid if you think about it a while.

 

[Mother Russia]

Any news about the Paladin? Did they get rid of stupid buffs and auras and instead focus on making him a holy power weilding smiting machine?