Preview RPG Codex Re-Preview: The Age of Decadence

[Athelas]

You can't read with comprehension. I've presented the advantage of the current system (i.e. it often makes the game harder by preventing you from maximizing each characters abilities and fighting in prefect sync) and you're talking about how controlling a party allows combat to become more complex, lol.

Harder in an obnoxious way, sure. Besides, party-control would not necessarily have to mean you get control over others' character development, in keeping with Age of Decadence's single-character focus. The best of both worlds.

Besides, games like Baldur's Gate or even Wasteland 2 prove that it's often better to focus on one character combat system rather than watered down party system.

Prove how exactly? Both those games have better combat than singe-character RPG's like Fallout and Arcanum. Not that this is much of an achievement.

 

[Helton]

There's nothing wrong with party control. But AoD doesn't have it. The sequel probably will. Is this really a deal breaker for you?

 

[Athelas]

There's nothing wrong with party control. But AoD doesn't have it. The sequel probably will. Is this really a deal breaker for you?

It's not, I was simply disagreeing with the argument that having party control is actually bad.

 

[Goral]

There's nothing wrong with party control. But AoD doesn't have it. The sequel probably will. Is this really a deal breaker for you?

It's not, I was simply disagreeing with the argument that having party control is actually bad.

lol

Mentioning that having control over your party gives you the advantage over AI controlled ones means to you that "it's bad"? It's pointless to discuss with a "genius" so http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?members/athelas.16939/ignore

If there is another "genius" out there who needs further explanation let me elaborate. MSF said that having the option to control a party adds tactical depth, I said that it would also give you the advantage, i.e. it allows you to maximise the abilities of your team and have them in perfect sync (which in AoD would make sense only for Imperial Guards). As things stand now you have to be smarter to survive an encounter with allies than you would have to be when you could actually control them and prevent them from dying too soon. Which IMO makes it more interesting (I never said anything about one or the other system being bad/good).

In general having a party which you can control doesn't add more tactical depth to gameplay. The only two exceptions I know is JA (obviously) and Desperados where you could use quick-actions and properly set up your team. In games such as W2 or BG it's primitive. So IMO it's better to focus on good combat system for 1 character rather than a watered down system like in BG/W2 where you just give the best weapon/skill to each team member, there is no depth in that whatsoever.

 

[hiver]

Character System
Regarding Perception, fighters don't need that stat above 4 unless they're using (cross)bows/throwing (and if someone invests in these he can become a hybrid fighter/talker).

Its not so much as "dont need", but rather doable that way too.

Also, civil skill points can be used for combat purposes and investing in Alchemy or crafting is a must if one wants to make even the toughest fights much easier. Your concern here is invalid and your suggestions are baffling. You also don't know what the word "optimize" means, lol.

i know optimize doesnt mean fun, especially if it requires restarting the whole game constantly to "optimize" the build, or reloading way back.

About civil skill points synergies, Oscar has answered this on IT forum: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,5178.msg126044.html#msg126044
Besides, there is a synergy of sorts. Most (all?) skill checks require a sum of skills, e.g. to convince someone that you're a bro you need persuasion+streetwise=7 (but both need to be at level 3 at least), so whether you have 3 streetwise and 4 persuasion or 4 streetwise and 3 persuasion the result is the same and you succeed.

Exactly, it works. Simple example but gives positive results only. There should be more of it and used in more diverse and smarter ways.

 

[Cadmus]

From reading this thread and from playing the demo a long time ago, I get the feeling that the previewer did a poor job in some aspects. Even that aside, the preview sounds really overly apologetic which could likely stem from not having enough experience with the game and thus being able to firmly and with due authority pass judgement and present one's opinion. On the other hand, what fandango had been through with the game is 35x more than the average IGN imbecile journalist will do anyway, so it holds some relevancy after all.

My problem with the game (and I admit it might be a problem with my lack of experience or thinking properly) was that while I played the merchant, the game behaved as if I shouldn't get into fights, which is fine...but how the fuck am I supposed to know that by going through a side street, I'll get into a fight? I think there were many occasions when I had no idea that my actions would lead to a fight. Ok, maybe I suck or maybe I don't remember it correctly, it's been like a year. Another thing was and from these comments I gather it's the same problem for some people as it was for me - you're unable to hire mercenaries or just some cutthroats in some situations where that sounds absolutely the best thing to do for a non combat character.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, my impressions have faded behind a veil of booze and months gone by.

 

[Vault Dweller]

1) You aren't forced to fight. You could get into fights if you ignore warnings and common sense but that's a different story. For example, in Teron you can get into a fight with:
- some thugs harassing passerby - the game warns you in advance (gives you an option to approach or turn away)
- a pickpocket gang - it's your choice if you decide to follow the girl and get your money back
- Miltiades' thugs - you get a streetwise warning and the common sense warning
- the squatters - I don't recall the options there but they would attack only if you explore the tower, find the artefact and either refuse to pay or lack speech skills to convince them to leave you alone.

2) The whole point of playing a non-combat character is avoiding fights because you can't fight. Hiring thugs would change that. Kinda like saying you can play a non-combat combat in Arcanum by hiring enough thugs to fight for you.

 

[Absinthe]

If you want to hire other people to fight for you, it's typically a costly and suboptimal solution. I don't see the problem with allowing players to do that. Hell, a Thief in Teron can get his guild to wipe out the bandit camp for him. But if you give someone else the option of paying the Assassin's Guild to do it, this somehow defeats the purpose of playing a noncombat character? Even though by rights that would be far from the best solution for the quest? Moreover, it feels rather railroaded when you need killing but the game won't let you hire the professional killers in the neighborhood.

Even with Strabos, hiring thugs just means you're paying to ensure his survival. Your personal objectives are unaffected.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If you want to hire other people to fight for you, it's typically a costly and suboptimal solution.

Not in RPGs.

Hell, a Thief in Teron can get his guild to wipe out the bandit camp for him.

The benefit of being a member of an organization. Plus you have to convince them to do it.

But if you give someone else the option of paying the Assassin's Guild to do it, this somehow defeats the purpose of playing a noncombat character?

If the idea of playing a non-combat character is to know your limits and avoid combat like a plague, yes.

Even though by rights that would be far from the best solution for the quest? Moreover, it feels rather railroaded when you need killing but the game won't let you hire the professional killers in the neighborhood.

Which situation in particular are you referring to?

Even with Strabos, hiring thugs just means you're paying to ensure his survival. Your personal objectives are unaffected.

Which quest, which thugs? IG4?

 

[Helton]

It isn't a bad idea to be able to hire some muscle in theory. But looking at the game, at least last time I played it, non-combat characters are ALWAYS strapped for cash. Like there often literally isn't enough cash to buy actually important things like power tubes, artifacts, and access to more areas. So I don't know where you're going to scrape together the coin for all of these sub-optimal and costly solutions.

I haven't played the newest city at all so maybe the landscape changes a bit. But in the first two towns it seems like it would be a waste of effort to add mercenary options for every pissant fight. Only combat characters would be able to afford them, and they wouldn't need them. And if your noncombat char DID hire some goons to beat up some irrelevant gang, you'd be gimping yourself from something actually important later on.

You CAN recruit help for various encounters. But it is more involved than magically having 1000's of gold to throw around.

 

[Absinthe]

Helton that's fine. Being strapped for cash is a good way to gate financial solutions to your problems. It also reinforces the value of money.

Vault Dweller, Teron with Bandit and Mining Camps. It seems like you should just be able to hire the assassins to take care of it. IG4 as diplomacy Praetor making Antidas emperor. Suddenly you are a bodyguard despite having zero combat skills, and there are mercenaries in town. Solutions like these are pretty straightforward and sensible for in-world reasons but the game just won't let you. It feels like the game is just bluntly telling you "No, your idea doesn't matter because the designer just wants you to do it another way" and that's really not a good feeling.

 

[tuluse]

2) The whole point of playing a non-combat character is avoiding fights because you can't fight. Hiring thugs would change that. Kinda like saying you can play a non-combat combat in Arcanum by hiring enough thugs to fight for you.

Some would say the point of an RPG is that you're accumulating power to use said power to solve your problems. That power can be direct (skill points, equipment) or it could be indirect (paying someone or using influence to solve your problem for you).

Since a lot of AoD is influence brokering, it does seem a bit at odds with the themes of the game that you can't hire people to solve problems for you.

 

[Helton]

Since a lot of AoD is influence brokering, it does seem a bit at odds with the themes of the game that you can't hire people to solve problems for you.

Spoiler

Off the top of my head:

1. Convince Thieve's Guild to kill Bandits.
2. Hire Bandits to attack Mining Outpost.
3. Recruit Ordo to attack Pass + Come to Maadoran.

You aren't a men of means. When you have opportunity to barter with other people's resources, you can hire people to solve your (or your patron's) problems.

 

[Absinthe]

There a number of ways to make money as a talking character if you're an industrious person. Usually it involves scamming people, like taking 1000 gold for bandit ransom, negotiating the actual price down to 500, and pocketing the change. You also get a ruby ring from Antidas if you use Etiquette when swearing fealty. The ring is basically money.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller, Teron with Bandit and Mining Camps. It seems like you should just be able to hire the assassins to take care of it.

Hire the bandits to attack the camp, solve both problems.

IG4 as diplomacy Praetor making Antidas emperor. Suddenly you are a bodyguard despite having zero combat skills, and there are mercenaries in town.

A diplomat can convince Strabos to tell you what he knows first. I think you can even convince Pavola to send more men to protect Strabos after he tells you what he knows.

Solutions like these are pretty straightforward and sensible for in-world reasons but the game just won't let you. It feels like the game is just bluntly telling you "No, your idea doesn't matter because the designer just wants you to do it another way" and that's really not a good feeling.

It's not that your idea doesn't matter. It's that if you're a diplomat you should seek and use diplomatic solutions. That's what the game tells you.

Overall, you just arrived to a new city. You're asked to protect some guildmaster against assassins working for the House that runs the city. Where would you hire reliable men who won't run away when they realize what you got them into?

 

[Lgrayman]

If I start a character in AoD, do you consider it a mistake to make a fighter who is also a smooth talker? Is that objectively suboptimal, at least currently?

 

[Vault Dweller]

2) The whole point of playing a non-combat character is avoiding fights because you can't fight. Hiring thugs would change that. Kinda like saying you can play a non-combat combat in Arcanum by hiring enough thugs to fight for you.

Some would say the point of an RPG is that you're accumulating power to use said power to solve your problems. That power can be direct (skill points, equipment) or it could be indirect (paying someone or using influence to solve your problem for you).

Since a lot of AoD is influence brokering, it does seem a bit at odds with the themes of the game that you can't hire people to solve problems for you.

AoD offers 3 main character types:

- fighter (all sub-classes are combat oriented - fighter/crafter, fighter/assassin, fighter/alchemist)
- talker
- fighter/talker

If you fight, you can't do much else. If you talk, you really should stay away from fights. Hybrids are the hardest to master but more rewarding (we'll tweak the balance until it's a viable option rewarding skill and understanding). Allowing talkers to hire muscle would turn them into a cheap hybrid class.

Talkers can manipulate others (again, see using the bandits to attack the mining camp, or hiring some local scum to attack the assassins in the thieves quest in Maadoran).

 

[Vault Dweller]

If I start a character in AoD, do you consider it a mistake to make a fighter who is also a smooth talker? Is that objectively suboptimal, at least currently?

It's possible but not for people who are new to the game (you have to know what you're doing and understand the combat system better)

 

[tuluse]

AoD offers 3 main character types:

- fighter (all sub-classes are combat oriented - fighter/crafter, fighter/assassin, fighter/alchemist)
- talker
- fighter/talker

If you fight, you can't do much else. If you talk, you really should stay away from fights. Hybrids are the hardest to master but more rewarding (we'll tweak the balance until it's a viable option rewarding skill and understanding). Allowing talkers to hire muscle would turn them into a cheap hybrid class.

Talkers can manipulate others (again, see using the bandits to attack the mining camp, or hiring some local scum to attack the assassins in the thieves quest in Maadoran).

Let me be clear: I understand the decisions you made to make sure character skill matters.

I just find it somewhat at odds with the world and themes presented.

(to really stir up some trouble though, you could also let fighter characters bribe and hire envoys to compensate their lack of talking skills )

 

[Vault Dweller]

I just find it somewhat at odds with the world and themes presented.

I humbly disagree.

Let's take Deadwood, for example (it's a lawless place). A land-baron can hire thugs to intimidate others and probably would end up owning the place. Some nobody with money who tries to hire some thugs will probably be robbed and killed by those very thugs.

If we have time, we'll definitely add this cautionary tale to the game.

 

[Absinthe]

Hire the bandits to attack the camp, solve both problems.

I know you can hire the bandits with Antidas's money. That's why I call it a suboptimal solution to hire the assassins to take care of them, but when you give quests with killing them as the obvious solution, hiring the professionals to do it seems like a rather reasonable idea.

A diplomat can convince Strabos to tell you what he knows first. I think you can even convince Pavola to send more men to protect Strabos after he tells you what he knows.

IG4 I probably should've tested more.

It's not that your idea doesn't matter. It's that if you're a diplomat you should seek and use diplomatic solutions. That's what the game tells you.

The game also tells me that gold is power and gold will serve me well if I do well in obtaining it. Linos had a speech on this. But some problems you're apparently not allowed to solve with gold.

Overall, you just arrived to a new city. You're asked to protect some guildmaster against assassins working for the House that runs the city. Where would you hire reliable men who won't run away when they realize what you got them into?

Kemnebi's crew? They seemed to be some well-reputed mercenaries.

 

[Helton]

There a number of ways to make money as a talking character if you're an industrious person. Usually it involves scamming people, like taking 1000 gold for bandit ransom, negotiating the actual price down to 500, and pocketing the change. You also get a ruby ring from Antidas if you use Etiquette when swearing fealty. The ring is basically money.

It all comes out to a pittance.

Spoiler

Off the top of my head:
1. You're dropping $1000 for a power tube in Maadoran, plus I think $200 or $500 for whatever he sells you first.
2. Dropping another $1000 to get into the Thieve's quarter unless you're a Thief.
3. God forbid you have to buy some nets or liquid fire to make it through a fight or two.

And I don't know what a decent group of mercs would charge you, depends on the quality and the job obviously. But I'm p. sure $1000 is going to be bare minimum. Where are you going to come up with that kind of cash?

Not to mention there are rarely actual circumstances where you COULD hire someone. In what encounters did you feel like you should have been able to but couldn't?

So far I've seen mentioned:

1. Hire AG to deal with Bandits/Mining Outpost.

As far as I can tell the AG usually deals with one or a few marks in urban environments. I think they'd be out of their element attacking a dozen bandits in the forest. Also they would probably charge you ~$1000 a head. Which no character will have by that point in the game.

2. Hire "thugs" to protect Straboss.

Who are you going to hire? The AG? Oh wait... Who are you going to find who will stand up against the town's greatest assassin working under orders from the Lord of the city? Who are you going to hire that Straboss wouldn't have already? And how much are you going to have to pay them?

 

[Absinthe]

It's been a while but I recall being able to finish Teron alone with over 2K gold using non-combat characters. 3K+ if I were going out of my way to make money.

 

[Helton]

Right, so you're utterly broke if you want to buy actually useful things with that money. I forgot access to the Abyss for another ~$600 iirc. Where are you finding the extra money to drop $6k on an Assassin contract in the forest?

 

[Vault Dweller]

The game also tells me that gold is power and gold will serve me well if I do well in obtaining it. Linos had a speech on this. But some problems you're apparently not allowed to solve with gold.

There is money and there is money.

A lot of money for a nobody in the hands of that nobody doesn't mean much. A lot of money for a faction in the hands of that faction means a lot.

Kemnebi's crew? They seemed to be some well-reputed mercenaries.

Pretty sure that Kemnebi mentions that he doesn't shit where he lives, so he doesn't handle local problems.