Obsidian's "Pillars of Eternity"

[Gets]

I liked Dungeon Siege 2. 4-man co-op in a seamless varied world and being able to mix classes before anyone even heard of Path of Exile.

[Phred]

I liked Dungeon Siege 2. 4-man co-op in a seamless varied world and being able to mix classes before anyone even heard of Path of Exile.

I enjoyed 2 as well, though having the party autoattack took a lot of the stategy out of it and it was a min-maxers paradise.
Who knew that a summon flying around provided exp points in that school of magic :)

[Lucas]

New update (#50):

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63672-update-50-so-project-eternity/

Thanks to the updated "fact-sheet", we get some more details about the world of PE:

What are the different races we can play?
Players can select from six main races found in this part of the world: humans, elves, dwarves, orlans, aumaua, and godlike.  Orlans, aumaua, and godlike are unique to the world of Project Eternity, though godlike have similarities to "planetouched" races in other settings.  Orlans are small humanoids physically notable for their two-tone skin, extensive body hair, and extremely long ears.  Aumaua are large, semiaquatic humanoids with a diverse array of skin patterns, elongated heads, and semi-webbed hands and feet.
 
Godlike are not a separate race, but a phenomenon found among all races.  They are individuals whom many people believe were transformed by the gods before birth.  Godlike have distinctive appearances that invariably make them stand out from other people, with different cultures and individuals holding wildly different biases toward or against them.
 
All of the races have different ethnicities from which the player can choose.  For elves, Wood and Pale, for dwarves, Mountain and Boreal, for orlans, Hearth and Wild, and for aumaua, Island and Coastal.  Humans have three ethnicities: Meadow, Ocean, and Savannah.  Godlike can be found among any race and their appearance always sets them apart from their parents.

What about the classes?
Characters may be one of eleven classes: barbarian, chanter, cipher, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, priest, ranger, rogue, or wizard.  The "core four" classes (fighter, priest, rogue, wizard) are most similar to their traditional tabletop analogues.  The non-core classes, barbarians, druids, monks, paladins, and rangers, are somewhat similar to their counterparts but differ more significantly.  The two completely new classes are the chanter and the cipher, which are unique to the world of Project Eternity.
 
Traditional classes vary in how high- or low-maintenance they are based on their traditional counterparts.  E.g. fighters are generally lower maintenance than wizards.  However, the advancement system allows players to bend those roles, making higher-maintenance, active-use fighters or more passive wizards (for example).  Class balance is important to us, but we also want playing each class to feel distinctive and complementary to other classes.

How about the setting and story?
Project Eternity is set in a world created by Obsidian Entertainment, where mortal souls are bound to an eternal, and often mystifying, cycle of life and reincarnation believed to be watched over by the gods.  Though cultures and individuals have different beliefs about the nature and purpose of this cycle, it is only recently that mortals have made significant advancements in understanding its fundamental mechanics through the science of animancy.
 
The story takes place in a small nation in the world's southern hemisphere called the Dyrwood (DEER-wood).  The Dyrwood is a heavily forested, coastal region where colonial powers from across the ocean have settled and formed an uneasy relationship with the local residents, tribes of orlans and elves who are protective of the ancient ruins of Eír Glanfath on the forest's interior.  Eír Glanfath was an ancient melting pot of races that built elaborate, often massive, structures out of a living shell-like substance called adra.  Though the fate of the ancient Glanfathans is unknown, their dangerous and complex ruins show evidence they possessed extensive knowledge of how souls work.  For this reason, all of the surrounding colonial powers aggressively fight for the chance to explore and plunder Glanfathan structures, often bringing the local tribes into conflict with their relatively new neighbors -- and the neighbors into conflict with each other.
 
The central character in the story is a newcomer to the Dyrwood, a man or woman who is caught up in a bizarre supernatural phenomenon.  This event puts them in a difficult position, where they must explore the new world to solve a series of problems that have been thrust upon them.

What is the combat like?
Project Eternity's combat will feel very similar to the combat in the Infinity Engine games, which used a "real-time with pause" system.  In such a system, events between combatants occur simultaneously, but the player can pause the game at any time.  The player selects and commands one or more of his or her party members to issue orders, ranging from continuous activities, like making standard attacks, to the activation of limited-use tactical abilities, such as spells.
 
Like the Infinity Engine games, Project Eternity will support auto-pause features that allow players to establish conditions under which the game will automatically pause (e.g., if a party member becomes unconscious).  It will also feature a slow combat toggle that can be used with or in lieu of the pause feature.  In slow combat, players can manage the flow of combat without needing to halt the game entirely.

What other cool stuff will be in the game?
Thanks to our backers, players will have access to both a player house as well as a full stronghold in the game.  Also, players will have the chance to explore all fifteen levels of the backer-funded mega-dungeon, the Endless Paths of Od Nua.  Players who want a more extreme challenge can enable up to three optional game modes: Expert Mode (turns off "helper" features), Path of the Damned (dramatically increases the difficulty and complexity of encounters), and Trial of Iron (only one save game, party death = game over, save game deleted).

[Tebonas]

That Trial of Iron sounds like something you ought to do for fun after finishing the game for the first time.

[Jeff Kelly]

After what the Wasteland 2 guys, Ron Gilbert and others showed at Kickstarter I'm dissappointed and irritated by the 'Project Eternity' presentation.

The discussion in here shows me that you guys have also noticed this. Most of the kickstarter golas don't translate to more game or even to any game features. More races, more languages, more locations but little about why the GAME needs the additional funding beyond the initial goal or even what game they'd make when they only get to the initial kickstarter goal.

Ron GIlberst Kickstarter said: "I have the idea for a game and it needs this amount of money and here are my ideas and concepts" additional tiers opened the game up to more platforms and languages but the basic game was already there.

With Project Eternity they add new races, new locations and new features but tell me little about what the initial game is, except that it is 'like Baldurs Gate'.

They seem to have eaten up the 'free-to-play' mentality where more money gives you more superficial content and translated it to a kickstarter pitch. I still don't know whyt the game behind all of that buzz is when all is said and done.

I know it wil be their own system but I have seen no prototypes, they haven't floated their ideas etc. Roleplaying history is littered with failed new systems by self-taught game designers that dion't work. They plan to make up their own world but haven't given us anything to judge the quality on and as with rules roleplaying history also offers legions of failed rpg worlds of generic fantasy or sci-fi.

This seems like a vanity project of people that always wanted to create their own RPG world and if you follow Josh Sawyer and Chris Avellone on twitter and facebook then you already know that the are deep into RPGs and already designing their own systems and campaigns.

How any of this translates to a game, if any of this is great or even good or if any of this precursor work actualy benefits a baldur's gate-like game is anybodies guess though.

I'm more excited about Wasteland 2 than this project

[Ingmar]

Of the ones I've backed, this is the one I expect to enjoy the most in the end. Different strokes, I guess. "Like Baldur's Gate" is really all I need to know about the game from a mechanical sense, and adding more companions, more content, etc., is the sort of thing I want from stretch goals in general. I don't really care about things like adding more platforms - if the platform I wanted wasn't the original offering I'd never have looked twice at the game. Same thing with languages, etc.

I will say that in an RPG, lore/setting/background content is anything but superficial.

[Pezzle]

In my cancellation feedback I made special note of the goofy nature of these stretch goals.  For an extra $500,000 you get more story depth and some writer guy!  For $500,000 MORE we enhance the whole game!

I am not really sure what that has to do with the need for funding to complete* the game?  Extra funding to add more content needs to be less vague.  I have no idea what this story is about.  If players are not supposed to have housing, why add it? 

Stretch goals that fund better physical materials or extra parts etc make sense to me.  Derper story?  Not so much.

[Merusk]

Of the ones I've backed, this is the one I expect to enjoy the most in the end. Different strokes, I guess. "Like Baldur's Gate" is really all I need to know about the game from a mechanical sense, and adding more companions, more content, etc., is the sort of thing I want from stretch goals in general. I don't really care about things like adding more platforms - if the platform I wanted wasn't the original offering I'd never have looked twice at the game. Same thing with languages, etc.

I will say that in an RPG, lore/setting/background content is anything but superficial.

Same here.  This is the ONLY game I've funded via Kickstarter and it was specifically because of the extra races, dungeon exploration and "like Baldur's Gate" promise.  All 3 are keys to RPG enjoyment for me.  I could give a shit about platforms other than PC or languages. 

Frankly, developing an RPG that will be playable on X-box and PS3 makes me LESS likely to buy it because I expect it to be gimped in some significant ways to accommodate those platforms.  Interface, model offerings, level sizes.  Something's going to give because you're now constrained by the hardware requirements of those platforms.

[Jeff Kelly]

I didn't say that game world and rules don't matter, quite the contrary actually. It's hard to create and maintain a believable game world that doesn't come off as a generic 'me too' setting and it's even harder to design a set of rules that somewhat balances different character classes and doesn't impede or slow down gameplay.

There are lots and lots of RPGs, both pen-and-paper and computer-based, that tried and failed. Just ask Wizards of the Coast how hard it is to create attractive D&D worlds and rulesets.

Creating your own world setting and rules for an old school computer RPG can be a distraction from making the game and might leave you with a world that is neither compelling nor interesting and a ruleset that is unbalanced or broken. It's also a trademark and copyright lawsuit waiting to happen since companies like Games Workshop and Wizards of the Coast (neé TSR) have trademarked quite a lot of the RPG staples and agressively defend those.

There are quite a lot great RPG rulesets and settings that you could license for very little money to spare you the time and resources to create your own world setting.

I'm also not really a fan of their approach to make yet another fantasy RPG since there are so many other avenues they could have followed that would have been less trodden out but that's just personal taste.

In my RPG gaming experience over the last 25 years a lot of failed projects both pen-and-paper and CRPG have started with the phrase "we wanted to make our own world and ruleset".

Yet somehow every new generation of game designers thinks they can make Lord of the Rings style fantasy with elves and dwarves and wizards better than D&D.

[Modern Angel]

It's also a trademark and copyright lawsuit waiting to happen since companies like Games Workshop and Wizards of the Coast (neé TSR) have trademarked quite a lot of the RPG staples and agressively defend those.

This is 100% incorrect. The OGL established that you cannot copyright or trademark systems. You can copyright specific instances of text and you can copyrightk art. That's it. You cannot copyright math. Obsidian can release a game under the 2nd edition ruleset tomorrow if they want to, so long as they avoid exact copies of rules text and a few trademarked terms (githyanki, for example).

If you want  to see precisely how far you can take this, pick up the Swords & Wizardry monster books sometime.

edit: I should edit this to say that that very well might apply to text only. But, in text, that's how it is and I suspect video games would pan out the same way.

[Phred]

Creating your own world setting and rules for an old school computer RPG can be a distraction from making the game and might leave you with a world that is neither compelling nor interesting and a ruleset that is unbalanced or broken. It's also a trademark and copyright lawsuit waiting to happen since companies like Games Workshop and Wizards of the Coast (neé TSR) have trademarked quite a lot of the RPG staples and agressively defend those.

There are quite a lot great RPG rulesets and settings that you could license for very little money to spare you the time and resources to create your own world setting.

Yes that would be why Tim Caine took so long to work out S.P.E.C.I.A.L. after the Steve Jackson games licensing deal fell apart.

[Ingmar]

It's also a trademark and copyright lawsuit waiting to happen since companies like Games Workshop and Wizards of the Coast (neé TSR) have trademarked quite a lot of the RPG staples and agressively defend those.

This is 100% incorrect. The OGL established that you cannot copyright or trademark systems. You can copyright specific instances of text and you can copyrightk art. That's it. You cannot copyright math. Obsidian can release a game under the 2nd edition ruleset tomorrow if they want to, so long as they avoid exact copies of rules text and a few trademarked terms (githyanki, for example).

If you want  to see precisely how far you can take this, pick up the Swords & Wizardry monster books sometime.

edit: I should edit this to say that that very well might apply to text only. But, in text, that's how it is and I suspect video games would pan out the same way.

So, yeah, not exactly.

There are 2 licenses here. The OGL, and the d20 system license. You *cannot* make interactive game software with the d20 system license, full stop (and I want to say the d20 system license is gone now?) You can with OGL stuff, but you have to jump through some hoops about marking what content in the game is OGL content which are fairly prohibitive in terms of the realities of making a video game.

The biggest problem we've found with software and the OGL is that programmers aren't paying attention to Section 8 of the OGL. Section 8 states: ñIf you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content.î This doesn't mean you can say ñall rules in my program are Openî, the users need to be able to see all that Open Content. You can do this by putting Open Content in a format that is easy to understand. Popular solutions have been to place everything in text files that the program pulls info from, having everything in a viewable database within the software, using Java script on a webpage (viewing the source of the webpage will display the code and Java script is relatively easy for a user to interpret). The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort. The whole point of the OGL is that once information is declared Open everyone has free access to it under the OGL. Compiling that information into a program denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming License.

So your game itself pretty much has to open all of that content to the end user in order to be OGL-compliant. This has consequences for things like piracy, other people coming along and stealing your work for THEIR game, etc. The reason you haven't really seen any OGL games until now is because of all that stuff.

EDIT:

Anyway, as far as Obsidian goes, they are just using stuff like class names, which are obviously safe, and they're not going to be duplicating any exact mechanics from the sounds of things. I don't think they're in any danger.

[Modern Angel]

Yeah, that's why I added the edit. I'd still be curious how that turned out if someone actually pushed a video game through the OGL with OD&D or whatever rules.

[Ingmar]

They haven't killed HeroLab, which is AFAIK the closest thing there is to something like that that's been done commercially.

[Lucas]

Update #56: A closer look at the Paladin class:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63968-update-56-paladins-and-wild-orlans/

[Lucas]

Update #57: Tim Cain updates us on the Crafting System (and Item Durability):



http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64048-update-58-crafting-with-tim-cain/

Item Durability and accuracy sound a bit like Arcanum: can't wait to permanently scar myself while I try to hit a Goblin in the head   . Crafting seems pretty basic (we'll see how they will balance it with the normal loot)

[Lucas]

The last update sparked quite a debate on the official forums, especially regarding item degradation/durability and crafting in relation to money sinks in SP games. After a while, J.E. Sawyer posted the following reply:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64048-update-58-crafting-with-tim-cain/?p=1347380

I'd like a sincere answer to this question, though I know not all of you are of the same mind: what do you want to spend (in-game) money on?
 
I worked on IWD, HoW, TotL, and IWD2.  In virtually all of these games, I heard these two complaints over and over and over:
 
When unique items were in stores:
* I don't want to buy unique items in stores.
 
When unique items were in dungeons:
* I have nothing to spend my money on.
 
In all of these games, items you found on adventures were almost always one of the following: a) directly usable (i.e. gear or consumables) b) wealth items or c) quest items.  If something wasn't usable, it was usually a wealth item (gold, gem, etc.).  A wealth item only existed to give you gold, but for gold to have some sort of value, there needs to be something you want that costs x gold.  If high-value items aren't what you spend your gold on, what do you spend your gold on?  In PE, you may spend gold on your stronghold, but there's no guarantee of that.  And according to a lot of you, you don't use consumables, so if consumables aren't used, they're just wealth items -- not something you would want to spend gold on.
 
Part of the reason for having a crafting system was to make consumables less common in the world.  Only people who want to make/use them would see a relatively large quantity of them.  Since crafting ingredients are stored and sorted separately from other items, their presence subtracts nothing from the carrying capabilities of players who ignore the system entirely.
 
There are recurring trends I'm seeing:
 
* Don't like crafting.
* Don't like durability.
* Don't like consumables.
 
Combining those with with the two points at the top, it's hard for me to figure out where the gold is going to go.  There is also the possibility that players don't actually want a long-term gold economy in a SP game, that gold in the mid- and late-game is ultimately something to accumulate and that most/all forms of gear upgrading simply happens through quests and exploration.  That's not an invalid way to go, but I'd like to hear thoughts on it if you have the time.

Regarding item durability I'm not against it if it doesn't become too bothersome (in Arcanum it was punishing), especially because it's tied to accuracy, so if they plan the possibility of "friendly fire" in melee (just like in Arcanum) the result could be quite interesting (scarring yourself, unpredictability, etc.)
---

Money sinks: honestly, I'm in the "I don't care" party, especially for SP games where the enjoyment of the story and the immersion is fundamental: eventually, anyway, you'll tend to hoard money so that you will be ready to spend a lot of it for the final confrontation/boss (be it potions, magic items and general equipment you haven't purchased before).

[Malakili]

I like crafting as a gold sink myself.

[Fabricated]

Put uniques in stores; let people do extra work for discounts if they really don't wanna pick over everything for gold or hoard it.

[Zetor]

Yeah, the Adventurer's Mart in BG2 was a decent way of handling it. Way overpriced magical items that were decent (and sometimes had unique bonuses), but not really better than the stuff you probably already got by the time you amassed that much $.

[Sky]

Don't put in currency?

[Goreschach]

Don't put in currency?

This is an oldschool nostalgia wankfest. I'm sure the neckbeards would complain if they took the simple, rational answer.


Although part of me wants to see one of these medieval dung ages rpgs go all out and implement an actual barter economy.

[Malakili]

Don't put in currency?

Isn't the discussion specifically about currency at particularly high levels.  This is usually a problem only at that stage.  Things like buying potions, filling in gear since you might get bad drops as you go, seem to be uses for gold in RPGs that mostly work out.  It is only once people start getting powerful enough that they earn gold at crazy rates that it starts to become effectively useless.  Which actually might not be a big problem.

[Tebonas]

That is one of the dangers of design by committee.

Its a single player game, so this "problem" gets a resounding "so what" from me. I can bathe in my money in Skyrim, hoarder that I am. Never hurt my enjoyment of the game that I couldn't spend it after a certain advancement level. To the contrary, I had more fun because I didn't feel the need to pick up and sell every crap item I found along the way.

[Merusk]

If you REALLY care about it you do the same thing D&D did to take care of it.  Start giving players things their heightened role in the world require that gold to be used for.  Minions & servants, land, keeps, taxes from the Lord of the realm, etc.  Start giving out your own quests to lower level adventurers.. things you need done but don't have time to do. 

[Sky]

I was jus' gon' say dat.

Also, they should not waste time listening to forum douchebags. I'd rather have a mediocre game developed by a game studio than a mediocre game with a thousand forum geniuses crapping all over it.

[Ingmar]

I have no problem with item durability/repair, myself. It was only bad in a couple spots in Arcanum (beating on those rock dudes) which just made it more of a puzzle to solve than anything.

[Lucas]

I was jus' gon' say dat.

Also, they should not waste time listening to forum douchebags. I'd rather have a mediocre game developed by a game studio than a mediocre game with a thousand forum geniuses crapping all over it.

Err, you were saying? (bold is mine)

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64048-update-58-crafting-with-tim-cain/?p=1348405

A few points of clarification:
 
* "Crafting" is one skill, but the crafting system uses multiple skills.  I.e., the crafting system does not rely on the existence of the Crafting skill.
* Other than reaching the edge of a map to access the world map, there is no fast-travel in PE.  That said, we will likely avoid the IWD-style 5-level dungeons without semi-regular shortcuts back to the surface (N.B.: this does not mean Skyrim-style loops).
* Most items do take up space in personal inventories!  The party Stash is unlimited, but the Pack (made of personal inventories) is not.  Crafting items (and quest items) always go into (and come out of) the Stash.  We are doing this specifically to address common complaints about crafting items cluttering the inventory.  Since crafting is typically done at camps or other non-combat locations, allowing the items to come out of the Stash doesn't seem to create any problems.
 
As I posted on SA, Crafting (the skill) and its associated subsystems (like durability) were the elements I felt least confident about in our skill system.  I strongly believe that choices within an array should give the player reasonably balanced benefits.  Because certain fundamental skills (like Stealth) can clearly benefit from multiple party members taking them and can contribute to party effectiveness in combat, I believe that other skills should do the same in their own way -- enough to make all of them appealing choices on multiple party members.  This also has the benefit of making the uses of skills much higher-frequency than the individual uses that depend on designer content (e.g. unlocking doors or gaining a dialogue/quest option).
 
As an example, Medicine in its various Fallout forms contributes to the efficacy of stimpaks.  There are many other places were Medicine can be used in quests and dialogue, but it has high-frequency use with stimpaks (in or between combats).  It's a benefit that can apply to any character who has the skill, even if a character with a higher rating in a party may be "the guy" to perform the high-difficulty actions.
 
With all of the skills other than Crafting (specifically), those high-frequency benefits/uses were easy to come by.  Crafting presented some difficulties and, as I wrote previously, I was concerned about the lack of systemic drains in the economy.  Many people have mentioned a lot of potential uses for wealth.  Most of them are great ideas and ones that we plan to use, but the vast majority of them are not systemic, rather content-dependent or scripted instances (e.g. bribes).  However, it is clear from discussions here and elsewhere that the long-term balance of the economy is not a concern for most players who voiced their opinions -- and almost certainly not in the endgame.
 
Based on discussions on the forums and conversations I had with people on the team, we will be doing the following:
 
* Removing durability as a mechanic on items.
* Removing the Crafting skill (specifically).  The crafting system and its associated mechanics will remain, as-is.
 
Ultimately, solving skill imbalance and endgame wealth abundance problems is not worth what players perceive as uninteresting and unenjoyable gameplay.  I can still solve the skill imbalance problems by removing the problem skill.  As for endgame wealth abundance, we will continue to create places for you to use wealth in the economy: unique items, the stronghold, optional quest/dialogue gates, etc.  Ultimately, if those options go unused, I'll have to trust that the majority of players won't be significantly troubled by an excess of wealth in the late game.
 
Thanks for all of your feedback.

In short:

- Item Durability is out
- Crafting will remain as a gaming system but not as a specific "skill" the player will have to choose over others.

[Sky]

Well, it's ok when they have good ideas. 

[Sophismata]

I am so freaking glad I did not back this, now. Choosing to design by forum committee is beyond idiotic.

[Kageru]

Even if the ideas are good and the designer was getting sucked into solving elegant non-problems?

A "balanced economy" is one of those things that sounds interesting as a game design problem but rarely adds much in the way of fun, especially in the context of heroic fantasy.

[Strazos]

It was a good idea, especially the removal of durability - it ruined the endgame of Nox for me back in the day. I don't personally care for it.

[Sophismata]

My point is that you don't KNOW if it's a bad idea. You presume it is based on experience in another game.

The designer should, at the very least, wait until people play the game before soliciting and implementing their feedback. And even then, you need a singular vision driving the game's design or it will end up seeming fragmented and conflicting.

[Kageru]

... No? The designer should be thinking about the impact of design choices while it's still just a list of bullet points on paper. It's much cheaper to ditch bad ideas before you implement them.

Now if the designer is being over-ruled by the fan-base, that's different.

[Strazos]

My point is that you don't KNOW if it's a bad idea. You presume it is based on experience in another game.

The designer should, at the very least, wait until people play the game before soliciting and implementing their feedback. And even then, you need a singular vision driving the game's design or it will end up seeming fragmented and conflicting.

You don't KNOW if it's a good idea either, going by that logic. I believe it is, in fact, a bad mechanic to have in a game; Nox was just a single example.

I find durability mechanics to be a pain and a drain, with no positive benefit on a singleplayer game. And now is the time to think about making these changes - not after development resources have been spent, or after the game is released. It's much cheaper to do it now, so as not to waste those precious KS bucks.

I see no problem with soliciting feedback from people who either paid for the game to be made, or from potential customers - think of it like focus grouping. However, I certainly hope it doesn't turn into something like WoW, where Blizzard was constantly messing with things because people cried on the forums.