RPGWatch @ Gamescom - Realms Beyond Preview

Originally Posted by Silver
Is the engine a custom one?

Yes, it is a custom engine, designed specifically for the game.

As far as the encounters go: The words 'random' and 'encounter' are nowhere used in that combination in the article. What I got from the presentation and I think is also written in the article, is that you can see them moving on the map. So you can evade combat if you like, unless one of your party members has not invested in the proper skill, in that case you cannot see that far and evasion is more difficult. Obviously you can make a deliberate choice to engage in combat as well.

Hey Guido, does this mean you're back on the team again?

Originally Posted by daveyd
For the most part, I like what Ceres is (tentatively) proposing, but players who are hoping for a CRPG that follows D&D 3.5 rules as closely as possible may be disappointed or even claim this automatically makes the game inferior.

Well, it all depends on implementation, isn't it? I like to see bit of innovation from developers but then there is always a chance things may go horribly wrong. But from what I've seen so far of Realms Beyond, sounds like the developer really thought about every element of the game, so I'm cautiously optimistic that they will pull this off.

This game looks very promising indeed.

The reason I like 3.5 is that I love the diversity and rich nature of progression. I have absolutely nothing against using another system, though, just as long as it provides the same wealth of options - and entertaining mechanics.

The thing is that most systems I've tried fail to match DnD 3.5 for the kinds of things I enjoy about it.

That's all it is.

With 3.5 - I know I'm getting a quality system that I've never managed to even remotely exhaust in terms of interesting character builds - and that's why I'm excited when games say they're using it.

It's not that complicated, when you think about it.

It's fun and I like fun.

However, there's a difference between basing your system on 3.5 - and then adapting it faithfully.

I actually prefer that developers change it and adapt it for something more suited towards a computer RPG. For instance, I think the current DDO version of 3.5 is superior to NWN and NWN2 when it comes to the fun factor - and it's actually richer when it comes to active abilities and the weight of the smaller choices.

Computers can do things that you can't really do in PnP - and it's key to take advantage of it, as a designer focused around fun and the potential of game design.

This armor distribution thing could be one example of something that's trivial for a computer to handle, but which would go counter to the very playable design of 3.5 in actual PnP.

But I'd have to see it in action to speak about it in terms of being a good choice.

So, a 100% faithful adaption is not at all the ideal for all CRPGs.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
With 3.5 - I know I'm getting a quality system that I've never managed to even remotely exhaust in terms of interesting character builds - and that's why I'm excited when games say they're using it.

In another thread I said that I like DnD 3.5 but couldn't really say why exactly. But this is indeed one the big points. Just looking at the base classes I get excited thinking about different character builds. When there's multiclassing the options dramtically increase. And even if a single interesting feat or spell is introduced or moved to another category new interesting concepts are created.

So no random encounters then? My mistake.

Originally Posted by Morrandir
Just looking at the base classes I get excited thinking about different character builds. When there's multiclassing the options dramtically increase.

There are many RPG systems the give you even more variety than 3rd edition D&D, with more interesting class distinctions. Class distinctions in 3rd edition D&D are very boring, and one of the weakest points of the system.

4th edition improved on this weak point by giving every class unique powers, but it was heavily criticized by the playerbase. Quite unfairly in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Silver Coin
- That dialog screenshot displays something I hate in RPGs - "Hey, you look like an adventurer, can you help me?" This makes NPCs seem like quest dispensers rather than actual people. The player character should always be the one

I agree with that. Of course it's important to remember that this game is still quite a ways from release and that a major point of the upcoming Kickstarter is for them to hire a professional writer. A writer who can craft more natural, believable dialogue.

Originally Posted by Silver Coin
- It's D&D combat. The worlds most overrated and overused RPG system.

Well, that's like your opinion, man. OK, you dislike D&D. That's fine. I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell us in every single thread about this game and Kingmaker, but OK. I'm not sure where the hell you get the "overused" bit though. As far as D&D 3.5 goes there's ToEE, NWN 1 & 2 (and their expansions), Knights of the Chalice (OGL), Pathfinder (KM), and uh, this game. Anything I forgot? And P:KM and NWN are RTwP are so if I want to play a singleplayer TB 3.5 game, which I do, there's a whole two games to choose from at this point. I think there's room for three.

If you want to include other editions of D&D there's some MMOs, the Infinity Engine games, and all the D&D games made by SSI, but those games are decades old and older AD&D rules that are quite different from 3.5.

I'm sure you'll say, "yeah but there's tons of CRPGs inspired by D&D", cause they all have stats like Strength and Hit Points. OK, but complaining about that is a bit like complaining that most fantasy settings are inspired by Tolkien. It's technically true, but it's almost unavoidable. When developers / writers try to completely reinvent the wheel it doesn't always turn out so well.

I'd like to see more CRPGs based on different PnP rules (I could go for another Dark Eye game) and a few ambitious developers are currently trying to create their own deep system (e.g., Copper Dreams, Graywalkers, Disco Elysium). But most CRPGS settle for simplistic systems that aren't nearly as complex as a PnP game.

Originally Posted by Silver Coin
- Splitting the game in parts is a major turn-off. The developers are asking us to buy an unfinished product without a definitive ending, and trusting that sales of the first part will allow them to create more. Anyone that gives them money for that is an idiot.

Originally Posted by Silver Coin
Impression: This preview makes me a lot more interested, but I'm not going to be the fool duped into buying 1/4th of a game. Hobgoblin's explanation is completely stupid.

Were people who bought BG1 duped in buying 1/4 of a game? How about Mass Effect 1 or Dragon Age: Origins? SSI Gold Box games? Lots of developers make games with the intention of making sequels or expansion, that's not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy the game. The explanation is that the game will feel complete (i.e., self-contained story), but your party will have other quests to go on. I don't see how that's stupid, but I guess I'm just not as smart as you

The key difference is that this is being sold as one game. You're only buying the first part, and have to pay for DLC/expansions in order to get the complete game.

They seem to have clarified that it's not going to be delivered in installments, anyway. Really, it just amounts to a declaration of intending to produce some expansions, rather than sequels.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with them taking the more modular approach, as initially reported. That was a common practice with PnP games - you'd get a module that was self-contained, but intended to be continued as part of a larger arc. I think that might actually improve the chances of seeing the whole thing completed, rather than trying to make an epic game on a tiny budget, then it languishing in Early Access until the money bleeds out.

To my understanding, Hobgoblin clarified that the rest of the game would be added as updates/DLC installments.

We plan to release additional parts or expansions as the Gold Box series did with Forgotten Realms Volume I-IV (Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades and Pools of Darkness). But in contrast to those titles, our game will receive a huge update/DLC that unlocks the new content instead of releasing a whole new product.

Yes, but I take that to mean that they will release expansions as campaigns, which will be quite distinct (as with the Gold Box games), but they'll do it within the same engine, rather than discrete sequels. I think he's clarifying that it's not going to be a case of episodes of a story that might never complete.

Hopefully he can clarify then, because it sounds episodic to me.

Originally Posted by Silver Coin
There are many RPG systems the give you even more variety than 3rd edition D&D, with more interesting class distinctions.

That my well be. However I'm familiar with DnD 3.5 while most likely I just don't know a lot of the other systems.

Class distinctions in 3rd edition D&D are very boring, and one of the weakest points of the system.

Well, being boring or not is personal preference I think.
Just to clarify, it's not about combat only. Distinction between a paladin and a figher is quite great I'd say because the Paladin with high Charisma and Wisdom and some appropriate skills is quite different from a Fighter.
Of course in computer games this very much depends on implementation to make an actual difference outside of combat.

Which base classes do you think have a low distinction?

4th edition improved on this weak point by giving every class unique powers, but it was heavily criticized by the playerbase. Quite unfairly in my opinion.

While I wouldn't criticize this heavliy I just don't like this concept as well for different reasons.

Btw. I like the character system of The Dark Eye (Editions 4/5) best. Imho it's much better than DnD. Alas there hasn't been a computer game that implemented these rules fully.

Originally Posted by Morrandir
Which base classes do you think have a low distinction?

All martial classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk) and semi-spellcasters (ranger, bard, paladin). Only classes with enough distinction are pure spellcasters.

Originally Posted by Morrandir
Btw. I like the character system of The Dark Eye (Editions 4/5) best. Imho it's much better than DnD. Alas there hasn't been a computer game that implemented these rules fully.

Remained silent this whole thread but have to ask what edition did the Blackguard games use? As it has been a few years since I played both of those games.

Originally Posted by Silver Coin
All martial classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk) and semi-spellcasters (ranger, bard, paladin). Only classes with adequate distinction are pure spellcasters.

I'm sure you know all of this youself, but perhaps others are interested as well.

Martial:
fighter: fighter bonus feats; role damage dealer / tank
rogue: can backstab and thus deal quite a lot of damage with light weapons; roles: damage dealer; great at stealth; also has a lot of skill points and base skills for roleplaing stuff
barbarian: has barbarian rage and no heavy armor; this is indeed not a great distinction from a fighter; roles: damage dealer / meatbag; in roleplaying it may feel a lot different than a fighter
monk: nor armor and normally fighing unarmed; roles: tank / damage dealer; KI powers is quite a distinction in roleplay

Semi-Spellcasters:
ranger: much more melee/ranged power than other semi spellcasters; light or medium armor; roles: damage dealer / tank / meatbag; base attribute for spells being wisdom is quite different to the bard as normally you chose other skills; also better in two-weapon fighting than a fighter; animal companion; divine spells; best adventurer for out-of-town roleplaying (scouting, tracking)
bard: best played as a supporter (in distinction to ranger) with bard songs and other buffs; light or medium armor; high charisma and a lot of base skills and skill points; also has arcane magic instead of the divine magic from rangers (so different spells and different roleplaying)
paladin: a lot of feats/spells for fighting undead/evil creatures; heavy armor; roles: damage dealer / tank / support huge factor in roleplaying as paladins normally are highly respected

So for me that's enough distinction. Could go on with pure casters.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Remained silent this whole thread but have to ask what edition did the Blackguard games use? As it has been a few years since I played both of those games.

Iirc it was a very simplified 4th edition that didn't show the ruleset's strength.

In PnP at character creation you basically select a race, culture (where in the gameworld the character grew up) and a profession (how did the character earn money/food before starting adventures).
All three choices give you certain skill/talents/spells or boni.
Then you can select/upgrade skills/talents/spells for XP cost.
A unique feature is that there are predefined inborn "Advantages" (like ambidexterity, good-looking, …) and "Disadvantages" (like one-armed, ugly, …). Selecting Advantages costs XP, selecting disadvantages "gives" XP.
This leads to very interesting characters with explicit flaws that have an actual impact on different aspects of the game.
Basically every feat/skill can be learned by every character afterwards. There are no actual classes. There are some special feats/spells that for roleplaying reasons can only be learned by characters with a certain profession (like clerics, traditional mages or special warriors who are taught unique feats).
That leads to really different characters.

For example it's possible to create a character with no combat power at all, but that excel in other aspects of the game.
That wouldn't be possible in DnD as the Base attack bonus always increases when leveling up.

Originally Posted by Guido Henkel
Yes, it is a custom engine, designed specifically for the game.

Wow, is that really real true Guido Henkel? RPG legend. Creator of RoA. Composer of RoA tunes. Welcome to the RPGWatch, Guido. You will be in the stars forever for RoA.

Guys, welcome properly this legendary man.