85 réponses à ce sujet

[kamalpoe]

From this thread.

PJ156 said, "I am interested in getting a discussion going on level building in terms of layout, filling space etc. I may post on the toolset forum later."

Now I'm guessing there's going to be a significant amount that's different between SP and PW levels, so people might want to clarify what your opinions are for. "You must have 3000 placeables!!!" isn't going to work in a PW due to lag. :-)

Modifié par kamalpoe, 05 août 2010 - 12:36 .

[PJ156]

Thanks for kicking this off Kamal, I hope there are some interested modders out there.

My areas tend to be small and focused which can be a pain as there ends up being a lot of them. In one area I have about a weeks worth of modeling for one brief encounter. It also makes filling out the mod harder as I cannot realy on the player spending 20 mins wandering round the area moving to the encounters so in a 3 hours mod I end up with a lot of other stuff going on which takes time to wirte.

The other difficulty I have is justifying the presence of critters. I can't just put a room in an area a pop half a dozen orcs in without, at least in myself, knowing why they are there, what thier objectives are and how aggresive they are likely to be to the party. I have just been playing Dorateens mod, Dorateen has done a really good job of presenting varied encounters within a small space that don't seem to be in conflict with each other. I have found this hard, so my dungeons tend to be small and focused on one critter, again a lot of areas are needed to fill out a mod whereas Dorateen has managed a respectable game length in just 10 or so medium sized areas.

Personally these are the sorts of issues I would like to discuss, since the mechanics of area creating (texturing etc) are covered in other threads - though I guess not on this shiny new forum.

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 02 août 2010 - 09:56 .

[dunniteowl]

Well, when I work a level I sort of go bass ackwards. I have an idea for how I think it should look (SP only work) and sort of "go all out" as I build. Irrespective of my overall work flow (which does start with laying out the area's terrain, then setting trails, etc, putting down terrain impressions for water, etc.) when I am close to finishing the area as being 'built' I like to run through it in the game instance and take notes.

One thing I have started doing is making areas for travel a bit wider than "realistic" trails would be. I have done a LOT of hiking in my life and very few places in the wilderness that are heavily forested give you more than something like a deer trail to walk. Can't really do that in a module. So I usually make a 'narrow' path about 3 bodies wide, with a bit of buffer on either side, so maybe 4 bodies wide. A wide street like path or heaviliy used road I would at least double that.

This holds true for alleys and back travel streets as well. The only reason I do this is for easier navigation and pathing. I hate it, really. I like to create 'realistic' areas and sometimes that means a really cramped passageway. As game play goes, that really causes a lot of issues. I don't think anything is more frustrating than having your party attack only to have the rearmost members suddenly turn around and start heading the other way, trying to find a path to attack the ones in the front of the party.

When the area is built out, I start looking for things to take out. This is what I mean by 'bass ackwards' when it comes to building. I'd rather start fully fleshed and reduce things, then to start spartan and keep adding into it. I can never tell when I've put in too much. If I just slap it all in there, I usually can better tell when I've removed enough to not ruin the effect I'm shooting for and still not have all that stuff jam-packed into a scene.

And while I don't think 3000 placeables *(and I know you were just being egregiously exaggerating) should necessarily go into any SP module, either (it's pretty much out of the question for MP/PW building) you can probably get pretty close in heavily forested areas. I have a couple of forested areas that easily have something like 2300 tree/bush placeables in them. Still, though, there are no houses, large fountains, etc. to help damper performance either. Those areas are on 24x20 and 28x26 areas, so there's plenty of room for open spaces as well.

Lately I have been experimenting for a project I am working on (I prefer to be somewhat less than frank on the details at the moment) and have started really digging hard at what chokes an average computer with too much detail. I figure my system is relatively average by today's standards. I have a dual core AMD FX64/2 with each core running about 2.6GHz, and 2GB PC800 DDR2 RAM along with an ATi X1650 Pro w/512M DDR2 or 3 RAM. I figure that's about 4 or more years old, technologically speaking, so if I can play my modules, then they should run pretty okay for about anyone (pending bugs, of course.)

Another thing I have wrestled with is building out into the non-walkable area. I do a lot less stuff in those areas, but, as the minimap shows even those areas all the time, I hate that 'naked' look to the map view, as well as not liking it aesthetically when somene gets near the edge of the non-walkable area of the maps. I do remove a lot of stuff around the edges, though. After all, I'm shooting for improving overall performance. Again, my bass ackwards methods are presented in accordance with clearing out those non-walkable areas before they start looking 'too bare' like Old Mother Hubbard's Cupboard.

Leave plenty of room for clear pathing.
Make trees fadeable and (for the most part) walkable [again, for pathing reasons]
Don't clutter up your passage ways, alleys, entry ways, paths and streets.
I recommend: Dumping more in there at first and then gradual reduction for best overall looks.

Other than that, the size of an area should be considered along with what you plan to have going on in that area. The more things to do, the larger I'd recommend building the area overall. If you're going to do city streets, you might change this idea and go for long, narrow streets with some side paths and create long, narrow areas on the order of 16x 6 or something. Or even make them smaller with walled off sections and you could get away with 2x8 sections or something. In a city, the placeables cards and the outer map view probably isn't going to be as important to looks as it seems to be in the wooded areas, where suddenly missing trees look -- weird.

Those are my first overall impressions on level design (which I presume is really indicating Area Creation.)

[edit] ninja'd by PJ156! 
As to encounters and such, having a mental image of the environment is probably a good idea.  I don't remember who posted it, but it might have been Dorateen.  He talks about having a reason for the animals/creatures.  LIke a crypt, you'd have spirits and guardians of the dead, because that's where they belong.  You might find some larger spiders (who eat the innards of the poorer buried (who couldn't afford a stone sarcophogus)) and rats, smaller creatures as well, like bats, sort of a cave/crypt ecology, and then, of course, there'd be the occasional grave robber, mad magician undead lich wannabe might be found there, too.

So when it comes to populating your areas, that's a good idea to keep in mind.  I wish I could remember where I saw that.  It's probably in the modules section somewhere.

best regards,
dunniteowl

Modifié par dunniteowl, 02 août 2010 - 10:28 .

[diophant]

Well, most of the important stuff has already been said. There are a few more things you might consider when building an area.



Make sure your areas are not repetitive. Have you ever wondered why every house looks the same from inside, or everybody has the same bedroom? I normally avoid the use of the premade placeable groups, and build interiours from scratch to avoid this effect.



In outdoor areas, take a lot of time for the heightmap and the texturing. If the terrain is too rough, you see too much of the triangle structure. On the other hand, non-walkable terrain should be steep or covered with bushes, i.e., there must be a reason that you cannot walk there. A good texturing gives the player an idea on where he can walk, and where a cliff is.



Also lighting can make a lot of ambience, especially in indoor areas. Avoid sharp shadpws, they look unnatural. In houses, I switch of the directional lighting, but place light sources at the windows (in fact, I even regulate the power of these light sources depending on the daytime, but this might be a little bit overkill). I really like pitch black caves where you need a light source to explore, but be aware, this also makes a battle more challenging.



Place a few things in your area that are just for ambient. In a forest, you might see some wolves hunt down a deer. In a cave, you might wake up some bats that randomly fly around (if you combine this with the sudden sound of wings flapping, this can have a really shocking effect).

[kamalpoe]

It's ok to repeat diophant.   I'm guessing there are a lot of different philosophies.

[kamalpoe]

In towns/cities, there are two main philosophies that I see. One is that "every building must serve a purpose". You see this philosophy in SoZ in Samarach, Crossroad Keep, and Blacklake district.  There are very few/no buildings that are "just there". As much as possible all space and each building serves a game related purpose. The other philosophy is "look natural". In this not all space is there for a game purpose, buildings and open spaces can be there with no purpose, other than making the area look natural of course. We see this in the OC in Neverwinter.

"Every building servers a purpose":
Pro: It's tight design means everything is conveniently located nearby. Generally small area means a builder can more easily pack it with detail. Generally smaller areas mean quicker load times.
Con: Can feel unnatural, especially if it's a city adventure. Area may not match story/lore of location.

This philosophy is especially prominent in Samarach where the Merchant District is supposed to be very large according to what you're told, with many merchants vying against each other and your employer. This conflict even servers to move the story with other merchants getting your employer banned from Samarach. But the Merchant District is the playable area of Samarach, and it's tiny, with not even a warehouse. Your employer also seems to be the only merchant of any significant size (she has a house when the other merchants only have tents). What you are told does not match what the area looks like.

"Looks natural"
Pro: Can look more appropriate to story/lore.
Con: Player probably spends time running past buildings with no game purpose to get somewhere for their game. Possibly longer load times.

Neverwinter in the OC is an example of "Looks natural". Not everyone you see on the street is there for a quest or as a merchant. It's more of a "living breathing city" compared to Samarach. "Districts" have more than 4-5 buildings in them.

I'm a Single player builder. Personally I favor the "look natural" philosophy. I want my towns/cities to look lived in. "Looks natural" gives me more flexibility if I want to add something later. With the "every building must serve a purpose" philosophy if I want to add something I have to redesign the area to add on to it. In SoZ I felt that the castle in Blacklake was probably for removed content. There was no purpose to walk over there, which was jarring compared to virtually every other spot in an SoZ town. If you remove something from a "looks natural" area no one will notice.

If I was a PW builder, I might favor the "purpose" philosophy. The tighter design resulting in smaller areas can mean shorter load times for players, I understand this is a very important factor in the PW area building, more so than SP (even though I do try to keep my SP load times down).

Modifié par kamalpoe, 03 août 2010 - 05:23 .

[rjshae]

I agree with much of the above. To me a level is interesting if it looks like it is designed to fit into the economy and ecology of the area, rather than just to act as a cookie-cutter set of obstacles for the player to work through. It helps if there is a history and some background story to an area. A nice level of detail is a plus, as are well-developed NPCs. Finally, good use of sound, light and vegetation can bring a level to life.

[PJ156]

I am in agreement with much of the above. I thought the combat and non combat area distinction interesting.

I sit with Kamal on the natural issue, I think for each shop there should be at least one buiding that houses people, thus the town looks like people might live there. I do however cluster the bits you use in the center of the town and have the filler buildings as you pass out of the town at the edge of the map or out of the walkable area. Some of these lesser building could be used for subquests and then you have a sense of journey for this activity rather than walking two paces to fetch something then bring it back again.

I try to vary areas but keep a theme, in my mods they are all set in around a glacialy formed lake. I hope that the areas I create reflect this. I use the same base dirt texture across the maps so that even if I use different grass textures over the top they all feel that they are close together geographically.

I find creature placement hard as I canot just drop them in randomly. Nothing bugs me more than to wander into a cave and find a dragon. I find myself asking, how does it get in and out? What does it eat? Where's all the gold

I am the same with any critter high on the food chain.

PJ

[dunniteowl]

I'm going to wax on wax off regarding creatures for a bit.  One of the things I like the most about playing most of the Community made modules is the fairly consistent "eye for detail" I've noted.  The hardest thing, I think, based on playing a good number of Community Modules, plus maybe a 1/4 of the OC is that encounters that make sense is probably the single trickiest bit.

When you're out chasing down orcish raiders, you expect to run into orcs.  I mean, it's a given, right?  So if the orcs are down in a swamp, say, wouldn't you also figure it quite possible to run into some lizardmen?  Heck, you might even run into lizardmen who've run into orcs!  I'm pretty sure they don't get along too well with each other without a powerful leader type to knock heads when needed to keep them under control.

What about mixed parties?  The goblins, running with hobgoblins makes sense, right?  Hobgoblins are like Goblin Lords as far as goblins are concerned.  And Hobgoblins wouldn't mind, certainly, having a cadre of goblin melee fodder, some trap setters (crafy tricksy little goblinses, gollum!) and general grunts to do most of the dirty work or act as a main diversion.  And in mixed company, like that, it's just possible that an even more powerful and awesome creature might be there, too.  A couple of Ogres, say, all these creatures, under the control of some powerful leader type, maybe a war band of Gnolls or even a party of Humans, Drow, Duergar or Gith (either yanki or zerai) making sure that all the creatures do their jobs instead of stopping to chomp on each other.

As with the crypt example, you have to sort of know the ecology and social structure of your villainous foils for your adventure.  This means a bit of study and some contemplation.  I am going to guess that the folks who seem to have a knack for encounters that seem to be appropriately constructed know their creatures pretty well.  I am also going to go out on a limb and offer that those who seem to make really good combat encounters, irrespective of the force mix, really know their stats, damages, armor classes and CRs of their creatures.

And if a creature is where you wouldn't expect, say a goblin in the sewers of a large city, you'd expect some sort of logical reason to place it there that comes out in the course of play.  And it doesn't have to be complicated, either.  And you didn't hear it from me, but oftentimes, the simple explanation is best. 

You run into a goblin scouting party in the sewers.  You know they're possibly there for doing "Bad Things"™ because part of your overall story line includes some comment or reference to the buildup of goblins lately and their apparent surprising lack of fear and rapacious boldness lately.  So when you do encounter them, you mentally go, "A-Hah! Scouting party in the sewers!  They're probably planning an assault on the City and they mean to use the sewers to come up inside without attacking the city gates."  (I did say they were tricksy, didn't I?)

During your area (Level) design, these sorts of story considerations are probably best kept firmly in mind as you work.  The better your story coincides with the action and dialogue, the more believable your encounters are most likely to be -- even when you use creatures in places where they wouldn't normally be.  And while you're down there in the sewers, looking for that pair of children who climbed down the well in the town square and got lost, don't forget that Oozes, slimes, molds, otyughs, rats, wererats, spiders, beetles, leeches, the occasional undead (poor unfortunate byproducts of being killed and dumped down there) also inhabit those areas.   Don't forget the occasional thievish person running under the city from one secret location to another (or finding said secret location for that matter) and any other number of things you might not readily expect to find down there.  Alligators in the sewers?  Just a myth?  Sure.  Right.

I've looked at the 3.5 MM and you know, the old AD&D one has these great charts that have encounter tables in them based on the environments.  So you look up cold alpine environments and you get a list of creatures you'd expect to see there, with percent chance to run across them, etc.  The new MM just doesn't have that and it's the sorrier for it, I think.  If folks are interested, I could probably be convinced to scan in those tables and list them (I don't think WotC would have a cow, it's old and not even covered in their current publications.  Plus, I don't think they really care about anything before D&D 3.0.  The AD&D 2d Ed came out just before they bought out TSR.)

So let me know, because I honestly think for folks who seem to have trouble grokking that whole ecology thing with environmental considerations --- this might really be useful.

best regards,
dunniteowl

Modifié par dunniteowl, 03 août 2010 - 07:54 .

[rjshae]

dunniteowl wrote...

During your area (Level) design, these sorts of story considerations are probably best kept firmly in mind as you work.  The better your story coincides with the action and dialogue, the more believable your encounters are most likely to be -- even when you use creatures in places where they wouldn't normally be.  And while you're down there in the sewers, looking for that pair of children who climbed down the well in the town square and got lost, don't forget that Oozes, slimes, molds, otyughs, rats, wererats, spiders, beetles, leeches, the occasional undead (poor unfortunate byproducts of being killed and dumped down there) also inhabit those areas.   Don't forget the occasional thievish person running under the city from one secret location to another (or finding said secret location for that matter) and any other number of things you might not readily expect to find down there.  Alligators in the sewers?  Just a myth?  Sure.  Right.

Something that helped bring Baldur's Gate to life for me were the guards who would come along and bump you awake when you tried to sleep in a town street. Along with patrolling guards, I'm going to implement a pick-pocket script for sleeping in an urban area: you rest in the streets, then the waifs will come along and pick you clean (or at least try to). It would be nice if I could do some type of noise checking to see if sleep is possible, but the sound blueprints don't have a lot of information-type calls. (I guess I could use noise waypoints, or have some sleep waypoints that trigger various events when they are in proximity.)

Modifié par rjshae, 04 août 2010 - 05:19 .

[PJ156]

If folks are interested, I could probably be convinced to scan in those tables and list them (I don't think WotC would have a cow, it's old and not even covered in their current publications.  Plus, I don't think they really care about anything before D&D 3.0.  The AD&D 2d Ed came out just before they bought out TSR.)

So let me know, because I honestly think for folks who seem to have trouble grokking that whole ecology thing with environmental considerations --- this might really be useful.

I think that would be a good resoirce for ideas.

I like the idea of piclpocketing children, and also I would like to implement something for the door bashers whereby the town guard react to such problems. My scripting skills are not there though

PJ

[dunniteowl]

vendalus has on the Vault the PRR v3.0 I believe it is. This is a set of scripts that deal with pickpocketing/sleight of hand success/fail and repercussions, as well as merchants, chests and doors disturbances that can (and do) bring someone, if not the guard down on folks depending on how much noise they're making. Off the top of my head I am not sure what category it's under, but I think it is in Scripts.



dno

(I've a few other steps to go before my computer is back in fighting shape, as soon as that occurs, I'll scan the charts/guides and post them at the Citadel. No matter how uncaring I think WotC might be, a Vault listing for that's probably out of the question.)

[The Fred]

This looks like a pretty interesting discussion.



As DNO said, cramped walkways are annoying. I think they can work, because they are more realistic, but you need to keep them infrequent. I remember reading something somewhere targetted at PnP-style DMing (I think it was on the Wizards site in fact) which basically said "try doubling all room sizes". That's drastic, but adding some large areas can really change an encounter. One problem I often have is making a large area feel "filled", as though it actually has a purpose.



The "many houses" vs "purpose buildings only" arguement is another good one. I remember in BG, you could go in nearly every house, but many had whole encounters and quests inside. It was good, but it also didn't seem right that there would be so many quests that in real life, upstanding citizens wouldn't encounter. Making such a thing is a lot of work, however. Personally I think that, ideally, most buildings would have a purpose, but there'd be the odd robbable house and things like that. You can also only use the "this door appears to be barred from the inside" kind of trick so many times before it wears thin.



Giving creatures a reason to be where they are is also a big issue. It's hard to do, but should be done more often I think. Alas, just another thing which is going to be more work for the builder I guess. ;-)

[dunniteowl]

That's some good information to have.  However, I am willing to bet those free to download encounter tables are harder to find at WotC than they would be at the Citadel for most of the NWN and NWN2 builder crowd -- as a guess.  I'm now going to have to check them out and see where they vary.  I find it hard to believe that they're older than 3.0 (and I have to be honest and say the MM and DMG information since AD&D 2.0 is less useful than it used to be and I can't account for it with larger, more page filled books.  Go figure.)

Dungeon areas.  That's good stuff in general.  I like getting lost -- to a point -- having something require some skill in remembering where you've been and how to get back in a cave or dungeon is frustrating -- and it should be.  In fact, I'd hope it might spark a bit of panic and anxiety.  You're lost.

With the NWN2 minimap uncloseable, this does present a problem.  One way to solve this is to create a set of short dungeon halls and caverns that each require you to transit.  By clever use of triggers and waypoint naming, you can probably even re-use some of the areas by renaming them, giving rise to that sinking feeling that you were probably by this way before -- maybe.

In Pool of Radiance, there were several areas where you couldn't determine NSEW and you had to rely on either hand scribing yourself a map or be really good at situational awareness.  The Poisoned Pyramid was one prime example of this and you kept running into other maddened groups of elves, dwarves and humans; presumably the other adventuring groups who beat you there, but couldn't find their way out.

I like puzzles and Enigmas as well.  So those are good ideas and the comments about presenting the puzzle/challenge right up front, but requiring you to explore a bit for keys, answers, etc, is a pretty standard way of doing things.  I don't like run and fetch the key for door A, then get the other key for door B, before you can find the key to door C, etc.  I hate those.  I don't mind having to answer riddles, place statuettes on a dais or something.

I also don't mind having to explore, and during that exploration you find information that leads you deeper to the heart of the area and provides you with enigmatic references and clues that, when you get to those areas, start to really make sense.  Again this is more of a story centric and writing task, though thoughtful area design dovetails nicely into this.

Sometimes the areas are too big.  A cavernous empty temple just doesn't do it for me.  I cite the Yuan-ti temples in general in SoZ and the one in Misery Stone.  Just too freaking huge and  no wall hangings, no statuary (other than those huge columns looking like serpents) and not much else.  If it were a High Temple (like only one of it's kind in the entire area) then, well, okay.  But if I enter three different abandoned temples in the same module I don't mind knowing they're the same order/religion, but come on, spice and spruce it up.

There are some functional issues with NWN2 that prevent some really cool ideas from being easy to implement, but you usually can find a way or someone to help you work around it.

The houses in town issue.  I liked the way they did it in NWN.  There were plenty of doors you couldn't open to loot a house.  "This door is barred from the inside and is too strong for you to break it down."  Perfect.  Someone's home and doesn't seem to want to entertain.

I'm a firm believer in the little touches.  Attention to detail or obsessive compulsive, take your pick.  But sometimes those little touches make all the difference in atmosphere -- and it's just a fact that most people are going to respond to those without being able to tell you exactly what it was that made that area so dang creepy, or fun or scary.

When Jlfn2 was doing Beregost and the Wood of Sharp teeth, he sent me his first couple of areas and I critiqued them for him.  I totally forgot about the screen shots I took with his before and some of my after changes.  None of my changes were significant, but they make a subtle difference.  I'll round them up and include them in a later post to show you what I'm talking about.  Little differences.

Yeah, it's always more work for the builder.  And you do have to choose at some point in time, more work or is this good enough?  I think most folks put in the extra work.  If that weren't true, there'd be a slew of modules that have been being worked on for quite some time.  If they weren't interested in the extra work to make them stand out, they'd have been released a year or two ago in some cases.  So don't be afraid to take the time.

I like working in the toolset -- warts and all -- but I have a rule I live by when it comes to creative endeavor:  The moment I feel like I should be hurrying up and getting this done, I stop.  It's not that I don't want to finish things or learn to work rapidly.  The difference is when I feel like I am going to rush just to get this damn area, placeable, encounter, etc. done, then I am probably going to screw something up -- it means it's time to take a break and get away.

And I think that as long as you can come back repeatedly and regulary to the effort, that's the best way to handle it.  And I am willing to bet that doing a good job on things includes recognizing when it's time to take a step back and get some air.

dunniteowl

[Shallina]

An Area becommes really good when it is not an AREA but a part of the world.



When it is a subpart of something greater and not just something tossed randomly to keep busy the player.

[rjshae]

dunniteowl wrote...

The houses in town issue.  I liked the way they did it in NWN.  There were plenty of doors you couldn't open to loot a house.  "This door is barred from the inside and is too strong for you to break it down."  Perfect.  Someone's home and doesn't seem to want to entertain.

Something I thought about implementing here is to include a lot of functionality associated with a door that doesn't require the party to enter the house. For example, a script checks whether the door is locked and if anybody is inside. If they are, the mouse click-to-open is treated as a door knock and the owner materializes outside for a chat. If the door is locked, open a 'conversation' that does a house thieving query. This will run some tests against the best thief in the party and provide some stolen loot and/or cause the neighbors to call the guards. (Maybe provide various levels of thievery, such as cat burglary to pinch a few valuables, or pillaging to ransack the place.) The level of risk would then be set based on the nature of the establishment.

That would at least make the house seem inhabited. That was something I didn't care for in the NWN2 OC; most of the doors were inert and the cities and towns didn't seem very "occupied". They just seemed like cardboard cutouts.

Modifié par rjshae, 05 août 2010 - 04:33 .

[The Fred]

That's a good idea. I've often thought that in real life, people don't usually just walk in, they knock and wait for the door to be answered. One issue though is that rogues will automatically start to try and pick locked doors.

[rjshae]

The Fred wrote...

That's a good idea. I've often thought that in real life, people don't usually just walk in, they knock and wait for the door to be answered. One issue though is that rogues will automatically start to try and pick locked doors.

Hmm, that's true. I wonder if there is a way to turn off that behavior, or simply make it autofail and pretend it never happened?

[The Curt Jester]

I think that if I were making a single player module (which I'm not) I'd probably go with the philosophy of making most portions of the area count towards the story. Since in single player there are not other people around to help build a story, anything that doesn't have a purpose stays that way forever. I'd likely make many points of interest in an area but not make them used all at once. However, I'd rather go with a more Baldur's Gate feel with an open layout - meaning stuff has a purpose, but it might not be essential either. It's just added flavor.



For PW building I go with a bit more generalization. I know pretty much what I want to shoot for the basic layout but then I sometimes let the area build itself from that point on. This seems to work for me when I do wilderness areas. Still, I usually try to make a point of focus for each area, something that makes it unique from the rest. And, since the areas are being made for a PW I put little details in that can be used by DMs or later used for scripted quests that get added in here and there.

[PJ156]

The Curt Jester wrote...

I think that if I were making a single player module (which I'm not) I'd probably go with the philosophy of making most portions of the area count towards the story. Since in single player there are not other people around to help build a story, anything that doesn't have a purpose stays that way forever. I'd likely make many points of interest in an area but not make them used all at once. However, I'd rather go with a more Baldur's Gate feel with an open layout - meaning stuff has a purpose, but it might not be essential either. It's just added flavor.

I agree and I try to do the same. An area is a huge investment in time at the keyboard so I try to get the best out of each one in terms of game play without pointlessly forcing the PC to cross it for no reason (which I find a pain as a player).

I like the scripted doors ideas but it does occur to me that any door that glows is going to attract the PC which may draw focus off the plot. So for me this is a PW concept. I do like the thought that you could have to knock at a door, that has been the seed of some (I think) good ideas for my next mod. Perhaps instead of the door opening in a inn when clicked a knocking might be heard followed by the npc answering the door; all possible but perhaps a little anal.

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 08 août 2010 - 09:58 .

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I've found that it's good to leave 'gaps' in your areas, sections that don't have anything plot-related going on in them. Then, as you develop the module, you can go back to those empty gaps and fill them in with side quests or use them to flush out the main plot. If you design an area only around your current plot, you end up painting yourself into a corner later on.



Of course, I try to design the whole module around areas that get used over and over again. I really hated the NWN-style area design where the player would go in, kill everything that could be killed, loot everything that could be looted, and then leave without a second thought. When a player completes a quest in an area, that area becomes more meaningful for the player. When you have the player complete several quests over the arc of the main plot in a single area, that area ends up with layers of meaning attached to it, making the whole experience much more immersive for the player.

[kamalpoe]

Overland map: There are two things I'd like to point out with regard to how the OM works in SoZ. The first is the spacing of points of interest, and the second is the directing players to appropriate areas.

Area spacing: How far apart points of interest are on the OM. Other than in the endgame in the norther jungle, in SoZ the points of interest are actually a relatively uniform distance apart. I've done OM work myself, and there is a reason for this. Too many points of interest too close together and you lose the feeling of travel, while too far apart and they feel disconnected and the OM seems empty.

Building and testing the Path of Evil OMs, there actually seems to be a "correct" distance between points of interest. For what it's worth, SoZ seems to have gotten this right. Another point is always the "right" distance away, making players want to continue in what's called "just one more turn" (if you've ever played a turn based game you'll get the idea right away). Now obviously you don't want to have all your areas laid out gridlike at just the "right" distance. Of course you may want certain points to be far away on your OM to emphasize the distance of the journey there, like the main temple at the end of SoZ.

Directing players: Unless you're throwing in some geographic restrictions to limit the players, the OM is free for players to move around in. So how do you prevent players from getting crushed and frustrated by going into an area well above their level? When starting on the Samarach OM, and when you transition to the Sword Coast, the areas near where you first appear on the OM are generally level appropriate. Higher level points are farther away.  I understand White Plume Mountain is doing this, and Path of Evil does it as well.

Players naturally will naturally tend to investigate the things that are close to them before moving on. The story can also direct them to portions of the OM that are safe for their level. Geography can also restrict them. Let's say you're OM is divided into two sections by a huge mountain range. The players start on one side, and to get to the other side of the otherwise impassible range they must travel through a large set of caves that forms the only path, or do some story bit before they can be teleported over the mountain. Since you know the player must go through this choke point you can safely make all points of interest on the other side more equal or difficult than the choke point itself.

Another way to direct players on the OM is to give them an idea of the expected CL of areas before the player enters them. A great time to do this is with the area entry conversation on the OM, when the player is asked if they want to enter the cave/dungeon/town etc from the OM. I suppose you can do this directly by giving the player the CL, but you can also work it into the game by giving hints based on skill check in the entry conversation.

For example, a sufficient listen skill character might be able to hear the roar of a dragon as they are about to enter a valley. An epic party is likely to say "whatever" and enter, but a level 5 party should pause to consider that. I'd suggest some backup conversation options reliant on other skills in case the party doesn't have someone with a particular skill, say a high survival skill to say "Yeah, that looks like dragon poo. Maybe we're better off not entering the valley to be eaten." Skill use/class knowledge/racial knowledge or whatever else you can think of are your friends here for giving the player some in character indication of what they might encounter in an area. If your level five party saw the dragon poo and entered anyway, they deserve to be dragon chow.

[MasterChanger]

kamalpoe wrote...
Geography can also restrict them. Let's say you're OM is divided into two sections by a huge mountain range. The players start on one side, and to get to the other side of the otherwise impassible range they must travel through a large set of caves that forms the only path, or do some story bit before they can be teleported over the mountain. Since you know the player must go through this choke point you can safely make all points of interest on the other side more equal or difficult than the choke point itself.

I'm pretty ambivalent about Overland Maps in general, but as far as I'm concerned what you described above is the purpose for having them: it allows you to create an integrated feeling of geography. To me, this is a broader application of DNO's idea of environments: if some being is in a given place, we need to understand* where that being came from, how it got there, and so forth.

Though this feeling of geography informing travel can be handled using only "regular" areas, it's a ton of work. It's difficult to create a truly immersive feeling of a river flowing through contiguous areas and only crossable in certain spots; at least, it's difficult to do this when you have many other considerations in mind. Difficulty of travel through mountains, deserts, forests, etc. are all a bit complicated to get right, at least in a PW setting where you need to watch the server load. In a SP setting, LotRS accomplished an intense geographic feeling with the Last of the Danaan, but my impression was that he had to keep that as his primary focus in order to achieve it.**

On an OM, this is all handled in a more integrated way. Since you're looking at the lay of the land in a broader way, and then proceeding to travel through it, the broader sense of place is more easily communicated. I think the real challenge is properly integrating this broad scale with immersive, gritty areas with a lot of personality. To me it's this integration that SoZ failed to achieve, capturing only the broad sweep of the environments. Misery Stone, on the other hand, succeeded wonderfully in this communcation between the OM and the individual areas.

* Or, I'd agree with DNO, at least the builder needs to understand it, and signal it to the player in some way.

** I'm beginning to think that the only practical way of capturing that same feeling of geography, of one area leading to the next, in a PW setting with many exteriors is to use YATT, get your rivers, mountain ranges, swamps, etc. lined up, and then chop 'em up with overlap between the areas. I know people have done this on the scale of a few areas; has anyone done it across a huge world?