1056 réponses à ce sujet

[Tchos]

I understand that reasoning, but it just seems superfluous to me to change a character's alignment in the middle of a game. Not that there aren't possible reasons out there, though I think if you choose to play a paladin, it wouldn't be for the purpose of intentionally falling by saying something a paladin shouldn't say. At the least, I just don't think it's necessary to make it possible to do that in the majority of conversations, especially with SoZ party chat.

The lighthouse will look better soon. But no dragons in the lighthouse.

[kevL]

If it's a straightforward adventure .. no reason to change really

but i could see a story catered to, say Paladins, where he/she is given a dilemma of some sort, and one path might be to not blindly follow the dictats of the GM (...) lose - or risk losing - Pally status then atone (or not), perhaps w/ another Guild

anyway i'll shuddup now,

( after pointing out I'm currently doing a dungeon that changes my good/evil -1 everytime i make a special key (bargain w/ the devil & all that), and have taken like 20 hits so far

Granted, i don't *need* to make so many ....

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

@Tchos: I like your attitude, the whole "let the player screw up their own character." I've gotten the most flak from alignment shifts when players were doing something fairly evil (massacring a goblin village), but really didn't want to think about what they were doing as evil. I take it you won't be making your paladins chaotic for looting every crate and barrel strewn across the city, either.

Novels and movies are often about characters that change, or struggle to resist change, but that seems not to apply to games. People wanna play the renegade or the paragon, and that's that.

[Tchos]

Well, I don't actually have any crates or barrels to loot in the city. There are some crates there, being a port town, but they're not lootable. In the case of the paladin, I just think that it should be up to the player to roleplay their own character. A paladin wouldn't do it, and it shouldn't be up to me to make sure they act in the way they chose to act at character creation.

As for the rest, I say vive la différence, and support other authors making as many alignment changes as they want. There's plenty of room for diversity.

[Dann-J]

I don't mind good/evil alignment shifts - but the player should be warned prior to them occuring so they can understand the ramifications. That way the player can make a choice to lead their character down a specific path.

After all, intentions govern whether an individual sees themself as good or evil. Others may judge whether or not they think another's actions are good or evil, but only the individual truly knows their own intentions. Sometimes an individual will do the wrong thing for the right reasons (choosing the lesser evil that leads to the greater good), and just as often individuals will do the right things for the wrong reasons (giving to charity to improve their own social standing, for example). It's the intention that should count, not the deed - which means that only the player should decide when a good/evil alignment shift occurs.

It was annoying when my neutral character in MotB ended up lawful good because he used Eternal Rest to satisfy his spirit craving. He was, after all, only doing so to prevent his own demise, which is actually a selfish act. My intentions as to what drove my neutral character to act in that way were ignored by the game, and I was railroaded into an alignment shift that the character didn't deserve.

Lawful/chaotic alignment shifts are different though, since they depend on how the individual behaves within a framework set up by others. Although what is lawful in Thay might not be considered lawful in Cormyr, so such shifts should be specific to the region your module is set in.

[Tchos]

Right, and this underscores that there are so many approaches and schools of thought regarding what a particular alignment even means (chaotic: crazy or bard-like?), let alone whether a person's intent should even matter in a world where good and evil are literally objective, and dictated by the very active gods.  Creating an undead, for instance, is an objectively evil act in D&D, regardless of intent.  Personally, I would prefer that intents did matter, but others disagree.  And these disagreements can result in what seem to be unfair shifts.  One of several reasons I have for not including them.  Another is that in my experience, and in fiction, changes to a person's fundamental nature occur very, very slowly, and while in a story-focused module it would make sense to lead up to one big turning point at which such a shift could happen, I don't generally see it happening more frequently than that, even in novels.

On my blog, while playing the OC, I complained about my alignment constantly shifting in ways that seemingly assumed that I was saying or doing something for a reason other than what I intended, or failing to likewise shift when the "great heist" I joined with Neeshka turned into a murder spree and a thug-like hostage-taking shakedown, to my great dismay.

I noted at that time that nothing in D&D causes more arguments than alignments, so perhaps I shouldn't have opened that can of worms here.  Even though I do enjoy discussing things like this and seeing other viewpoints.

Modifié par Tchos, 30 juillet 2012 - 05:43 .

[PJ156]

I put a few in Sheep and Stone but then stopped. I will take them out when I find them. On the whole it is better to let the character be the character and develop their own justification for why they do things. I regret putting them in.

I agree with Dann though. Quests which are about moral dilema are very good. Here I think that a shift might be justified if a certain character type does not make the right choices and I don't think they need to be warned but the shift needs to be coherent with the context of the plot.

PJ

[Arkalezth]

I dislike alignment shifts as well, not much to add what has been said already.

Correctly RPing a character is up to the player, certain characters can shift alignments through their lifetimes (i.e. fallen paladin) but that shouldn't be that common.

[Tchos]

One of the many that annoyed me, and merely the most recent one, was this: I learned that a character was secretly dealing with black dragons, in a desperate attempt to help his village, while knowing that his fellow villagers would never allow such a thing. The dragons, being chaotic evil, had broken the pact and turned on his village.

When it was time to confront him about it, I chose the harsh option: "Good job, Buckman. You made a deal with black dragons - what did you expect would happen?" For this I was shifted toward chaotic. What?! I was reprimanding him for acting unlawfully and making deals with chaotic creatures. Surely if anything that should have shifted me toward lawful. Is a lawful good paladin shifted toward chaos for issuing a harsh rebuke toward a thief? I would think not! It's one of the unfair and arbitrary shifts that I don't want in my own work.

(For the record, I don't enjoy playing lawful good myself, but I do like to offer opportunities for them.)

Modifié par Tchos, 30 juillet 2012 - 04:17 .

[Arkalezth]

Yeah, I hate when they mix ways of talking with alignments (I was going to actually mention this in my other post). Not only on your example, you can also perfectly be a lawful good ****, or evil but "nice" when talking (*looks at politicians*).

An alignment shift I remember in the OC is when confronting two thieves (normal thieves, not mass murderers). Letting them live is evil, killing them is either good, or lawful, or no alignment shift (I don't remember). My evil character killed them and... became good?

Edit: *Shakes fist at censorship* I'm pretty sure I've written that word here before without getting it censored, but whatever.

Modifié par Arkalezth, 30 juillet 2012 - 04:28 .

[Tchos]

Oh yeah, I remember that one. That was bad. It was so outrageous I made a screenshot of those messages.

And I fully agree, that it makes it nearly impossible to roleplay a charismatically evil character when you get shifted "good" for smooth-talking the unsuspecting victims.

[kevL]

my Lawful Neutral drow stopped making keys because he didn't want to take the plunge into evil ...

struck me as a good game mechanic,


I agree if you don't know how to do it then don't. but For the record, the OC's really got on my nerves, not just for aln-shifts but simply trying to sweet-talk (con) an NPC ended up becoming allied. Should conversations go also? unless they're really simple, like

1. Yes
2. No
3. Tell me more.

[Tchos]

On the contrary, I preferred the long, very detailed dialogue choices in Baldur's Gate (and Planescape: Torment). The more of those, the better. They projected strong points of view, and were abundantly clear what it meant to choose a particular option.

Modifié par Tchos, 30 juillet 2012 - 06:08 .

[Tchos]

I think in my readme file for this module, I'll include a brief statement that my stance for the module is that characters' speech or actions are expressions of their foundational philosophical or ethical outlooks (represented by their alignments), and not a means of changing them. As an example, in one conversation, there is an option to make an overt threat toward a clerk. Unless the character is of evil alignment and has a certain rank in the Intimidate skill, s/he will not even see the option to make that threat. In similar fashion, there are certain very polite options that only a diplomatic character can choose, and others that only a character with certain task-relevant abilities can choose. In general, these special choices result in something different happening. Sometimes permanent consequences, sometimes just a different timbre to the conversation.

In other matters, I've heard that a common feature of NWN1 was that doors that were not meant to be opened would say that the door is barred from the other side, and cannot be broken down. I hadn't experienced this myself, since I've only played the NWN1 OC's academy prelude and several premium modules, where I don't recall that happening.

I mention this because I've put in a door that's barred and barricaded from the other side. But it really is. It's not just another way of saying there's nothing on the other side. You'll be able to go around to the other side, clear the barricade, and unbar the door so that you can leave through it, after you've gone the long way around defeating the enemies who barred and barricaded it specifically to make the area more strategically defensible against invaders.



This is the more or less completed level 1 of the lighthouse, without any enemies showing.

[MokahTGS]

Very nicely done! I'm assuming those central stairs are just for show and not walkable. I also bet that area plays havoc on the game camera in explorable mode. Those window placeables add some real life to the area. Great job!

[Tchos]

Right, the stairs are not walkable.  With as many walkmesh troubles as I've had, I wouldn't even attempt something like that at this stage.  When you open the door at the base of the stairwell, it'll transition you to the next level.  The lighthouse map called for a central stairwell, and I wanted to have them there visually to help bring a solid sense of where you are in a physical space.

As for the camera, I don't notice any havoc with the exploration camera, beyond what I normally see in the game.  I use exploration mode by default, myself, though I also tested this in character mode.  Exploration mode works as I would have expected it to work here.  It keeps the camera within the walls if you're at a low angle, and it zooms out to your full camera distance if you go up to an overhead view.  If there's an open door, and you move the camera at an angle that crosses it, then the camera will zoom out through the door to the far wall.  Here's a little video of exploration mode in action.



There is a little bit in this video where the upper wall blocks the camera until I moved it.  Is that the sort of thing you mean?

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I don't know if it will help you now, but while placeables will block camera movement and sightlines, environmental objects will not. If you take a building and convert it to an environmental object, you can run the camera right through it. It will look messy, but since most of the models have single-sided textures, you can effectively see through walls. Here, you could make the base of the walls/wainscotting a placeable to get your LOS and walkmesh working, and then make the upper part of the wall an environmental object. The interior walls might have to remain as-is, but converting the outer wall would mean that the camera could look through the wall into the interior at a low angle.

[Tchos]

Funnily enough, that is how I arranged the walls. The upper part of the walls are indeed environmental objects (which was necessary so that you could walk through the doorways anyway), and I thought that it would make them transparent, but since it's not happening, I believe it must be that those BCK pieces are not set to fade, in the 2DA. I can change the 2DA's fade setting and see how it behaves after that, but you're likely right that it wouldn't help for the outer walls (actually, on re-reading, I see you were saying the other way around). In fact, almost everything in this scene is an environmental object (except for things you interact with), with collision handled by cutters. Only the lower parts of the partition walls are not environmental.

Modifié par Tchos, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:53 .

[kamal_]

Tchos wrote...

Right, the stairs are not walkable.  With as many walkmesh troubles as I've had, I wouldn't even attempt something like that at this stage.  When you open the door at the base of the stairwell, it'll transition you to the next level.  The lighthouse map called for a central stairwell, and I wanted to have them there visually to help bring a solid sense of where you are in a physical space.

As for the camera, I don't notice any havoc with the exploration camera, beyond what I normally see in the game.  I use exploration mode by default, myself, though I also tested this in character mode.  Exploration mode works as I would have expected it to work here.  It keeps the camera within the walls if you're at a low angle, and it zooms out to your full camera distance if you go up to an overhead view.  If there's an open door, and you move the camera at an angle that crosses it, then the camera will zoom out through the door to the far wall.  Here's a little video of exploration mode in action.



There is a little bit in this video where the upper wall blocks the camera until I moved it.  Is that the sort of thing you mean?

If you put down empty tiles outside the tiles you already have, the orange fog will not be so visible. The players can't reach those spots anyway since the walls are in place. Also, if you want the outer wall can be entirely environmental, and you can use a walkmesh cutter.

Modifié par kamal_, 31 juillet 2012 - 10:06 .

[Tchos]

@Kamal: Very useful tip about empty tiles getting rid of that heavy fog. I didn't know that, and it looks like it works nicely. I can't use it in this case, though, because it reveals some ugly construction debris outside the playable area, which comes as a consequence of this being a round room, which I had covered up with black boxes. Those boxes I think would also prevent the camera from looking in from outside the walls if I made the outer walls environmental, but I haven't tested that to find out.

I had some predictable trouble with the walkmesh when it came time to bake again after placing all the decorations and furniture, and bizarrely it kept making the entire central tile unwalkable even when I had changed everything around it to environmental objects, when it had baked all right before. The worst part was that the tile's corner was right over the stairwell's door, making it impossible to go upstairs (though I could possibly get around that if I could trigger a conversation with the door from a distance). I was thinking that it was a matter of there being too many objects in a small space for the baking not to freak out, and I began to wonder if this was a possible reason for the OC interiors being so colossal, aside from the tiles being twice the size of a normal D&D grid tile.

However, I plowed ahead and laid out walkmesh cutters for some of the furniture surrounding the central stairwell, and to my surprise, it baked nicely! I laid down some more cutters, and soon enough had the whole thing baked functionally. There were still some messy walkmesh spots that I had to leave alone because when I tried to cut them out, they caused another whole-tile loss, but they're past a wall and won't affect anything.

This was the second time I've used an object with dynamic collision, and it was for the barricades this time. It took a couple of tries to get the settings right, but now you can bash them and get through to unbar the door.



I used a trigger to determine whether you were on the right side of the door to do it. If you're on the far side, it just tells you that you can't unbar the door from that side, and once you get to the other side, it gives you the option to do it (both via conversation). While setting that up, I followed an include of one of the ga_ scripts, and found that there are some very handy and useful functions in ginc_param_const.

I checked the 2DA entries for the BCK placeables I used for my walls, and confirmed that none of the BCK wall pieces are set to fade. I changed the setting for the piece I used to construct the partitions, and checked to see how that would affect my area. Now the upper half of the interior partition walls fade to transparent if the camera goes behind them. The panel I use to line the edges at the top does not currently fade. I'm inclined to leave it that way, if it won't be too distracting.

[Tchos]

So, the big news is that it's not July anymore, and this is still not released. I'll explain why I thought it would be enough time, and why I think it wasn't.

I thought it would, primarily because my Dragon Age: Origins module didn't take this long, and I was learning everything from scratch there. I thought this would be much faster having had that experience.

As for why it wasn't, there are many reasons. One is that I scaled up far too much. Last year's project Trouble In Rainesfere had only a single quest, with 4 or 5 stages depending on what you count, with only two questgivers (one was just a breadcrumb to the main one). I had wanted to add a side quest, but I didn't have time. There were a total of 6 NPCs, not counting the enemies. There were no special items, and no interactive placeables unless you count doors. There was a total of 2 exteriors, though one of them was very large and had several distinct sub-zones. There were 3 interiors in total. There was only 1 custom placeable, and that was an autumn-foliage tree. What little scripting I had was very crude and rudimentary, and the less said about it the better.

So, I scaled up, and I think I've increased the size and complexity of all of those bullet points by around 10x, but did not allocate 10x the time.

Another reason is that I didn't follow my production plan. I started out by roughing things out with the goal of getting everything functioning before making another pass for detail. I did that pretty much just with the main quest, but then I started focusing on detail with everything else. I also didn't fully polish the main quest before going and adding in the side quests. I had several side quests that I wanted to include without question, and didn't consider them optional, despite my original plans to drop side quests as necessary to finish quickly.

I also abandoned my plans to use ready-to-go prefabs for most of the locations. I couldn't help altering the prefabs I used, sometimes to the point where I might as well have done it from scratch, and so I ended up making a lot of them from scratch.

As mentioned before, the decision to have internal shops instead of open-air markets was a large time sink, though it was necessary for the atmosphere I had in mind, and my plans for shop-specific quests and recruitable companion locations.

Probably the biggest reason for taking so long is the struggle between two of my own dicta: One says "Make do with what you have, and release sooner than later. It's better to release something that can be played, rather than risking trailing off into abandonment." The other says "What you make should be a model of what you want to see. What you include should be fully realised. What you cut should be cut entirely. Cut content can find a new home in another module, but not if a pale shadow of what it could have been has already been released." These rules conflict, but at the beginning I had both of them in mind. Inasmuch as I follow the rules, I think the second one is more important to me.

This actually sounds a bit like a "project post-mortem" as is the fashion to call them, though I dislike that term, because I consider the release of a project to be the beginning, and not the end of its life. It's premature for a post-mortem at any rate, unless you consider it a post-mortem of the release date. If this were a television show, though, would this be the point at which the show jumped the shark, or when it grew the beard?

The updates will continue, until this is released. I could set another deadline. Should I? I know some people would like to have one to watch. I think given what I have remaining to do, and how long the existing work has taken, I can estimate a tight deadline or a generous deadline, but both of them would be earlier than the current Torchlight 2 estimated release date.

In the meantime, more work.

One of the doors was misbehaving. Specifically the stairwell door. You couldn't click on most of it. It could easily be mistaken for a static door. I thought it was due to the walkmesh, but it was well within the edge of the walkable area. The wall that surrounded it was environmental, as well. There was another door behind it, that was set to static. I tried moving the primary door further and further out, until finally I just moved it out to the centre of the room to see if it could be clicked at all, and also placed a brand new door from the blueprints in the spot where it should go. I also deleted the static door. This time both doors worked fine. I deleted the old door, and replaced the static door with a door-shaped placeable, because I noticed in the barred-door example, the engine seems to put priority on highlighting a door, even if it's behind a usable placeable. The current situation is now functional.

One thing I consider important to implement here is different levels of preparedness on the part of the enemies. The pen & paper modules I've read often outline several possible ways that the players might assault a particular fortified location, and chances for enemies inside being in one location or another depending on circumstances. I like that sort of thing, and I'm putting it in.

In the case of the lighthouse, they will never be completely unprepared, because they have a lookout, and it would be impossible to miss the approach of a ship, which is the only way to arrive. However, it will be possible to get from the boat to the lighthouse without them knowing. It is possible to either announce your arrival and attempt to parley (the quest provides several approaches for dealing with the situation), attempt to sneak inside using a stealthy character (who has a chance of leading the others in without being noticed), or of course, to make a frontal assault. Some of these situations will be dealt with on the approach, and other checks are made upon opening a door and making a choice.

Ideally, I would also have liked to include the possibility of having a character scale the wall and enter through an upper window, which would require them to fight that room's inhabitants alone (assuming the room is occupied) before throwing down a rope to let the others climb up. It could be done, and I think it would be nice to have, but it's an extra I think I'll do without here.

[Tchos]

Brick?  You mean like this?


Nah, I'm afraid that's quite impossible. 

Actually, these pieces have 7 different textures that can be applied to them, all tintable.  It took about 5 minutes to change it to this.  But I thought the white sandstone/plaster look was more appropriate for a lighthouse.