1056 réponses à ce sujet

[kamal_]

Yeah, Path of Evil had a bug close to the end where there was a placeable that needed to be used that wasn't marked plot... (there was another way to advance things, but it required a high skill level and wasn't obvious).

I wrote an ondeath script for placeables that destroys things on top of them, technically it just destroys objects in a small radius and above a given height. I either can't find it, or lost it, but it wasn't hard to write. The floating objects after destroying tables annoyed me too.

[Tchos]

I checked to make sure, and yes, it's plot. My habit has been to set all teleport doors to plot, because if they were destroyed, the building or exit would become inaccessible. Interior doors are not.

As for tables, I have most/all of them as environmental objects, not placeables.

[Tchos]

The last of the shops is the apothecary, and for this I textured the second of the potion bottles that Eguintir separated from the set of vanilla placeables for me. I would also have a third new bottle to use, but the UV map is currently unusable.

There would have been a quest here, but I've cut it for time, and plan to use it in my next venture.

I was also inspired to make a new wrought iron texture, which I suppose can be used for fences, gates, or barred windows of some kind. (Click to look at the full-sized version.)  The wooden pieces around the iron are separate placeables.



I tried to do some work in the town, but I couldn't get the area open, and I didn't want to reboot again just then, which seems to be the only way to get it to open now.

I decided to try retexturing one of the four vanilla bottles for use as a decorative bottle. I found, as is the case with many of the other placeables, that this one uses a shared diffuse map with the other three bottles. I expect this kind of texture economy was a legacy from the game's NWN1 roots. The UVs are horribly designed, being mushy and asymmetrical, poorly suited to precisely lining up the edges on the texture to avoid obvious seams, which is possibly why the original texture is so free of detail.

So, since I just couldn't work with something like that, I took it upon myself to gain the necessary knowledge to modify the UV maps on the objects directly.

I had three choices in the matter, based on what plugins were available to import and export the NWN2 MDB format: 3DS Max, Gmax, and Blender. Since I already had Blender, I tried that first, but I could not get the objects to import properly using the plugin. Only the points appeared, and none of the faces. 3DS Max was out of the question, due to expense, so I turned to the free Gmax.

Learning to navigate an unfamiliar interface, and learning a new set of vocabulary and such is always a bit cumbersome, and was occasionally frustrating in this case, but after perhaps 3 or 4 hours I had remapped and exported the new bottle model. There was some trouble with it. First, Gmax bizarrely doesn't seem to include an option to export a UV template, so I had to use LithUnwrap. But LithUnwrap doesn't read NWN2 files, so I had to install a plugin for Gmax to allow it to export to Quake 3 format, which LithUnwrap reads.

With UV template in hand, I imported the model into NWN2, only to find that it still used the original vanilla bottle texture. I checked the MDB in MDB Cloner to make sure it was pointing to the right textures, and it was. I had encountered a similar problem with a vanilla plane that I retextured, and also with an earlier (now fixed) version of Xaltar's new heads, and I surmised that this had something to do with a name that MDB Cloner can't read. I located the texture name in Gmax, and indeed it was still pointing to the old texture, which somehow overrode the one specified in MDB Cloner, so I changed it and exported again. This time it worked. Yay for new bottle.

Bolstered, I turned my attention to the 3rd of the alchemical potion bottles I mentioned earlier whose UV map was unusable. Again, the task was tricky, since I was doing something different with this one (I wanted to double up the texture on opposite sides, rather than have 4 identical sides as in the then-current UV map), but I gradually got the hang of the peculiar procedures that Gmax requires in order to simply select a subset of faces, and I successfully remapped, rescaled, and exported this bottle, too.

Of course, with this tool, I'm not limited to retexturing as I was before, but I can resculpt objects or create new ones. This is good. Now if I need some new geometry, I have the tools I need to create it. I don't anticipate needing any more for this project, though.



After putting the non-alchemical bottle next to the others, I found that it was asymmetrical, and not in an appealing way. (It's the pink bottles on the right in the picture, which I've rotated to have their best faces forward.) They might have been trying for a more organic or even whimsical feel with these early props, which I would have probably preferred over the rather straight art style they ended up with, but I don't think it fits well with the others here. It wouldn't hurt to have one or two off in the background, though.

I'll finish up the apothecary shop next. After that, there's only one more interior to create, and it'll be full of monsters.

[PJ156]

Those bottle look very good indeed Tchos. Your perseverance was worth it without a doubt.

I have made myself keep away fromt he 3D stuf for this mod. It has taken four years to date I dont want it to take another four. But for my next I shall be having a go myself so thank for some of the pointers too.

PJ

[Tchos]

If you need any of the pointers clarified when you get to that point, let me know.

[PJ156]

Thanks Tchos, I will ...

PJ

[Tchos]

I finished the apothecary shop, and then I wrote her dialogue.

A note for crafters: There are workbenches for each of the crafts available in town, and they're all in suitable shops. Blacksmith workbench at the blacksmith shop, alchemy workbench at the apothecary, enchanting workbench at the magic shop. The shopkeepers also sell the associated materials, such as molds, bottles, wands, etc., in unlimited supply. As mentioned before, this is the OC version of crafting.



Writing the dialogue and setting up the items for sale in her store was simple, but what was complicated was setting up her special "bounty". I have 6 items that you can turn in to her for a special price, and I spent hours debugging the script I wrote to detect, remove, and pay for any such items when you elect to turn them in. Eventually I narrowed down the problem to the while loop, where the "next" command was accidentally placed one level outside of the braces where it should have been, causing it to check only the first item in the inventory. Since all of my initial tests had been with a character who had other items at the top of the inventory, I never got far enough into the debug commands to find out what was going on. When I placed the item at the #1 position, and the loop created a slowdown until its emergency exit, I figure out what was going on.

Now fixed, it counts how many of the stacked items you have of each type, and rewards you for each of them. It also takes into account multiple stacks. However, it doesn't recognise when a party member other than the conversation initiator carries the items, and I wasn't able to figure out why. As Obsidian's notes on the party chat system describe, the conditional script should run independently on each party member for the conversation to determine whether that member sees the conversation node or not, so it should show up.

Addendum: I figured it out. The HasItem() function I was including from my include file was using GetFirstPC() instead of GetPCSpeaker(). I changed it to accept the PC object as a parameter, and supplied the parameter from my commands, so I can use it more flexibly outside of conversations.

Now it properly works, with the usual SoZ party chat speech bubble icon appearing on the portraits of party members who have any of the items in their inventories, so they can turn them in to the apothecary.

Happily, I'm continuing to learn more ways of identifying the PC, and when it's appropriate to use one versus another, and how to automatically fall back on alternatives if the primary one is invalid (for more generic scripts).

[casadechrisso]

Oh look, here's your blog too, never noticed.... I just added a few comments over at the Nexus, but this is "closer to home".

[Lance Botelle]

Hi Tchos,

I too have just discovered your "blog" being posted here as well as at the Nexus. And as I don't have a Nexus account, I will post here instead.

I am enjoying reading about your exploits with the toolset. I only started reading it today, and so I have quite a few days to catch up on. However, I am finding quite a bit of what you have asked I have touched upon in my own blog. Here is one link to one question you ask towards the beginning of your blog, but I believe I do answer or touch upon some others you have asked. It was about DLGPartySwap.

You may find some of my other posts helpful too. Just use the search box at the top of the blog to help find a topic ... or ask questions directly. Now that I see you have posted in these forums, I will try to keep up and answer any questions you may have.

I like cursed items if handled properly. (Permanent curses unless the spell is used! - Even between reloads!)

Alignment changes are also good game devices, especially for certain classes. (E.g.: When spells are granted because of a relationship between the PC and the god that provides the "spell" through prayers. If the PC fails to follow their god's precepts, then the god will withdraw their power to answer divine prayers. I believe player's should be careful when they choose a class based on how they want to roleplay the game. For instance, why play a Lawful Good paladin, if you want to kill innocents and steal from everybody? If you did, the gameworld should reflect what happens to Paladins who "fall from grace".)

Cheers,
Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 15 décembre 2012 - 10:10 .

[Tchos]

Lance Botelle wrote...
I believe I do answer or touch upon some others you have asked. It was about DLGPartySwap.

Well, the party system and dialogue system has long been working as intended by now, and it does indeed involve having the DLGPartySwap parameter set to false in my campaign settings, amongst other things.

Lance Botelle wrote...
I like cursed items if handled properly. (Permanent curses unless the spell is used! - Even between reloads!)

Personally, I would not use such a system, because in my view no consequence should persist across different saved games.  Instead of insisting on a punishment beyond the normal bounds of the game, I would instead provide an incentive to removing a cursed item the in-game way by creating interesting content that would only be seen in such an instance, which would be missed if the player simply reloads a save and refrains from picking up the cursed item.

Lance Botelle wrote...
Alignment changes are also good game devices, especially for certain classes.
For instance, why play a Lawful Good paladin, if you want to kill innocents and steal from everybody?

I think that alignment changes of a certain kind can be good, only for classes who have gameplay mechanics tied to their alignments, yes.  But outside of a module oriented solely around such classes, the results of the choices are often far too arbitrary, and usually make too many assumptions about a player's intent (in dialogue).  In the OC, for instance, I recall once giving a diplomatic answer to attempt to defuse a volatile situation, and prevent unnecessary deaths in a fight, and it resulted in my alignment being shifted toward both chaos and evil!

As I've expressed earlier in regard to punishing players for not playing their alignment, I don't think it's my job to force players to play their characters in the way that they themselves created them.  Indeed, a lawful good character should not go around murdering innocents, but instead of putting some kind of alignment police script in place to punish them if they do, I'm simply going to assume that they don't do it, because it's not in their nature to do so.

Even in a module devoted to such classes, if I were to make such a thing, I would not make it possible for a lawful character to attack innocents randomly and get alignment shifts that way.  A fall from grace would be a possible consequence only of major plot points -- cases where I could believe that a person might be persuaded, pressured, or convinced to do something against their nature.  Not simply deciding to be evil one day.

[Lance Botelle]

Tchos wrote...
Well, the party system and dialogue system has long been working as intended by now, and it does indeed involve having the DLGPartySwap parameter set to false in my campaign settings, amongst other things.

I guessed you might have done by now.

Personally, I would not use such a system, because in my view no consequence should persist across different saved games.  Instead of insisting on a punishment beyond the normal bounds of the game, I would instead provide an incentive to removing a cursed item the in-game way by creating interesting content that would only be seen in such an instance, which would be missed if the player simply reloads a save and refrains from picking up the cursed item.

That certainly is another way of doing it. However, I do like the idea of a genuine cursed item, which can "haunt" a player if they fail to take the best precautions. Besides, it will only haunt them all the while they do not use a Remove Curse spell or item to remove it. That is exactly the point of a cursed item after all! Think back to pen and paer and if a player picked up a cursed item. Would a player say to the DM, "I never meant to pick it up and the DM say, OK it never happened"? Not in any of my campaigns.

I think that alignment changes of a certain kind can be good, only for classes who have gameplay mechanics tied to their alignments, yes.  But outside of a module oriented solely around such classes, the results of the choices are often far too arbitrary, and usually make too many assumptions about a player's intent (in dialogue).  In the OC, for instance, I recall once giving a diplomatic answer to attempt to defuse a volatile situation, and prevent unnecessary deaths in a fight, and it resulted in my alignment being shifted toward both chaos and evil!

That just sounds like poor writing to me ... and poor player guidance. I agree that such choices should not be in a game. However, well written, and clear choices (possibly even with a DM comment advising which action leads to what in game terms), can still be a good game device.

As I've expressed earlier in regard to punishing players for not playing their alignment, I don't think it's my job to force players to play their characters in the way that they themselves created them.  Indeed, a lawful good character should not go around murdering innocents, but instead of putting some kind of alignment police script in place to punish them if they do, I'm simply going to assume that they don't do it, because it's not in their nature to do so.

I think there are different schoolss of players, and while I believe there are some that would honour the role of an alignment based class, I also believe there are some who would still be quite happy to pilfer from a chest (belonging to somebody else) just because it is in the game regardless of their PC's alignment. And that is the point of such a system. After all, I do recall having to remind my players on the odd occassion that certain behaviour may be considered "evil". Consider such a system a gentle reminde if you like, but one that has consequences if ignored. Sometimes, such a system is all it needs to make the roleplay feel more appropriate. I felt that Fallout 3 did this as well, and I feel it does help remind the player where they are and what they are doing. Or, perhaps, I am just getting old, and like to have the reminder to aid concentration.

Even in a module devoted to such classes, if I were to make such a thing, I would not make it possible for a lawful character to attack innocents randomly and get alignment shifts that way.  A fall from grace would be a possible consequence only of major plot points -- cases where I could believe that a person might be persuaded, pressured, or convinced to do something against their nature.  Not simply deciding to be evil one day.

That would be OK, unless, like me, you are allowing the module to be played both by "evil" and "good" PCs. In such a case, you need to accomodate both styles/alignments and consequences of such play. I agree that it is more work and does add another layer of complexity when writing quests. 

Also, it seems you may be mistaking an "action" with "role-play". The idea of "alignments" in a game is to set boundaries and a framework in which the player plays an alignment role of their PC. No matter which way you look at an individual action, it has to be (if role-playing) goverened by the alignment of the PC being played rather than the "desire" of the player. In other words, a player should begin the game deciding to be either good or evil even prior to their first chance to loot the neighbour's chest, and then stick by their chosen alignment.

That all said, we are also now getting to the heart of a complex matter, and, as it happens, is part of the challenge and story of my module, which attempts to wrestle with this challenging aspect of "reality" ... in an RPG or real life. So, rather than continue and risk spoilers, maybe I can tempt you to take a look at my module after it is finished, and see how I have taken it. I am certainly temtped to look at yours!

Reagrds,
Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 16 décembre 2012 - 06:50 .

[Tchos]

Lance Botelle wrote...
That is exactly the point of a cursed item after all! Think back to pen and paer and if a player picked up a cursed item. Would a player say to the DM, "I never meant to pick it up and the DM say, OK it never happened"? Not in any of my campaigns.

No, they wouldn't, because there is no saving in a P&P session.  Neither is there saving in an MMO.  But in NWN2, saving is a normal part of the game, and attempting to sabotage a player's ability to use that standard function is against my design philosophy.

Lance Botelle wrote...
I think there are different schoolss of players, and while I believe there are some that would honour the role of an alignment based class, I also believe there are some who would still be quite happy to pilfer from a chest (belonging to somebody else) just because it is in the game regardless of their PC's alignment.  And that is the point of such a system.

Where we differ is that I allow that freedom to the player -- to ignore the rules of RP and alignment, and thereby cheat, if they so desire.  I don't need to punish them for it.  If they don't care (because they have different reasons for playing) then my punishment would be an unwelcome intrusion.  If they do care, they'll play according to their alignment, in which case there is nothing to punish.  I want players to play my module in the way they want to play it.  Not the way I think they should play it.

Lance Botelle wrote...
Sometimes, such a system is all it needs to make the roleplay feel more appropriate. I felt that Fallout 3 did this as well, and I feel it does help remind the player where they are and what they are doing.

Fallout 3's method was irritating to me.  Just by passing by objects, if my mouse happened to cross over an owned object, not even clicking on it, this would trigger NPCs to warn/threaten me as if I were planning to rob them.  Yet again, a game makes false assumptions about my intent.  I installed a mod to disable those warnings. 

There was another game (not sure which it was, but possibly Daggerfall) which did it better.  If you click to open certain owned containers, a box would pop up saying something like, "This looks like it belongs to someone.  Open it anyway?"  Presumably there were consequences if you did.

Lance Botelle wrote...
That would be OK, unless, like me, you are allowing the module to be played both by "evil" and "good" PCs. In such a case, you need to accomodate both styles/alignments and consequences of such play.

I do allow it, and I do include some consequences, both positive and negative, but I do it without shifting alignments.

Lance Botelle wrote...
Also, it seems you may be mistaking an "action" with "role-play".

What exactly did I say, that you interpret as me mistaking an "action" with "role-play"?  In the section you quoted, I'm illustrating the choices of a character as if s/he were a real person.  A well-written or well-played character must not arbitrarily go against his/her fundamental nature as represented by his/her alignment, without a major event that persuades or pressures him/her to do so.  I'm saying that my approach is to leave it to the player to voluntarily choose the actions that the character would take if the character actually existed and had a particular alignment.  That is roleplay.

Also, I'm sure you know that in D&D alignment terms, stealing is not considered evil in most cases; it's chaotic.

Lance Botelle wrote...
maybe I can tempt you to take a look at my module after it is
finished, and see how I have taken it.

I'll probably play it.  I've heard that you've drawn some inspiration from the System Shock games.  Although I disagree with your design choice regarding cross-save persistent effects, I'll nonetheless see what the rest is like.

[Lance Botelle]

Tchos wrote...
No, they wouldn't, because there is no saving in a P&P session.  Neither is there saving in an MMO.  But in NWN2, saving is a normal part of the game, and attempting to sabotage a player's ability to use that standard function is against my design philosophy.

What you call "standard", I call "metagaming". It's true that a player can work around many aspects using the save facility, but I believe that is akin to allowing a player to take back their move in chess after taking their fingers off the piece. Yes, one *could* allow the piece to be taken back, but it's "against the rules", which have been added for a reason. Some people see rules as "intrusive to their play", while others (myself included) find rules to be an exciting playing field to enjoy the game "as it was meant to be played". Yes, I can see what you mean about "playing the game the way you want to play it", BUT it robs the player of the experience that the game was designed to do. I suppose it's a matter of "horses for courses". Some will want to "bend/break the rules" in their playing (perhaps yourself included), whereas, I like to play a game within the rules laid down by the game itself.

Where we differ is that I allow that freedom to the player -- to ignore the rules of RP and alignment, and thereby cheat, if they so desire.  I don't need to punish them for it.  If they don't care (because they have different reasons for playing) then my punishment would be an unwelcome intrusion.  If they do care, they'll play according to their alignment, in which case there is nothing to punish.  I want players to play my module in the way they want to play it.  Not the way I think they should play it.

See above.

Fallout 3's method was irritating to me.  Just by passing by objects, if my mouse happened to cross over an owned object, not even clicking on it, this would trigger NPCs to warn/threaten me as if I were planning to rob them.  Yet again, a game makes false assumptions about my intent.  I installed a mod to disable those warnings.

There was another game (not sure which it was, but possibly Daggerfall) which did it better.  If you click to open certain owned containers, a box would pop up saying something like, "This looks like it belongs to someone.  Open it anyway?"  Presumably there were consequences if you did.

I don't mind the Fallout system. However, my own system works more like the way you mention next. Furthermore, I explain this even before the game begins.

I do allow it, and I do include some consequences, both positive and negative, but I do it without shifting alignments.

I do understand where you are coming from with respect to NO alignment changes. Personally, however, (and in my experience with players) I think there does need to be a governing concept in place that rewards good roleplay of alignment. Otherwise, it leaves a game open to "anything goes", which I feel can "weaken" a gaming experience. However, and as I said before, I also recognise how difficult this can be to (a) Include in a module and ( the extra time it takes. Furthermore, I agree with you that it is NOT a major aspect of a game, if you believe a player will honour their PC alignment. However, I believe a more memorable experience can be had of a game when a player has had to cope with something that can alter their overall comfort zone by letting the player know that their actions do matter!

What exactly did I say, that you interpret as me mistaking an "action" with "role-play"?  In the section you quoted, I'm illustrating the choices of a character as if s/he were a real person.  A well-written or well-played character must not arbitrarily go against his/her fundamental nature as represented by his/her alignment, without a major event that persuades or pressures him/her to do so.  I'm saying that my approach is to leave it to the player to voluntarily choose the actions that the character would take if the character actually existed and had a particular alignment.  That is roleplay.

When you said, " I would not make it possible for a lawful character to attack innocents randomly and get alignment shifts that way."  and when you say now, "A well-written or well-played character must not arbitrarily go against his/her fundamental nature as represented by his/her alignment, without a major event that persuades or pressures him/her to do so."  This sounds like a reversal of an apporach to the way I am talking about. For instance, it sounds like you are saying that if a player chooses a "good" alignment for their PC, you would not allow them "evil" options .... or from how it comes across from your other paragraphs that a "good" aligned PC's actions would not be considered "evil", even if they are roleplaying "theft" (for example), simply because they said they were "good". Therefore, it came across that you are not counting player's "actions" as part of their "roleplay" as determined by their chosen alignment. 

EXAMPLE: I play a good cleric, but am tempted to steal a rod of resurrection from a local. You would say that if a player decided to allow their "good" cleric to "steal" the rod for whatever reason, that they can do so for their own "justifiable" reasons. Alternatively, it sounds like you may "not allow" this action in the first place because the player has chosen a "good" alignment and therefore would not have the option. Whichever method you use, there is either no consequence, or no choice in the first place. (NB: I am not complaining about your approach by the way, but just trying to show the benefits of an alignment shift system.)

In my own design, I may determine that stealing the rod is fundamentally "evil" and will force an alignment shift. However, the PC may use that rod to do some greater good, which may shift it back in the other direction. The number and degree of the shift could alter play. Importantly, however, the whole aspect of alignment shift is a rather strange one if looked at closely, and it is this relationship between actions and conseqeunces and what a player can and cannot do that I am trying to address as an important plot device. (That is a much as I can say about it at the moment, but I hope it demonstrates what I am trying to say. The bottom line being, alignment roleplay is difficult to employ, but can be very rewarding if used carefully. And that I would rather people NOT use it as a system - which would be more accurate in some ways - unless they have given it a *lot* of thought.) i.e. I am quite happy to see you ignore it, if the only intention was to "dictate" player's actions. That is NOT my goal, but I cannot explain any more without giving a major part of my plot away.

Also, I'm sure you know that in D&D alignment terms, stealing is not considered evil in most cases; it's chaotic.

Well .... I would beg to differ with this particular aspect of the D&D rules  ... and is why I am happy that people do not use alignment systems.

I'll probably play it.  I've heard that you've drawn some inspiration from the System Shock games.  Although I disagree with your design choice regarding cross-save persistent effects, I'll nonetheless see what the rest is like.

It would be good to have another player.  I confess that my own areas (the ones I have designed) are nowehere near as gorgeous as your own, and I have been most impressed with a lot of your custom content. My own module uses different type of custom content in the way of scripts and GUIs, which I hope will make up for my own inadequate areas. That said, some of the areas of module 1, and many of those in modules 2 and 3 have been designed by other people, which goes a long way to improve the look.

Yes, I do really like the System Shock games, and my only released NWN1 module, Soul Shaker was a homage to System Shock 2. It is a very different kind of D&D module indeed!

The cross save persistent effects are not that bad really. Yes, I am a hard task master of a DM who does not like rerolls of the dice, but hopefully tha might offer a challenge rather than a act as a frustration ... but hopefully, beta-testers will help me with that. And I may or may not alter things from there.

Regards,
Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 17 décembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[Tchos]

First, a progress report:

All town locations are done. I debated ending it here, cutting a bit short what I had planned, but I think it really needs the followup for the module to fully come together, so there are two more locations outside of town that I need to complete. One is in progress, and should go pretty quickly, since it's very much like one of the other ones.

Currently I'm filling out some quest dialogue that earlier had existed only as placeholders. The quest is already in place, so it's just a matter of adding appropriate nodes.

Now, an answer to Lance:

Lance Botelle wrote...
What you call "standard", I call "metagaming". it robs the player of the experience that the game was designed to do. Some will want to "bend/break the rules" in their playing (perhaps yourself included), whereas, I like to play a game within the rules laid down by the game itself.

But what if they don't want the particular experience I'm providing? What if they would enjoy my module better if they tweaked the rules I established? Should I say "You will play my module only the way I say you should, and if you don't like it, play something else"? On the contrary, I encourage players to modify their play copy of my module to suit their own tastes.

I'm afraid I simply see restricting the ability to save and restore games to be going too far in changing the game's rules -- and I myself do change some of the game's rules to make it more P&P-like, so I sympathise with your position to an extent. In this particular case, it would not even affect me, because I'm the kind of player who prefers to drag my dead back to a temple and pay a priest to bring them back to life, rather than see them pop up automatically and cost-free at the end of a fight.

Lance Botelle wrote...
Personally, however, (and in my experience with players) I think there does need to be a governing concept in place that rewards good roleplay of alignment.

I agree with this sentence. Rewards for good behaviour. Positive incentives. Not punishment for bad behaviour. The carrot, not the stick.

Lance Botelle wrote...
Otherwise, it leaves a game open to "anything goes", which I feel can "weaken" a gaming experience. However, I believe a more memorable experience can be had of a game when a player has had to cope with something that can alter their overall comfort zone by letting the player know that their actions do matter!

I agree here, too. "Anything goes" is a weaker gaming experience, and less memorable -- at least to my mind. But I give the players that choice, because they may be playing for reasons different from my own.

Lance Botelle wrote...
it came across that you are not counting player's "actions" as part of their "roleplay" as determined by their chosen alignment. e.g. I play a good cleric, but am tempted to steal a rod of resurrection from a local. You would say that if a player decided to allow their "good" cleric to "steal" the rod for whatever reason, that they can do so for their own "justifiable" reasons. Alternatively, it sounds like you may "not allow" this action in the first place because the player has chosen a "good" alignment and therefore would not have the option.

I handle it both ways between dialogue and actions. In dialogue, as I detailed in an earlier journal entry that you might not have read yet, a character's alignment is one of the factors that determines what dialogue choices are available for them. A good character will not have the option of threatening violence upon an innocent in dialogue, while an evil character might (if they also have a certain level of Intimidate skill). Just as a character with a Spellcraft skill below a certain level would not have the option to manipulate a magical barrier. So in that regard, I do not allow playing outside of a character's alignment.

However, a player can switch to a different party member, and get different choice options, and the other party members will not complain. I like the idea of a system in which choices made in dialogue that are opposed to a character's alignment can cause them to ultimately leave the party, but I don't implement such a system.

Outside of dialogue, I simply trust the players to play according to their alignment. It may be that in your cleric example, the player may or may not have justification (granting for illustrative purposes that stealing is evil in this case instead of chaotic), though that would depend on the particular god of that cleric. A cleric of Mask, for example, should freely be able to steal the rod with no justification and no alignment effects, though of course the owner of the rod and the local authorities should take action against that cleric. But you're probably talking about a cleric of a Lawful Good god. That cleric should not steal the rod.

The very fact that I'm using the SoZ party system means that the first PC is not necessarily the one taking actions, and so alignment shifts should not be global anyway. Here, the obvious answer is "have the rogue steal it, and don't tell the cleric." It would be entirely within proper RP (worthy of P&P, in fact) for the player to have the party go to the inn for the night, and then have the rogue temporarily leave the party to sneak out and steal it, returning and rejoining the party without their knowledge. In my P&P sessions, players often go consult with the DM in private for actions that they may be taking outside of party knowledge.

Lance Botelle wrote...
I confess that my own areas (the ones I have designed) are nowehere near as gorgeous as your own, and I have been most impressed with a lot of your custom content. My own module uses different type of custom content in the way of scripts and GUIs, which I hope will make up for my own inadequate areas.

I've seen some of your custom GUIs, and they are high quality all around, and I think they can add a lot to the experience.

[Lance Botelle]

Tchos wrote...But what if they don't want the particular experience I'm providing? What if they would enjoy my module better if they tweaked the rules I established? Should I say "You will play my module only the way I say you should, and if you don't like it, play something else"? On the contrary, I encourage players to modify their play copy of my module to suit their own tastes.

Hi Tchos,

Yes, my answer would be "play the game the way it was designed" or don't play it at all. BUT, that is NOT meant to sound harsh, but is setting boundaries in which the game was designed to be played. NOTE carefully here, I am quite happy for a sensible player to alter aspects that do not interfere with actual "play decisions" made, unless it was terminal. e.g. If the party died, then a reload of an earlier saved game is essential! That is common sense. As an aside, there is the problem of changes actually breaking a game design! The problem is, when there is no DM at the helm who can qualify any "changes" made, then the game should NOT be changed without certainty that it is not breaking it. Also, I am not talking about game "options" either. Again, game "options" are a good thing and allow a player to tweak a game to their preferred tastes. However, I believe there is a line between "tweaking" and "metagaming", and my designs are only in place to help prevent the temptation of the latter and aid towards a more immersive experience.

I'm afraid I simply see restricting the ability to save and restore games to be going too far in changing the game's rules -- and I myself do change some of the game's rules to make it more P&P-like, so I sympathise with your position to an extent. In this particular case, it would not even affect me, because I'm the kind of player who prefers to drag my dead back to a temple and pay a priest to bring them back to life, rather than see them pop up automatically and cost-free at the end of a fight.

IMPORTANT: You "can" save and restore games in my NWN2 module.  I have never said you cannot do this in my module, and I believe you may be thinking of my NWN1 module, where "saving and loading" inside a current session could actually spoil the experience for the player! The warning about saving and reloading is given to prevent the player from shooting themselves in the foot! If you ever have the chance to play Soul Shaker, you will see what I mean. Soul Shaker requires the player NOT to reload an earlier game by design!

Again, the problem one has with "metagaming" is that it does not take into account the design of the builder! As another example of "metagaming", some players may use a "quick travel facility" (provided by a fellow gamer) to allow their PCs to travel about a module more quickly. However, this may mean the player could miss an important trigger, and break the game. However, the "save and reload" restrictions in Soul shaker were for very important game play reasons, and are not to be confused with my general design ethos. I am now talking about coding for more general "metagaming", like if a player pays 100gp for a password, and then reloads the game just prior to that action so as not to pay the gold for that information. The moment a player starts doing that sort of thing, it can start messing with the balance of the game (economy, experience, etc) and spoil the rest of the game due to the imbalance. Again, the bottom line is, a game is designed to be played a certain way, and "metagaming" (in its truest sense) can very easily imbalance the game to the point of breaking it. I am sure you would even do the same, even if it is as simple as associating a "DONE" variable check with the learning of a password and payment made ... wouldn't you? My cursed items are just a variation of that kind of thing.

Rewards for good behaviour. Positive incentives. Not punishment for bad behaviour. The carrot, not the stick.

I believe there is room for the "stick" in any "loving" relationship, even between builder and player. After all, "Spare the rod and you spoil the child."

I agree here, too. "Anything goes" is a weaker gaming experience, and less memorable -- at least to my mind. But I give the players that choice, because they may be playing for reasons different from my own.

I think having "options" is an answer to different playing styles. However, I can never condone "metagaming", and will always code to prevent that if possible. The coding of such may appear to be a "stick" to those who like to reload "mistakes" in their decisions, but that's what makes a game different, and hopefully, memorable ... and for the right reasons. e.g. The hope is a player will think more like this: "You know what, this game forces me to live with the cursed item until I get the remove curse spell. I cannot even reload the last saved place to get rid of it. That's cool!" Rather than this response, "Oh no, I just picked up a cursed item! Never mind, reload! What! I still have the damned thing! This game sucks! Uninstall."

With this code in place, it will help player recognise the kind of challenge they are up against. And hopefully come as a nice surprise that the module really is a challenge rather than a run of the mill experience! Lastly, if the attitude of the player is the latter response, then the player will have installed the wrong type of game for them! My ethos is that a game should be challenging and to help the player to avoid metagaming, so that they "win" the game by their own ingame decisions, which have been made throughout the game ... and not by decisions made outside the game!

I handle it both ways between dialogue and actions. In dialogue, as I detailed in an earlier journal entry that you might not have read yet, a character's alignment is one of the factors that determines what dialogue choices are available for them. A good character will not have the option of threatening violence upon an innocent in dialogue, while an evil character might (if they also have a certain level of Intimidate skill). Just as a character with a Spellcraft skill below a certain level would not have the option to manipulate a magical barrier. So in that regard, I do not allow playing outside of a character's alignment.

Yes, I understand this arrangement, and use similar circumstances at times, subject to what the game requires at the time.

However, a player can switch to a different party member, and get different choice options, and the other party members will not complain. I like the idea of a system in which choices made in dialogue that are opposed to a character's alignment can cause them to ultimately leave the party, but I don't implement such a system.

Yes, I understand your situation here. My own module handles alignment of a party differently, in that the party of PCs must be of the same good/evil axis alignment when the game starts proper. This is getting more into the plot of my module though, and so I won't say much more, except that such an arrangement avoids the problems you may have EXCEPT when the player makes one of their PCs do something that is against the party alignment. Another PC (or nearby NPC) gives a warning that the action may be considered undesireable. And certain party members that rely in the specific alignment will complain, and possibly even leave!

Outside of dialogue, I simply trust the players to play according to their alignment. It may be that in your cleric example, the player may or may not have justification (granting for illustrative purposes that stealing is evil in this case instead of chaotic), though that would depend on the particular god of that cleric. A cleric of Mask, for example, should freely be able to steal the rod with no justification and no alignment effects, though of course the owner of the rod and the local authorities should take action against that cleric. But you're probably talking about a cleric of a Lawful Good god. That cleric should not steal the rod.

My own alignment system works on a definitive system. In that whatever action takes place (that affects alignment) will make an alignment shift in said direction for any PC. It's just that "good" PCs will obviously prefer "good" alignment shifts, whereas, "evil" aligned PCs have no fear of "evil" alignment shifts ... and are very unlikely to make many "good" alignment shifts of course.

The very fact that I'm using the SoZ party system means that the first PC is not necessarily the one taking actions, and so alignment shifts should not be global anyway. Here, the obvious answer is "have the rogue steal it, and don't tell the cleric." It would be entirely within proper RP (worthy of P&P, in fact) for the player to have the party go to the inn for the night, and then have the rogue temporarily leave the party to sneak out and steal it, returning and rejoining the party without their knowledge. In my P&P sessions, players often go consult with the DM in private for actions that they may be taking outside of party knowledge.

Ah right, this explains a lot in our differences of approach. As I explained above, I do see alignment shifts based for the party by association. i.e. A good cleric would soon get wind of an evil thief and eventually have nothing to do with them unless they changed their ways. Therefore, no such alliances would stay within a party and such relationships would break down and disband. In my own D&D days, when some players did try to play an "evil" rogue within an otherwise "good" party, the gaming became strained as the "good" player's rightly started to distrust the motives of the "evil" PC player. In the end, they made the player play a different aligned PC because his PC's actions were in contrast to the party ethos! The only way an "evil" PC can stay within a "good" party is one that is designed as a "companion", and which the DM can take over the motives of at any time. True party members (what I call cohorts) are those PCs that the player builds themselves and know they will be of the same mind when it comes to alignment decisions.

I've seen some of your custom GUIs, and they are high quality all around, and I think they can add a lot to the experience.

Thanks! I just hope my area designs (not other people's) don't put  people off before they can experience them.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 18 décembre 2012 - 01:32 .

[Tchos]

Lance:

Your password example is a different matter entirely, if I were to implement it in the usual way -- present the password as a choice in dialogue only when the character has obtained it through the game mechanics.  I don't have to make any special cross-save persistent code if I want someone to pay for a password.  If I implement it the usual way, and players attempt to metagame by paying for a password and then reloading a previous save, they've accomplished nothing, because the game will not know that they've obtained the password.  The earlier save has no record of it having been obtained, and thus the option to speak the password would not be available to them.  But no reasonable player would expect that to work anyway!  It's simply not the same thing as making cursed items follow players to earlier saves, or even entirely new games.

As usual, we must agree to disagree.  I do understand your reasoning and purpose behind your persistent curses, and it continues to be against my design philosophy.  No amount of explanation will change that, because I understand your position, but disagree with it.  It's not the way I will run things.  As a player, I personally will gladly accept the necessity of going through a procedure to remove a cursed item, but as a creator, I will not force such a thing on players of my work.

[Lance Botelle]

Hi Tchos,

Understood.  

Lance.

[Arkalezth]

I have not read everything, so maybe something like this has been mentioned already, but regarding cursed items, a middle approach could be making curses permanent (until removed), as Lance did, but offering the player a chance to know about the curse before equipping the item (a Lore roll, or some sort of 'Detect Curse' spell, or whatever).

Just a thought; not suggesting anyone to change his system.

[Lance Botelle]

Arkalezth wrote...

I have not read everything, so maybe something like this has been mentioned already, but regarding cursed items, a middle approach could be making curses permanent (until removed), as Lance did, but offering the player a chance to know about the curse before equipping the item (a Lore roll, or some sort of 'Detect Curse' spell, or whatever).

Just a thought; not suggesting anyone to change his system.

Hi Arkalezth,

I like both of your ideas .. and maybe there is room for them still (subject to time and need). However, see below, which currently offers a "free" way to be warned about such.

At the moment, I have made it so the "environment" should inform the player the type of risks they may be exposed to. I have even made the objects that may relate to a cursed object being found give a big clue to their alignment association within the "EXAMINE" text of the object in question.

Without giving any of the "cursed" object away, the main thing that would catch a player out is if they are rather gung-ho with their mouse clicking. i.e. Not be very cautious. For once they "acquire" the cursed item, then they are stuck with it, until they get the curse removed.

I hope that helps explain a little.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 19 décembre 2012 - 01:24 .

[Dann-J]

Lance Botelle wrote...

Ah right, this explains a lot in our differences of approach. As I explained above, I do see alignment shifts based for the party by association. i.e. A good cleric would soon get wind of an evil thief and eventually have nothing to do with them unless they changed their ways. Therefore, no such alliances would stay within a party and such relationships would break down and disband. In my own D&D days, when some players did try to play an "evil" rogue within an otherwise "good" party, the gaming became strained as the "good" player's rightly started to distrust the motives of the "evil" PC player. In the end, they made the player play a different aligned PC because his PC's actions were in contrast to the party ethos! The only way an "evil" PC can stay within a "good" party is one that is designed as a "companion", and which the DM can take over the motives of at any time. True party members (what I call cohorts) are those PCs that the player builds themselves and know they will be of the same mind when it comes to alignment decisions.

I agree with this approach to an extent. In a module I'm working on now there will be a variety of potential companions, of whom the player can take three of at any one time. However some companions will refuse to join the party if others of incompatible class or alignment are in the group. The druid doesn't like the hunter, the lawful monk won't work with the rogue, etc. I allow the player the freedom to choose who they want in the party (an evil PC could have all good companions, for instance), but I give the companions the right to refuse to work with certain other companions.

[Tchos]

I agree with that approach, too. It's a bit like the companions in the Baldur's Gate games. I wouldn't mind having that kind of system in place for the companions in mine, as well, but I don't plan to do it in this one. I feel free to give the joinable companions personalities of their own, though the player is free to mix and match those companions combined with any player-made cohorts as well.

[Tchos]

Writing the dialogue for the mayor is taking longer than expected, but it's because he's involved in every stage of the main quest, and there are variations in the resolutions of those stages. The mayor also ends the module, so I'm dealing with the code for offering character exports that include whatever player-made party members the player may be using.

Also, this being the main quest, I think the amount and the timbre of the dialogue needs to reflect its importance. As usual, I've been writing it all in an external text editor, which I find much easier than writing it either in the toolset dialogue editor or in Flamewind's standalone editor. I include notes to myself in braces to remind myself what conditions to check for or what scripts to run on individual nodes, as well, and I leave those hidden notes in the dialogue for later reference.

And so, of course, the dialogue is lengthy and verbose, much like my posts here.

Elsewhere, a simpler solution came to me for the earlier problem with the swimming animation code not taking into account the NPC Elf appearance. Instead of adding special code for that particular NPC, it occurred to me to simply add that elf head to the normal playable elf appearance.

I'm still getting ideas for new placeables, but having to put them on hold until this is released.

[PJ156]

I like to use excel for my text editor as you can also impose the structure on the spreadsheet with red and blue coloured columns offset by one at each live.

I find that helps to visualise the conversation but is a pain to transfer into the toolset.

I am impressed if you are doing the mayor in one lump, your note keeping must be up to scratch, but then I think you said you keep a log of integers so you are being pretty rigorous.

I tend to build the big conversations as I go along as I am quite poor at taking notes that will alllow me to get it right later on.

PJ.

[Tchos]

I might try Excel for that purpose (or rather OpenOffice Calc, which is what I use). But one advantage of using the text editor is that I have a panel that allows me to add any of the tokens or formatting in the NWN markup to the text that I write in it. There might be a means of adding that functionality to OO Calc, too, but I'm not sure.

The structure of the mayor's dialogue was already done. You were able to go through the complete module with each stage being reflected in his dialogue before now. It's just that it was a skeletal framework with placeholder text until now.

But yes, I do keep external lists of important things like variables and tags of all waypoints for easy reference. I've written a lot of scripts entirely outside of the toolset this way, and sometimes they even compile without error when I paste them in!