448 réponses à ce sujet

[Tchos]

As yet, I can only think of two quests I've made that were complex in that they could be approached from different angles and under different circumstances.  For example, a quest that would begin one way if you had already discovered a certain object, and another way if you hadn't.  Or one where events could proceed if any of 3 or 4 conditions were accomplished in various orders, with not all being required and some being mutually exclusive.  It seems to me that with each such addition, you're adding 1 to the exponent, making a linear quest quadratic, or a quadratic quest cubic, etc., in terms of complexity.

 

In my first attempt, I used a rather messy process of checking states and variables of various objects and their properties (or their existence), but after that I just created journal entries for every possible combination of events, and had everything check the journal.  It made for much less to keep track of.

[Lance Botelle]

As yet, I can only think of two quests I've made that were complex in that they could be approached from different angles and under different circumstances.  For example, a quest that would begin one way if you had already discovered a certain object, and another way if you hadn't.  Or one where events could proceed if any of 3 or 4 conditions were accomplished in various orders, with not all being required and some being mutually exclusive.  It seems to me that with each such addition, you're adding 1 to the exponent, making a linear quest quadratic, or a quadratic quest cubic, etc., in terms of complexity.
 
In my first attempt, I used a rather messy process of checking states and variables of various objects and their properties (or their existence), but after that I just created journal entries for every possible combination of events, and had everything check the journal.  It made for much less to keep track of.

Hi Tchos,

Yes, this sounds like the kind of issues I am currently going up against. Mind you, doesn't adding journal entries add to the complexity as another variable to keep track of?

Lance.

[Tchos]

It's about the same amount of complexity, but it keeps all of the relevant variables in one place, easy to refer to.

[PJ156]

I used journals as well. I tried state variables but ended up using a spreadsheet to track them. Journal entries are effectively doing that job for you.

 

Dungeons I have a great issue with and always have since my P&P days. I find their existence very hard to justify when considering the rolling 16 x 16 mapped areas I have encountered in some modules. Mine tend to be very small and focused on function and the place they have in the story. That makes it easier to manage how the players use and interact with them.  

 

I have never yet considered a subplot within a dungeon, is that what you are referring to? I guess I lack the imagination to insert such things into my game

 

PJ

[Lance Botelle]

I used journals as well. I tried state variables but ended up using a spreadsheet to track them. Journal entries are effectively doing that job for you.
 
Dungeons I have a great issue with and always have since my P&P days. I find their existence very hard to justify when considering the rolling 16 x 16 mapped areas I have encountered in some modules. Mine tend to be very small and focused on function and the place they have in the story. That makes it easier to manage how the players use and interact with them.  
 
I have never yet considered a subplot within a dungeon, is that what you are referring to? I guess I lack the imagination to insert such things into my game
 
PJ

Hi PJ,

Yes, this dungeon has sub-plots involved (kind of) ... or more to the point, the dungeon has its own reasons to exist (with appropriate content) above and beyond the PCs reasons for going there. Hence, they get involved with the dungeon in more ways than one ... or at least can do depending upon the initial approach.

JOURNAL ENTRIES ... I do use these as well ... perhaps it's the way I have used them that adds a level of complication ... mine also tie in with a date system ... and I have tried to make some entries dynamic, so there is quite a bit more to consider at times and is probably why I weigh up the pros and cons of including them as well. Don't worry though, they are used quite extensively throughout already ... it's just a matter of whether to tie variables around them as well in my situation.

Cheers,
Lance.

[andysks]

Hi Lance. I try to have plenty of side quests which can complete in many ways. But usually they come around at the same time. Examples follow.

 

An NPC says get me that sword from this crypt.

On our way to the crypt, which got unlocked when the quest got accepter, we meet another NPC.

This one was guarding the crypt so that NPC1 would not get his hands on the sword since he actually manipulated the PCs in getting it. He is evil, as is the sword.

 

Then the PC can continue on his initial quest, killing the guard to get through, agree that the NPC1 should not get the sword and go back to confront him, or say screw you both I'm going in and keeping everything I find.

 

The situation above, I thought off just now. But is an example of how I approach things. Many outcomes, but you'll meet the options on your way.

 

Also, as Tchos said on his first example. This allows for a surprise if a player plays the mod more than one times. He wants to do the same quest, but gets a different approach because he did something different earlier.

 

The journal entries, is true that they are our friends. They act as a variable after all, why should we set more?

 

Another method I like, but this is because my campaign has an open world feeling to it, is to introduce the facts at any point and let the player figure it out. I like to think that the players are smart enough to do this, or at least think it without too much help.

 

Example: You find an NPC sitting in a tavern, who is called Jon the Card Player. You talk to him, assuming you might play some cards with him. He says he lost his deck... so it's impossible. On a different area quite far away, you find a deck which by the description you should assume it's his, but also with cheat cards. Bring it back and play and confront him, or not. Is up to you. He will offer alternatives etc, but the point is this. There's no knowing which one the player will find first. The NPC, or the deck. I choose to leave it on luck, since the variables on the convo will check anyway if the convo happened already, or if it's the first time and so on.

 

All in all, I am a fan of not making the players moves completely guided. My prologue is linear, but after that you can go anywhere you want, in any order you feel like, which brings me to the dungeon.

 

If I had a dungeon, as you, which would require a specific item to be completed (Say a sword which should be shoved in a wall in order to open a further way, or a riddle door which would open only for people with very high lore... I don't know, anything like that), I would offer the dungeon no matter what. If the sword is not yet acquired, then the player has to think that "maybe I come here later...". Then when they find the sword, give it a description which makes it clear that this is the one for that dungeon. Then the player thinks "Oh, now we can go back there". If they find the sword first, and it's too early (balance wise) to go to the dungeon, let them die and come back once stronger. If they go too late, let them have an easy time.

 

I finished BG2 again recently, and had a very tough time in the sewers because I went too early. But made the Ummar Hills quest quite late, therefore I had no trouble.

 

tl;dr I like to leave some stuff to luck, and not try to control every move of the player. Let them die once or twice because they chose something too difficult. And let them think the logic on their own. Next time they play, they'll know better where to go.

 

 

Edit: something about your tile problem. I would leave it as it is. The player will go there once or twice, and it won't make so much difference I think that the companion goes too close. Not so much at least that it's worth delaying your project over it.

[Lance Botelle]

Hi andysks,

Thanks for that informative post .... I can see you do manage things in a similar fashion .... one thing that stood out to me and which I will try to make more use of in future is the "unlocking" of an area *after* the PCs learn about it. At the moment, I have tried to make most areas reasonably accessible subject to skills ... or I have "unlocked" placeable/items when learned about. Hopefully, my second module may give more scope for "area" unlocks.

TILE PROBLEM: Thankfully, rjshae pointed me in the direction of the files I needed to fix the problem. However, I have also made a "feature" of this, which you may recognise if and when you have the opportunity to play my mod.

Thanks,
Lance.

[Dann-J]

One of the many things I liked about The Witcher was how decisions made early on in the game could have a huge impact on what happens later. Each time you played the game and made different choices, the story would evolve organically into something quite different. Most of the decisions came in pairs though, so you could experience most of the options with just two play-throughs (provided you remembered all your decisions the first time around, and deliberately chose the other options the second time). I never did manage to play it while remaining neutral and not choosing a side though (one of the rare three-way decisions).

 

I suppose simple 'this or that' decisions make it easier on the developers. If you get more than two options for any one decision, the number of possible combinations of all the choices combined increases dramatically. It's much easier to keep track of simple true/false variables.

[Lance Botelle]

Hi Dann-J,

I actually find the either/or quests quite hard to do actually ... I don't know why that should be the case, except that I do. Perhaps it's due to alignment shifts and/or supposed alliances based on such decisions ... and I perceive such to require two very "strong paths" to cater for such differences (like The Witcher sounds like it offers) compared to "paths" my own mod offers.

That said, a player can sometimes approach a task from a different perspective/alignment choice in my mod, but ultimately, to keep the plot "sane" I don't veer too far off the main plot line.

Cheers,
Lance.

[Dann-J]

One way to simplify things is to only offer the impression of a choice to players. I'll often include multiple conversation options for good, neutral and evil responses, even though they'll frequently end up leading to the same node eventually (with perhaps intervening NPC responses to dovetail them together). There's often no practical difference between the options in the long run, but at least they make the player feel like they have some sort of input into the story, rather than being stuck on a rollercoaster as a passive observer.

 

In the module I'm currently working on there are often lots of ways to achieve something (combat, stealth, conversation skills, etc). The [Attack] node is usually the first option in a conversation, for hack-and-slash players who want minimal conversations. For players who prefer to think their way around problems rather than just bash everything they see, there will be a host of other conversation options available. For the indecisive player who agonises over every choice, there's sometimes an "I'll think about it" option that lets you return later.

 

I for one try to never let my central storyline dominate every aspect of the game I create. I treat the game as something for other people to play as they choose, rather than as a medium for me to force my own story onto others. In that respect I like to offer as many options as possible - even if it makes my job a lot harder.

[Lance Botelle]

One way to simplify things is to only offer the impression of a choice to players. I'll often include multiple conversation options for good, neutral and evil responses, even though they'll frequently end up leading to the same node eventually (with perhaps intervening NPC responses to dovetail them together). There's often no practical difference between the options in the long run, but at least they make the player feel like they have some sort of input into the story, rather than being stuck on a rollercoaster as a passive observer.

Hi Dann-J,

Yes, I think I do manage to do something along these lines ... or how I would put it, "all roads lead to Rome" kind of reasoning.

In the module I'm currently working on there are often lots of ways to achieve something (combat, stealth, conversation skills, etc). The [Attack] node is usually the first option in a conversation, for hack-and-slash players who want minimal conversations. For players who prefer to think their way around problems rather than just bash everything they see, there will be a host of other conversation options available. For the indecisive player who agonises over every choice, there's sometimes an "I'll think about it" option that lets you return later.<SNIP>

Actually, this is something I have done more of more recently. i.e. Give a jump straight to combat option. However, I don't like doing it too much, as it feels like I am not doing the game justice. I know some players like it that way, but I feel like I am sometimes jarring the "spirit of D&D" by doing so. I have noticed that doing so for "side quests" (or those parts of the quests that need less explanation) are easier for me to do so.

That said, I am looking at re-assessing approaches in module 2 (if the day ever comes) and so feedback from module 1 will help me to decide.

Many Thanks,
Lance.

[Tchos]

Give a jump straight to combat option. However, I don't like doing it too much, as it feels like I am not doing the game justice. I know some players like it that way, but I feel like I am sometimes jarring the "spirit of D&D" by doing so.

 

Not at all.  The spirit of D&D says you should be able to attack someone without having to engage in conversation with them first or announce it, as long as it's something your character would do.  The DM may ask "are you sure you want to do that?", or disallow it if it's against the character's alignment or relies on knowledge that the player has but the character has no reason to suspect, but if the DM complains that it would ruin his story, then that's what I'd call against the spirit of D&D.

[kamal_]

I am reminded of a certain talking sword from BG2, and it's definite preferences on the talk versus slice question.

[Lance Botelle]

Not at all.  The spirit of D&D says you should be able to attack someone without having to engage in conversation with them first or announce it, as long as it's something your character would do.  The DM may ask "are you sure you want to do that?", or disallow it if it's against the character's alignment or relies on knowledge that the player has but the character has no reason to suspect, but if the DM complains that it would ruin his story, then that's what I'd call against the spirit of D&D.

Hi Tchos,

I hear you, but I can only see too much usage of an "immediate attack" node sporting some kind of psychopath play ... not unheard of, just seems a little disappointing. Did you ever play PnP D&D with a player who just wanted to do that sort of thing? Most other players in the same group did not enjoy that kind of play and, personally, I did not really like DMing that sort either. May as well sit them in front of a FPS instead (if you see what I mean).

That said, I *DO* have conversations that allow that sort of thing, but it is reserved to situations where it would make more sense to do so. And, I even have the option for players to turn a "neutral" into a "hostile" (even before a conversation is started) if they suspect the NPC and the game warrants it. So, it's not that I am against such an option, but more that it should be restricted. Unless, of course, the dungeon is designed as a simple hack and slay exercise.

However, I suspect that is what you are referring to anyway, in which case, we agree.

Cheers,
Lance.

EDIT (JOKE):

NPC Barman: "Drink sir?"

PC: "Attack!" .... I didn't like the way he said that.

[Tchos]

I hear you, but I can only see too much usage of an "immediate attack" node sporting some kind of psychopath play ... not unheard of, just seems a little disappointing. Did you ever play PnP D&D with a player who just wanted to do that sort of thing? Most other players in the same group did not enjoy that kind of play and, personally, I did not really like DMing that sort either. May as well sit them in front of a FPS instead (if you see what I mean).

 

Well, I've played with many pen and paper groups, but none of them ever allowed chaotic evil character alignments, so that kind of action would not have been allowed.*  What I had in mind were examples where there are NPCs who are known to be evil or about to do something evil.  In cases like that, I like the PCs to be able to attack them peremptorily, without having to discuss it first, and other situations like that.

 

 

---

* Rephrased for clarity, due to misunderstanding, this means that:

1. Chaotic evil characters were not allowed (for reasons not stated here).
2. Therefore, rampant killing was not an issue in those games, because players attempting to kill rampantly would have been acting outside of their alignments, which is not allowed.

[Arkalezth]

Chaotic evil doesn't mean murdering everything you run into because it exists; that's chaotic stupid. Killing a commoner because you don't like his face is silly, but sometimes so is stopping to have a nice, long, philosophical chat with the bad guy you're trying to kill. At any rate, I don't see a reason not to include a direct attack option, providing that it makes sense and has a justification besides killing things for the sake of it.

[Tchos]

I wasn't suggesting that chaotic evil always means rampant killing.  However, rampant killing is a chaotic evil act.

[kevL]

However, rampant killing is a chaotic evil act.

unless yer boss tells ya it has to be done, for

... reasons.

[kamal_]

Chaotic evil doesn't mean murdering everything you run into because it exists; that's chaotic stupid. Killing a commoner because you don't like his face is silly, but sometimes so is stopping to have a nice, long, philosophical chat with the bad guy you're trying to kill. At any rate, I don't see a reason not to include a direct attack option, providing that it makes sense and has a justification besides killing things for the sake of it.

If you have an attack the evil guy immediately option, how are they going to go "muahahaha" and gloat and tell you all their plans in a monologue? Won't someone think of the bad guys!

[Lance Botelle]

Wasn't it defined as a Chaotic Neutral PC who attacked for "no reason"? ... I'll have to dig out my old PHB and check.

It's the "reason" behind the attack which matters I believe. (As KevL also implies.)

i.e. "Lawful" Evil kills for reasons, "Chaotic" Evil (or otherwise) would kill indiscriminately. Although, we could start to get into "alignment talk" here, and point out that actions tend to be "chaotic" or "lawful" (according to a "good" or "evil" "code", internally or externally guided).

NB: I use the word "code", but "law" may be better, although that may confuse the matter, because strictly speaking, a "chaotic" person does not have a "law" by definition.

Besides, maybe the NPC should be attacking the "mad" PC (without chatting) before *the PC* get too close ...

Cheers,
Lance.

[kamal_]

I wasn't suggesting that chaotic evil always means rampant killing.  However, rampant killing is a chaotic evil act.

Normally, but
Paladin superior: "The demonic evils of the Dungeon of Pure Evil must be cleansed."
Player paladin: "yes boss".

Its not always chaotic evil, because dnd creatures traditionally have inherent alignments. The paladin isnt going to be asking each critter that pops out of the portal from the Abyss in the Dungeon of Pure Evil whkle fighting the Minion of Badness to ensure it's not secretly good.

[Tchos]

unless yer boss tells ya it has to be done, for
... reasons.

 

But "rampant" means it's wild, unchecked, and out of control, not for any reasons.

[Lance Botelle]

But "rampant" means it's wild, unchecked, and out of control, not for any reasons.

This is where the alignment system "breaks down" to a degree, because I agree that "chaotic" means what you say, and works fine with a "neutral" addendum. However, the minute we add a good/evil bent, then we have given the "chaos" a governing factor, which, by definition, waters down the chaotic side due to a determining good/evil slant.

Lance.

EDIT: It's also one reason why I have PCs choose to be "good" or "evil" ... and only allow "neutral" options for specific creatures. i.e. A PC that has the "Attack Creature" option in a conversation would be doing with "reasoned" reasons. E.g. A paladin slaying a demon (without stopping to chat), or an evil assassin killing their target, because it's their job. Both acts involve killing, but one would be considered a "good" act and the other an "evil" act. I do not allow "neutral" reasons for killing from a conversation .... that's probably the best way I have my own defined.

[Tchos]

Why would Neutral on the second axis be more likely to kill someone than Evil?  Does this also apply to Lawful Neutral and True Neutral being more likely to kill someone than Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil?

[Arkalezth]

I wasn't suggesting that chaotic evil always means rampant killing.  However, rampant killing is a chaotic evil act.

 

I just don't see the point of prohibiting the entire alignment just because you could technically do that. Hell, you could even be lawful neutral/evil and go as rampant because you take your code to the extreme, etc.