50 replies to this topic

[Lance Botelle]

Hi Everybody,

This is just a minor consideration at this stage, but something upon which I would still appreciate some feedback.

As I play test my module (and play other RPGs), I find there are some things I like about a game that encourage me to play it in ways I might not do so in another. A certain example of this is when it comes to "crafting" or "enchanting". Quite a few RPGs have this game mechanic, but how many players actually use it ... and if they do or do not, what has encouraged them to use or discouraged them from using it?

I also want to consider "simple" aspects, such as "collecting" items that may be needed for crafting/enchanting. For example, at the moment, I have designed and incorporated "containers" (via game mechanics) to aid the player to easier collect and arrange certain items that may be required. However, because NWN is a party based game (both from a single player and even more so in a multi-player game), how would a player prefer items to be handled with respect to ease of use?

i.e. A player can have different PCs carry different "containers" to carry different "items". However, it may be that some of those items can be used by different PCs of the group. Unless the code has been written to check every PC of a party for said item during a crafting session, the item may or may not be used ... and, perhaps more importantly, was the player deliberately keeping the items separate (on different PCs) because the item was being reserved for another recipe?

E.g. Dragon Age used a "Shared Inventory" system (for the PCs) if I recall correctly, which meant the player could see all the ingredients available to the group. Many other RPGs use only a Main PC and so other PC checks are not required. (This is only one aspect of game mechanics design.)

 

EDIT: I am going to give the possibility of designing and incorporating an "Inventory System" similar to DA. (See post with DA image on the next page.)

OK ... The bottom line is, do people have any ideas or preferences as to how they would have their mechanics of a game work? Any mechanics, not just crafting as in the this example.

If you could redesign how certain parts worked in the game to make it easier to play, what would they be? And give an example of how you would have it work instead.

Thanks in advance,
Lance.

[Clangeddin86]

Well, I posted about this a few months ago, but the mana system to replace the Vancian Magic would be on top of my list.

The second would be to remove the AC mechanic and make armor reduce damage rather than avoid blows.

I'm aware this stuff comes from tabletop and they may have a  meaning there because of several factors (Whole sections having only a few fights, the DM stepping in to rebalance bad rolls, more interaction with the DM to open up different possibilities that can't be done in a videogame, the "throw the dice" casino factor ecc...) but in videogames they don't really translate that well, the dice roll is done entirely by the computer automatically for example, for me seeing a hit coming or not based on a RNG (and a bad one like NWN2) manipulation offers really nothing.

Because of Vancian Magic, NWN2 (but this applies pretty much to all videogames that used DnD ruleset) never managed to balance spellcasters properly. In OC they are overpowered (rest almost everywhere), in SoZ they suck (buffs stripped). They somehow got it right with MotB because of another mechanic (the soul gauge) that doesn't allow you to rest at every encounter, but it's not like you can implement something like that in every situation.
About AC, the irony is that this mechanic, when taken to the extremes, becomes almost a penalty for heavily armored classes because the factors that come from class, dexterity and other attribute related effects far outweight the maximum AC difference that there can be between a full plate and nothing (that is, 8 AC). Take Realm of Trinity, who has the highest AC there? Fully armored warriors? Nope, druids and monks. And they wear little to no armor. So why is it called ARMOR class again? -.-'

[Arkalezth]

My feedback: Don't make any changes.

 

Sure, I could rant for hours about the many little (and not so little) things I'd change, were I to redesign the game. Some PWs and mods add or alter many rules and mechanics in search for the perfect balance and such, and guess what? None of them has achieved it, and they all have their flaws, some of them introduced by the changes.

 

At this point, I prefer to accept and play the game as it is, rather than trying to fix an old problem and coming out with a new one. Not to mention that, as a player, I find it a pain in the ass to have to learn a whole new ruleset (often in addition to new lore) just so I can play this or that module/PW (which I might then quit for other reasons, and either repeat the process elsewhere, or go back to vanilla).

 

Moreover, what you may consider a good change will ultimately be a bad one for the person next to you. Just to put an example, the poster above me suggested armour giving DR. Without going into my personal opinion about it, a PW I used to play on used such a mechanic, and it didn't work that well, because the rest of the game wasn't built around it. Besides, some item-granted DR is bugged, so you'd have to fix that first... And that's just a little change; now go and try to "fix" the rest of the game. NWN2 is far from perfect, but it works as it is.

 

Things like crafting or resting are a different matter, and there are several viable systems. But I wouldn't bother with the core game mechanics.

[Tchos]

Because of Vancian Magic, NWN2 (but this applies pretty much to all videogames that used DnD ruleset) never managed to balance spellcasters properly. In OC they are overpowered (rest almost everywhere), in SoZ they suck (buffs stripped). They somehow got it right with MotB because of another mechanic (the soul gauge) that doesn't allow you to rest at every encounter, but it's not like you can implement something like that in every situation.

 

I think the wandering monster system such as that used in MotB, SoZ, and previously in the Infinity Engine games is a reasonable solution to this problem.  It makes it so that attempting to rest in a dangerous area comes at a variable risk of being attacked by an unknown number of additional foes, which could leave you worse off than if you hadn't tried to rest at all.  That makes it less of a temptation to rest after every encounter without consideration of the risk.  While a player can save and reload to avoid such an encounter if the encounter rate is less than 100% (which could also be done in the Infinity Engine games), the longer load times of NWN2 can discourage that action as well.

[Clangeddin86]

I think the wandering monster system such as that used in MotB, SoZ, and previously in the Infinity Engine games is a reasonable solution to this problem.  It makes it so that attempting to rest in a dangerous area comes at a variable risk of being attacked by an unknown number of additional foes, which could leave you worse off than if you hadn't tried to rest at all.  That makes it less of a temptation to rest after every encounter without consideration of the risk.  While a player can save and reload to avoid such an encounter if the encounter rate is less than 100% (which could also be done in the Infinity Engine games), the longer load times of NWN2 can discourage that action as well.

 

I don't really agree with this, the discouragement is very mild (a few seconds?) and nothing beats save scumming when it comes to RNG deciding life or death.

MotB prevents this because, save scumming or no, if you waste in-game time resting at every occasion your soul hunger will put your whole play in bad spot, but this is something that you can't apply everywhere. It's something very specific of that setting and you can't always force a race against time just to balance an inherently unbalanced spellcastin sysytem.

If SoZ didn't have the buff stripping in world-map (which ironically makes them incredibly tedious to play) they'd be as overpowered as in OC.

The old infinity engine games were all dominated by the typical kensei-spellcaster (or any similar variant that involved dual class or multiclassing) munchkin and nothing could compete against that, so I wouldn't take those as a good example of balance for what concerns spellcasting. Pure spellcasters were a joke in low level (level1 Wizard in Baldur's gate = LOL), hybrid spellcasters were gods at high level, that's almost the perfect definition of unbalanced.

[Tchos]

I don't really agree with this, the discouragement is very mild (a few seconds?) and nothing beats save scumming when it comes to RNG deciding life or death.

 

It was enough for me so that I behaved as I described.  I assume you did not, and you want some mechanics to force you to?

[ColorsFade]

My feedback: Don't make any changes.

 

 

Totally agree with this, for all the reasons Arkalezth listed. 

[ColorsFade]

I don't really agree with this, the discouragement is very mild (a few seconds?) and nothing beats save scumming when it comes to RNG deciding life or death.

MotB prevents this because, save scumming or no, if you waste in-game time resting at every occasion your soul hunger will put your whole play in bad spot, but this is something that you can't apply everywhere.

 

There is a balance that you can achieve if you're building your own campaign. 

 

I've taken to providing "safe rest rooms" in my dungeons. If you rest anywhere in the dungeon, the wandering monster system takes over and I tend to set the chance high enough that you'll be attacked. But in any dungeon there will be some "safe rooms". They are single tile rooms with a single door. When you walk into them, a floating text lets you know that you think it would be safe to rest in this room with the door closed. If your entire party is in the room and you close the door, all spawned monsters in the dungeon get set to script-hidden, and the wandering monster system gets turned off via the global flag. Open the door up and you're no longer safe as everything gets reversed. 

 

I think it balances it out a bit, IMO. You can rest "anywhere" if you want, but with risk. Or you can backtrack to a room you know is safe, and rest there. Or you can press on a little further in the hopes of finding another safe room to rest in. 

[Lance Botelle]

Hi Everybody ...

 

Hang on a second ... let me clarify this a bit ....

 

I do not mean to change any D&D rules (as such), but to make those that already exist easier to play.

 

That said, I am not adverse to having new mechanics that may also improve some gameplay aspects. However, I think such mechanics need to be added in such a way that it can be disabled if a person did not want to include it. Although, even this can be argued if they have an impact to the balance of the module/campaign.

 

So, as an example ... I changed the way the inventory screen worked to show information about an item without having to right click and open a new GUI to do so. i.e. The same mechanics is available, but in a new format for greater ease of information feedback and or usage.

 

That's the sort of thing I mean. Other mechanic changes I still think are good, but I leave those to the builder to determine for their own campaign.

 

Cheers,

Lance.

[rjshae]

How about a 'cache' chest that is used to store extra, non-cursed equipment? The chest would weigh nothing, but the contents would only be accessible following an uninterrupted rest. I.e. it auto-opens immediately after rest, then shuts after the party moves some distance or enters combat. (At other times you could make the chest openable for viewing purposes, but no contents can be removed.)

[Arkalezth]

How about a 'cache' chest...

I'm not sure I'm following. So, basically, a bag of holding that you can only use after resting? Why? I don't see the point, nor the logic behind it. Or am I misunderstanding?

Speaking of bags of holding, and for the sake of suggesting something, those can be a bit annoying to use. For example, taking an item out will move the scroll bar all the way up. Not too convenient if you want to take out several items. Maybe there's a better way to handle that.

[rjshae]

I'm not sure I'm following. So, basically, a bag of holding that you can only use after resting? Why? I don't see the point, nor the logic behind it. Or am I misunderstanding?

 

For low-magic campaigns without bags of holding? Just a way to clean up the cr*p in your inventory.

[ColorsFade]

I'm not sure I'm following. So, basically, a bag of holding that you can only use after resting? Why? I don't see the point, nor the logic behind it. Or am I misunderstanding?

 

It would make more sense if it was a pack pony.

[rjshae]

It would make more sense if it was a pack pony.

 

It is a pack pony; an abstraction of one. Like a hidden cache where you store burdensome goods and go back later to clear it out (instead of repeatedly traveling back and forth).

[Arkalezth]

And why not just use a normal bag of holding? Because that's cheating? If so, how's an "after-rest chest of holding" any different? It sounds like going through a lot of trouble to get the same result as something that's already there.

[kamal_]

If I'm being tasked with carrying or retrieving some small thing, for example a writing quill for a forgetful wizard, it shouldn't need to go into my inventory as an item at all. Journal entry : "You pick up the item and put it safely in your pack to bring back to Merlin the Forgetful". It streamlines things for the player since they don't have to worry about accidentally selling it, dropping it, or playing inventory tetris. It streamlines things for the builder since they don't have to make sure the player can't sell it/drop it etc.

[WrayeOfSunshine]

I think I'd like to see 'crafting stations' wiped out (just let me do it in my inventory!). Together with recipes, they make a hassle out of the whole process - and oddly, I think they make crafting seem less tangible, since the components themselves end up becoming barely involved in the gameplay. 

 

Equally, it forces a mechanic to intrude into the gameworld itself, without doing it very gracefully (so all of these towns just have free-use anvils and forges built and paid for by the local government?).

 

One nice alternative way of doing it, in part, could be introducing 'flint and firewood' as a purchasable, one-use inventory item with a hefty weight. Let players set up a campfire in the wilderness, then use that either to rest by or as a cauldron for brewing.

[ColorsFade]

And why not just use a normal bag of holding? Because that's cheating? If so, how's an "after-rest chest of holding" any different? It sounds like going through a lot of trouble to get the same result as something that's already there.

 

Yeah, I'm in agreement with that. I don't see any problem with a bag of holding. It's D&D after all. They're kind of a known commodity. 

 

To me, this is a big issue: there's a reason people play this game. They have an expectation of the rules, monsters, locations and campaigns that they're going to play. They know the spells, the weapons, how Armor Class works, rounds, turns, THACO, etc... Bags of Holding are a known item in this universe. Take advantage of that fact.

 

Take advantage of the fact that the player already has a HUGE wealth of game knowledge learned and available inside their brain. No user manual necessary. Roll with what's available. Instead of trying to re-invent the NWN2 engine, use the tools and lore available to make a great story. 

[ColorsFade]

If I'm being tasked with carrying or retrieving some small thing, for example a writing quill for a forgetful wizard, it shouldn't need to go into my inventory as an item at all. Journal entry : "You pick up the item and put it safely in your pack to bring back to Merlin the Forgetful". It streamlines things for the player since they don't have to worry about accidentally selling it, dropping it, or playing inventory tetris. It streamlines things for the builder since they don't have to make sure the player can't sell it/drop it etc.

 

That's a really good idea Kamal. I had not thought of the journal as a way of doing that, but that's a good way to handle it. 

[rjshae]

n/m

[kamal_]

That's a really good idea Kamal. I had not thought of the journal as a way of doing that, but that's a good way to handle it. 

I'd like to take credit, but it's something I'd seen in some other games and I thought it was a good idea. It trades the "realism" of getting and keeping the item in inventory for some streamlining of things. If an item has some small weight/size it makes a lot of sense.

 

If the item in question is really bulky or heavy enough then the question of how to get the x to it's destination become part of the quest itself, eg having to haul a case of lead weights around can have game mechanical consequences such as encumbrance. iirc there was a quest in one of the Elder Scrolls games where you had to retrieve a ring, which was easy enough, find it, put it in inventory, bring it back. Except the ring was underwater, and weighed 500 pounds...

 

From a builder perspective I don't have to check and account for for a player having acquired a gizmo but then not having the gizmo on them when they show up where the gizmo was needed. So I like it, makes my module building easier

[ColorsFade]

I remember that ring... 

 

So Kamal, when you're doing this sort of journal entry, do you have a physical item that you have to pick up that triggers the journal entry, and then you destroy the object, or do you just do the straight journal entry after some other kind of trigger? (opening a container, killing a bad guy, etc.)

[rjshae]

I had this notion once about modifying the player inventory screen to add additional equipable item slots by using the monster item slots (bite/claw/armor). The idea being that those could be used to provide slots for the other types of player equipment, per the full SRD list. For example: an eye lenses and goggles slot (bite), vest slot (armor), and a gloves slot (arms). It would likely take a lot of work to fully implement though.

[kamal_]

I remember that ring... 

 

So Kamal, when you're doing this sort of journal entry, do you have a physical item that you have to pick up that triggers the journal entry, and then you destroy the object, or do you just do the straight journal entry after some other kind of trigger? (opening a container, killing a bad guy, etc.)

So far I've done it via onDeath of the monster carrying the item (journal: "You killed the orc chief and took his amulet") and via conversation with placeable "searching the bookcase you find the map you are looking for..." . I don't see why you couldn't do it via the onAcquire script as long as you put in a short delay before self destructing to make sure anything you want to do on acquiring the item happens.

[AaronH]

I've never actually played through a Neverwinter nights campaign

But if it's anything like Dragon Age (which I believe it is, but a lot more detailed), gathering the resources can be a big pain, as it's reward isn't that noticeable.