37 réponses à ce sujet

[Lance Botelle]

Don't worry.  The things that I implement are things that I actually enjoy playing, not things that I just think sound good on paper.
 
"Dumbing down" is always subjective, because it amounts to someone removing a feature that the remover considered unnecessary and burdensome, and an individual player did not.  <SNIP>

Hi Tchos,

Again, I do hear you, but .... Rules and systems definitely both play and balance differently between PnP and CRPG. What can be "quickly" actioned and played smoothly in PnP with a DM at the helm can appear somewhat burdensome in a CRPG. That's the problem ... and point I am trying to make.

One has to look at a situation as a whole, and compare the steps taken from the original PnP to those in a CRPG. Take your own example of the lock picks and healing kits: One could argue that healing somebody requires some more specialised sterile equipment compared to manipulating a lock in some way. But, having specialised thieves tools will give benefits if they are available ... Both heal and thief kits can contain various items to aid in the process to one degree or better, which is why they vary in bonuses. And the kits may be considered expendable because they are made from perishable items, like ointments for heal kits and acids for thieves tools.

The way these items are considered to work has taken into account the minimal number of steps required to achieve what the PC needs within the game. BUT, each process only requires a SINGLE step in both cases. The point being, a large number of "imagined" situations can be incorporated within a rather straightforward system that uses a skill and modifiers from a single item TYPE.

Maybe this reversed logic argument will help illustrate my point (even if poorly): Why not make a rogue PC acquire each of the tools individually that make up the "kit" before they have a complete valid kit? Why not have the healing PC acquire all the ingredients they need to build a useful healing kit? We don't because we like to have some assumptions already ... and not allowing for these may frustrate some players .... or may even excite some players. BUT, here is the point: Acquiring a kit (heal or thief) and using it in a situation is NOT the point of the module.
 
Yes, I see how including such steps may add to the role-play and depth of a PC role (in much the same way seeking ingredients for certain spells may do), BUT I believe it is asking too much of a player who is already managing a full party of various classes, and who wants to move the story forward making good use of each classes skills, without the need to micro-manage certain class aspects.
 
Maybe, in a SP game, with a single dedicated class avatar, where the story *is* focussed around such development, such a process would be quite exciting. However, in a NWN2 module, most players control a party of PCs, and want to be able to use their class skills with a simplified system as possible, while not compromising the individuality of the character class. So, having a wizard that can cast spells (whereas their fighter cannot) is a sufficient enough distinction in a class already, without adding the further difficulty of making said spells harder to cast in some situations with the need of ingredients.
 
CAVEAT: As I stated in an earlier post, having a player seek ingredients for a one-off special spell casting situation is good design and fun, as it becomes part of the main goal for a player.
 
It's the extra level of requirement for "normal" spell situations that will frustrate in the majority of module scenarios.
 
Cheers,
Lance.

[Tchos]

One has to look at a situation as a whole, and compare the steps taken from the original PnP to those in a CRPG. Take your own example of the lock picks and healing kits: One could argue that healing somebody requires some more specialised sterile equipment compared to manipulating a lock in some way. But, having specialised thieves tools will give benefits if they are available ... Both heal and thief kits can contain various items to aid in the process to one degree or better, which is why they vary in bonuses. And the kits may be considered expendable because they are made from perishable items, like ointments for heal kits and acids for thieves tools.

 

Why not make a rogue PC acquire each of the tools individually that make up the "kit" before they have a complete valid kit? Why not have the healing PC acquire all the ingredients they need to build a useful healing kit? We don't because we like to have some assumptions already ... and not allowing for these may frustrate some players .... or may even excite some players. BUT, here is the point: Acquiring a kit (heal or thief) and using it in a situation is NOT the point of the module.

 

I think you'll be glad to know that I agree that the player should not have to acquire each individual piece of such a kit, and that such a thing should probably only be done when it serves the plot, or if they need to use them for certain major tasks, analogous with the small number of very powerful spells that require specific components for wizards.

 

This is why I mentioned the kits (the thieves' tools in particular) -- because they serve the same function as the wizard's component pouch, and they're all part of the 3.5 rules as written.  Just as a review:

• Thieves' tools: In P&P are required in order to pick locks and disarm traps without a penalty, and are not expended.  Not required in NWN2, only supply bonuses, and are expended if used.
• Healer's kits: In P&P are not required to heal HP, cure poison, or cure disease, only supply bonuses if you have them, and are not expended.  Required in NWN2 to do any of the above, and are expended.
• Spell component pouches: In P&P are required only to cast spells that have material components with no gold cost listed, and are not expended.  Only components with listed gold costs must be acquired separately.  Material components and costs for extremely powerful spells don't even exist in NWN2.

I wanted to explicitly describe the component pouch there because a large number of people I've seen protest them, both here and elsewhere, have been under the mistaken impression (as Sabranic's earlier mention of "hundreds of blueprints of components" would indicate) that the pouch is required for all spells, or that for the spells that have components all individual components must be accounted for, and not just the handful of them that have listed costs.

 

But just look at the inconsistency.  These three mechanics are basically the same, but they chose not to include one of them, and made the requirements of the other two backward from P&P!  If it's okay that at least one of them is required in NWN2 (even if it's wrongly), why not the others?  You suggest that these things are fine for P&P but are cumbersome for CRPG, but I would argue that when implemented correctly, a rules-accurate NWN2 version of these things would be less trouble or annoying than the P&P implementation may be to some players, not more.

[Lance Botelle]

But just look at the inconsistency.  These three mechanics are basically the same, but they chose not to include one of them, and made the requirements of the other two backward from P&P!  If it's okay that at least one of them is required in NWN2 (even if it's wrongly), why not the others?  You suggest that these things which are fine for P&P but are cumbersome for CRPG, but I would argue that when implemented correctly, a rules-accurate NWN2 version of these things would be less trouble or annoying than the P&P implementation may be to some players, not more.

Hi Tchos,

With respect to spell ingredients, let me give another example: Identify requiring a 100gp gem. If a party does not have the capability for one reason or another, then they can go to a store and have it identified for ... 100 gp.

OK, now I do accept that there are subtle differences where certain situations give benefits of one form of identify over the other, but those subtle differences do not add weight to the identify spell, and even serve to lessen the impact of the spell. i.e. All subtleties aside (including those of slightly differing costs that may be available), the ability to cast identify is somewhat minimised when an item can be identified another way ... which is necessary for gameplay.

However, if that spell did not require that 100gp gem, suddenly the ability of a spell caster to both firstly learn and then also cast the identify spell (at no extra cost) has become a great benefit to the party, and makes the wizard feel useful in another way.

As I say, I know there are benefits to being able to identify on the move (as it were), but I do not believe this is enough to necessarily encourage a player to have their wizard learn identify over another spell when another means of identifying an item is available elsewhere by any other class without taking up a spell slot.

Returning to the other kits, personally, I do not have any real concerns about the employment of either method (PnP or NWN), as each "works" for me. And, due to the few number of spells that require ingredients, and for reasons similar to my above example, the overall "need" to include an "ingredient pouch" as well as the need for a spell book, seems unnecessary for the subtle difference the absence of each means. OK, so now there are a handful of spells (about six?) that no longer need ingredients ... and none need the ingredient pouch. HOWEVER, as long as there is at least one means of disabling a spell caster (by removing their spell or prayer book), then that should suffice from a gaming perspective. The other minor differences I would deem too minor to be of much gaming interest.

And that is coming from somebody who originally started to program Ingredient Pouches, Divine Symbols and Ingredients!

Cheers,
Lance.

[Tchos]

I must respectfully disagree that the Identify spell would make the wizard more useful in NWN2 if it had no cost versus the shopkeeper method, largely because the NWN games added a non-P&P "lore" skill that tends to identify for free any level-appropriate magic items that you'd typically get at any given level.  And if it doesn't, and you don't have a bard with songs or inspirations boosting lore, chances are you've randomly picked up one of the lore potions that boosts it enough to identify as many higher-level items as you care to click on.

 

Additionally, you're supposed to be able to wear or use unidentified items and determine their identity that way as well, but they chose not to allow that.  Identify is a rather complicated situation.

 

I do agree that the pouch, and the cleric's holy symbols*, and other similar items are unnecessary.  All I'm saying is that I want them anyway.  So many things could be stripped away and simplified, like separate inventories to shared inventory, or getting rid of magic bags and just making your inventory capacity increase when you pay for a bag, or the Vancian system itself.  But I wouldn't want that to happen.

 

 

* Though I think that requirement should vary on a god by god basis.  I dislike the idea that the gods are homogenised such that they all insist that their chosen vessels invoke their power by holding a symbol.

[Lance Botelle]

I must respectfully disagree that the Identify spell would make the wizard more useful in NWN2 if it had no cost versus the shopkeeper method, largely because the NWN games added a non-P&P "lore" skill that tends to identify for free any level-appropriate magic items that you'd typically get at any given level.  And if it doesn't, and you don't have a bard with songs or inspirations boosting lore, chances are you've randomly picked up one of the lore potions that boosts it enough to identify as many higher-level items as you care to click on.

Hi Tchos,

That's why I also altered the ID values according to lore to make the spell more important. (Or the same at stores.) Doing so also gives more scope to the lore skill as a whole. i.e. You need much higher lore to ID items by value now. (Also bear in mind that many items value changed when I amended the outrageous economy system.)
 

Additionally, you're supposed to be able to wear or use unidentified items and determine their identity that way as well, but they chose not to allow that.  Identify is a rather complicated situation.

 

Yes, that is a bit of a difficult one.
 

I do agree that the pouch, and the cleric's holy symbols*, and other similar items are unnecessary.  All I'm saying is that I want them anyway.  So many things could be stripped away and simplified, like separate inventories to shared inventory, or getting rid of magic bags and just making your inventory capacity increase when you pay for a bag, or the Vancian system itself.  But I wouldn't want that to happen. 
 
* Though I think that requirement should vary on a god by god basis.  I dislike the idea that the gods are homogenised such that they all insist that their chosen vessels invoke their power by holding a symbol.

"God by God basis": That's why I have individual Holy Books that clerics must have according to their faith.

I must stress that I greatly understand your desires and sentiments for such. That is, I also want to ensure the "value" of a class, of items, of systems, to offer a varied way of managing situations with their own benefits and penalties. I also do NOT want to "lose" some of those nuances from PnP that added something to the gameplay.

HOWEVER, my main concern is keeping such nuances in a manner that works better within a CRPG. I suppose it will boil down to personal patience and choice .... and my personal opinion is that certain PnP aspects (which I loved in PnP) simply do not transfer well when tried to be applied to a CRPG. And ToEE did (I believe) illustrate this point in both those aspects which I think could have transferred well (like a true turn-based option, which I do quite enjoy to use *sometimes*),and those things that I did not think did, which (sad to say) included spell ingredients. Believe me, I wanted such things to work, and a part of me still wants to add such to my own campaign, but I have experienced the negative aspects it gives me when playing, and so have avoided such.

 

That said, I have instead tried to concentrate on other beloved aspects/nuances from PnP that can be brought over in a manner that can be played more "passively", such as "endurance loss over time". By "Passive", I mean a way to add PnP aspects to a CRPG that require less immediate actions from a player, but still require their attention at some point, and can be handled according to class, skills and spells in other ways.

 

I don't know, it's actually quite hard to define what I am trying to say, as I do completely understand Tchos, but also have to admit to myself that certain things just seem to frustrate rather than add the result I was hoping to recreate from PnP days. It's like the old Star Trek analogy again .... I loved certain aspects of Star Trek: TOS, but appreciate the more sophisticated Star trek: TNG. Ask me to choose a winner, and my heart would probably have to select certain episodes from TOS (due to originality), but TNG as a series overall due to its coherence.

 

Cheers,

Lance.

[Sabranic]

Great games are all about balancing the "suck" and the "great" in my opinion.  The secret is, there has to be suck, as it helps define the "great" - it shapes the great, and gives it value.  I have long held that the removal of too much "suck" is a big part of why the MMO market began to taper off, and formerly successful studios released flop after flop in the aftermath.  The developers pared away too much of "the suck" from their products, making the accomplishments in them feel less-so. 

 

Consider Everquest, Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft at their individual zeniths.  When those games were at their apex, and enjoying tens of thousands to tens of millions of subscribers, they were hard and in some cases, borderline merciless.  Raids were difficult, requiring high levels of knowledge and coperation to be successful.  Powerful items were rare and only the most motivated or lucky could acquire them.  Player v.s. player was vicious, time consuming, technically demanding and required intimate knowledge of the game's mechanics to succeed.  Over the years - and decades even - the developers reduced the challenge level of their products, the general consensus among them being that allowing more players access to the top tier content would improve subscription rates - but in every single case, the easier the game was made, the more it hemorrhaged users. 

 

At the same time, new games, such as Warhammer Online, Everquest 2, Hellgate: London, Asheron's Call 2 and more - developed by legends in the field - crashed and burned.  These new wave games all moved to simplify systems, sought to remove the "suck" in every manner possible, and in truth, were successful beyond their wildest dreams in that one regard.  The problem is, in doing so, they devalued the sense of accomplishment among the players and damaged their world's immersion.  The developers tried to cater to the lowest common denominator, and in the process forgot that such folks are not the ones who keep a game vibrant and healthy for years to decades.  The end result of down-scaling the difficulty and immersion in many established titles - and the majority of their progeny - was that the "large" casual market did what they always do - played the game for a while and then quit.  Meanwhile, the more invested player-base departed, as they far-too-quickly devoured the nerfed content and/or grew bored with the lack of immersion due to oversimplification of the game mechanics.

 

If the players have to truly struggle to earn something, it becomes precious to them.  This perceived value keeps them hooked and playing the game. 

 

Now that I've said that, I need to point out - it is possible to take it too far, and thus create a wholly miserable gaming experience.  A great example of that would be Final Fantasy 11, with quests that took years and boss raids requiring teams of people working in shifts for 30+ hours to tackle them.  The grind in the game was outlandish, and the result was something that only appealed to the wickedly hard-core, and despite being a "FINAL FANTASY" game, (i.e. a money printing press), it was never a powerhouse in the MMORPG world.

 

So at the end of the day, we need to figure out "the perfect mixture of cake and frosting," to borrow the words of Peter Brevik, one of the great minds behind Diablo, Diablo 2 and the Torchlight series.  To be honest, this thread has helped a great deal in that regard.

 

Thanks for the contributions thus far, everyone is making well thought-out points.

[Tchos]

That's why I also altered the ID values according to lore to make the spell more important. (Or the same at stores.) Doing so also gives more scope to the lore skill as a whole. i.e. You need much higher lore to ID items by value now. (Also bear in mind that many items value changed when I amended the outrageous economy system.)

 

HOWEVER, my main concern is keeping such nuances in a manner that works better within a CRPG. I suppose it will boil down to personal patience and choice .... and my personal opinion is that certain PnP aspects (which I loved in PnP) simply do not transfer well when tried to be applied to a CRPG. And ToEE did (I believe) illustrate this point in both those aspects which I think could have transferred well (like a true turn-based option, which I do quite enjoy to use *sometimes*),and those things that I did not think did, which (sad to say) included spell ingredients. Believe me, I wanted such things to work, and a part of me still wants to add such to my own campaign, but I have experienced the negative aspects it gives me when playing, and so have avoided such.

 

Yes, where I think we'll need to agree to disagree is where the line is drawn between which aspects of P&P work well in a CRPG, and which don't.  I consider what ToEE brought to the table (in terms of the overall engine and potential, not necessarily the campaign) to be the best we'll ever get, and if it had a modding toolkit like the one we have in NWN2 and didn't require 2D art backgrounds, and assuming the scripting language is anywhere near as powerful as NWN2's, I'd be modding for that instead.

 

I'm not sure how your lore changes affect things, but it sounds like you put some good thought into it.

 

And Sabranic, I agree with everything you said about the various MMOs.

[Lance Botelle]

Great games are all about balancing the "suck" and the "great" in my opinion.  The secret is, there has to be suck, as it helps define the "great" - it shapes the great, and gives it value.  I have long held that the removal of too much "suck" is a big part of why the MMO market began to taper off, and formerly successful studios released flop after flop in the aftermath.  The developers pared away too much of "the suck" from their products, making the accomplishments in them feel less-so. <SNIP> 
Thanks for the contributions thus far, everyone is making well thought-out points.

Sabranic,

I have also realised that my own position has changed over time, as I have experienced more games and grown older. I think the main thing I have learned is that I have less time (patience) for certain aspects that I used to ... in fact, I would have called myself "obsessive to details and nuances" when younger.

To use another analogy, I certainly agree that you need the "dark" to help emphasise the "light". As you get older, I think you just prefer to see an image more made up of "light" than you do "dark". The ideal "grey" seems to shift to slightly brighter the older you get and the more you play. Or, perhaps, you just prefer to know where the dark spots are and be able to easily avoid them if you can.  
 

Yes, where I think we'll need to agree to disagree is where the line is drawn between which aspects of P&P work well in a CRPG, and which don't.  I consider what ToEE brought to the table (in terms of the overall engine and potential, not necessarily the campaign) to be the best we'll ever get, and if it had a modding toolkit like the one we have in NWN2 and didn't require 2D art backgrounds, and assuming the scripting language is anywhere near as powerful as NWN2's, I'd be modding for that instead.
 
I'm not sure how your lore changes affect things, but it sounds like you put some good thought into it.

Tchos,

You'll have to have a go of my module at some point and come back to me with comments.

I think you are right that ToEE does seem to do an excellent job of PnP > CRPG conversion ... but, as you imply, I am not enamoured by the results. As I suggest above, it could be to do with my age ... or lack of patience for such details now. Or, more specifically, I *prefer* to see NEW details. In fact, perhaps that is what I am trying to say .... While I am a great fan of the D&D system, there are some aspects which now simply just frustrate me, and I am glad that we can "move on" from them. Perhaps I am of an age (or character) that has had their fill of such mechanic devices (like spell ingredients) and just want something different? That would explain my love of redesigning certain GUIs and mechanics of NWN2, to build a system more akin to what our PnP days had evolved into without hampering the spirit of the game.

One thing I must confess to though, I cannot stand the 2d isometric now that I have had 3d. I still play such games (obviously), but I feel really restricted in movement and the amount of times I have tried to rotate the screen is uncountable!

Cheers,
Lance.

[GCoyote]

Fascinating discussion.

Sabranic, I think your observation on difficulty vs perceived value is spot on. The actual utility of a fantasy game derives entirely from the sense of accomplishment one gets from playing. However the perception of what is meaningful along the path to victory is quite subjective. Is success a spell casting demigod who takes down the final boss solo, or a master of game balance leading an unstoppable A-Team? Is crafting a means to perfect your party's lethality or logistical drudgery? How a player answers those questions will probably indicate their response to managing spell books and components.

Lance and Tchos, I can only wish I had the passion for the game you have. My only comment is to note that only an ever shrinking percentage of CRPG players have ever experienced PnP and only a subset of those are dedicated to the 3/3.5 edition rules. Ideally, the level of complexity could be controlled using the difficulty slider just as the easy-normal-hard core adjustment is done now. That would ensure your stories the widest audience.

If I ever win the lottery, I'll buy the rights to the code and post it on the vault, just to see what you can do with it!

[Tchos]

You'll have to have a go of my module at some point and come back to me with comments.

I think you are right that ToEE does seem to do an excellent job of PnP > CRPG conversion ... but, as you imply, I am not enamoured by the results. As I suggest above, it could be to do with my age ... or lack of patience for such details now. Or, more specifically, I *prefer* to see NEW details. In fact, perhaps that is what I am trying to say .... While I am a great fan of the D&D system, there are some aspects which now simply just frustrate me, and I am glad that we can "move on" from them. Perhaps I am of an age (or character) that has had their fill of such mechanic devices (like spell ingredients) and just want something different? That would explain my love of redesigning certain GUIs and mechanics of NWN2, to build a system more akin to what our PnP days had evolved into without hampering the spirit of the game.

One thing I must confess to though, I cannot stand the 2d isometric now that I have had 3d. I still play such games (obviously), but I feel really restricted in movement and the amount of times I have tried to rotate the screen is uncountable!

 

I certainly will play The Scroll and offer you my comments when I do.  I expect most of them will be positive.

 

I'm glad you say "or character", because I would not extrapolate from my own evolving tastes that they were due to age, and that everyone has their tastes evolve in the same direction as they age, because they clearly do not.  Some grow more focused with details as they get older, not less. 

 

At any rate, I want something new and different, too, like for material components and other such things to finally be part of a computer version of D&D!  I definitely haven't seen it often enough in computer games to get tired of it.  Possibly one difference between us is that I'm not tired of D&D 3.5 edition in general, and in fact I really like it, and I want NWN2 to more faithfully reflect it.

 

I've accidentally tried to rotate the screen on isometric games many times, too, but I think this is because the perspective in those games was trying so hard to look like actual 3D that it can fool the eye sometimes and make us expect to be able to do things that we're used to doing in 3D.  I don't think there's anything inherently inferior about making a game like this 2D, and if it were presented in an obvious 2D format, like top-down in a classic Zelda style, then we wouldn't have that annoyance.

 

Lance and Tchos, I can only wish I had the passion for the game you have. My only comment is to note that only an ever shrinking percentage of CRPG players have ever experienced PnP and only a subset of those are dedicated to the 3/3.5 edition rules. Ideally, the level of complexity could be controlled using the difficulty slider just as the easy-normal-hard core adjustment is done now. That would ensure your stories the widest audience.

 

Yes, but if my motivation were modding for the largest possible audience, I'd be modding whatever latest moddable game comes out, not this one.  I never jumped ship to Skyrim when it came around, despite the millions of downloads I could have had.

 

Also, Paizo's Pathfinder is still going strong, and has been keeping 3.5e alive and well, so the proportion of 3rd edition players hasn't been shrinking as much as one might think.

[Lance Botelle]

Lance and Tchos, I can only wish I had the passion for the game you have. My only comment is to note that only an ever shrinking percentage of CRPG players have ever experienced PnP and only a subset of those are dedicated to the 3/3.5 edition rules. Ideally, the level of complexity could be controlled using the difficulty slider just as the easy-normal-hard core adjustment is done now. That would ensure your stories the widest audience.

If I ever win the lottery, I'll buy the rights to the code and post it on the vault, just to see what you can do with it!

GCoyote,

I can certainly confirm that my favourite edition has been 3/3.5, and as Tchos says, I have never seen any better modding system for D&D out there that has these rules and ability to alter. We have certainly been blessed with such a product, and it has kept my hobby going for many years, despite me getting crankier with older age ... and perhaps more picky than I used to be.  
 

I certainly will play The Scroll and offer you my comments when I do.  I expect most of them will be positive.

Tchos,

That's very kind of you to say ... I certainly hope you enjoy it, as I believe you may appreciate some aspects that others may not as much.
 

I'm glad you say "or character", because I would not extrapolate from my own evolving tastes that they were due to age, and that everyone has their tastes evolve in the same direction as they age, because they clearly do not.  Some grow more focused with details as they get older, not less.

Very true ... I'm not sure which affects the other most ... age or character ... I think they are linked.
 

At any rate, I want something new and different, too, like for material components and other such things to finally be part of a computer version of D&D!  I definitely haven't seen it often enough in computer games to get tired of it.  Possibly one difference between us is that I'm not tired of D&D 3.5 edition in general, and in fact I really like it, and I want NWN2 to more faithfully reflect it.

I think my perspective of the game varies with my illness. (I have M.E.) Therefore, it takes more effort for me to appreciate some things than it used to. However, I still have not found any system better than 3.5, which in my experience, is still the best system to use ... with perhaps a few minor alterations.
 

I've accidentally tried to rotate the screen on isometric games many times, too, but I think this is because the perspective in those games was trying so hard to look like actual 3D that it can fool the eye sometimes and make us expect to be able to do things that we're used to doing in 3D.  I don't think there's anything inherently inferior about making a game like this 2D, and if it were presented in an obvious 2D format, like top-down in a classic Zelda style, then we wouldn't have that annoyance.

Glad it's not just me then .... Mind you, that Zelda shot is way too "simple" for my tastes ...

Cheers,
Lance.

[kamal_]

If you really wanted to play an isometric game, you can lock the nwn2 game camera and make sidescrollers or top down or whatever view you want.

[Tchos]

I know, we have the overland map camera, and the side-scrolling one you did, Kamal, but I wasn't saying I wanted to take away the ability to rotate the camera in this game.  I just wouldn't care to add it to ToEE or the Infinity Engine games if it were possible.  The Zelda example was just a possible way to avoid the user thinking they should be able to rotate it.  (Also, I was only talking about the top-down perspective for this purpose, and not the simple art style or the low resolution.)