Monte Carlo

@ Rhomal: Having read your replies to the feedback I've come to the conclusion that you are after attention, not any sort of critical dialogue. Your dismissive attitude to criticism is interesting. Your work is derivative and not wildly original. However, despite the feedback you've received you still seem very pleased with it and, indeed, yourself. Why did you ask for feedback? Cheers MC

My main problem is the format you've used; there's no executive summary of what the setting is about. I ploughed through it and came away with no real sense of a theme, or of what you are actually trying to say. Given the long history of D&D it is very difficult to come up with a genuinely new and original campaign setting. Even Ebberon, the new D&D 3.5 setting isn't exactly mind-shatteringly original in my humble (I can spot a half dozen influences straight off the bat from sources as diverse as Elric's Young Kingdoms to Pratchett's Discworld). So that you have created something generic is quite unsurprising. Fear not. Generic doesn't mean boring, does it? Thousands of people enjoy the FR, which is cookie-cutter pap most of the time. It's the game. It's the fancy icing on the cake; if the cake is stale nobody cares about the cherry on top. A well-written and executed adventure can take place anywhere. I think top-down world building (which is what you seem to have done) is wrong. You need to go the other way perhaps; create a small town and have fun figuring out who everybody is and what they do. Then work outwards from that; why does the priest of 'X' forbid the use of even the humblest cantrip? Why does everybody heed his advice on the issue? Is this a parochial thing? Why do the militia excel at the crossbow but eschew polearms? Is iit because of a particular foe? where do they come from? Why? From this mixed bag of seemingly small issues you can begin to create the building blocks of your campaign. And it will feel organic, not forced. My two pence. Cheers MC

The original hellgate in London can be found here. The robot-warrior-dude covered in crosses looks like something out of Warhammer 40K to me. I'm predicting demonic sci-fantasy with a gothic setting. In London. Wow, what a savant I am. Blizzard might not make CRPGs but they make stable, fun, well-supported games. Which is good enough for me. Cheers MC

If the game were set in a US high school there would, presumably, be no shortage of high velocity assault weapons for that "real world" feel.

I'm still pimping my D20 version if Frasier to developers. It would rock.

Ten bonus points for anybody who can dub a cogent explanation of the Schleswig-Holstein question into Serbo-Croat. Cheers MC

I'm getting rather radical about "American English" versus English (I had an argument once with an American who insisted on calling it "English English" as if we were upstarts using a bizarre variant of their mother-tongue. Of course, all of these arguments usually end with the red-faced yank reminding you that if it wasn't for them then we'd be speaking German. Yawn. If it wasn't for the Normans You'd Be Celts, as the French sing at football matches to Brits). Mind you, German is a tortuous language and not much fun so I concede the point, although when I suggest that the Russians also had something to do with it you usually get an even huffier response. I digress. People assume that we either (A) don't mind or (B) won't notice the difference. Well I do. I'm going to mod all the IE games into The Queen's English. No more +3 armor. Oh no. Our era of political correctness has completely bypassed those of us who speak English...this cultural insensitivity has to stop. Especially when you remember that Webster (IIRC) deliberately changed the spellings of English words in a snotty fit of pique after the War of Independence. Bah. Sox. Sox? Think about it. While I'm warming to the theme, do you know how many Britons don't even bother to re-jig their versions of MS Word to English? The amount of written reports and submissions I see with "Microsoft English" spellings (the letter 'Z' is everywhere) is startling. When I show them that lovely drop-down box and select "English (UK)" they are genuinely surprised. And, I like to think, delighted. Anyway, it's time for my pills and a mug of warm milk. Cheers MC

It's not just CRPGs that can let you down with their hasty endings. Rome: Total War gives you a ten-second cutscene of your faction marching through the Senate. Wow. I wanted a five-minute Spartacus style ending, a proper swords & sandals epic. Now, I grant you, R:TW isn't story-driven as it's simple premise is that you conquer the ancient world. Let's also remember that a big, all-action cutscene is quite expensive and resource intensive, so it's normally put at the beginning of the game (Joe Gamer seldom completes a CRPG).... look at Diablo 2 or ToEE which both had great opening sequences. RPGs that did ENDINGS well: Baldur's Gate 1: That big spinning chamber of avatars where Sarevok crumbles into dust really inrigues you and is mysterious enough to whet your appetite while still providing an element of closure. Fallout 2: As has already been posted, it has a dynamic ending that slots directly into your characters actions/ skillz. Cool. Icewind Dale: Because of the groovy plot-twist at the end, although it does hark back to a horror standard used in everything from Carrie to The Thing. Baldur's Gate 2: I like the cutscene with the mysterious robed dudes and Irenicus getting rugby-tackled into hell by demons. Shame ToB didn't really run with the ball, although the NPC stories at the end were a nice touch. Cheers MC

Yes, I reckon you've just about played 'em all. If you enjoyed BG2, why not install a load of mods? Use a reputable site like Pocket Plane and you'll seriously have a totally different game on your hands (especially if you like NPCs). Also, BG1 with BG TuTu is a lot of fun. Most recent CRPGs have been hack & slash. You are going to have to go back in time. I've not played Gothic I or II but some people seem to like them. And Fallout 1 & 2 are worth a look (I prefer FO2 but thats just me). Cheers MC

Yes, Obs want to be very careful about their predictions for the single-player campaign. The veracity of Bioware devs after NWN OC is, to be polite, diminished. Now, I'm not going over the whole sorry "we were had over by Bioware over the nature of NwN" argument...AGAIN. No. We've done that. What I am saying is that if Obs just say "we are gonna make a kickass sequel to NwN for the core fans...the builders, the multiplayers, the modders" then OK, fair enough. Big respect because they'll probably achieve that. However, Ferret is clearly pushing a company line that the SP market (remember us?) is also where NwN2 is at. Now, I have a lot of respect for MCA et.al over at Obs and have no doubt that they will be able to create a story better that the NwN OC. Then again, as I have declared before, my six year old nephew could. What I do doubt is that the short-ish dev cycle and other issues that Visceris (totally reasonably) points out makes us understandably sceptical. Who gives a rat's arse if I buy the game? Nobody. Nonetheless, Obs does have to deal with the lamentable legacy of the dreadful NwN OC. Period. It is my considered opinion that decent CRPGs are going down the crapper. I'd love NwN2 to prove me wrong, Ditto Dragon Age. However, I've been a disappointed fan too many times. I no longer "early adopt" games...I'll wait until NWN2 is released and patched before I even think about buying it. Cheers MC

Interestingly, I also find myself rather uninterested in NWN2. I've just realised that I post here out of nothing more than sheer habit rather than interest in any of the current Obs. projects. Hmmm. Cheers MC

This game sounds like TEH WINNA! Where can I find it?

Yeah. People actually got annoyed about the Throne of Bhaal. Er, excuse me? The whole story arc concerns the protagonist's immortal heritage. It's also axiomatic that [A]D&D campaigns usually involved attaining extremely high levels, with rampant munchkinism and Monty Haul levels of loot. Duh. People were annoyed with TOB because it was too accurate; it utterly replicated the pen & paper high level AD&D experience. Cheers MC

Hmmm. So you prefer games where you can solo and just have talking tamagotchis to sustain your interest? Surely you recognise that having a balanced party for tactical reasons is as much a part of CRPGs as the story-telling? Or do you only play Planescape on a loop? Cheers MC

That wasn't what I was saying: I'm completely cool with managing any number of uber-level characters. However, I can see why some people might not be. I enjoy characters developing and getting more powerful. The challenge for the developer is to pace that progression satisfactorily. What happens in your game where everyone is level 12? Where do they go? What do they do? The game ends? I'm not putting an arbitrary limit on it, but at the end of an epic CRPG I want to be able to kick almost everybody's butt... it's fantasy, not a day at the office. Cheers MC

Consider these two quotes from this thread: This is from Jumjalum: And this is from Volourn: (the italics are mine, of course) --- I won't hijack that thread, but Volourn brought up a point there that piqued my interest. Although I agree with him technically, (more than one character of course constitutes a "party") in spirit I cannot. This is because of one simple point which I submit is pretty difficult to rebut: Current technological restrictions cannot possibly create totally satisfactory AI for joinable NPCs. OK, you can have that lame menu system a la NWN ("stay close/ use missile weapons/ use buffing spells" etc) but it really isn't the same, is it? A quick perusal of even the most drooling fanboy forums will find commonality between, say, Fallout fans and NWN fans: that AI-controlled NPCs are a pain in the butt. Especially in combat, which is a big part of CRPGs. OTOH, plenty of people find the utter and complete tactical control of, say, BG2 equally frustrating. Micromanaging the inventory, skills, spells (etc) of one 25th level character is pretty tough, but six? I should come clean here: personally I love to be able to have utter control of the aforementioned issues, but I was originally a wargamer and that's where I'm coming from. If I want, say, Minsc, to suicidally engage the enemy from a cetain direction whilst drinking 'X' potion whilst using 'Y' High Level Ability then I want to unambiguously enjoy that perogative. I don't want some lowest common denominator AI to make that decision for me, thankyou very much. I think that the compromise should come in at another level, which was oft-discussed during the development of Jefferson/ BG3; that of character allegiance/ development and loyalty. In BG2 there were certain crunch points where NPCs would leave your party based on decisions you made; that is fine by me as long as I also got to make the important decisions tactically. What do you all think? Do you reckon that existing implementation of NPC AI is going in the right direction? Is the apparent drift away from full-party control in modern CRPGs evidence of dumbing down or an elegant shift from tiresome micromanagement? Enquiring minds need to know. Cheers MC

I'd be surprised if Bioware decided to get involved with a MMORPG. The market is saturated and they cost a fortune to run. D&D Online is in the works, and I think that's gonna take a caning too. There's no reason why Bioware wouldn't licence a FPS shooter engine to make a RPG whatsoever. I just don't think that they'd go down the Asheron's Call route. Cheers MC

Well, I've tinkered around with it for a bit. It's a very impressive piece of work; a real labour of love. Even the load screens are classy. Firstly, I like the re-skinned character models. The legions look just right with their duller colours and heavier armour. Hastasi look like light infantry now. The way that Rome appears on the map in a fairly vulnerable position is far more satisfying for the player looking for a proper challenge. Even denari needs accounting for and every army needs to be composed just so. Having a formidable Greece and Carthage on your doorstep is not only historically accurate for the period but also (more importantly) feels right, unlike the flaccid twilight empires sitting there awaiting to be swatted in the vanilla version of the game. My first battle was my not inconsiderable legion of 950 or so men versus King Pyrrhus and his hoplites....but guess what? The Greeks actually fielded a balanced army! Phalanxes flanked by light cavalry, backed up by archers and slingers and of course those bloody horrible elephants. My backside was handed to me. Having Roman general units composed of patrician Triarii spearmen as opposed to flexible heavy cavalry is a bit of a culture shock! And, yes, the barbarian horde to the North feels like a barbarian horde, not a crappy, prone-to-routing, easily mopped up by light cavalry bunch of toerags like they were before. The dilemma is, of course, which way to expand first? North or South...it's a real landgrab dilemma with all those rebel settlements. So, as has been pointed out, for me this mod makes R:TW feel much more like Medieval (more brutal AI) and much more like the game I was hoping for. Kudos to the modders; a big thumbs up. I've had no stability issues as yet, just the clean install issue, which was easily sorted out. I recommend the mod heartily to TW fans, and wish the R:TR crew every success with whatever they do next. Cheers MC

I was role-playing too. So we gibbed the whimpering girl, put her head on a pike, giggled a bit and got on with our slavering Chaotic Evil adventures around Amn. Cheers MC

I had one of the more, er, tasteful Rachel Hunter black & white photos from her Playboy shoot until recently. Before that I had the rather groovy/ cartoony NWN2 cityscape image from this site. Currently, I have a cartoon of George W. Bush with the caption "Take that Hippy: Four more years!" It is there purely for childish shock value for when my bed-wetting, free trade coffee-drinking, volvo-driving liberal buddies swing by. Cheers MC

The Germanic tribes apparently often brought their fairly savage womenfolk along to cheer them on in battle. I doubt, however, that they performed a morale-sapping light infantry function akin to the one envisaged by the Creative Assembly! I agree with Aaron C. Chariots are very frustrating. The British version are just pointless and a waste of a General's heavy cavalry unit. The Seleucid "Mad Max" version is just plain annoying. The Egyptian archer version is OK. Just about. Phalanxes are doubly frustrating. Their "fast move" function doesn't allow for a fast deployment of the actual phalanx that I'm sure the extremely seasoned veteran spearmen would have been able to accomplish. I'm sure the phalanx was unwieldy, but this unwieldy? I'm an either/ or person on realism. I like realism if the combat engine supports it (pace close combat series) but the lateset TW for me swaps out some of that for a more cinematic feel. Therefore, the "fun" units like Head Hurlers and Arcanii don't unduly bother me. The combat engine tweaks on Total Realism, if they make the combat more authentic/ crunchy will be enough fun for me not to notice that the novelty units aren't there. Cheers MC

Hello. A friend has burnt this mod onto disc for me, and by the look of the Total Realism website it should be bags of fun for someone like me who has thrashed the original game to death. I'm a bit busy with work to install it and get stuck in, I'll be doing that next week. However, I do have time to read the comments and observations of the small band of TW fans on this forum who might have some experience of it. What should I look out for? Is it stable? How much fun is it? I've got the core mod and the 5.3 patch. When I get round to it I'll post some observations for further discussion, until the equally excellent-looking Europa Barbarorum is released. Who needs an official XP that costs money? Cheers MC

Yeah, BG2 (and especially ToB) revolve very much around understanding some key concepts, mainly the use of mage spells/ buffing/ de-buffing. IWD will, in the later stages, introduce you to a few of these. Saying that, IWD remains a pretty melee-heavy game where a mage is not completely essential (I completed it with a Fineous Fingers* themed party of two fighters and a thief (Fred, Charlie and Fineous). In BG2, you are entering a world of pain without one, unless you are a bit of a savant. Like myself, of course. Cheers MC * If you can remember who Fineous Fingers was then you win extra gold stars for being a very old grognard, indeed.

As long as you are prepared for the fact that PS:T plays like part adventure game, part interactive novel. In a very, very small font. I vote for IWD. Old-skool dungeoneering goodness with an interesting backstory, exciting combat and much homage to the classic pen-and-paper D&D modules. Cheers MC