Cantousent

Asking questions millions of times has an effect. If you and all the other folks here asked the questions, then we would get an answer. If the folks over at the NWN2 boards spammed the questions in any significant number, there's no doubt but that Feargus would answer. Frankly, I've sent out emails and mail to folks concerning the issue, but some of the folks I've asked have already given me an answer by publishing previews of the game. So, yes, consumers owe it to themselves to agitate. If you really want pocket protector familiars, and it's an important aspect for your gaming pleasure, yes, you should agitate. If you can get a lot of other folks to join, you might actually have an effect. Do you really think that these message boards don't have any impact? At any rate, I'm satisfied with the news. I think it makes sense for Feargus to let these answers resolve themselves. It sure as hell beats taking a chance and responding. I say that even though I would much rather that he personally answer the question. Nonetheless, we're getting answers, which was bound to happen all along no matter what. Even if this Codex nonesense hadn't reared its ugly head, we'd still get some word concerning the length of the campaign. It's just the strange manner in which we received the "information" that caused the uproar. Of course, as more reliable sources make themselves heard, and as the original source of the controversy is increasingly discredited, it's going to cease being an issue for more and more people. I don't care about the original issue nearly so much now as I did a few days ago. ...And, damn, it hasn't even been the couple of weeks I said we should wait before we went completely hog wild. The issue for me, now, is to address the idea that we shouldn't ask questions and keep asking until we get an answer.

Okay, my desktop recently bit it. The power supply surged and destroyed my motherboard. Instead of fixing it, I combined the parts into my wifes computer. I figured, since her's is due for an upgrade later this year, I'd just put in the best components between the two and, while I'm at it, reinstall windows in order to clean up some of the clutter. I'm going to stick mostly to my laptop and we can suffer through two computers for the time being. Anyhow, the problem is that, in installing everything and whatnot, I've been using her system. Kind of like a stress test sort of thing. The upshot is, sometimes I sign on to the boards from her computer, which highlighted a problem. It used to be when I clicked on the link for one of the movies, media player would start and the movie would play. Now, however, it asks if I want to download the movie or open it. It's irritating and it takes longer. On the other hand, some of the in-game stuff comes out really dark on my laptop. Any ideas of what the hell I managed to do wrong?

I wonder if I'd be escorted away by the police if I were to head out to the Obsidian offices. hahaha I could say, "hey, I'm looking to get into the game industry. I'd like to drop off my resume." Then, when the chance came, I could say, "So, exactly how long do you expect NWN2 to last?" Of course, that would undoubtedly be a one way ticket to the front door. They wouldn't even hand me my hat. They'd just throw it on top of my prone figure after security tossed me to the curve. However, Vol's nuts with this "he doesn't owe us anything! WE SHOULD NOT EVEN DARE TO ASK QUESTIONS!" sort of stance. It's a stupid and offensive position to repeatedly equate asking a question about a product with arrogance. What the hell. Do you people actually believe it's stupid to ask how long the game will last before you buy it? Are you truly that stupid that you see asking a legitimate question before buying a product as the equivalent of pounding on the door and making demands concerning the product? You know, the folks who see this as mostly a toolset and multiplayer platform don't care about length. What happens later, however, when it is an issue closer to your heart? I don't give a damn about what Feargus owes anyone. Consumers owe it to themselves to know something about a product before they buy it. The only thing that saves Feargus on this issue is the fact that he can basically sit back and rest on Bioware's laurels in creating a sequel that he knows is guaranteed to sell. Even that wouldn't save him except that the release date is far enough out that we'll get more specific information well before the product ships. Sure, I think Gromnir is a little overboard on the issue. I'm happy to see new issue come to light and, while it would be nice if Feargus clarified his own statements, we're starting to get clarity anyhow. So, Gromnir might be over-reacting to the issue, but that's a damned sight better than suggesting that we don't react at all.

I play City of Heroes. I have played it for quite a while and continue to enjoy the experience. What I don't like is the sort of judgemental crap foisted on us here. MMORPG are bad and therefore anyone who says he likes the game must be deficient in one way or another. Idiotic. Now, having said that, I couldn't stomach either Guild Wars or Anarchy Online. I have not, as yet, tried the other two. Much of the time I have spent playing City of Heroes, I've been the exemplar of one person or another, and therefore did not grind for any reward whatsoever. Nope, I just played in order to share the experience with someone. It's a bit more complicated than saying, "oh, he doesn't let me quit." Quit anyhow. If he puts a gun to your head, play until you escape and then turn the bastard in to the police. You know, my wife and I have several interests in common, but she likes to go to the gift shop of every church, museum, girl scout guild hall, etc that we've ever visited. Yeah, every now and then, you end up doing something that you don't find particularly fun as part of being a good friend.

I'd hate to be the realestate agent that sells you your first place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, be honest. You'd love it. Anyhow, I like what I see. This is good stuff.

I take this information as much more accurate. Thanks Llyranor. Good job.

My statement was not reserved for alignment alone, although it's true that the rules regarding alignment fall into the same category of something the players often try to manipulate. We can assuem that players just want a good game, but you've identified above that competitiveness encroaches on role-playing. You've also done a great job of providing a theoretical basis for your entire argument. However, in actual gameplay, the DM is essentially an arbiter. He passes judgement on how the players interact with the environment, whether that environment is a creature encounter or a locked chest. Sometimes, he's even forced to act as an arbiter between players. So, we can make statements like "f there are no penalties for changing alignment and being any specific alignment, the players don't need to 'get away' with anything." Sure. ...But the rules do provide for, even demand, penalties for changing alignment and being of some specific alignment. We can say, "it's not a penalty for a paladin to lose his powers." It's simply untrue. Furthermore, I've never said that a paladin shoul d have no means of atonement. That's part of the game. However, how many chances does a paladin get? Is that "means to gain back his original power almost immediately" going to serve as an excuse for a paladin to break the system, because that's what's going to happen. My original statement, as much as folks might hate the truth behind it, is still valid. The DM, if he is to stay within the rules, must address alignment. Alignment is an essential part of the game. It can only be avoided if the DM intentionally reworks the rules to avoid alignment in the first place. Moreover, moving past alignment, I've often had players argue with a decision. Maybe some of you have never had a disagreement between players and the DM or players between each other. My hat is off to you. I have nothing but respect for you. Nevertheless, I find it a hard scenario to believe. The players will often try to "get away with things." It's the nature, in one way or another, of most games. Players try to manipulate the rules in their favor. Hey, I don't disagree with it. ...But I don't fool myself into thinking that the greater part of that competition you cited above isn't between the players and the DM. Now, my experiences in DMing might not be typical. Maybe I'm playing the game the wrong way. I'll concede that. Maybe noone else here has had a similar experience. Then again, I've never been a stickler for following the rules to the letter in every situation. I guess I"m crazy that way.

Yeah. I agree that it could make a compelling story, but it's a lot easier to define good and evil for an NPC than to make sure the player and DM are always on the same page in terms of these definitions.

Actually, I did read your statements. I was expecting to respond to some of them restated here. However, I totally respect your aversion to the argument itself. Alignment arguments are especially ugly over at the DnD boards. In fact, paladin arguments are completely viscious. That's somewhat ironic in that arguments regarding paladins are ugly and paladins in arguments can be pretty ugly as well. Sorry for the puns. Lack of sleep. In reality, however, I agree with you that most players are pretty good about policiing themselves. Sure, they're greedy. Sure, they try to bend the rules in their favor. ...But most folks who play a paladin make at least some attempt to stay within the confines of reason. Otherwise, they'd probably play something else. Most clerics of good deities. likewise, make an honest attempt to play by the rules. Nevertheless, the players try to get away with whatever they can. No matter how old or young, the players look to the DM to keep things in order. They want a final decision and it's the DM's job to provide it for them. Hell, my 65 year old mother tried DnD for the first time last year and manages to drive over from Las Vegas to participate every few months. She tries to get away with murder, there's no doubt. She also wants me to make a decision for the group. However, I'm probably a bad example. I say I need to enforce rules, but I'm actually a "soft approach" sort of DM. I don't like to coerce players. I'd rather convince them. In fact, I'd rather let them think everything is their idea.

I see what you're saying, MrBrown. I continue to disagree. You know, I generally try not to worry over alignment in games, but it is a hefty part of the system. We can argue for or against absolutes, but spells like "detect evil" put paid to the idea that we can simply say "ah, it's not our job to keep track of the character's morals." When the spell states, "f you are the of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends." If we just say that a character has a "good alignment," then we should sure as hell have some standard to understand what that "good alignment" means. How about the statement: "[t]he Paladin has no inherent benefit (by the rules anyway, dunno about your houserules), so why would you need to watch over it? And no, you really don't need to judge player's alignment through their actions, because in 3ed D&D, there really isn't any inherent benefit in having one alignment over the other (unless you put one there, of course)." What a ridiculous statement. The very definition of the paladin states "[a] paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." That means, regardless of your arguments to the contrary, that the "someone" must decide what constitutes an "evil" act. I guess we could decide it by committee, but it's probably best to have someone provide the final word. I think you must have misunderstood my statement. The paladin is balanced because the ruleset forces an alignment on him. He does not gain benefits from the alignment. He loses abilities if he does not adhere to it. It's part of the ruleset. There is no houserule here. There is the rule, and it is clear but for the meaning of the actual terms. As for your 4 trait system, it's waaaaay over-engineered. It looks good on paper but turns into a pain in the ass during play. You know, if players want to role-play, they have nothing but to play a role. We don't need a 2, 4, or 16 trait system to play a role. We simply need a role to play.

See, Gromnir, I have characters who constantly try either to molest or pummel each other. You. can. not. win. :Eldar's crazed laughter icon:

Yeah, that is a counter-intuitive model. It's a pain to feel compelled to use secondary skills, although mkreku is right. A character who gets normal stat bumps is certainly viable in the late game.

I called it a tentacle until Nick made a successful check to see that it was a plant. heh heh heh. Anyhow, I get the feeling that the players latched onto the psychic thing pretty well. They just completely ignore the moral ramifications. hahaha I guess the quick and easy answer to Gromnir's question is: yes. I often provide a hook that players overlook. Damned players.

That's exactky what I thought the first time I saw the preview. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Funny, that's what I thought when I saw Farenheit 911. I guess "inspirational" movies get the venom. You know, one source of evidence that a society has recently undergone some sort of trauma is the increase in heroic depictions of the people. It's not something confined to the United States. I haven't seen the film. I doubt I see it. Still, it's a perfectly legitimate plot for a story. It's a tale that will be told. It's going to become part of our culture. If it provides entertainment for folks, so be it. Only in America? Good Lord.

What game is that, Bok?

I dunno. I started my third run. It's a great game. This time, my character will fall victim to the dreaded curse of vampirism, only to redeem herself. She'll be working hard to save Tamriel, but it is the fighter's guild that beckons. Still mostly a mage, however. Not any big deal, though. She can fight with firsts or spells.

Congrats, Bethesda. This should really help instigate a new batch of sales.

You can't really help it if you use the alignment system from the DnD rules. I mean, most of these settings have gods. Part of the balance of the Paladin class is that they have a code. Morality is part of the game. I don't like to lean on characters, but it falls on me to play the role of their deity. That means I must make moral judgements regarding their in-game actions. Another problem with DnD is that alignment is such an important part of the game that it's impossible to avoid. You can modify the rules, but you can't really get away from the whole alignment system. Not entirely, at least. Now, as for morals, take this online campaign. The players want to smite the hell out of a vine. I'm thinking to myself, why the hell is it so important to fight it rather than just run away or maybe even leave and come back with some way of dealing with the plants in a less destructive manner? Forcing them to make a decision is not my role. However, trying to guide the players is not entirely out of the question. The carrot/stick method that MrBrown described isn't my style. I find that players will respond to rewards built into the story. Acolades from the villagers. Fear from the bad guys. Genuine gratitude from the nobles. I have an in-person game I'm running right now and one of the NPCs made a small carving for the mage. It's made in the likeness of her familiar, and it has no magical powers or real value. However, the player loves it. It was never something she'd ask to have done, but it is a way of tying her more closely to the people in the village. Now, when she's out, she can take out her little carving and think about her friend at the village. It's (heaven help me) cute. I guess what I'm saying is, not every reward needs to be reflected in the ruleset. In real life, folks go out and die for little bits of ribbon and maybe a good word. Tactics like these, no matter how cheesy they might seem, really work on the players. For a bit. Then they want a new staff that calls down lightning from the sky.

The other thing to remember is that you didn't put any ranks in handle animal. Be creative with your camel. Remember that you can make attempts without ranks and that the animal need not know the trick to use it. For instance, teaching your camel to stay or to heel gives you a good bump, but it's not essential during a normal game. However, if you try to get the camel to go into that underground passage, he might balk. Your animal is not a normal beast, and I take into account that he is closely linked to you. I'm going to take different actions depending on the situation. We'll get a handle on this as we progress through the game. Just whisper questions to me and I'll handle them on a case by case basis. You could even ask questions in the open channel, particularly if these questions involve other players. Finally, I don't have the rules memorized. I doubt I ever do. So ask questions and don't worry I'm going to act silly or be offended at hearing different views. Normally, the worst thing that will happen is I'll say, "This is how we're going to do it in order to finish this encounter but we'll figure out the fine points later." So, what I'm trying to get across is that I'm going to treat Airin as a companion. He's like a warhorse in that I'm not going to roll a check every time you shoot a bow from camelback. However, I'm going to use my discretion. Like I said, you have no ranks in handle animal. You might want to put a rank or two in there, although I won't go out of my way to punish you. The fact is, putting ranks in handle animal rewards itself. Comments from the other players or even folks who read this thread are welcome.

You know, MrBrown, I always enjoy your posts. They're clear and concise and to the point. Of course, they're a bit anti-septic, which isn't reall all that bad. Here's the problem. The things you describe aren't really new. These are the things that DMs are forced to do just to run a successful game. Any game that has progressed for 8 months is successful. Furthermore, saying that there should be some sort of reward associated with the players' decisions is obvious to the point of insult. Turn your fine mind to specific examples. Take a chance and give us an idea rather than make observations from the stands. Seriously, you talk the talk. I even think you can walk the walk. Hell, I don't doubt you can dance the walk around me while I stumble about like a zombie. The point isn't to insult you. I'd just like to get away from general ideas or technical terms and down to the nitty-gritty.

Okay, I'm a little tired right now, so I'll post this and clarify any confusing points later. First of all, I've always been pretty fast and loose with animal companion rules. I hate pausing the game so we can get a handle on what I consider mundane tasks such as riding a horse when both the mount and rider have at least some familiarity with the process. Handling an animal during combat, however, is a different story, and then we're likely to come into more problems. However, since I tend to make a lot of the rolls on my end, and since you're going to try to do whatever you're going to do at any rate, you might not even know you needed a skill. A good example was Dhothlar dismounting during combat and Nick's attacks while mounted. Now, you can look on page 36 of the Player's Handbook for the general description of an animal companion. You can look on page 74 to get a feel for handling an animal. You can look on page 80 for understanding your ride skill. Finally, you might want to look on page 157 for the mounted combat rules. However, understand that my main goal is to keep the action moving. I generally use the rules, but I'm going to make command decisions if push comes to shove in order to make sure the game progresses. Finally, the most important thing to remember is that I won't punish you for asking. Of course, if you ask whether or not I'll let your camel tie a rope to a rock and then climb down a cliff in order to pick a lock, I'm going to look upon you with some displeasure. ...But if you have a plan for Airin that involves a reasonable activity on his part, go ahead and ask. Also, if you want to follow the rules and have 3 specific tricks you've taught the fell beast, just post them here or PM me and I'll get them on Airin's character sheet. EDIT: For summons, read pages 285-286 under Summon Monster. For the most part, especially for low level creatures, your summons will simply attack your enemies as best they can. I will decide the best attacks and generall run the summons as a single minded NPC. However, more intelligent creatures will communicate with the summoner as best they can. In all cases, the summons will act as NPCs. Once again, try to be clever and I'll entertain your ideas.

The party prepares to take down Anti-Matter, the evil Praetorian.

You know, I've slammed my head against this wall before. It's not just the moral questions that players dodge. It's the intricacies. Everything a player sees in a game revolves around becoming more powerful or showing off their ability to role-play. ...But don't make any mistakes, the "ability to role-play" doesn't translate into a truly substantial involvement in any emotional way. Nope. It means that the player can pat himself on the back for playing a role. Now, some folks really do get into the role. They enjoy the game and start to have some attachment to key NPCs and have a feeling for the community and even look at each other as their characters. The problem is that victories are fleeting as a DM. Our role isn't to face the players with challenges. That's just one method we use to reach our end goal: a fun gaming experience. So we must challenge the party on one hand, but give them an interesting and vibrant world on the other. We have to give them incentive to use non-combat abilities and then give them a sense of satisfaction when they're are successful in using these abilities. What's worse is, some folks couldn't care less about anything other than combat while others want puzzles to solve and some even want to focus on roles and dialogue. There is no real balance. The only thing a DM can do is bounce back and forth like a pinball as he satisfies one gaming taste or another. Now, as for your problem, I hesitate to suggest these ideas because I'm sure you use or consider them already. One thing to try is to introduce and then invest some time in an NPC who truly personifies the plight of the "living brain tissue" donors. Do whatever it takes so that only the most truly vicious and heartless of players cannot help but be touched by his condition. Plant specific and broad hints to show how truly horrible was the effect of this brain tissue harvesting on the human community. Attribute some unhealthy side effects to the psychic based loot they find. Maybe associate it with some sort of mental and physical sickness. Have some of the outlying communities threatened and perhaps even destroyed by the menace associated with these artifacts. Are there deities? If so, maybe have them drop some hints. If not, then a mystic experience might still seep into the campaign. Some transcendent experience that will guide the players to see what a bunch of heartless, worse than slave owning jack asses they are. If you are deadset against any sort of mystic experience, try to tie their self-interests, at the very least long term, with investigating and overcoming this vile practice. Anyhow, I don't know how any of that will work, but it runs the range from subtle to beating your players over the head with it. Let us know how any of this works.

Okay, but let's face it, players are a greedy, bloodthirsty bunch. Capture instead of kill? Sure, only to torture information out of someone. How often have I had to lift an eyebrow when some cleric of the golden haired savior god decides that it's more convenient to kill the surrendering goblins?! How many times have I shaken my head in utter disgust as the goodly paladin comes up with more and more elaborate schemes to avoid tithing to his order?! When was the last time players didn't choose "True Neutral" so they could essentially do whatever the hell they wanted without taking on that all dreaded "evil" title?! I got a good laugh from your experience, Gromnir. When I'm done working on this damned system, I actually have comments.

Well, that's fair enough. I don't mind paying for new content. I do mind paying for the patch.