Cantousent

That's simply not true. Changing specific items in a ruleset and making command decisions to override the rules has always been a part of Dungeons and Dragons. Since day one. Since I had my first copy of DnD, which was before the all glorious red cover basic set some of you remember.

Well, the topic title specifically asks about length, so here goes my view on this. mkreku is right about a game. It can the same for a movie or a book or anything else. What you read might be good, but it might also be rushed. The characters are good, but one dimensional. Adding more time might not mean that the characters are more complex, but it takes time to develop a character, does it not? The plot might seem formulaic. Adding time does not necessarily mean that the plot will be more complex, but it takes time to add complexity to the plot. The original question asked "how short is too short?" That's a tough question for me simply because I'm with most people who say that the game length is less important than a good story, good characters, fun gameplay, and replay value. However, I don't fool myself into thinking that, say, paying fifty buck for a five hour game will be satisfying. With today's conventions in CRPG design, I'm not sure that Obsidian can give me everything I want in 20 hours. I know, for a fact, that I'd like to have more hours on a single run, but I'm willing to give those 20 hours a shot. I'd like to point out, alan, that it's not entirely true that we meet with stony silence from game developers in regards to every issue. Before you buy most games, you have some idea of how long the publisher and deisgner believe the game will be. We will have some idea, I'm sure, about NWN2. Not only that, but game length and other topics do come out on message boards and game magazines, and those topics range from classes to races to length to PWs. Feargus himself might not be the guy who gives us the skinny. Fair enough, but someone will. With that in mind, I do think this is not an issue that Obsidian should leave hanging until the bitter end. Now, if we get some word within the next couple of weeks, something I mentioned in the previous thread, I think most of the people here will forget it was an issue by the time the game is released. You know, I've always rather thought Feargus was a decent fellow. He's the head of the company, but even Gromnir admits that he'll come in and give responses. Feargus has rolled up his sleeves on a few occassions and joined the fray, even made an unpopular announcement or two. Personally, I see that as a plus. Did he try to smooth things over in regards to the whole ranger fiasco? Sure, that's his job. He runs the company. Still, he did it. Feargus was the standup guy who came in and dealt with a hot issue. That's alright in my book. So, I'm not demanding anything. Nevertheless, I think he should give us some word to resolve the issue. Furthermore, past experience has told me that he's willing to associate with the board long enough to give us information, even if he has reason to believe that the news he brings will not meet with uiversal approval. I believe we should be patient, but I'm also convinced that we should expect some clarity. If folks had been saying, give Obsidian a chance to come up with an answer for these questions, I would have been fine. In fact, I said: "...it's only been a couple of days. Maybe he does plan on shedding more light on the situation, but he's waiting for better information or more clarity on his end. If that's the case, we can certainly forgive Feargus for taking a little time. After all, the game isn't heading to the shelves until... what? September? Since that's the case, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, if he makes a more defitive statement in a couple of weeks, most reasonable people will forgive him. Unreasonable people are certainly outside of the calculation." So, if the argument is that we should not try to get an answer to the question, or that we shouldn't expect one, I'll continue to disagree. If the argument is that we should give Obsidian a break, and some time to respond, then we're already in agreement. EDIT: To Artreides: :Eldar's grinning at Atreides inside joke, but reminds him how he feels about enchantments icon: To Gromnir: Yep, I liked going through the quests but the only thing I liked about the Dark Brotherhood was smiting the first murderous bastard they sent to contact me in the first place. I don't think there's anything wrong with a game that favors some loot acquisition and some solid leveling. The tastes here range from elite to "Oh my God, you mean the common rabble play this game?" I enjoyed Oblivion, but I have higher hopes for NWN2, not only overall, but specifically in terms of story.

Are we not talking about integrity? Llyranor, what if some sort of statement cited Feargus as saying, "We're going to include more content within the same amount of time by doing away with extended dialogue trees? Instead, we'll have an enhanced menu system." The point is not game length. It's clarity. Good Lord, angry Eldar is taking over. I'd better just leave the discussion for a while.

Recently, the RPGCodex posted the following exchange between Feargus and a "german [sic] games magazine:" "Q: How long will it take to beat NWN 2? A: Its difficult to estimate it exactly, but you'll play 20 hours for sure. We want to ensure that a maximum number of players completes the game, and there are only few who play longer then 20 hours." Can we get some sort of clarity on this matter? Did Feargus make these comments? If yes, can we get some context for these statements? For example, if Feargus believes the game will average at 20 hours of play, does that include substantial side quests or the main storyline?

It'll be a bit before I can catch up with the thread, but I would like to point out that players naturally like to make their own rolls. Nonetheless, players will buy in to these things if you sell it to them. When you sell it to them and then they play it for a while, it's much much better to do the majority of rolls hidden. Folks complain that skill checks make role-playing incidental? Then do the rolls hidden and then play out the consequences. Sure, sometimes the thief knows he didn't quite make it into the shadows. Sometimes, he hears the twig he just cracked. Sometimes, he thinks the other guy didn't hear him, but, surprise! No, I was asking about the nature of the rolls, not whether hidden rolls are good. They are good in my experience.

It's amazing how many people see this as a game length issue whereas I see it as a trust issue. I think Fionavar's approach suffices best at this point, but I wonder at comments like, "what can we do?" and "I don't care what the boss says." The point is, we should care. We should exert what influence we have to get clarifications on these issues. We don't have a lot of influence? You're kidding me! Here I was thinking I could just call Feargus on his house phone and chat him up on the ordeal. Of course we don't have a lot of influence, but it is a shame for any man to lay down and accept what fate hands him. I am a consumer, and I may only be one voice, and that voice may be small, but I. will. speak. You might not hear my voice, but I'll use it. What I lack in eloquence, I'll make up in persistence. Ulitmately, I may be insignificant, but I will speak in the hopes that eventually, if others agree, I will not speak alone. Sure, we can be jaded. We can avoid drama at all costs. We can lay down before powers the powers we perceive greater than our own and go quietly where we are led. No. I guess we can't. You can. I won't.

That's perfectly reasonable, Fio. Very well done. That all aside, I'm in the camp of folks who don't think that game length is the end-all be-all of the game. I say that with the caveat that I would generally prefer longer, quality games. Yes, I want it all and I want it now. :Eldar's quick grin icon:

Vol, this is a bad choice on his part. Does he need to come here to clarify his answers? Of course not. It would suffice. Now I see that you're not trying to win. You simply don't understand that this is a serious issue. Just because we're a bunch of people on a message board doesn't mean that this is a small issue. You know why Gromnir wants to make a big deal of this? Because if enough of us take the issue seriously, so will Obsidian. You might think we're a bunch of pathetic losers. Fair enough. ....But enough pathetic losers talk about something and it becomes a concern. Moreover, wouldn't it be nice for you, as a consumer, to have more information. You're being pig-headed. All I'm asking is for you to put aside the argument and take a look at it. Really. Read my position in the previous thread. I've come to Gromnir's position. I didn't come to it not because I want to make a stink about the length of the game. I do think that the head of a company is obligated to be clear and forthright about his product. Don't you?

If Obsidian is not a publicly traded company, then I suppose he might not have shareholders. Of course, could we agree that he has a share in his own company. The other... four? people who founded the company with him have a share. So, I guess Feargus owes it to himself not to make obscure comments and then refuse to substantiate them. Atari has a share in the product, so I guess, if it comes down to it, that Feargus should be honest for the sake of Atari. Vol, you're simply not thinking this through. It's more important that you try to win the argument than it is to establish a basis for it. I'm not saying Feargus owes us because we're "fans." I'm saying that game designers who make false statements regarding their products end up suffering for it. Ask Sawyer about claims regarding game length that ended up being untrue. Ask Feargus about HoW. You want to be clever. I understand that. You want to find some technical flaw in my statement in order to deflate the whole thing. I get that, Vol. Clever. So, substitute "his company" for each time I use Shareholders and it will be exactly the same. Problem solved. Because, my statement is valid either way.

So Vol used an Orc Shaman as his big, bad, and ugly. So what? That's not a problem. The important thing is that his players had fun. I'm taking for granted that the players he cites were real, and so I'll gladly agree that he achieved his goals when the players were satisfied during the game. The original question revolved around DMs bending the rules to encourage fun. It seems to me that Vol bent the rules in order to facilitate fun. He bent the rules of Orcish society, Gruumsh worship, and power politics in order to create his vision. That's perfectly fair. I don't even hope that folks will answer this one, but I have a question. I do virtually every roll secretly. I don't show the players the dice, and I don't intend start doing so now. The question is, how often do you give the players a false roll? What I mean by false roll, is that I will often have the characters make a roll where there is no adverse side effect. A better roll will translate to better consequences, but a roll of 1 will not have any adverse affect. I'll give an example. Recently, a bard in a campaign I'm running decided to sing to a barmaid. When he started to sing, I rolled for him and he rolled a 7. Now his singing, as a trained bard, was not going to have an adverse effect on the situation. He rolled a seven which I determined had a minor positive effect. I do this a lot, and I was wondering how other GMs handle these situations.

Okay, now that I've read all the posts, what's wrong with having the CEO clarify his comments. Whether length is or is not important, we should expect some sort of information about the game before release. We should expect information because it is and has been the standard within the industry. Listen, this isn't about length. It's about the guy who heads the company making a statement. I don't care if the game is 20 hours as long as it's good. ...But I still want to know the truth. What did Feargus say? If he had the fortitude to say it to the damned Germans, he should have the same stones to say it to us. Dammit. You know, what if he said the story would be more or less linear? What if he said that they were going to limit races to human, elf, and dwarf? What if he said that the story would be completely open ended and there would be no dialogue trees? There is an issue for every one of you. If that issue came to light due to a twice translated comment, you'd want to know the truth. You'd want the details. Well, I'm not yelling for an immediate answer. I'm not demanding, wheedling, or whining for an answer. However, while Feargus might not owe us anything, he owes his shareholders more than to make an off the cuff response and then let it hang, causing uncertainty. Maybe he didn't make an amibiguous statement. Maybe he made a perfectly clear answer that was misunderstood. Maybe he made the 20 hour claim and stands by it. Maybe he mispoke. We don't know, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect some sort of response, even if it's from some self-identified mouthpiece. It'll show Feargus to be pretty damned small, but at least it would be some clarification. It's not a matter of length, but can we expect Feargus to make statements like these and then let them fall flat? Can we expect that someone misinterprets or, heaven forbid, flatout lies about what Feargus says and that Obsidian will let those comments stand. Give Feargus and Obsidian time. I agree. ...But what Gromnir asks is reasonable. No matter what you think about game length, you should agree with Gromnir's basic assertion that the CEO of a company should be honest and forthright.

I'll have to read the thread, but in response to the original post, I agree completely. We're consumers. If we are important as a group, we should receive an answer. Some sort of answer. Maybe we're not important, but we are still compelled to urge Obsidian to give us an answer. If you prefer a 20 campaign, you should advocate your preferrence. If you prefer a longer campaign, then you should advocate longer campaigns. The length is not a particular issue to me, but I do prefer a longer campaign and Gromnir's questions don't seem unreasonable.

I'm always suspicious of the folks who take a completely hard line in DM style. I think they DM more in their mind than they do at a table. Unless, of course, they DM in their own mind sitting alone at a table.

This is the correct answer. The point is to have fun. Now, I tend to use the same rules for NPCs as characters. I don't make NPCs invincible. Vital NPCs, however, are built into the story. By the time the party gets to a particularly tough boss, there's not much of a chance of a single hit hit. I've never seen one on a boss in my campaigns yet. Of course, I don't include bosses very often. Finishing a task is much better than getting to some sort of climactic single boss episode. Sure, sometimes an area does climax in a particularly tough battle, but that happens often enough without artificially creating it into a campaign. In a CRPG, with conventions as they are, designers are forced to create the ever-lame "end boss." In a campaign, the players can be just as satisfied with the feeling of accomplishment at reaching a final goal. That includes a lot of tough battles, some of which are climactic in and of themselves, along the way. It also includes some tough puzzles and maybe a little legwork on the part of the player. NPCs in my campaigns are created the same as the player characters, but some of them have skills, feats, or items that, to me at least, are appropriate for the character's background. It all boils down to how well the game is written. So, DMs cheating all the time can be lame, but DMs who say they "never" work with the rules, rolls, and players are ridiculously foolish and lame.

See, we've made the question of time in NWN2 irrelevant ourselves. Why should Feargus worry about clarifying our statements. If you don't like the wether on the Obsidian boards, just wait fifteen minutes. It'll change.

With so many people clamoring for a truly open game in which there will be serious consequences, it makes sense that the player can dump any item, even quest critical items. Of course, that would be a terrible design in a CRPG. Sounds great to have a truly open ended game, but oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I don't think the issue here is wether Feargus is bound to speak with the peeps at the forum, rather it's more of professional conduct that is expect from a man at his position. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Feargus is bound to do what's best for his shareholders. I don't believe he is "bound" to tell us anything. However, there will be a point when the questions reach critical mass and he'll be compelled to respond. Gromnir is right about that. We might be the unwashed masses, but if there's enough of an uproar, the unwashed can make quite a stink. Now, I'm not advocating making an uproar. I've already said I'm buying the game, so it's not as if I'm talking about boycotting anything. Hell, I'm clearly not even threatening my own particular purchase. Still, when the head of the company makes a statement, he should try to make one that answers more questions than it creates. *shrug* For Feargus, when any answer he gives will probably lead to more headaches, it's probably better to remain silent and let his men in the trenches deal with the low level flame fest we have here. Personally, I think it's despicable, but I'm undoubtedly the most dirty of the unwashed masses, beneath even contempt. Vol's right, he doesn't owe anything to us. Still doesn't mean he wouldn't be much more of a stand-up guy if he could substantiate or refute these comments. Maybe cast just a little light on them. On the other hand, it's only been a couple of days. Maybe he does plan on shedding more light on the situation, but he's waiting for better information or more clarity on his end. If that's the case, we can certainly forgive Feargus for taking a little time. After all, the game isn't heading to the shelves until... what? September? Since that's the case, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, if he makes a more defitive statement in a couple of weeks, most reasonable people will forgive him. Unreasonable people are certainly outside of the calculation.

he does wade into the kiddie pool on occasion... but it requires things to be getting out of hand before he is willing to strap on the water wings. ... not that Gromnir is suggesting that people stir things up just to get a fergie response. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Feargus isn't a regular here. That means I pretty much don't pay much attention to him. ...But he's still the head of Obsidian and Obsidian runs these boards. There are a variety of possiblities, but I think the biggest ones are: 1)He doesn't care what we do or say here 2)He knows there's some conjecture, which is probably not isolated to this board, but doesn't have an answer 3)The only answers he can give will be upsetting or irritating to one segment or another, so he's letting regulars, like Sawyer and Joseph, take the heat while he sits back in silence. I'm with Gromnir, he should at least give some sort of response, but it's just as likely that silence, no matter how bad, is better than giving us word.

I think, if he's willing to say it to a German newspaper, Feargus should be willing to say it to us here. That's true. As the basis for some sort of reliable prediciton, I think the statement sucks. However, I agree that it's caused enough conjecture that maybe, just maybe, Feargus could give us the skinny. He should either come in and disavow the review, confirm what it says, or otherwise respond. I don't think he cares about this board one way or the other. Furthermore, he probably thinks the game will sell just fine regardless of what we say. He's probably right. Still, would it hurt for him to come here and make a statement when he has apparently given one to a German establishment? If he didn't make such a statement, he could, at the very least, come in and say he said no such thing.

Just one more time, I thought I'd point out that we're taking a twice translated statement, attributed to someone who hasn't played the game, as the basis for the length of NWN2.

You don't belong in a village so much as the inner-city, Child. :Eldar's completely blank face with maybe the slightest lifting of one eyebrow icon:

First of all, the way in which someone else enjoys a game they've purchased is no concern of yours. Okay, for the village idiots out there: yes, if they use the disks to murder someone or some other non-sense, we need to be concerned. Go leap at yourself. Anyhow, as I said, however they enjoy the game, it's their business and not yours. Furthermore, folks like these don't even pose a danger for those of you who want longer, more in-depth games. You know why? They don't get bragging rights for finishing a 10 hour game in 9 minutes. They get bragging rights for finishing a 40 hour game in 9 minutes. I have inside knowledge to folks who like to brag about these kind of things, and they want it to take everyone else a long time so they can brag about how quickly they did it. Morrowind in 7 minutes is the pinnacle of bragging rights because the game grants normal players upwards of a hundred hours or more. They might not be hours of enjoyment, but they're hours nonetheless. Another thing is, these are normally people who loved the game so much that they invested the time and effort to truly master it. They love the game in the way some of you love your favorite movie or book. Hell, some of them love the game in the same way some of you love your wives.

Absolutely shameless!

Okay, Joseph, you might play a lot of games, but I think we've established that the message board is providing the most entertainment to you right now.

Here, let me get you the link, courtesy of Llyranor. http://www.openrpg.com/index.php?page=install Other than that, you have to decide on a campaign. Mine has five players, but I think things might fluxuate a bit for a while as we establish schedules. Why don't you keep poking around until we get a feel for what we're going to do? If we get a CoC going, I'd suggest that one. I warn you, however, it's usually not very combat oriented.