NWN2 devchat in 2 hrs

[Gromnir]

I would try to keep the base domains but modify many of them so they were actually worthwhile.  "Good" and "Evil" effectively have worthless bonus powers.  I'd replace any domain spells that weren't possible in in the game with spells that were possible in the game... And which fit the domain concept.

 

Obviously I'd ignore any domains that weren't required for the deities the game supported.  If it were a game like NWN, I'd allow DMs to create server files that defined deities and the domains from which they could select.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

sadly, we thinks that bio were pretty much doing what you suggest. they couldn't seem to do the caster level +1, so they altered the good and evil domain powers... and they adjusted the domain spell lists... and nwn were s'posed to support all d&d campaigns, so bio chose to simply go with the core domains.

 

am agreeing that good & evil gots somewhat pointless bonus powers, but would wotc be okie dokie with josh changing for reasons other than technical reason? we can see wotc being ok with a change that were necessitated by tech limitations, but if only reason to alter good and evil bonus powers is 'cause josh thinks they suck... weren't you down this road before with the 3e ranger?

 

now, that being said, we will assume that josh is gonna do more than did bio... if only 'cause there is a number 2 in the game title. Sounds likes you is gonna have more than simply the core domains?

 

"Obviously I'd ignore any domains that weren't required for the deities the game supported."

 

so that means that deities supported in game is gonna have their domains included... at least in some fashion?

 

...

 

dunno if we would wanna touch bane or mystra. they gots some wacky powerful domains, and once you put in game you somehow makes your content "official." *groan*

 

you know, as much as we disliked bg2 deity choice for specialty priests, we thinks that we would do something similar for nwn2. allows folks to choose to play a core rules priest, and mix and mingle do-mains as they so desired, but if folks wanted to play a priest that actually gots specific deity based content, then we thinks that they should have to choose one of a handful of possibilities... possibilities likes Tempus, who gots pretty much all core domains. regardless, we would not bother trying to get any FR specific domains into the game.

 

do the core domains spells and abilities close to da rules, but where that ain't possible, as with some travel domain spells, adjust as needed... But keeps balance in mind as you do adjust. bio couldn't get the +1 for good domain casting... so they allow for turning of fiends? Yeah, there is balance for you.

 

oh, and for you clowns who says balance not matter...

 

*snort*

 

is always some joker who claims that he played a gimpy character, and it were great fun. yeah, may-be, but you know how many sucky campaigns we has played in with spineless dms that lets a couple clowns get away with power gaming? gets kinda lame when you becomes little more than the impo-tent sidekick of some ubermensch character who can kill dragons at will or lay waste to armies w/o breaking a sweat. is no longer a party, but simply the Ultimate Warrior, and the three or four other guys who gets to carry the loot.

 

like it or not (and this is a big not from Gromnir,) nwn2 is gonna be a mp as well as a sp game, and you unleash unbalanced nonsense likes the time domain on us and we won't be thanking you... and neither will many mp players

 

as for sp...

 

*shrug*

 

am not gonna get much support on this pov, but we takes the paternalistic approach to balance... 'cause most o' you peoples gots 0 self control. you will ruins your own game if you can... 'cause games is meant to be won, right? is a natural reaction to make the bestest character possible, and when you does so, and your character breezes through game in 5 hours without ever having to use a potion, then you complains 'bout how easy the game were. even though it were your fault that game were easy 'cause you exploited stoopid rules, it is the developer's fault for making it possible for you to screw up your own game... 'cause they know that even the most reasonable seeming folks 'mongst you is gonna try to makes the Best character you can, even if you is certain that doing so will makes game too easy. you people is fools when it comes to making crpg characters, and obsidian develop-ers knows it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

There's no way Obsidian will create a DnD game where someone can't make an overpowered character. It's just not going to happen.

 

Sure, keep an eye on balance. That's why I said that the design team for a CRPG needed to keep the characters more or less balanced. However, it's not the most important attribute. In fact, NWN was not balanced between the character classes. NWN2 will not be balanced between the character classes. That's because Dungeons and Dragons is not balanced between the character clases.

 

So, try to even the field as best as possible, but don't think that game-balance is a single issue salve for what ails you. It ain't true.

 

Oblivion's scaled encounters, anyone?

 

On the other hand, I agree that the developers should not rely on player restraint. Players should not need restraint when playing a CRPG. That's why balance is part of the equation, even if it is not the whole of it. Players should look for better ways to win. Players should find the exploits and build the best characters they can and look for the best items. Sure, the design team must keep play balance in rein, even though that might be a bit paternalistic. It's still legit. The bad idea is to pretend that balance surpasses all other areas of design. The really bad idea is to think that you can take WotC's licensed game and make balance the main concern when it was clearly not a concern for WotC when they developed it in the first place.

 

In PnP, the game is much more party driven. The people who dominate most in PnP games I've played have been the ones who take charge of the party. Now, it's true that folks don't want to be the lackey to the Golden Haired Savior, but combat plays a smaller role in a PnP game. At least in the ones I've played. So make it harder for someone to make the uber killing machine of death who needs no help or succor, but I've been hearing about how clerics are overpowered in DnD over many years and through different editions.

 

So, keep balance, but don't fool yourself. It takes more than balance to make a fun game and the ability to create a powerful character shouldn't gimp the game.

[J.E. Sawyer]

There's a big difference between "a game" and "Neverwinter Nights 2". I only became the lead on NWN2 about a month ago, and the current course for domains is unlikely to change much.

 

And, as always, you should know that my opinion on what should be done has very little to do with the written rules.

 

EDIT: By the way, Gromnir, I decided that "J.E." was a legitimate way to abbreviate my first and middle name because of J.E. Freeman, the actor who played Eddie Dane in Miller's Crossing.

[Gromnir]

"The bad idea is to pretend that balance surpasses all other areas of design."

 

gotta love people who use hyperbole. where has anybody said any such thing anywheres in this or any other thread?

 

"Oblivion's scaled encounters, anyone?"

 

please explain... 'cause oblivion scale system is not, in any way, shape or form, an attempt to balance various character builds. in point o' fact, the #1 problem with oblivion scale we see is that it DOESN'T achieve anything even remotely resembling balance. scaled oblivion critters makes the game incredibly hard for some and incredibly easy for others... which is pretty much the opposite o' balance.

 

oh, sure, some folks is simply complaining 'bout oblivion scale 'cause they can't get a super powerful sword or armour at real low levels, and others is bothered they they don't feels appropriately god-like at high levels, but those folks is hardly a majority... and they don't makes the notion o' scale flawed. keeps the game challenging from start to finish is a bad thing? seems that way for some folks.

 

"So, keep balance, but don't fool yourself. It takes more than balance to make a fun game and the ability to create a powerful character shouldn't gimp the game."

 

ah, see this is the crux of the problem. it does indeed take more than balance to makes a fun game... but that is ino no way related to your falacious statement 'bout powerful characters. ability to makes disproportionately powerful characters (unbalanced characters,) almost invariably leads to busted games. if an available character build is too powerful compared to challenges faced, then game becomes less than fun. if a character build is too powerful compared to other character builds, then mp becomes unfun.

 

balance can't makes a game fun... but lack of balance almost invariably kills fun.

 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

post script

 

btw, eddie dane were a great character in a fantastic movie... pretty much stole every scene he were in, and that is saying something considering the folks he shared screen time with in MC.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Gromnir

[Cantousent]

"oh, and for you clowns who says balance not matter..."

 

Seems to me like you were getting your licks in with the hyperbole stick yourself, Gromnir. ...But that's not the point. I didn't think that you thought nothing else mattered. What I did think is that you attributed a greater significance to balance than it deserved. I've said, from the get go, that balance should be a concern.

 

Some classes will be more "powerful" than others in NWN2. Some classes were more "powerful" than others in NWN. The revolves around where more powerful translates to "too powerful." I stand by my comment that the ability to build a powerful character shouldn't kill the game. According to a lot of folks, Clerics have been overpowered for some time. ...And yet, having run games that whole time, players still play other classes. Players still have fun in the game, unbalanced as it is.

 

By the way, I thought scaled encounters really had more to do with balancing the character to his environment. Oblivion is undoubtedly unbalanced when judging different characters, and yet even folks with weaker builds still enjoy the game and most of the complaints I've heard have centered on the writing. Hell, after that, most folks aren't complaining that it lacks balance nearly so much as specific gameplay mechanics such as the dialogue and lockpicking mini-games.

 

So, we both think balance is part of the design. We just don't agree on where the balance with balance should be. Frankly, on the balance, I think we're probably closer than it seems, but I figure we can just argue over it for a while anyhow.

 

Miller's Crossing is indeed a great film. It's no surprise that Sawyer liked it. It was quite reserved, I thought, if not subdued.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Eldar

[Gromnir]

"oh, and for you clowns who says balance not matter..."

 

how is that hyperbole? you should read again maybe.

 

1) you s'pose that we is only speaking to/'bout you with that statement?

 

2) does you suggest that there is NOT people who claims that balance is unimportant?

 

bah.

 

"Oblivion is undoubtedly unbalanced when judging different characters, and yet even folks with weaker builds still enjoy the game and most of the complaints I've heard have centered on the writing."

 

...

 

is you chanelling ss? got to the es boards, even after the negativity purges, and sees just how many peoples complain 'bout the scale resulting in their gimped characters. am not just talking 'bout people who claimed that scale system resulted in their game being inordinately easy or hard, but people who claims that they had to flush character and start over. is bad design... is bad balance, didn't happen to you? great. the fact that more people complain 'bout hackneyed writing does not change fact that there is many folks who find oblivion unplayable 'cause of scale.

 

we does admit that there is some folks who honestly ain't bothered by lack o' balance. fact that game is tre simple is okie dokie 'cause the only reason they play the game is to gain more loot and to makes their character more powerful. as long as there is lots of eye candy and the loot and abilities get progressively more impressive as the game unfolds, these people will be perfectly content to play for 40+ hours w/o no real challenges.

 

"By the way, I thought scaled encounters really had more to do with balancing the character to his environment."

 

am confused... or maybe eldar is. the one thing that oblivion does achieve is that it provides for incrimental increases in challenges throught game (until you surpass the munchkin levels.) so, in what way is you noting oblivion scale relevance? regardless, the whole point of the proble with oblivion scale is that it is a blunt level system tool. game challenges is balanced not for your character or Gromnir's character, but rather to our respective levels... no matter how disproportionately powerful or underpowered we may be. am not sure how you sees as somehow a divisible issue in the present case.

 

*shrug*

 

good balance should go largely unnoticed. bad balance always results in some signifficant number of gamers being flaming mad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I'm self-centered by my very nature. I think every comment is aimed at me. Or at any rate I figured I'd just take the comment on just in case.

 

Anyhow, I'll make a bet. Folks will be online complaining about how NWN2 is too tough, easy, or alternatingly tough and easy. Oblivion uses a scaling system to create balance between the character and the environment. Even the auto scaling measure failed to make the game balanced enough for some folks. On the other hand, some folks are angry because the game is too balanced as the character goes from area to area.

 

I don't know if I'm possessed by Shadowstrider or not. I don't think so.

[Gromnir]

"Anyhow, I'll make a bet. Folks will be online complaining about how NWN2 is too tough, easy, or alternatingly tough and easy."

 

so, is the argument that if perfect balance for everybody is impossible, then balance should be less important a conern for developers.

 

...

 

what a funny sorta way to look at it. wouldn't the opposite be a more reasonable way o' looking at it? the fact that perfect balance is impossible does not in any way suggest or prove a diminished need for or benefits of balancing, but it does make such things harder to achieve, thus demanding more developer effort rather than less.

 

let us apply same reason to a different aspect of game development. is it possible to please everybody with story? ever seen universal approval of writing in a game? no? well then obviously story is less important, right?

 

nonsense.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

What are you on about? I said that they couldn't please everyone. They can make balance the primary concern, but there will be a sizeable number of folks who will be dissatisfied. What I didn't say is that the need for balance was diminished. In fact, through all our discussion, I attribute about as much importance to balance as I did in the first place.

 

I am a bit confused as to the whole Oblivion discussion. Kind of odd since I'm the one who mentioned it in the first place. I guess the point is that Bethesda obviously made balancing the player and the environment a priority, but it didn't meet with universal approval anyhow.

 

Maybe I'm just starting to break free of SS's hold on me. :Eldar's fighting against the scourge that is Shadowstrider's mind control icon:

 

Anyhow, what about the original point? Most folks I know think the cleric is overpowered in DnD. That hasn't prevented folks playing other classes.

 

In realistic terms, either you or Sawyer could probably build a better character than me, even though I've been playing as long as you and longer than Sawyer. *shrug* I think I'm older than Sawyer. At any rate, I'd still have fun in a campaign because there will almost certainly be something for my pathetic mage to do, no matter how you build your character. The game will be fun, even if it's somewhat imbalanced.

[Gromnir]

"What are you on about?"

 

thought it were kinda clear. you started rambling on 'bout how balance efforts can't please everybody. well, either this observation simply deserves a "duh," and an acknowledgemnt of its pointlessness, or we concludes that you thinks it were a relevant observation. so we gives you benefit and take from your post some connection between developer efforts directed at balance, and lack of universal approval.

 

*shrug*

 

and oblivion proves nothing 'bout balance other than the fact that bethesda used a particularly blunt instrument to achieve their goal... which suggests that bethesda had less concern 'bout getting balance right as 'posed to more. again, the mechanic bethesda used were 'bout as gross as could be conceived.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

No, no. We're in different conversations. You must equate the statement, "You can't please everyone" to mean "You can't please everyone and therefore you shouldn't try to please anyone."

 

Nothing wrong with my language comprehension.

 

How about this, "you can't please everyone, so you should only attribute as much importance to game balance as it deserves." Sure, create some balance, but don't sacrifice everything on the altar of balance. There is a balance in seeking balance and that's what the developers should find.

 

Moreover, you've forgotten all about the poor cleric, it seems. Don't turn a cold shoulder on the guy, since he was once the star of our little show. Why have the other classes remained popular even though the cleric is so clearly "overpowered?"

[Gromnir]

"No, no. We're in different conversations. You must equate the statement, "You can't please everyone" to mean "You can't please everyone and therefore you shouldn't try to please anyone.""

 

wrong.

 

please reread. we never suggested that your observation meant that you thought balance should be abandonded. we DID note that the fact that everybody can't be made happy meant that balance concerns deserved LESS developer effort... which is what you just repeated.

 

again, duh.

 

you wanna talk cleric? as evidence of the fact that d&d core is more balanced than you suggest, there is loads of builds with all classes that is considered powerful. monks and fighters and wizards and others... not too many bards though. is hardly a cleric monopoly on power.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

btw, take it for what it is worth, but Gromnir were involved with a couple of the larger pws for nwn and we watched how character choices... changed. alfa were one of those snobbish role-player pws... folks who s'posed didn't care 'bout powergaming. pws didn't interest us too much, but some of the folks involved with alfa were good people, and role-play is mostly bout the folks sitting at the table with you... more so than the rules, so we joined.

 

anyways, were very few clerics when alfa got started, so much so that it were kinda tough for some folks to put together adventuring parties with a requisite healer. there were a character bank where folks had their starting character posted, and many had a bio attached... though people were not actually compelled to use their posted character to start play. the first character for very few people were a cleric. fewer bards.

 

...

 

lots more people chose cleric for their second character... after character attempt 1 died w/i hours. even more chose cleric for their third try. lots o' clerics.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

I am curious if a good chunk of the population explosion could be attributed to the lack of clerics, rather than just the powerful nature of the cleric.

 

I remember making a priest in WoW, smiply because on the server I was on there wasn't very many.

[Cantousent]

"we DID note that the fact that everybody can't be made happy meant that balance concerns deserved LESS developer effort..."

 

Nope. No more nor less effort than it deserved in the first place.

 

Here's a thought about the cleric: if folk's first character dies within hours and they switch to a cleric, then the problem isn't with the cleric. I accept your anecdotal evidence without reservation but you've drawn the wrong conclussions from it. After the non-cleric second try goes down in flames, even more people went with cleric? That's a balance issue, alright, but not on the cleric's part. Why is it so hard to keep other classes alive? NWN was supposed to be all about the ability to play a single character, no matter what. Even though Dungeons and Dragons is clearly party based, NWN worked everything so that a character of any type could make it through the packaged campaign. The whole thing was unbalanced. Then some persistent world comes along and who the hell knows what sort of home brew they've got cooking. There's no telling what sort of mods the world had in place.

 

Now, I have a friend who played NWN. He went to a couple different persistent worlds. Always played a paladin and always named him Erlan Starr. Ol' Elran Starr managed to make out alright for himself. In fact, in one place, I think it was some sort of Lord of the Rings themed world, this friend convinced another friend while we were all over visiting him, to create a character and try this LotR world. Well, some different, non-cleric character comes along and kills this ranger that Greg creates and Mike pulls out ol' Erlan Starr and tracks down the guy who killed Greg's character. The upshot? nobody was playing a cleric. Mike's character was plenty powerful enough to take care of himself.

 

Anyhow, it's all good.

[Gromnir]

am not sure how eldar is thinking that he is better quaified to draw conclusions 'bout the shift to cleric centric play in alfa when he not even seem to know what alfa is and has never spoken with alfa players. so, we helps. alfa gots lots of that homebrew stuff... is nearly 100mb of dowload material just to play on an alfa server, and most of that stuff is content added to makes alfa more like pnp than nwn. simple stuff likes no sleeping at will and healing kits that act likes pnp rules as posed to being little more than odd shaped healing potions is just tip o' iceberg.

 

in any event, eldar won't be convinced by anything it seems. impressions of pnp players not work. trends in gameplay not work. we suspect that an appeal to authority wouldn't work... has josh cook up one of his crazy priest o' bane + PrC juggernauts.

 

in any event, Gromnir ain't saying that the 3e core cleric is unbalanced. can indeed be made powerful, but as we noted before, the 3e version were far more balanced and sensible than the 2e specialty priest nonsense. however, there is clearly unbalanced domains and feats and prestige classes that can indeed makes a 3e cleric a nightmare... and choosing to downplay balance concerns related to clerics or any other class 'cause perfect balance is impossible is as foolish as downplay writing concerns 'cause perfect approval of story is impossible.

 

nobody ever said that balance is the only concern for developers... or even that it should be the mostest important concern. however, balance IS a concern. bethesda's ham fisted approach proves the opposite of what you s'pose. bethesda used a particularly crappy and simple approach to achieve balance, and it kinda bit them in the arse.

 

question: when d&d made the shift from 2e to 3e, they got rid of kits in spite of kit popularity. why?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

Why should your experience be any more of a yardstick than my own. Granted, I don't play in pws. I haven't played NWN for what... years now? ...But I did cite the experiences of other folks playing NWN and I was in their presence during those experiences.

 

As far as PnP goes, I've probably played as much DnD as anyone here and clerics aren't over represented as a class choice.

 

However, in reality, I've suspected that, even though it makes for a good argument, we are more or less at the same place in terms of balance. I can even remember arguing the opposite side with you a while back when you said Sawyer was too concerned with balance.

 

*shrug* The clerics in 3edition are more balanced, and I applaud WotC for balancing them. ...But folks still played other classes even in 2nd edition.

 

As far as being convinced by anything, what's the basis of our disagreement? That we need balance? No, we've agreed. That balance is the only, or even the primary, consideration? No, we agree. How much balance we need? We can't agree. We have not assertained, nor have we attempted to assertain, how much is enough.

[alanschu]

As far as PnP goes, I've probably played as much DnD as anyone here and clerics aren't over represented as a class choice.

 

AD&D purists are turning in their skin now.

[metadigital]

Good.

[Gromnir]

"I can even remember arguing the opposite side with you a while back when you said Sawyer was too concerned with balance."

 

should check yourself for alzheimers. as a guy who has built a couple of rules systems ourself, we has always made balance a priority, 'cause we has seen just how fast all those great characters and absorbing settings can gets forgotten as people quibble over rules... and a large portion of those quibbles is balance related. most minor rules stuff you can change on the fly, but once folks has invested large 'mounts of time and effort on their character they gets mean when you tell 'em they gotta redesign Bob the Butcher for game balance. game balance is best addressed before you starts a serious campaign... get your playtesting out of the way as much as possible before people becomes emotionaly attached.

 

now, that being said, we has argued with josh over his approach to balance many times. his limited ammo notions in a crpg as a balance tool makes us cringe, and we thinks that playing a full campaign to test balance of a rule system is a waste of time when limited trial encounters seems to be much more efficient, but we ain't never gonna jam josh up 'bout balance.

 

"As far as PnP goes, I've probably played as much DnD as anyone here and clerics aren't over represented as a class choice."

 

am not sure who you is responding to.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

Maybe it's the ammo thing I'm remembering. I know you argued with Sawyer about something about balance in IWD2 on the Interplay boards. I'll have myself checked for Alzheimers. I just hope I can remember.

 

I'll also set up a fund for those ADnD purist. That sounds like an aweful skin affliction they have. :Eldar's looking sympathetic to the poor ADnD crazies icon:

[Volourn]

All spellcasting classes are the most powerful of classes, and with good reason. Many spells can replace skills of other classes. Wizards have Tenser's Transformation, and clerics have spells like divine power. Very few (if any) non spellcasting classes have abilities that replace powerful spells (perhaps just the rogue with its scroll useage).

 

As it should be. The idea that classes should be equal is ridiculous. A bard is a friggin' singing entertainer for gah sake. The idea that one should be of equal footing with an Archmage or a Divine Agent of a GOD is ludicrous beyond belief.

 

That said, even the so called 'weaker' classes are all useful. Heck, I have a bard I amde in NWN that was the equal (if not greater) that the vast majority of so called 'tanks' in a an action based PW so it's all about how ya build them.

 

So stop whining about (lack of) power, and simply role-play, lameos.

 

P.S. How can anyone claim that 2E edition speciality priests are more powerful than 3E priests when 3E priests have way more hit points, a bunch of feats (including feats that make their spells stronger and them better in direct combat), higher stat bonuses, spells save that make it impossible to pass, etc., etc. The extra bonuses that 2E speciality priests ar enothing comapred to all that, imo.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Volourn

[J.E. Sawyer]

P.S. How can anyone claim that 2E edition speciality priests are more powerful than 3E priests when 3E priests have way more hit points, a bunch of feats (including feats that make their spells stronger and them better in direct combat), higher stat bonuses, spells save that make it impossible to pass, etc., etc. The extra bonuses that 2E speciality priests ar enothing comapred to all that, imo.

No stacking rules.

 

Why do people use direct numerical comparisons between editions? It doesn't really make sense because the power of any given thing in an edition can only be measured relative to other things in that edition. If all 3E characters did five times as much damage as their 2nd Ed. counterparts and clerics got d10 for hit dice, the 3E cleric's hit die is inferior to the 2nd Ed. character's because the character statistically is going to die much more quickly in its edition.

 

Yes, the 3E cleric has higher numbers all around than the 2nd Ed. cleric. All classes do. The fact remains that due to 3E's (wise) stacking rules, 3E clerics cannot buff to anywhere near the extent that 2nd Ed. clerics and speciality priests could.

[Gromnir]

for a moment Gromnir will pretend that d&d is nothing more than ph, dm guide and mm... 'cause some of the stuff that came 'round after those books were released is wacky.

 

why is bard's weaker than other spellcasters... 'cause you do realize that bards can cast spells in d&d, right? the problem with bards is not that they is weak. biggest problem with bards being perceived as weak is that rookie dms don't know how to handle skill checks as easy as they handles combat. bards depend on skills... and if your dm has lots of skills checks then your bard can very easily becomes the best damned utility character in your party.

 

wotc, back when they were building 3e, seemed to diagree with vol in a big way... 'cause they kept telling us how 3e were gonna be balanced and streamlined and simplified... and they removed kits, and they got rid of Paladins and Rangers having to start off with incredible scores, and a thousand other things minor and major. back when wotc were trying to makes a better rule system they kept mentioning balance.

 

and assuming vol is right 'bout how bards is weak, a risky proposition at best, why should bards be weaker than other character classes? d&d bards ain't simply muscicians any more than d&d priests is simply folks who do marriages and baptisms. why makes it so that the only the hardcore role-players would choose to play the gimp? why makes it so that playing a bard is starting with a handicap? rare is the person who wants to play the weakest character in the party... so why has obviously weaker characters?

 

balance for Gromnir's rules is tough, 'cause we gotta consider all the ways that 8 serious roleplayers might manages to break our rules... accidentaly or on purpose. d&d and d&d crpgs is rule systems played by thousands and even millions... and many of those people is just looking for the loopholes. we don't envy the folks who gotta try and balance da rulez, but we thinks that it is a necessity. when balance is good nobody notices, but when balance is bad the game begins to fall apart... much as 2d did.

 

now keeps in mind that Gromnir is fully aware that 2e had all sorts of problems other than balance... and we can discuss those too if you wish, but we thinks that peoples really undervalues balance as a concern... 'cause usually balance from a player pov means that some jerk developer or designer wants to nerf his character.

 

btw, here is where Gromnir hopes that obsidian does more to makes skill checks meaningful in the nwn2 sp campaign.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 19, 2006 by Gromnir

[Cantousent]

Okay, to get away from the balance discussion, I have some observations from running campaigns regarding skills and combat.

 

In all the campaigns I've run, the players devalue roleplaying and focus on combat. For most of the players I've met, even the ones who hold forth on the vlaue of role-playing and a well written campaign, combat is the thing. Characters who add more to non-combat situations tend to be considered weaker, the ability to reap significant benefits to the party outside of combat notwithstanding. Players value combat.

 

Now, I've managed to get players to pay attention to skills, especially since there's a substantial payoff for having a skilled player, from thief to mage, in the party. I've made sure to give players a chance to express their characters in a way they find fun as an individual and as part of the group. Even so, the folks who reap those substantial benefits by using skills and roleplaying will sometimes complain about how they don't add to combat. This is even true when they provide buffs or cast spells that make combat significantly easier for the main combatant.

 

For all of the possibilities, a lot of folks still look at DnD as a "combat" game. Now, folks still like to play a variety of classes, that's not the problem. They know that, while they can achieve a variety of goals, they'll probably miss something unless they have a good mix. Hell, they'll probably miss some stuff no matter what. That's just the way it works. So, I have rogues, mages, clerics, fighters, etc in the party. Nevertheless, the players still tend to overlook their worth outside of combat, however, and I just don't know why. Intellectually they know they're vital to the group, but the guy bringing down the game gets the bragging rights, although his strength was buffed, his combat roles were augmented, his health was healed, and his weapons were enchanted by ohter members of the party.