Real Estate Business in Project Eternity

[mcmanusaur]

In terms of the stronghold upgrade stuff, I have to admit I'm pretty ambivalent. Once it gets to a point where my character has a sizable property to their self, to me anything beyond that (including adding servants and services to the stronghold) sort of becomes unflattering ego stroking. I realize a lot of people seem to really enjoy that aspect, but I guess it's not for me; I'm more interested in starting small and being able to build your way up through alternative means to the usual combat-heavy loot-plundering route. I personally can't stand RPGs where one's character feels more important than the whole rest of the setting (or where one's character is the be-all-and-end-all at the center of everything), and the notion that my character is always guaranteed some specific cookie-cutter household if I complete a few quests is so terribly boring to me. That's why I really want to correct the common assumption that the only place for this kind of gameplay is in the endgame. I'm far less interested in stronghold management than I am in socioeconomic progression.

Edited June 4, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Lephys]

^ I definitely think you should have the opportunity to be a PART of your stronghold's economy/"ecosysytem," rather than the very engine behind everything that happens to it. Your choices should cause changes and effects, which, in turn, cause changes and effects to your own situation, to which you must react within limitations. Not just "I decide this is a peaceful place! I decide that we make lots of money! I decide that we have AWESOME blacksmithing technology! 8D"

[Homer Morisson]

Well, in terms of NWN2, getting your very own keep was - I felt - pretty well integrated into the story, so that it did indeed feel like a reward well deserved (or in my chaotic evil terms: long overdue!).

 

What you, mcmanusaur, call "unflattering ego stroking" is just another way of roleplay to me, and I truly relish every opportunity a game gives me to just play my role for the role's sake. I like to be given a choice to sometimes do things and ideally produce some reactions and/or comments from my companions or the worlds' populace that are not necessarily tied into the story or even a side quest.

 

That in itself is a very rewarding experience for me - if I run around avoiding disaster after disaster, grudgingly (chaotic evil) saving the innocent and willingly procuring riches upon riches, (often from said innocent people) I feel that my character deserves and should have some opportunities, if he so chooses, to use that wealth as he sees fit, to have servants grovel before him, etc...

 

Generally speaking: Yes, I do want to be, or at least become the center of attention and a major player in any given world I am living in - being the proverbial dishwasher building up a functional nationwide cutlery delivery service - although also just another way of roleplay, granted - would have little to no appeal to me.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Homer Morisson

[mcmanusaur]

Well, in terms of NWN2, getting your very own keep was - I felt - pretty well integrated into the story, so that it did indeed feel like a reward well deserved (or in my chaotic evil terms: long overdue!).

 

What you, mcmanusaur, call "unflattering ego stroking" is just another way of roleplay to me, and I truly relish every opportunity a game gives me to just play my role for the role's sake. I like to be given a choice to sometimes do things and ideally produce some reactions and/or comments from my companions or the worlds' populace that are not necessarily tied into the story or even a side quest.

 

That in itself is a very rewarding experience for me - if I run around avoiding disaster after disaster, grudgingly (chaotic evil) saving the innocent and willingly procuring riches upon riches, (often from said innocent people) I feel that my character deserves and should have some opportunities, if he so chooses, to use that wealth as he sees fit, to have servants grovel before him, etc...

 

Generally speaking: Yes, I do want to be, or at least become the center of attention and a major player in any given world I am living in - being the proverbial dishwasher building up a functional nationwide cutlery delivery service - although also just another way of roleplay, granted - would have little to no appeal to me.

 

If you've read many of my other posts you'll know that I am very keen on the concept of being able to play one's character outside of their relevance to the central narrative, and I started this thread for that reason. However, that's a different issue from being an in-game celebrity (as in Fable where you are so clearly the center of everything for example). I'm not meaning to say that there's anything wrong with a bit of ego-stroking in the endgame; after all, everyone wants to feel like they've achieved something, but for me the issue is whether this ego-stroking- explicit or implicit- permeates into earlier parts of the game before one's character has even proved oneself. However, I hope that such gameplay is not restricted to the endgame, and yet I feel that it does cheapen the experience to reward the player with a stronghold any sooner than that; my solution to this would be to include stepping stones.

 

Hopefully this doesn't come off as too self-righteous, but I must admit I consider the tendency to desire celebrity centers-of-attention/magically-adept/special and misunderstood/glorified self-insert kinds of characters to be slightly immature forms of roleplay, but I suppose the player is granted this indulgence in a SP game. However, when you try to do that in a multiplayer setting (my experience here being the reason for these views) it doesn't work as well; players have to share the limelight, and if everyone has exceptional characters then it loses its meaning. In the communities I've been a part of, this has become such a problem that there even had to be measures put into place to ensure that people made relatively normal characters who wouldn't overshadow the wider roleplay with their "special" exceptional nature, so hopefully that explains a bit of my cynicism.

 

While I certainly support playing one's character's role for the sake of it, I do feel that too often these gameplay aspects are almost fan service, tailored towards rather simplistic/indulgent/immature roles, instead of merely being used to broaden the scope of the roleplay to a more holistic range, which is what we both seem to want. I'm sure that Project Eternity wouldn't stoop to Fable's level of ego-stroking regardless, but a sort of progression would make the stronghold feel more organic. Hell, I suppose I'd be happy enough as long as they incorporated a legit progression into the stronghold, such that it doesn't start off as a large homestead and actually takes effort to develop, rather than having my character suddenly move from traveling adventurer to landed aristocracy with upgrades only for the most luxury aspects.

Edited June 5, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[cleric Nemir]

Why a stronghold,people? You do realize that it is a concept valid only for a someone aiming to be a knight? A fighter class. Plus it is clearly something that leads to a point in game where you would stand your ground against forces of evil or whatever. Do we need that so bad?

 

What in the nine hells would make a druid wish for a stronghold?? Is it that ego related that it breaks all immersions you ever felt for your class??? This is madness. You are ready to choose a stronghold as your rogue's residence instead of liking an idea that sugests him being able to operate the black market,a bordel,to even rise to a role similar to what Littlefinger has in King's Landing???? Or to be an Old man of the Mountain equivalent with an assassins guild so powerful that it holds half of the word in awe??????? This is all worse than a bloody stronghold!!! HOW,EXACTLY?

[Tuckey]

Admittedly I am quite tempted to play an rpg that plays like Raymond E Feist's 'a merchant prince'; the main character was a nobody criminal who got assigned for a special mission as part of a group of desperate men or else be hanged(the thinking being that they fight better); sometime after this;after some financial compensation; he does some dodgy deals and kills rivals along the way cornering the market for some commodity (the memories a little rusty); the drama played out alright because it was apart of the story. He happened to acquire an estate  along the way to maintain status - not to acquire property for properties sake. If this whole property thing were just some tacked on thing I would say I'm not interested - but if it could be apart of the plot...i.e. give me an in-game reason to want the property other than to just have it.

 

But the plot for this game is about a magic event that changes you; how would you weave a convincing tale about property into that story; I think market manipulation is a more interesting mechanic to explore as causing a shortage could drive people out of business while winning you influence with others. Maybe even arranged marriages are apart of the deal. Everyone has different tastes of course.

[Homer Morisson]

If you've read many of my other posts you'll know that I am very keen on the concept of being able to play one's character outside of their relevance to the central narrative, and I started this thread for that reason. However, that's a different issue from being an in-game celebrity (as in Fable where you are so clearly the center of everything for example). I'm not meaning to say that there's anything wrong with a bit of ego-stroking in the endgame; after all, everyone wants to feel like they've achieved something, but for me the issue is whether this ego-stroking- explicit or implicit- permeates into earlier parts of the game before one's character has even proved oneself. However, I hope that such gameplay is not restricted to the endgame, and yet I feel that it does cheapen the experience to reward the player with a stronghold any sooner than that; my solution to this would be to include stepping stones.

 

Hopefully this doesn't come off as too self-righteous, but I must admit I consider the tendency to desire celebrity centers-of-attention/magically-adept/special and misunderstood/glorified self-insert kinds of characters to be slightly immature forms of roleplay, but I suppose the player is granted this indulgence in a SP game. However, when you try to do that in a multiplayer setting (my experience here being the reason for these views) it doesn't work as well; players have to share the limelight, and if everyone has exceptional characters then it loses its meaning. In the communities I've been a part of, this has become such a problem that there even had to be measures put into place to ensure that people made relatively normal characters who wouldn't overshadow the wider roleplay with their "special" exceptional nature, so hopefully that explains a bit of my cynicism.

 

While I certainly support playing one's character's role for the sake of it, I do feel that too often these gameplay aspects are almost fan service, tailored towards rather simplistic/indulgent/immature roles, instead of merely being used to broaden the scope of the roleplay to a more holistic range, which is what we both seem to want. I'm sure that Project Eternity wouldn't stoop to Fable's level of ego-stroking regardless, but a sort of progression would make the stronghold feel more organic. Hell, I suppose I'd be happy enough as long as they incorporated a legit progression into the stronghold, such that it doesn't start off as a large homestead and actually takes effort to develop, rather than having my character suddenly move from traveling adventurer to landed aristocracy with upgrades only for the most luxury aspects.

 

 

Being new to this forum, I am not yet familiar with any of the more senior residents... but anyway, on with the discussion:

I sincerely hope that the whole stronghold system will be implemented way before the endgame - simply because I really want to get the feeling (and have the time to do so) that I have shaped the place after my liking, really have made it my stronghold... and I therefore completely agree with you in that it needs to be a somewhat organic process where the player is given (or simply claims?) maybe a ruin, has to clear it from its former occupants (maybe a nice boss encounter or something like that), and then has to work on making it a real stronghold/hideout again.

Edit: It might also be made completely optional and simply another choice you can take or leave... as long as it does not deteriorate to an afterthought, I'd be okay with that as well.

 

As to the second point you make - I cannot agree with that at all, I'm afraid... which is not to say that I think your experiences wrong, but merely that I have made completely different experiences myself. Leaving the medium of video games and entering the world of good ole pen & paper rpgs, I have found that good or bad teamwork and thus how well the multiplayer experience works for all concerned does not really relate to wether any one character is magically gifted or comes from a noble house with ties into royalty or any such things. Wether or not the group as a whole can experience and enjoy their adventure as a team - in my mind - depends utterly and completely on the players themselves, how they act out their roles, and last but not least on the GM and how he lets the players act out their roles.

While being a mage with talents far more wondrous than simply being apt with a sword may lead to immature roleplay, the decision to act thusly lies with the player - and so does the fault, if you will. My point is that certain roles/archetypes cannot and should not be blamed for how they might be played.

 

All of that, of course, is really only relevant for multiplayer settings, where teamwork is essential to progressing through the given adventure - but since you yourself have agreed on the essential differences between SP and MP, I won't drag this out unnecessarily.

 

As an afterthought though, I am still not sure if calling a certain (role-)playing style immature just because it does not correlate to one's own preferences is all that mature in itself... no offence of course, just a thought.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Homer Morisson

[cleric Nemir]

NWN2 Stronghold is,from the NWN2 storyline point of view,a good and brave concept. I will not argue over how it's done at all.

 

What I would like to point out is that,when looked at how immersing it feels toward your character class,the stronghold is nothing more than a suitable reward for a knighted fighter that has been offered to join the Neverwinter Nine. No other class can truly and naturally  immerse in this concept than a fighter class,is it that hard to see this as something obvious? Or what,your druid/wizard/rogue/etc.'s peak of interest is to have a stronghold assigned to him after forced to become a knight to save your skin at some trial? Really? Even worse - you are forced to choose a stronghold because you're tagging along a party of different class types and need a place that can keep everyone busy? That's the excuse? I alone can think of hundred different ways to assign each and every class to help improve a trade of one's liking,and to choose the trade of my liking for my main character is all I damn ask. It's what all dedicated players should ask - do correct me if I'm wrong here. For the sake of being able to once,just once,truly feel that thing called deep immersion.

Should majority that voted for stronghold win and others be left to swallow? I won't mind seeing two bloody strongholds ingame,but being forced to end up with one myself - that's where I'm all out of bubblegum. Let me put it simple:

 

"Stronghold for all" is what it is - an extremely narrow solution that came from most linear piece of crap story that I have ever played.

 

If the "stronghold for all" concept gets into P:E I will not blink an eye,just to make myself clear here. But I will curse the day I ever involved myself by providing my time to help this game with adding my vote or opinion here on the forum. Fuk money.

[Homer Morisson]

No other class can truly and naturally  immerse in this concept than a fighter class,is it that hard to see this as something obvious?

 

That is your opinion, which I find (no offence) rather black&white.

Why shouldn't a mage have a castle from which to operate, complete with soundproof torture chambers laboratories, a state of the art tower from which he can curse

enemies that are still two days' worth of marching away, etc?

He might even use it as a front, to pose as a run-of-the-mill nobleman, to hide his wicked ways - or he might, if he was of the "Hug the trees!"-persuasion, use it as an orphanage to help those less fortunate than (or maybe just as unfortunate as he was) himself.

 

Just because you would never play a mage whose aim or even interest it might be to become a land owner, or to have a stronghold to whatever means they see fit, does not make it an obvious truth.

 

So, in short... I do respect your opinion, I just choose not to share it - how about you adopt the same method and next time just say that you don't like that idea and that you don't think it plausible for any other class than a fighter - instead of just claiming it to be obvious and undeniable.

 

It is merely a question of preference and choice, and as (nearly) always in such matters, there is no right or wrong.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Homer Morisson

[cleric Nemir]

I was talking about NWN 2 stronghold in that specific line. If you will,you may do an example on any class like you exampled mage until you twist all up to suit it to fit a stronghold environment. Does the wish for high level of personal extravagance need to turn a "stronghold you gained for loyal service as a knight of Neverwinter" to "stronghold is the op home for us all?". I said what I did in regard to what NWN stronghold IS,actually. It is MADE to be a knight's prize,and let me think again what class does best fit for knighthood.. FIGHTER.

 

Let me state again that I do not mind someone liking the stronghold as.. whatever it is that they see it fit for,but certainly it is not to all. By making it as an only option,they would be diminishing the game experience for others that do not see it fit.

Edited June 5, 2013 by cleric Nemir

[mcmanusaur]

 

If you've read many of my other posts you'll know that I am very keen on the concept of being able to play one's character outside of their relevance to the central narrative, and I started this thread for that reason. However, that's a different issue from being an in-game celebrity (as in Fable where you are so clearly the center of everything for example). I'm not meaning to say that there's anything wrong with a bit of ego-stroking in the endgame; after all, everyone wants to feel like they've achieved something, but for me the issue is whether this ego-stroking- explicit or implicit- permeates into earlier parts of the game before one's character has even proved oneself. However, I hope that such gameplay is not restricted to the endgame, and yet I feel that it does cheapen the experience to reward the player with a stronghold any sooner than that; my solution to this would be to include stepping stones.

 

Hopefully this doesn't come off as too self-righteous, but I must admit I consider the tendency to desire celebrity centers-of-attention/magically-adept/special and misunderstood/glorified self-insert kinds of characters to be slightly immature forms of roleplay, but I suppose the player is granted this indulgence in a SP game. However, when you try to do that in a multiplayer setting (my experience here being the reason for these views) it doesn't work as well; players have to share the limelight, and if everyone has exceptional characters then it loses its meaning. In the communities I've been a part of, this has become such a problem that there even had to be measures put into place to ensure that people made relatively normal characters who wouldn't overshadow the wider roleplay with their "special" exceptional nature, so hopefully that explains a bit of my cynicism.

 

While I certainly support playing one's character's role for the sake of it, I do feel that too often these gameplay aspects are almost fan service, tailored towards rather simplistic/indulgent/immature roles, instead of merely being used to broaden the scope of the roleplay to a more holistic range, which is what we both seem to want. I'm sure that Project Eternity wouldn't stoop to Fable's level of ego-stroking regardless, but a sort of progression would make the stronghold feel more organic. Hell, I suppose I'd be happy enough as long as they incorporated a legit progression into the stronghold, such that it doesn't start off as a large homestead and actually takes effort to develop, rather than having my character suddenly move from traveling adventurer to landed aristocracy with upgrades only for the most luxury aspects.

 

 

Being new to this forum, I am not yet familiar with any of the more senior residents... but anyway, on with the discussion:

I sincerely hope that the whole stronghold system will be implemented way before the endgame - simply because I really want to get the feeling (and have the time to do so) that I have shaped the place after my liking, really have made it my stronghold... and I therefore completely agree with you in that it needs to be a somewhat organic process where the player is given (or simply claims?) maybe a ruin, has to clear it from its former occupants (maybe a nice boss encounter or something like that), and then has to work on making it a real stronghold/hideout again.

Edit: It might also be made completely optional and simply another choice you can take or leave... as long as it does not deteriorate to an afterthought, I'd be okay with that as well.

 

As to the second point you make - I cannot agree with that at all, I'm afraid... which is not to say that I think your experiences wrong, but merely that I have made completely different experiences myself. Leaving the medium of video games and entering the world of good ole pen & paper rpgs, I have found that good or bad teamwork and thus how well the multiplayer experience works for all concerned does not really relate to wether any one character is magically gifted or comes from a noble house with ties into royalty or any such things. Wether or not the group as a whole can experience and enjoy their adventure as a team - in my mind - depends utterly and completely on the players themselves, how they act out their roles, and last but not least on the GM and how he lets the players act out their roles.

While being a mage with talents far more wondrous than simply being apt with a sword may lead to immature roleplay, the decision to act thusly lies with the player - and so does the fault, if you will. My point is that certain roles/archetypes cannot and should not be blamed for how they might be played.

 

All of that, of course, is really only relevant for multiplayer settings, where teamwork is essential to progressing through the given adventure - but since you yourself have agreed on the essential differences between SP and MP, I won't drag this out unnecessarily.

 

As an afterthought though, I am still not sure if calling a certain (role-)playing style immature just because it does not correlate to one's own preferences is all that mature in itself... no offence of course, just a thought.

 

 

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was "senior"... perhaps slightly "infamous" might be a better word, heh. I seem to have a knack for dreaming up suggestions to make the roleplay experience more holistic that are probably outside of PE's intended scope.

 

And what I meant is not that those things are bad if one character is exceptionally gifted, or noble celebrity, or what not. It's just that in my experience around 70-80% of players cannot resist making such characters, and at that rate it kind of dilutes the setting's immersion for me by making the "average" characters more the exception. But if everyone plays some "exceptional" hero, really that just makes the people who try to portray a more average character exceptional. When you have a multiplayer roleplay setting, and 30% of players want to play the badass master thief, 30% of players want to play a magical prodigy, and 30% of players want to play a rich noble celebrity, it sort of overshadows the simple warrior/ranger or craftsman character in my experience. And in a game with no NPCs (perhaps this is what is ultimately at fault) that makes a society that is completely unsustainable and breaks my immersion; thus the situation is an issue of who will sacrifice playing these more indulgent roles for the greater sake of the setting's immersion, which generally takes a bit of maturity. Hopefully that explains my use of that term, as I wasn't meaning to broadly label other playstyles as such, and really I was making an irrelevant point more about different kinds of roleplay situations than Project Eternity (I always seem to find myself doing that on these forums). I suppose with a singleplayer game or a multiplayer format (such as what PE will likely be) in which you can just assume that the PC party makes up a small exceptional sliver of society, it could work differently. Ultimately, rather than a question of the objectively correct or mature way to play a game like Project Eternity I guess it's more a result of my past roleplay experiences that prevents me from enjoying certain kinds of characters fully, and I hope that Project Eternity doesn't confine our characters to the limelight.

Edited June 5, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[mcmanusaur]

Continued in a separate post since I've lost the ability to edit my previous post:

 

In online sandbox/persistent world roleplay, which is my background, it can definitely be frustrating when certain players try too hard to monopolize attention and make a shared world revolve around their character. I don't know about everyone else, but I want to feel engrossed in the world, not like the world is engrossed in my character. I also don't really understand how it's rewarding to have a shallow NPC who's programmed to stroke your character's ego do just that, but that's a separate issue I suppose. Just like some people aren't interested in the wider setting beyond its relevance to the narrative, I guess that certain people aren't very interested in the game's setting in so much as it extends beyond the influence of their particular character (not saying this applies to anyone who wants a stronghold), and to me that style of roleplay maybe is a bit immature. Of course there are countless styles of roleplay and it's all a matter of personal opinion which ways are "more right" and "more wrong", but that's my two cents.

Edited June 5, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Ulquiorra]

 

No other class can truly and naturally  immerse in this concept than a fighter class,is it that hard to see this as something obvious?

 

That is your opinion, which I find (no offence) rather black&white.

Why shouldn't a mage have a castle from which to operate, complete with soundproof torture chambers laboratories, a state of the art tower from which he can curse

enemies that are still two days' worth of marching away, etc?

He might even use it as a front, to pose as a run-of-the-mill nobleman, to hide his wicked ways - or he might, if he was of the "Hug the trees!"-persuasion, use it as an orphanage to help those less fortunate than (or maybe just as unfortunate as he was) himself.

 

Just because you would never play a mage whose aim or even interest it might be to become a land owner, or to have a stronghold to whatever means they see fit, does not make it an obvious truth.

 

So, in short... I do respect your opinion, I just choose not to share it - how about you adopt the same method and next time just say that you don't like that idea and that you don't think it plausible for any other class than a fighter - instead of just claiming it to be obvious and undeniable.

 

It is merely a question of preference and choice, and as (nearly) always in such matters, there is no right or wrong.

 

 

Mage and warrior have no real issues for "not having big stronghold". But if "stronghold" meant always "castle for noblemen" it don't suits barberian, druid and propably priest and monk classes.

 

WHY ?! Barberian can have stronghold, but he will never become "nobleman" so he will have wilderness in his heart for whole his life, he can conquer stronghold and make his own clan or even invite his own and become cheaf.

 

BUT Druids will never participate in human politics, and strongholds. Becose if druids are nature worshipers then they will be offendet by useing wood and stone for strongholds not mentioning they like more woods and wilderness then noble partyies and politics.

 

Secondlu a monks and priests also can't have strongholds. The only possibiltity if the strongholds becomes "property of the order" and they are assined to menaging it. In normal medieval societies a common priest have no real posession all meaning posessions like castles, strongholds and land where automaticly taken by an order ...

[laxtonto]

My only concern is that it is too easy to make a stronghold an always positive attribute in a character's develop and hierarchical status within a game environment. Where are the drawbacks and failures to tend to be common with new settlements or isolated towns/provinces?  I LOVE strongholds for gameplay and the added complexity that having a more world-centric viewpoint that inevitability comes with them, but most are set so that failure is not ever a real option. There is no real decision process or risk to force a true emotional buy in with the stronghold.  The problem I have seen in the previous games is that strongholds become a repository of just stuff and a forever forward moving economic machine that has a self-perpetuating economic environment that essentially "gets too big to fail" because there is no real emotional attachment to them.

 

I would prefer to have a system that will allow shops to fail, to have a fledgling stronghold to be wiped out and looted ( including all the senseless goodies a PC left there because it is an endless storage space), or to have a uprising within your stronghold due to poor management or outside manipulation. Make the stronghold important enough that there are legitimate issues with leaving it unprotected or in poor condition. NW2 had a fun stronghold, but the entire goal was to build towards that final battle.

 

Wouldn't it have been maddening to instead when you were out on an adventure to have the lizardmen to have stormed your unprotected keep with weak poorly equipped soldiers because you spent more on trying to boost the initial economy and merchants? Have it so you would have to come back and either hire a tracker or track them yourself to reclaim your lost items before they were dispersed to the wind on some set time frame? Make it one of those things that you receive word from the stronghold that something has happened and you can either ignore it and face the repercussions or drop what you were doing and go back. Make it so that you lose progress in your current quest to go back and defend your home.  If you don’t care about it, then losing the items there is not an issue, but if you are attached to the stronghold or what you have lost then you really have a legitimate choice to make.

 

I would love to see the PC have some choice of location of where they are going to have a stronghold. If you are in an arid desolate mountain environment, I want to see you forced to mine and trade for resources instead of having the generic farm and have a bonus to say forging. If we are on the coast, I want to see the need to further develop the costal defenses and breakwater to make sure sea trade is viable while receiving a boost in the amount or quality of goods going through your stronghold. If they can pick 5 or 6 specific areas and have directly tie in to the stronghold, with both positives and negatives impacts, it would allow for a better “feel” for your stronghold.  The goal should be to get the PC to have a vested attachment to it. If you aren’t interested in it, then a basic manor in the city might be all you need and the option to play with or without the stronghold should be there in the initial game start.

 

(sorry for the Holy Wall o'Text Batman!!)

Edited June 5, 2013 by laxtonto

[Lephys]

What if being at the center of importance regarding the stronghold is merely one option? What if you can set up companions or even other NPCs to own/run the place (and be in the spotlight), and the specific goings-on of the stronghold drastically affect others more than they affect you? Maybe you just get a discount with merchants there, and/or some quests/situations to deal with if you so choose, or just free entrance to the keep/town/whatever-it-is. OR, maybe it's possible to not even possess the stronghold at all, unless you take it by force through some strategic coup that requires a deal of effort on your part?

 

Basically, who owns the stronghold and what happens there would always matter, but you're not necessarily automatically the sole owner and controller of it, as railroaded by the story. Yet, it's not just a "well, if you don't go do anything with it, then nothing happens with it" kind of situation. So it doesn't revolve around you. The world simply changes one way WITH your influence, and another without it. It never stands still, though. A keep/stronghold is of strategic value to SOMEone, and it's going to be a factor in the narrative no matter what or how.

[mcmanusaur]

What if being at the center of importance regarding the stronghold is merely one option? What if you can set up companions or even other NPCs to own/run the place (and be in the spotlight), and the specific goings-on of the stronghold drastically affect others more than they affect you? Maybe you just get a discount with merchants there, and/or some quests/situations to deal with if you so choose, or just free entrance to the keep/town/whatever-it-is. OR, maybe it's possible to not even possess the stronghold at all, unless you take it by force through some strategic coup that requires a deal of effort on your part?

 

Basically, who owns the stronghold and what happens there would always matter, but you're not necessarily automatically the sole owner and controller of it, as railroaded by the story. Yet, it's not just a "well, if you don't go do anything with it, then nothing happens with it" kind of situation. So it doesn't revolve around you. The world simply changes one way WITH your influence, and another without it. It never stands still, though. A keep/stronghold is of strategic value to SOMEone, and it's going to be a factor in the narrative no matter what or how.

 

Well, my question with that is why it wouldn't apply to just about every settlement (with opportunities for negative outcomes as well as positive outcomes)? I'm guessing what's supposed to separate the stronghold from other places is that the player is the top dog.

[cleric Nemir]

 

What if being at the center of importance regarding the stronghold is merely one option? What if you can set up companions or even other NPCs to own/run the place (and be in the spotlight), and the specific goings-on of the stronghold drastically affect others more than they affect you? Maybe you just get a discount with merchants there, and/or some quests/situations to deal with if you so choose, or just free entrance to the keep/town/whatever-it-is. OR, maybe it's possible to not even possess the stronghold at all, unless you take it by force through some strategic coup that requires a deal of effort on your part?

 

Basically, who owns the stronghold and what happens there would always matter, but you're not necessarily automatically the sole owner and controller of it, as railroaded by the story. Yet, it's not just a "well, if you don't go do anything with it, then nothing happens with it" kind of situation. So it doesn't revolve around you. The world simply changes one way WITH your influence, and another without it. It never stands still, though. A keep/stronghold is of strategic value to SOMEone, and it's going to be a factor in the narrative no matter what or how.

 

Well, my question with that is why it wouldn't apply to just about every settlement (with opportunities for negative outcomes as well as positive outcomes)? I'm guessing what's supposed to separate the stronghold from other places is that the player is the top dog.

 

 

Ooh! I can answer this one - It wouldn't apply because a stronghold strongly holds the stronholdness of a stronghold's stronghold. "Panem et Arcis",that's what I always say. It won't be long now before Project : Stronghold..

[Lephys]

Well, my question with that is why it wouldn't apply to just about every settlement (with opportunities for negative outcomes as well as positive outcomes)? I'm guessing what's supposed to separate the stronghold from other places is that the player is the top dog.

I'm not sure I'm quite meeting the totality of your question here, but I suppose the only difference, really, is that you're not likely to have the potential to own and operate every single civilized settlement in the game. So, the stronghold is still something crafted into the world as an opportunity for your characters to use as their own personal resource, in ways that only a keep/settlement/structure thingy can be used within a given world.

 

So... yeah, I guess what you're guessing is pretty much true, except the player CAN be the top dog, or he can be any tier of dog. As opposed to having absolutely no opportunity for altering the altitude of his dogness.

[mcmanusaur]

So... yeah, I guess what you're guessing is pretty much true, except the player CAN be the top dog, or he can be any tier of dog. As opposed to having absolutely no opportunity for altering the altitude of his dogness.

 

 

I think I've lost track of what we were discussing, but in light of this excerpt I have no regrets. The community has spoken, Obsidian: give us more opportunities for altering the altitude of our dogness!

Edited June 6, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[TrashMan]

WOOF!!!

[laxtonto]

To continue down this dogged path...

 

 

I think the real issue is not the stronghold itself but how the PC becomes the person stuck with his own stronghold and the associated responsibilities that come with being the landed lord of all he )or she) surveys. NWN2 pretty much forced it on you, and with it be an integral part of the back half of the game it was pretty much a required function to build and strengthen your fortress. By reading the pushback on this topic, I would assume some would not be interested at all in having the stronghold a required part of the game mechanic. If that is true, then how do you add the stronghold while still keeping the part of the community happy that wants it while not forcing it on those who have no interest in land management and commerce? 

 

How do you end up with your stronghold is going to be the biggest part in truly building PC buy in of the concept. If it is given to you for no reason, then it can easily become an annoyance or burden. If it becomes essential to the game mechanic you turn off a subset of fans who don’t want to be lord of the manor. Finding the right balance is key and I am not real sure on how you can do it without some form of aristocratic title or divine motivation. Building the adequate reasoning that falls within the dynamics of the world and does not raise the PC to godlike status will be a hard balancing act.

 

Needless to say, I fall much more into the "I want to be a lord of the manor and final arbitrator of justice in my little part of the world  and have my minions run the keep while I am away" camp than most. I just prefer to have some form of fallback commerce or give and take decision making environment to deal with when I am not in the mood to go and quest and progress the story line. With that being said here are some of my thoughts that I would love to see implemented:

 

I would love to have first person type view of just the treasure room that you can get individual personal trophies hung or placed in. In a word of epeen and people wanting achievements I would love to have a personal hall of fame in my stronghold. Borrowing a little from the great game Evil Genius, let these items give a subtle bonus to your subjects all the while slowly building infamy among the evil characters and renown along the countryside that would slowly have more powerful and better equipped NPC's attacking or just trying to sneak in and rob the stronghold to acquire your stash of loot. If you keep finding these classic epic weapons or armor or artifacts, that you can't/don't equip and yet you take then back and leave them in the stronghold, after a while people with sticky fingers will try to take them. It would be a borderline gold sink. Either you keep expanding your forces, keep spending on making it thieve proof, keep winning the hearts in minds of your subjects or at some point a great robbery or an unprecedented raid will take place (I would love to see a dragon attack a stronghold and the PC try to fight it off with the help of his guards and ballista...).

 

I would love to see a dynamic setup that would allow a PC's stronghold to exhibit influence over nearby communities or influence specific traders or merchant guilds. As you build your stronghold, say in a nice cold bleak mountain province, a jeweler comes calling and wants to establish residence. Do you protect him from the jeweler’s guild when they demand him to join? Do you pay the fees for him? Can you build a guildhall for the jewelers and then use that influence in the 2 great cities on the map? There is so much that can be tied to being a landed lord that tends to get pushed to the side. I would like the see some recognition of the power or influence of the PC without it getting to the point that all the NPC's just bow to you in awe as you approach.

 

It would be great to make the location, design, and even what buildings/shops you have in your stronghold have both positives and negatives. If you have a tanner, yes he makes hide armor types but also there is a great stench to the place and no one else will want to build or live close to him. On the flip side he also can provide leather for skilled craftsman so your farmers may have better shoes, your cavalry better or cheaper saddles. This would only take a little bit of forethought but it could make a legitimate dynamic environment. I don’t want a generic stronghold on a bleak peak (actually I might, but I want a choice!!), but instead I would like to put a little thought into where I am going to build.

 

Are we taking over an existing structure? Are we taking a ruined keep and fixing it up? Are we just rolling into a town and saying "Ohh by the way, you are all my subjects now. Where are my taxes!?!?!?!" Having a choice makes the roleplaying side easier to sell to the PC. If I am an evil character I would love to take over the seaside town of pleasentville and slowly morph it into a haven of commerce and thievery best suited in the likes of Amn. If I am playing a paladin I would I rather rebuild an abandoned or evil fortress or build my fortress of light? Each PC should have the ability to use their own personal style to influence the selection of their stronghold. Many of the mechanics as far as placing building would be the same, but the general shape of each could be different.

 

Have it so that as your population in your stronghold increase you can actually tell. At some point there will be houses being built and eventually there will be a foregate area that pops up just outside the walls as the population outstrips the room inside the stronghold. That should once again have a positive and negative impact to the stronghold itself. Simple issues like the people in the foregate have now filled the moat with trash and it is no longer a viable defensive structure or the added crush of people outside has led to the need to create a hamlet that could require their own small bailey and could force you to choose between sending forces to protect them and patrol the roadway or to better use those men elsewhere. I am not asking to do this in such a scale that would take over the entire global map, but even having 1 or 2 or 3 zones that could be transitioned to that are in fact part of your authority would be something interesting to fool around with.

 

More than anything I just don’t want the stronghold to be just a place I go to drop off my gear and swap out companions. Why would a companion just hangout and wait for me to come back anyways? Why not force me to only take so many people with me, but if you don't give them something to do or leave them for too long they go off and adventure on their own? Why can’t I assign my non-active NPC party members to go do much weaker quests while we are away and then go from being the person that walks ups to the "quest board" and grabs them and goes traipsing off into the wilderness to the guy paying for and selecting that quest to be put out there for other adventurers.

 

I want the stronghold to mean something.. Maybe I am asking for too much and what I really desire is probably going to be closer to a standalone game. The problem is that the only way you can mesh two totally different gameplay environments, a 3^rd person classic RPG and  city/world manger simulation, is to do it very well to the point that they are seamless. That is a daunting task, but something I hope to see pulled off.

[cleric Nemir]

Hi,I'm Heol Telwen and I am a druid. Welcome to my pimped out grove.

Here we have a solid rock structure,fashioned in the shape of the Severed Hand,surrounded with a forest of treants,and every creature dwelling within is made to swallow a seed so that treants will remain friendly towards it. Bonus is the moat filled with anacondas. Wolves,bears and panthers dwell in the woods,sure. Charmed and friendly.

But let's meet my companions. Here's Zodiac,a ranger and a friend. She leads a hunting party that provide us with steady income of food,and scouts the surrounding lands with the help of another.. friend. A shady rogue by the name of Marduk. Has a keen eye,but a bad habit of robbing the locals homes. Gladly kills anyone we consider a threat,bless him,has real talent in doing it quickly and silently.

Galder,the barbarian from up north,Sagot the fighter,blacksmit's son. They train and lead our defensive force - the "force" may be squishy elves but they are improving much under their guidance. Sagot set up a blacksmith to keep providing men with decent equipment. Galder? Spends nights as innkeeper,continuing to call our elven wine "a women's drink". Marduk helped him smuggle some brews from way up north. Mead is good,we decided to adopt the recipe and make our own. But meet our sorceress,Sylph. Her origin is a mystery even to me. She found some ancient ruin nearby to study,she claims she senses powerful magic still present there. The fresh air,beauty and peace of my grove,healthy food.. made her admit the positive side of being out of her precious town,finally. I was beginning to worry that she might leave,couldn't tempt her easily like Galder and Marduk (hot spring bath with river dryads out back,what can I say..).

Nemir,a cleric friend of mine,has been here again yesterday for that sole reason. He's rather busy with his church of Bane and all,but the beauty of this place leaves noone's heart for too long..at least that's his excuse line for coming back to the dryads.

I enjoy our long talks over nature and gods,their importance,their differences.. He likes it here,but he tells me often that his church's yard is a safest place there is. Plus it's in the middle of town,anyone attacking him there would be attacking town,so he's covered by passing the safety worries onto the king. He's in the royal council,you know. Not that it all interests me,it just sounds good.

[JFSOCC]

Why a stronghold,people? You do realize that it is a concept valid only for a someone aiming to be a knight? A fighter class. Plus it is clearly something that leads to a point in game where you would stand your ground against forces of evil or whatever. Do we need that so bad?

 

What in the nine hells would make a druid wish for a stronghold?? Is it that ego related that it breaks all immersions you ever felt for your class??? This is madness. You are ready to choose a stronghold as your rogue's residence instead of liking an idea that sugests him being able to operate the black market,a bordel,to even rise to a role similar to what Littlefinger has in King's Landing???? Or to be an Old man of the Mountain equivalent with an assassins guild so powerful that it holds half of the word in awe??????? This is all worse than a bloody stronghold!!! HOW,EXACTLY?

Those are strongholds by another name though. we're arguing semantics. a stronghold in this case is any of those things, your assassin den, your druid circle, you trading outpost, your brothel. Personally I wouldn't make it class based, but rather faction based.

[eschaton]

Those are strongholds by another name though. we're arguing semantics. a stronghold in this case is any of those things, your assassin den, your druid circle, you trading outpost, your brothel. Personally I wouldn't make it class based, but rather faction based.

 

 

Unless it actually furthers the story, it's basically ego-stroking.  It's deeply problematic if you actually have a traditional adventurer role, because the game gives you a "home," and then you rarely check back in again.

 

While I thought Dragon Age II was largely a pile of ****, I thought it did the rationale around the stronghold well, as there were long periods between the chapters where you presumably had a boring life and just stayed around the house.  Without a similar narrative structure (episodic) the whole thing kind of falls flat.