Alignments & Influence

There are some aspects of the D&D mechanics that take some effort to make work well in the game, but if handled carefully can add a great deal of depth and a dimension that can, hopefully, make it a memorable experience. In this, I include the gaming elements of alignments and influence. I have been working on these aspects since the start of the module's creation and would like to discuss them more in-depth now with a view of receiving comments from readers on any aspects that I may not have considered, or to simply comment. :)

Alignment

Of the two areas, alignment alterations probably have the largest impact on the player's game with respect to their character development. This is obviously noticeable if a player is playing a class heavily reliant on alignment changes, like a Paladin or a Druid. If the PC's alignment drifts too far off course then the player soon finds themselves having to take steps to remedy the situation or be unable to continue development in such classes. (See Alignment Synergies & Recovery below.)

Probably like many of you, I have read the arguments both for and against alignment changes in a module and have formed my own opinion of how much of an impact they should have in a game. For myself, I concluded that a module that supported decisions of a conscience added extra depth to role-playing, and especially to those character classes that were based on such. However, I also concluded that changes in alignment were most practical (in terms of game play) on the good-evil axis compared to the lawful-chaotic one. After all, determining whether an action is chaotic or lawful is sometimes difficult to ascertain and more subjective than determining if an action is good or evil. Of course, even determining when an action is "good" is subjective, but at least its reasoning is more intuitive than the former.

Clerics: Living The Faith

Before now, little emphasis has been placed on clerics keeping true to their faith. In PnP D&D, a cleric could quickly lose the support of their god and spoken prayers if they strayed too far from their chosen alignment. In Better The Demon, this requirement to stay true to the faith has been reinstated for clerics. In other words, if a good aligned cleric commits too many evil acts, thereby turning them evil, then support from their god will be withdrawn. In such a lost faith state, they must then either find a way to recover their faith ... or even switch to a different faith! Whatever the situation, a cleric must be sure to live their faith according to their belief if the party are to benefit from his or her healing and other such prayers.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

With all this in mind, I have designed a system to alter alignment mostly according to the PC's good or evil actions as they adventure. While lawful and chaotic shifts will still occur independently from any good or evil act, the significant alignment changes will come with their good or evil acts. As examples, acts of non-personal violence will be determined as chaotic behaviour and include anything from smashing chests or furniture belonging to others to bashing at doors where acquiring the correct key would suffice. On the other hand, activities that directly or indirectly harm others will be considered evil acts and include such actions as killing or stealing from the innocent, or supporting illegal activities. (UPDATE: Initial attack now affects alignment if made against some non-hostile innocents. Otherwise, further attacks alters Influence only. See next.)

There are exceptions to the above, already alluded to: For instance, for good aligned PCs, killing an evil soul (non innocent) or being authorised by a recognised good and lawful authority to acquire (steal) an item will not be considered evil acts. Indeed, in some circumstances, ridding the world of an evil soul can even help shift alignments towards good and lawful. For the evil aligned PC, however, any killing will always be considered a selfish and evil act, even if killing another evil aligned character. They cannot turn "good" this way, if that is ever their aim for any reason.

Alignment Synergies & Recovery

In Better The Demon, a PC can sacrifice items of value at altars to help offset any detrimental shifts in their intended alignment goal. There are three types of altars available (good, evil and neutral), but only the good and evil altars shift a PCs alignment with a valid sacrifice, although all altars offer other benefits regardless of the PC's current alignment. When used, associated lawful shifts are known to accompany good alignment changes, whereas sacrificing at an evil altar attracts chaotic alignment shifts. As far as play is concerned, the focus for the player is towards either a good or evil path, with law or chaos alterations as a secondary concern, subject to the class of the PC.

Influence

Where alignment choice is more to do with a single overall life path focus, influence alterations simply represent how a relationship with a certain creature (PC or NPC) are going at any given time. In this sense, you could be playing either a good or evil aligned PC, but depending upon the mood of your PC towards a character at any given encounter, both your response at the time and the resulting influence with said character may change - without affecting your alignment!

Again, there are exceptions to this. For instance, lying is not considered a "mood" choice, but a deliberate intention to deceive the listener. Such action would be considered evil (and possibly chaotic) and cause an alignment shift accordingly. However, simply being "blunt" rather than "polite" may affect its listener differently. Some characters may perceive a "blunt" response as honest, decisive and to the point and another the "polite" response as sycophantic. In such situations, the player must determine how best to treat the character and respond as they feel fit. There may be no right or wrong way to respond (from the perspective of alignment changes), but does allow the player to develop their PCs in a way they prefer. If the characters they speak to react adversely to this, then it is up to the player to decide how best to handle it.

In all this, I have had to consider a balance of when to apply or ignore some actions of the player that would affect alignments and influence scores. This is because it is impossible to judge the mind and reasons of every player for doing what they do. To this end, some actions that may be considered "evil" I have decided to alter influence only. In particular, an attack on a character does not affect alignment, but influence. (UPDATE: An initial attack on innocent non-evil creatures may now constitute an alignment change.) A character will not talk to you after you have attacked them, until some time has passed for them to cool down. However, if the attack leads to the death of the character, then subject to their alignment, the PC's own alignment is shifted accordingly. In particular, if a PC should kill an NPC of "good" alignment, then the PC's own alignment is shifted immediately to "evil". (In general, any killing is considered evil and so killing a "neutral" character also has a chance of shifting an alignment towards "evil". By contrast, only occasionally does killing an "evil" being shift an alignment towards "good".)

Party Wide

In Better The Demon, both alignment and influence shifts occur party-wide. Be it as a party of a companions in a single-player game, or a bunch of players and companions in a multi-player game, the action of one PC will affect the alignment of the party or influence of a character with the rest of the group. In this sense, the actions of every PC impacts on the rest of the party. So, do not be surprised if the paladin of your party reacts to the rest of the group if they allow the rogue in the party to steal from a chest. There will be repercussions for your activities and so careful consideration for your party's role in the game will be important and something to consider as you make your way through the game.

Larger Conversation GUI

On a different note, I was interested to read Chaos Wielder has opted to have larger NWN1 conversation GUI for the same reasons as myself: As the module has quite a bit of text, then I felt the SoZ overland style of conversation offered an overall better look and feel when reading text than the original. The only difference between this GUI and the normal overland map GUI is that the multiple PC option has been removed so that it behaves in the same manner as a NWN conversation GUI, operating for only a single player at a time. Below is a screenshot with it in use. Observant readers will note quite a few other changes to the norm in the main screen that will come with the module:


POLL: What Turns You Off A Module?

If you haven't voted in the poll yet (on the left hand side), then please do and feel free to comment.

Nothing Matters! (Dark Matter)

You may recall a few weeks ago that I was inspired to write about the topic of Infinity after watching a "Horizon" programme about the subject on TV. Today, after watching another "Horizon" programme, entitled, "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?" I have once again been inspired to write, but this time on the subject of Creation, which I hope will be as much of interest to fellow bloggers/builders as myself. After all, as builders, do we not have our own stories of creation for our own worlds? Much of my own world's creation and governing aspects are loosely based upon some of these ideas I share with you now. I would truly like to know what inspires the background to your own worlds and I ask a few questions at the end of this post. If this sort of thing bores you however, then please forgive my ramblings this week too. It will probably be the last such blog for a while, as I don't think there are any more Horizon programmes left to see this season. (Normal blogs will continue.)

Truly It Does!

Once again, I made the title of this blog deliberately ambiguous. Hopefully, it will be clear now that I meant the title to read in the sense that the consideration of what we call "nothing" does actually matter, as opposed to the sense that we should have no concern about anything.

Interestingly, this week's programme also supported my own argument that I made in my last blog that there is no such thing as nothing and that in "nothing" there is actually "something": Dark Matter! The maths and science gets rather complicated and is way outside my own ability to discuss, but I was encouraged to discover that even scientists have come to the same conclusion I had, myself having just giving it some thought. By the way, I have heard the term Dark Matter before, but I did not know the scientists had considered it as something that existed as a substitute for "nothing" (something even inside a vacuum).

The same programme also discussed other related topics such as Dark Energy and Dark Flow: two other ideas put forward by scientists to help explain why the universe behaves the way it does now. The problem for scientists is that the standard model they have for creation and the universe at the moment does not fit as smoothly as they had hoped, and so they have had to introduce these concepts to help explain their theoretical model. The point I find interesting, however, (and without trying to sound arrogant) is that it seems obvious to me that humanity would not yet have discovered everything there is to know about our universe. Go back only a few hundred years and our world did not even know about the gases that are around us today, which we all take for granted as common knowledge nowadays.

The Spiritual Equation

A point I am trying to make, however, is that we have already been told that there is more to the visible eye in the universe from such texts as the Bible. I don't just mean in the form of "invisible matter" but also in the form of the spiritual, which the Bible teaches us is "invisible". It seems to me that science simply appears to be making discoveries about something that the Bible has already taught us!

We could even apply biblical knowledge in a way that might help explain some of the problems that science is struggling to resolve. For instance, if we take the stand that God created the universe out of love, we can also believe that the universe is more than just a system of matter that follows specific laws of physics. I hasten to add that I am not saying the universe is on the back of a tortoise or something like that, but that a form of life flows through the universe in ways that we do not yet understand. And where there is life, we can also recognise organic behaviour such as growth and change. If we can believe that the universe is like this in some way, (especially in the areas that the scientists currently call Dark Matter, Dark Energy or even Dark Flow but the Christian would call the spiritual world), then changes in the speed of galactic expansion and even unexpected events can simply be interpreted as a change in motion of an organic entity, potentially stretching in all kinds of directions like a growing plant. Furthermore, if we believe in the spiritual realms and principalities of which the Bible speaks, then the impact they might have on our universe should not come as a surprise.

Not Ghosts!

I know how quickly one can start thinking about ghosts when talking about the spiritual, and so I wanted to quickly clarify my own belief on such matters. In this case, I believe in a spiritual world that can and does have an impact on our own physical world, but I do not believe in "ghosts" in the traditional sense. That said, I am not saying it is impossible for ghosts to exist, but I do not believe that any such manifestations are edifying of the true spiritual realm and, in fact, only serve to lead people away from the spiritual truth of the Bible. I won't say anything more on this subject as I do not want to possibly offend people. However, I am happy to continue a discussion of such in a blog comment if you wish.

The Canvas of Creation

For a long time now, science has held on to the Big Bang Theory as a working model of Creation, and even in the Horizon programme they touch on the point that prior to the Big Bang, the scientists believed there was/is nothing. It is only in the light of the recent "Dark" theories (if you pardon the pun) that they are beginning to revise the theory. I find it interesting to think that if the "Dark" concepts of science (or what I would refer to as spiritual) existed prior to the physical universe coming into existence, then, once again, the Bible has already told us this was the case: For, according to the Bible, God and the spiritual world existed before our world and the universe was created. Knowing this, I also have no problem in believing that something outside of the universe I know (God in my case) could have created it in the way I see it now without the dimension/involvement of time. In other words, I see it as quite possible that God could have fashioned the design of creation, like a painting on a blank canvas, with all the stars and galaxies the way we see them now and then set the whole thing in motion when He delivered His creation as the completed physical universe we know today. Furthermore, a design in thought can be completed and presented in an instant without the need to pass through a period of time in a sense of being created. For example, when I say think of a car, you do not draw the car into existence inside your mind as a slow process, but have created a full and complete car image in an instant. Not only that, you could also imagine many of them of different sizes and colours as quickly as just the one.

Continuing the analogy of a blank canvas, if we paint a picture of the night sky and asked a child to describe it to us, they may say the picture is one of stars only. Yet, we know we have used a dark colour to paint in the sky where there are no stars. Or, if we paint a picture of a snowy scene on a white background, is it not also possible that we may leave the canvas blank in those areas to give the effect of snow. These are obvious examples I mention where there is actually "something" in the "nothing" or where "emptiness" in the design is still actually part of the design! However, if we can consider this same concept in our own universe, but at a level far beyond our current understanding, then some of the references of the Bible start to make more sense, and even help to explain the scientific observations. Only belief separates acceptance of this knowledge or not.

From Beyond To Within

As I said at the start, these types of programmes, along with my own personal beliefs, do help me to think about life, the universe and everything! After all, aren't we all trying to work that out deep down? And when presented with a tool like D&D (or NWN), are we then not prone to think about these topics some more if we are to create a believable world of our own in which the adventures take place? I went through two campaign designs before I realised the importance of background and history for my third and final design of Althéa. Then, when I started to investigate the reasons for the way things are in our own world, I started to gain an appreciation for certain things.

For me, it was after I read The Silmarillion (source for The Lord of the Rings) that I realised the importance of having a good and solid historical background for my own world. Later, when I became a Christian, I also recognised the importance of differentiating between fantasy and reality and to ensure there was no confusion left to the player with respect to such and avoided real world references within my own fantasy world wherever and whenever possible. In situations that conflict, I have always tried to impress the difference between what I believe is truly fantasy and what may have historically occurred. (E.g. Resurrection.)

As module builders, I believe we have a responsibility to provide an entertaining game without offending people of any creed or race. Yet, as builders, we are also in the unique position to put forward ideas and suggestions in such a way that make people think a little more about those things that previously may have been taken for granted. I am not saying we should preach in any way, but I do believe we can share our ideas in such a way that is encouraging and possibly enlightening.

With that in mind, my questions this week are:

1) What inspired your world design or currently inspires you?
2) Do you have a specific world background? (Is this your own design or by a third party?)
3) Have you written your own World Creation for your world?
4) What is the main idea or concept you are trying to demonstrate or share?
5) Or, is this too involved for your game design?

POLL: What Turns You Off A Module?

If you haven't voted for last week's poll yet, then please do and feel free to comment.

Pet Hates (POLL: What Turns You Off A Module?)

After writing this blog, I realised that a lot of my time when designing Better The Demon is to try to either include interesting and unique ideas that would attract players, while at the same time avoid those aspects of a game that players do not like. A while ago, I addressed the question of what motivates the player, and in particular asked about certain rewards that excited the player. Today, I would like to know what turns you off a game. What are your "pet hates" that simply drive you away or make you put a game down sooner than another?

The Death System

One of my own personal concerns is the way death is handled in some modules. I recognise there needs to be some kind of penalty for dying, but at the same time can see the frustration of being metaphorically beaten down by something as simple as a slow response from the player or the computer. In other words, I do not like my PC being penalised for my lack of ability to press a combination of buttons at a given time, which ultimately leads to their death.

I have tried to address this issue in past gaming by introducing a couple of ideas, which Better The Demon continues to follow. Firstly, there is a new essence, called the Life Essence, which if found and carried can help to keep a PC alive longer than expected. (Concept first introduced in Soul Shaker.) Secondly, if the PC dies without a Life Essence, then an XP death penalty is applied to the PC instead, which must be repaid before they start to accrue further XP. In other words, the PC does not lose any XP or gold upon each death, but simply has a set amount (50 xp per level) set on them to be repaid with new XP gained before it can start to be added to their goal. (Concept first introduced in my PnP days to replace level draining.)

I have also made it that when a companion dies, they remain dead and require a raise dead (or resurrect) to be brought back to life. However, careful use of the Life Essence, along with an auto-pause combat option should help reduce sudden deaths for the careful and tactical player.

What About Your Dislikes?

The Death System was just one area that I wanted to make sure did not frustrate players, and I have tried to give as much thought to other parts of the module as this, but recognise other players may find other aspects of a module far more annoying. This is where you step in: tell me about your major dislikes. While the poll includes some ideas I am considering, please feel free to add your own personal frustrations and leave a comment.

Another Quest Underway

I managed to start work on another side quest this week and am pleased with the way it has come together, especially with the number of paths it has available to it. Whether playing a good or evil aligned PC, there are a number of solutions. In theory, once I have managed to write the initial quests and the player's PC has become more established in the module, the rest should become a lot easier and thereby speed up the overall progress. In the meanwhile, I do appreciate the patience of potential players who are still reading and waiting.

Be A Part Of The Design!

As many readers will know by now, area design is my weakest/slowest area to build. I manage to keep at a reasonable pace when it comes to scripting and conversations (just slow instead of painfully slow), but designing areas can almost grind to a stop and often be restarted. However, I recognise that there is a great deal of talent out there and am not too proud to ask if anybody is interested in helping design some of the areas I already have in mind. In other words, I am not asking for a person to have to come up with everything from scratch, but am asking for an area designed on a predetermined need. However, the final outcome of that design is very much in their hands.

If this interests you, then please let me know, as I am quite prepared to release this mod in both my name and theirs. I am looking for a level of quality and attention to detail as my own, but has the gift of an artist/designer to do a better job than I can. There is no immediate pressure to come up with x number of areas in x amount of time, but is something I would love to discuss with anybody who may be interested. I won't go into too many details just now, as I do not want to give too much of the module scope away. :)

This project is something I can eventually do on my own, but it would be finished that much sooner (and hopefully to a higher quality visually) if I do have somebody to work with. Rest assured, this project will be finished (God willing) and so any time invested by a volunteer will not be wasted, and at the end of it, I hope we would have something that is quite different to the norm ... for better or worse. ;)

Bring Back The Party Spirit! (The Trouble With Sharing.)

Without doubt, the most fun games I have ever played have to be when I have shared the experience with a fellow gamer in a co-operative style multi-player game: where players play out the same story and work together towards the same end, as opposed to a "capture the flag" style MP game where the players are usually pitted against each other and do not normally take place in the original story. While I am sure many players share individual gaming experiences with their fellow gamers, it is not the same as actually playing the same game and discovering the story at the same time. I also believe this is what made/makes PnP D&D the success it once was/is. I am vague on the tense I use here, as I am not sure the D&D game has the same appeal to modern day players as it once had when its attraction and success was based very much on the imaginations of the players compared to the senses-driven CRPG environment that players are so used to today. Before computer graphics, players had to rely solely on DM descriptions of their environment, with a few drawings and paintings to help inspire everybody's imaginations at best. Nowadays, an argument could be raised that says, "What is the point of a description when you can see and hear all the action onscreen!"

I believe, however, we are in danger of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater if we are not careful when designing an adventure in such an environment that NWN provides the computer aided D&D world. Why? Simply because while we are drawn in with the fantastic ability to have our creations come to life through computer technology, at the same time we are losing the importance of creating something that can be shared by others. I am not talking about the experience of the game itself, but the experience of playing the game and sharing the experience with another player at the same time. The baby in this sense is the shared experience, and ultimately means providing a game that can be played as a multi-player (MP) experience as much as single-player (SP). I want to quickly add that by multi-player, I do not mean creating a persistent world (PW), but, instead, a module where two or more players can enter and then enjoy the same story and experience together. I make the distinction between a PW and a MP one, because the former tends to only offer an environment with varying paths for advancement according to a preferred style of play, whereas the latter tends to be a more focused story with a distinctive final objective or ending. By their very definitions, a persistent world is persistent, whereas a module is a complete/closed environment. However, a module can be created to allow more than one player to play at the same time if the builder designs the module with MP in mind. The problem with designing a module to be MP is that it can change what at first appears to be a reasonably simple idea into an exceedingly complicated one. My aim in this post is to help remove some of the bigger obstacles that may have prevented a MP design from fellow builders in the past. By sharing two of the more important problems I had to overcome, I hope to present the solutions to them in such a way that will both encourage and inspire builders to take steps towards designing a MP module that might rekindle some of the party spirit in the style of a good old-fashioned D&D adventure where friends would gather around the table and play together. I hope to bring back the baby, hopefully not kicking and screaming, to be enjoyed as much as it once was by a group rather than just an individual.

To support my own belief in encouraging releases of co-operative MP modules, "Better The Demon" will be released supporting MP play as well as SP. In the past, I have often mentioned the added difficulties of catering for a MP environment, and again, only this week, I found myself having to revise two fundamental aspects of the module to ensure both rigidity and logical flow remain intact: transitions and conversations. It is these two aspects of module design I wish to cover now, which if handled correctly from the start of the design, will go a long way to ensuring a stable MP module. While, I have experimented with many different approaches to these problems over the last couple of years, I believe I have finally settled on a solution. Although I have divided this topic into two, you will see that I refer to both subjects within their own topic. This is because the two are closely related.

Transitions (Setting The Boundaries)

When playing PnP (pen and paper) D&D, it is very easy for one player to ask the DM to do something in one area, while another player may be doing something else in another. When translating this concept to a CRPG environment, it is very easy to be misled into trying to come up with a kind of "autonomous" design for each player, by allowing the players to venture into their own "areas" independent of each other. I will tell you of some of my own (failed) ideas before sharing the final solution I settled with and the reasons why.

DESIGN 1: At the very start, I was sorely tempted to set the module property to allow more than one party at a time. This had the advantages of appearing to solve both of the problems I am talking about in one go. By having separate parties, the different players could create their own individual "party" and all transitions and conversations would be handled for each party individually.

DESIGN 1 PROBLEM: The design reflected more of a persistent world (PW) approach, in that each party was too independent and each would quickly end up following their own individual path through the module. Different variables would be set for each player, causing a breakdown of consistency of a single story. As the module was designed to be a co-operative MP experience following a single storyline, then this multi-party approach failed.

DESIGN 2: My second approach (using a single party module setting) was to allow players to visit their own "area" with the PCs they controlled, as long as it did not involve long distance travel, which would separate the players significantly. E.g. Allow one player to go inside a tavern within a village, while another spoke to the man at the local market in the same village.

DESIGN 2 PROBLEM: I thought I had this working for a long period of time. Initially, I had encountered a number of NWN engine issues that caused game crashes when one player was trying to change areas while another player possessed a shared companion. However, even after I solved this problem, I came up against a problem with another design idea I had in place: In "Better The Demon", players control their own PCs. In other words, although players are within the same single party, each player is responsible for their own PCs within the party. E.g. The PCs will only rest when the player who controls them rests; the PCs follow the player that controls them and not the party leader (unless the player is the leader); and the PCs will only respond to the commands and shouts of the player that controls them. Unfortunately, however, whenever the party leader leaves an area, all companions, whether associated with another player or not, will leave the area with the leader. As I mention above, I resolved the crash this would cause if another player possessed a companion at the time by ensuring the said player was forced back to their main PC prior to the companion being zoned. However, it later became obvious that this could have dire consequences if the second player's main PC was dead, or if a player was in the middle of a conversation while using the possessed companion that was trying to be zoned via the party leader exiting.

DESIGN 3 (FINAL): Eventually, I reconsidered the original game design of allowing this autonomy for players to travel between different areas to each other and concluded that the idea was not actually required. For instance, even when playing PnP D&D, each player had to wait their turn before the DM could address their situation, irrespective of where they were in the game world. And in every situation, all players would have to sit through the discourse of the DM with another player until it was their own turn to speak of what actions they wanted their PCs carry out. In other words, all players were present at all events, regardless of where the PCs were and what events actually took place. Most of the time, every player was privy to their fellow players actions for their PCs and any events that came from the play was shared as an experience for the party as a whole.

To translate this idea into NWN (of being present in spirit even if not actually), we have to ensure that each player is actually present at each other's activities, which means ensuring every player's actions for their PCs take place in the same area as every other players. If this was not done, then even if we did manage to allow players to visit areas independently of each other, the players would have to stop play every now and then to keep each other updated of the events that they had done independently of each other. In this sense, the working together as a party experience would have been lost to individual information gathering. And although I do recognise there are times when being able to speak to different vendors in different areas could be useful, the potential loss to "surprise events" possibly encountered along the way is too great a risk to allow such autonomy to take place. In brief, the likelihood for players actually needing to be in two different places at once was too insignificant (or even potentially game spoiling) to allow. (See also Different Locations, Same Area below.)

To ensure the party do stick together, I have employed the Gather Your Party GUI for all area transitions. This GUI only shows in a multi-player game where more than one player could be involved in another activity within the same area as another player. Basically, if there is any risk of a player breaking an event of another player, this simple GUI ensures that all players are basically ready to leave together before the transition is accessible. For example, nobody likes to be zoned in the middle of a conversation.

Different Locations, Same Area

I should point out that an area can be designed with more than one location within it. E.g. A tavern may have an upstairs location and a downstairs location, which are designed within the same area. In such a situation, one player can easily control their own PCs to travel to one location independently of another player. This use of different locations within the same area allows the builder to offer some interesting situations to players who may then have to think tactically about which PCs to use and when.

Conversations (Sharing The Knowledge)

Knowing when to allow players to have conversations independently from each other is another difficult design area to get right when considering multi-player gaming. Many of the arguments about area transitions above can be used about conversations and, in particular, noting the point about ensuring every player in a MP game shares the same gaming experience. This is especially important with respect to the main story or other pertinent game background that is divulged through conversations. In my experience, there are two types of conversation: plot and casual. The main problems come when you have plot conversations that may also contain casual elements.

Plot Conversations

In my experience, I would say that it is essential that conversations divulging story background are set with the Multiplayer Cutscene property as TRUE so that every player gets to see the conversation taking place, even if they do not actually take part by clicking an option. A Multiplayer Cutscene conversation starts for every player in the same area, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, and can be displayed either as a NWN2 cutscene style conversation or the older NWN 1 conversation GUI. (This is the main reason why it is important for all players to be in the same area when playing, so they do not miss out on an important conversation.) All players are then able to see and discuss the choices available, even though only one player controls the input. (NB: The Party Chat property set as TRUE overrides the Multiplayer Cutscene setting. It prevents PCs beyond a certain range taking part in the conversation as determined by a setting in the Campaign Editor at build time. Those that are included in the conversation, however, can all have an input. UPDATE: The Party Chat will not be escapable with Multiplayer Cutscene enabled.) It is important to recognise that starting a Multiplayer Cutscene will abruptly end all other conversations going on elsewhere. E.g. If somebody is speaking to a vendor about something, the player will suddenly be dropped out of that conversation and brought into the cutscene one. As long as the abruptly ended conversation did not contain any unfinished "once only" nodes (especially with important variable settings on them), then it should not be an issue, apart from forcing the player to have to "replay" the original conversation after the cutscene one has ended.

Other examples of when to use Multiplayer Cutscene set as TRUE include:

1) Companion atmosphere speeches, where a member of the party addresses other members (i.e. all the players) about something they have observed. (Use sparingly, especially in areas that use different locations, as players may be separated and so logical flow could appear off.)

2) NPC triggered atmosphere speeches to give extra information to all players, while preventing the players from bypassing the speaker. (Force the players back.) Note the same issue as mentioned above.

3) When we want a Party Chat conversation to not be escapable at any time during its conversation.

Casual Conversations

By contrast, casual conversations are those that do not offer much to advance the story and better serve the individual needs of the player/PC speaking to the character with the conversation. Such conversations include those with vendors that give access to a store or allow a player's PC to do something that does not have to involve the whole party of players. Judging when to allow this is not easy, but there is a good way to handle it if in doubt. In every instance of any type of casual conversation, however, the Multiplayer Cutscene is always set to FALSE. UPDATE: Unless set as TRUE with Party Chat to prevent the player from escaping the conversation.

If a conversation is obviously casual, with absolutely nothing to be gained from a party perspective, then feel free to leave all properties as FALSE and only setting TRUE the one that determine if you want the conversation to be in a NWN1 (old conversation GUI) or FALSE if a NWN2 (cutscene) style.

If, however, there may be something useful to be gained by the party as a whole, but does not warrant a full-blown use of a party Multiplayer Cutscene setting, then make use of the Party Chat option by setting it to TRUE. Then, when a player starts a conversation with the NPC with the Party Chat enabled, all nearby players will be involved with the conversation, but also allows players further afield (maybe doing their own thing) to not become involved and/or forced out of a conversation they are already having. NB: If a player is within range of a Party Chat conversation, they will still be forced out of any conversation they are in to take part in the Party Chat one.

The order of priority for setting multi-player conversations is as follows:

1) Plot: Multiplayer Cutscene = TRUE. Party Chat = FALSE. (TRUE overrides Multiplayer Cutscene, but allows a Party Chat to not be escaped from.)

2) Casual (Important): Multiplayer Cutscene = FALSE. Party Chat = TRUE. (All nearby PCs involved.)

3) Casual (Unimportant): Multiplayer Cutscene = FALSE. Party Chat = FALSE. (One speaker only.)

The golden rule is: if in doubt about the casual conversation, set it with Party Chat as TRUE.

Useful Multi-Player Conversation Tips

1) Avoid using PLOT Multiplayer Cutscene = TRUE with NPCs who also have stores. Instead, consider implementing an alternative means to access the NPC's store while they are present. The latter made accessible after having given the first conversation.

2) Only use the "once only" option on a node of casual conversations if you are sure you can afford to lose the information and accompanying variables it may alter. This is because a plot conversation that employs the Multiplayer Cutscene property will cut short any other conversations running at the time if started. If you have any critical "actions" or "quests" in the paths that follow the "once only" node and you cannot get to them again, then you MUST make sure this conversation CANNOT be interrupted, either by upping its priority to a Multiplayer Cutscene or setting check variables, or even ensuring important variables are set if the conversation is "aborted" due to another conversation of higher priority being started. Doing this, however, could confuse the player who had their conversation aborted.

3) If you want to make even the Party Chat option include every PC in the area (like the Multiplayer Cutscene mode), then increase the value in the Campaign Editor to cover even the furthest distance apart. (I have not tested this myself yet, but it should work.)

Final Questions

BUILDERS: I believe I have covered the two most important issues when it comes to module builders considering designing a module to cater for MP play. However, if there are other reasons why you prefer not to design a module with MP in mind, then please let me know. Maybe I am missing something I should know about. :)

PLAYERS: Am I a dying breed? Does not a co-operative gaming style appeal to you more than a SP game only? Let me know what have been your most exciting gaming experiences and why? Do you prefer to play a D&D game in a party of real players or are you content with a party of your own?

The Skin Problem!

I made an unfortunate discovery this week. If a skin is applied to a PC on entering the module (to allow the builder to make custom alterations), and the PC equips/unequips a shield, then the armour penalty points go haywire! I spent some time trying to work out what was going on, but eventually gave up and made a post in the Bioware forums, which has been receiving attention from some of the best minds to try to resolve the issue. To date, the problem has not been resolved, which could be a bit of a blow for builders who like to make use of this facility. UPDATE: With some help, I believe I have resolved the issue by using an adapted "creature bite" instead of the original "creature skin" method. (See the linked post for the discussion.)  

UPDATE (Still fails): https://worldofalthea.blogspot.com/2010/10/trade-skills-more-skin-problems.html 

Fortunately, I was able to rewrite the system I was using the PC Skin for. Obsidian had released some new functions in the last patch that allowed me to work my idea in from a new scripting angle. I won't go into any more details than that, as I am keeping the game play secret for the time being. Suffice to say, it involves a whole new GUI and gives versatility to the player.

The Order Of Crafting Ingredients 

In the last two weeks I have been working on another side quest. Like all side quests, while not essential, it does help provide the PC with more resources to better handle the main quest. In the process of writing this quest, I made the discovery that some recipes (rewritten in the crafting 2da file) were failing to work. After some experimenting, it appeared that the order in which the ingredients were listed in the 2da file were having an impact on whether the recipe was recognised or not! This surprised me, as I always thought the order they were listed did not matter, but I found that for at least two tested recipes, I had to reverse the order of the items as they had been entered in the table. E.g. Instead of cft_ess_earth1,NW_IT_GEM011 I had to enter NW_IT_GEM011,cft_ess_earth1.  

Has anybody else noticed this? Or am I missing something?  

Early Intro Text 

As well as general writing, I even started to give some thought to the opening movie, which like Soul Shaker, will most likely just be a simple voice over text. The text will probably be something along the lines of:

"Enter a world with a growing new Empire."

"Into a time where the magical formulae have been rewritten."

"And the warrior's blade is not the weapon it once was."

"Search both the depth of your soul and the lands of Althéa."

"For the path that leads you to your destiny."

"And forges a new way for the rest of the world to follow."

The Infinite & Destiny

This is a very long and deep topic that I hope will raise some interest. I have been working on the module, but as this topic turned out so long, I will leave normal module updates for next week.

I considered the title, "What Inspires You?" for the blog this week, but hoped the one I finally chose may also inspire some discussion, as it is something that I thought builders of modules may have a shared interest in, even if it is only subconsciously. Outside links to different points raised are provided at the end of this post.

It was after I watched a Horizon programme, entitled "To Infinity and Beyond" that I was reminded of my own interest in the subject. For myself, coming from both a background of science and being a Christian, I look at this topic from different viewpoints - and if I haven't bored you already (and you forgive my reference to God now and then), I hope to share some of my own thoughts on the topic and would be interested to hear some of yours. However, if something else inspires you to write your mod, then do let me know that as well, as I am always interested in what drives fellow modders to write what they do.

The Complete Works Of Monkeyspeare

Some of you may already be familiar with the idea that given enough time and enough monkeys who would continuously tap away at a typewriter, that eventually, purely by chance, one of them would manage to type out the complete works of Shakespeare. So, if the universe is infinite, as many believe, then this idea, as crazy as it sounds, becomes a certainty. This idea can be extrapolated further to the point that eventually a monkey would manage to type out every word that has ever been written if Time is truly infinite.

The above assumes an eventual culmination of order of events that give forth a meaning. I then reasoned, using the same argument, that given enough time (infinity), it is not unreasonable to consider that something has to eventually come together in such an order that "random" actions are no longer random, but actually ordered in such a way to form consciousness. Indeed, on the face of it, it would appear I may be arguing the "evolution" theory, but I am not for reasons that will follow.

Nothing Is Perfect Forever

The above sub-title may appear straightforward when first read. However, it is actually ambiguous and its ambiguity is quite challenging. For instance, we could read it that we imply any "something" is always open to imperfection. However, it could also be read to mean that "nothing" is actually something that is perfect forever. It is saying that something is both perfect and imperfect at the same time, subject to its reader's interpretation. Why is this so important? I believe it is for two reasons: Firstly, if we believe God is perfect in everything He does (which the bible teaches), then the latter supports this point. Secondly, if nothing is actually "something", then I believe the idea of there being "nothing" is actually an illusion and a man-made interpretation of something that we cannot fathom or understand. In other words, there is no such thing as "nothing". While it is natural and correct for man to assume a duality in many things, in the subject of existence (and especially when considering infinity) there is no such thing as "nothing" as an opposite to "something". In other words, infinity exists beyond our own understanding of time and space.

Within The Mind

Even trying to grasp the concept of the infinite is mind-blowing. I consider that to try to think of infinity in some ways has to be a matter of continuous thought. Infinity is so alien to our thinking in terms of its size, that to think of it at all requires us to have an endless imagination - and in this sense, God has made us like this. In this sense, we have been made in His image (Genesis 1 v 5), in that we too have the ability to think in an unlimited time and space within our own minds. In everybody's ability to think and imagine, in this sense we also have the ability to perceive the infinite.

This is where we may find a modder can, perhaps, begin to have a common interest in the infinite, as every good modder must use and stretch their imagination into new thoughts and ideas to come up with a new adventure. In a much lesser way than God, they use their infinite mind to help create and develop an idea into a story, which hopefully becomes a module, in which other players can play and see the modders world come to life. It is an old cliché, but is quite true to say that DMs or mod builders are the "gods of their worlds".

This thought opens up another interesting pathway in our discussion of the infinite: Does the module we build, or the story we tell, ever genuinely have anything new or inspired? There is a belief that there are only so many fundamental origins for a story and that each "new" story is just another permutation of one of the fundamental stories with slight alterations. (If someone is able to find a source for this belief, please let me know and I will update this blog.) Even in the light of this "belief", I do not want to undermine the vision someone has of a creation within their mind's eye. For instance, it is often said that a sculptor will "see" the final statue they will eventually create in the rock they look at, even before they have sculpted it. The question I am trying to ask here is at what point does something become real? Is even a thought real?

The question of reality or what is considered reality is a difficult thing to grasp when considering the infinite. After all, what we consider reality in the fullness of infinity would be considered almost a "nothing" if we had not already come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "nothing". However, if we consider our reality in the light of God, then we could say (with almost certainty in an infinite reality) that we are Within The Mind of God!

I want to take a step back for a moment and reiterate this point. The reason I believe we cannot understand, comprehend or imagine anything beyond the infinite is because we are incapable of understanding fully what God's intentions for us are. In the same way, one person cannot fathom the limits of vision of another person; it is impossible for any person to out-imagine another. In this sense, we are infinite! And if we believe something could be considered "real" by words alone, then we can also create a reality out of nothing actually physical by speaking a story. Consider any favourite story. For example, if I was to ask you who is it that swings through trees on vines, has a companion called Jane and lives in a jungle, I suspect most of you are able to call to mind Tarzan. Yet, Tarzan is a fictional character who we say "does not exist". My argument is that in the sense of the infinite, he does exist. We know he exists because we are able to think about him. He is a fictional creation.

Substance In The Design

If we can agree that something can be "real" in a person's mind's eye, but at this stage are in disagreement about the substance of reality, then let us also consider the following: If anything that is possible can happen in an infinite universe, then anything that we can imagine as possible should eventually become a reality. It may take an unimaginable period of time (or maybe a continuous thought on the infinite) before it happened, but what does that matter in an infinite universe? We know there is no such thing as "nothing" from both argument and just by looking around us. Therefore, the building blocks for everything that is potentially possible already exists, and is available from all the particles of energy there are in an infinite universe. And if one argues that that is impossible, then ask yourself how did we come into existence ourselves? The particles had to eventually come together in such a way to form us, whether by accident or design. My typing this and you reading it, and having the ability to say, "I think, therefore I am" is all the proof you need to acknowledge your own existence. The only alternative is to argue that we don't actually exist and that we are the result of one infinite course (of many infinite paths) that just happens to be able to maintain a span of coherent thought over many thousands of years to be able to acknowledge a history and an understanding of Time in the first place. However, whichever belief you have, the result is we do at least acknowledge that we are cognitive beings in one sense or another.

What About Destiny Then?

To answer this question, we also have to consider the argument of whether we have freewill or if everything is pre-destined? This is such a big topic, but I will try to comment on it in the light of the infinite and all that I have currently discussed. I would also like to use the analogy of a player playing in the module of a fellow builder. (I hope nobody takes offence at my analogy when referring to God in such a way.) Let me start by asking the question, "How much freewill does a player have inside a module?" I have discussed this before (as I am sure many of you have), but I hope that all will see that the answer is actually very little. The player is bound by the universe as created by the mod builder. If the builder had created only one area, then the player would be bound to that single area, with no choice about going to another place. In the same way, but with certainly more potential paths, God has created a universe in which we may move about (according to our abilities), but will eventually meet with the same end: death! In this sense, freewill is only an illusion subject to Time and a belief that we are in control of our own destiny. By saying this, I am not condoning we do nothing but sit back and wait for destiny to take its toll on us (although if that is one's destiny, it would happen anyway), but instead, asking one to recognise that we are subject to the laws (code) and limitations that the designer of the world has placed upon us.

One may argue that we have freewill to make choices during this time. To admit this, however, we also have to admit that we are more than a simple result of chance creation within the infinite. There comes a point in the argument when we have to decide whether everything we do is the result of a chance happening of existence as it runs its course with us in it, or we are existing within the design of some greater being, like God. If we believe it is all a matter of chance, then the same argument actually leaves no room for any real existence or manifest inspiration within ourselves. Chance creation would not leave any room for genuine creation of any thought. Everybody's thoughts would be existing on a "good luck run" of particles and energy just happening to flow in the right way for this existence of the universe to take place as we now live. The opposite argument, however, that we are the result of design, defends our own thought processes as being something more than a chance run. This argument says that our own thoughts are important as new design and that we are truly being creative just as we were first created.

Let me take this final point to ask a question using my "infinite" imagination to try to grasp some of the truly infinite, which we know is impossible, but is obviously destined to be: Where does all this lead to? Well, we can either believe we are following the path of chance, in which case, as I have already discussed, ones destiny is already set as your life is already following its path for this infinite road. Or, we can believe there is a God with a design in mind. Interestingly enough, however, this argument also points to a pre-destined road, with one exception: God is in control of your destiny rather than nobody.

If we believe an artist can perceive something before it is created, and we also believe God is an artist, then we can easily believe that God could have perceived us (made us real) in His mind (the Infinite) even before we were made substance (using the particles of energy that have always been - assuming there is no such thing as nothing). Life and existence is then God's creation bound by the laws He wants. In the process of its building to perfection, some parts will be forged into His design while other parts will be perfectly removed and discarded. In much the same way a story writer or a modder will rewrite some sections of their book or module to make it as "perfect" as they can, God does the same with His creation but to absolute perfection and without any possibility of error.

With infinity as His backdrop and eternity as His time schedule, every moment of life could be taking Him unimaginable amounts of time to work. Just because we perceive time as a constantly flowing thing, it does not mean that God has not rested many times during His continued design for us. Imagine the passing of time like watching a video that God is making. If we were the actors in the video only conscious of the story being told, then we would never be able to understand the idea of more time passing outside of us while God paused in His work (paused the video) and did more work before un-pausing the action for more of the life story to continue. To us, the actors inside the video, life would be continuously flowing, but to God, He may have taken an infinite amount of time to perfect one scene. (How many hours does creating a cutscene take to make compared to when it's played in the game?)

One Of Many

Throughout this blog I have been discussing only one infinite universe and one destiny. There are mathematical theories now, however, that suggest our infinite universe is just one of many. It suggests that there are an infinite number of infinite universes. When we consider this, then maybe we are reaching the limit of our imagination, because to suggest we are able to think about more than one infinite universe at a time almost becomes an absurdity if we consider our imagination to be like a single infinite process itself. What it does suggest, however, is that no matter how much we try to think about the infinite, we can never truly grasp what the infinite beyond us is, perhaps much in the same way we are unable to say when we have reached the limit of our own imagination.

Permanent Consciousness

My conclusion to all this, no matter what you believe, is that we are all subject to a permanent consciousness. Or, to put it another way, in an infinite universe, it is impossible to ever be in a state of permanent unconsciousness, as eventually, either by chance or by design (God), we will return to being conscious just as we are now. After all, it has happened once already! You are alive now! In an infinite universe, it can happen an infinite number of times, even to the point where you have retained memories. The extreme amount of time that passes between such manifestations of your consciousness will mean nothing more than a video on a brief pause when considering infinity. One minute you will be alive, the next minute dead, and in the blink of an eye, conscious again. You cannot ever be aware of being non-existent! You can only ever be conscious.

Now, if we are to assume the possibility of this in an infinite universe, it becomes a certainty. Only the existence of God will have any meaning to the result of a rebirth if it is part of His design. There is even the argument that God MUST exist in an infinite universe, which is, of course, my own belief. I don't think living eternally is ever in question if considered mathematically. The question is if there is any meaning to it all.

Some may argue that even universes eventually die or return to such a low energy state that they eventually cease to exist. Well, let us consider this in the first place, where traditional science has us believe in a "Big Bang Theory", and I stress that it is only a theory. Even in this theory, they suggest everything that exists today came from "nothing". As I started this debate, I do not believe it came from nothing, but came from God's Mind. The moment God thought about it, creation began. And no matter what you believe, it comes down to the same argument, if it can happen once, then it can happen again!

For those that have not yet seen The Matrix trilogy of films, then I recommend you do. They help you to imagine some of the things I am trying to say, and while I obviously do not subscribe to the fact that we are in a simulated reality created by sentient beings, I do sympathise with the overall concept of a reality designed by a greater sentient being for His own purpose. If we believe in the Bible, then we know the world (and universe) was created by God out of love. The greater part of the mystery of creation (once we die) we must wait and see, although I believe we are given an insight of what to expect through the Bible.

Outside Links:

Horizon: Infinity & Beyond
Tarzan
The Matrix
Simulated Reality

Secret Doors

Before I start, I'd like to welcome you to the new look for the blog. Thanks to Eguintir, I was able to change the background image to the one I always had planned, but never knew how to do. Hopefully you prefer the new look to the solid green it was before. It is supposed to look like parchment, but I altered it slightly to make it easier on the eyes when reading. Let me know what you think. Better, worse, indifferent?

Having a good working secret door is a "must have" for any good adventure in my opinion, and with Nim's work on Secret Doors, my module now has a good working system. I had to alter the code for them to work the way I wanted, but his "blocker door" and "secret placeables" made the doors near enough invisible until detected. Hovering a mouse over an area or looking for a door transition certainly does not help the player locate them. There is still a very slight difference in colour, but that will not be easily noticed if a player is unaware of it and/or moving past at a pace. However, if they are keeping an eye open for such, then the slight difference will be a clue to "search" harder and if done so, the door will be revealed.

I have also taken the coding slightly further in that the secret section can now be easily closed again, or if left unattended, will automatically close itself. Take a look at the screen shots below. The lighting I have used helps emphasise the secret door more than it will usually.

A secret Door Is Nearby

PC Searches - Black Puff Visual At Find Location & PC Comments

Secret Door Now Becomes Useable

PC Clicks On Secret Door & Enters

A View Of A Secret Door From Behind (If Not Hidden This Side)

The last screen shot is actually a view from behind a secret door covered by a bookcase. I coded it in such a way that if the PC is able to find a way to approach a secret door from a different side, then it would be "obvious" to them and allow for immediate interaction without having to "search" and find it first.

While the more observant reader may recognise the area as "new" to anything shown before, I reluctantly have to admit that this is an area I started a long while ago and have still not had time to finish. However, the fact that I have started to work on it again is a good sign. I needed a change from working on previous areas, which, unfortunately, also still need completing.

Monsters

I have also spent some time looking at new monsters for my module. In my search I came across quite a few new models, some of which have had their AI scripted and others that will require a bit more work. My thanks go to Shaugh and his blog Risen Hero for the links that got me started on a search. (Check out his site for a ton of creature links.) I have also incorporated his "Giant Throwing" scripts and will take a closer look at those at some point. I am not going into too much detail about which creatures I have included, as I do not want to give too much away at this stage, but I have tried to download and include as much custom content for the campaign as a whole, so there should be a good mixture over time.

Misery Stone

I managed to finish Misery Stone this week. It is a fabulous mod and well worth a play. There are one or two points that keep it from a perfect 10 in my opinion. However, it came in at 8.75 by my scoring, which must be the highest I have scored for a NWN2 mod. I left my vote and review a the Vault.

Interfering M.E.

My apologies for a late and an even more sparse update than usual this week. I have had to spend what computer time I have had on collating evidence for a report for a medical appeal regarding my condition of M.E. Any time I spend using a computer I have to judge carefully so I do not overdo it and exacerbate my condition. Having to compile a couple of reports meant no time left for any real modding this week.

The little I did manage to do involved adding a couple of lines to the "NPC seating" code so that they no longer move or get bumped out of position when spoken to (thanks to Eguintir and Shaughn for that) and editing a few more spells to work with my new crafting system. (See last week's comments for the functions involved.)

I did manage to do a little of Misery Stone at the start of the week, but this too has been placed on hold until I have more time. From my initial impression, it was a superbly designed game with respect to its area designs and had some excellent atmosphere. However, I cannot agree with most current voters of 10 because of one or two other aspects that do not match up. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad at all, but does fall short of "masterpiece" because of them. Perhaps it is just me being extra picky, but I must stick to the same standards as I have judged others, or else it would be unfair on them. I will leave my final comments until I have finished the game and vote on the Vault.

Subject to how much more report collating I have to do and tests I have to have carried out, I may or may not get the chance to do anything new on the mod for a little while. Don't worry, I am continuing, but I have to pace myself between what I need to do and what I am able to do.

Please Take A Seat

I was back at designing some "simple" ambient background this week and thought I would have a few NPCs sit around the tavern. So, knowing the ActionSit function that I have used before, I thought it would be a simple task to implement. Wrong! If you are a builder, then the chances are you already knew this, but I did not and am not always up to date with some of the hangover functions from NWN1 that do not work with NWN2. Animations had a overhaul in NWN2 and so I should not have been surprised when it failed to work. I suppose I just hoped it would be one of those functions that would somehow still tie into the code and do the job.

In the end, I searched the Vault and found a couple of entries that covered seating characters in NWN2. One was KEMO Custom Chairs, which is an outstanding piece of code, but I believe too complicated to use unless you want "sitting" to be quite a high priority in your module. However, Patcha's more basic piece of code, To sit on objects (v1.76), came with only one basic script that handles the sitting, which was far more easy to incorporate into my own module. There were one or two anomalies that I would have preferred to have working with the script, such as NPCs getting up if knocked into, but I am not sure if it is possible because of the way NWN now handles animations. I am continuing to investigate this, but you can see the results already in this shot:

Misery Stone

I have also just downloaded Misery Stone by jclef. I probably don't need to promote the quality and high standards we already know of jclef and BouncyRock Entertainment, so let's just say I am convinced you will enjoy it, even though I have not yet had the chance to start it myself. I have that privilege in the next few days hopefully. :)

Freedom Poll


The poll with respect to "How Much Freedom Do You Really Want" has come to an end and it looks to me that the majority of players (29/38) are still prepared to be responsible for their own actions in the game, even if it means they might "blow it" through miscalculated play. That serves as a comfort to a degree, because it supports my own style of play and, by default, design. I was still surprised, however, that of the 29, there were 15 who were what I would consider "ultra" responsible and ready to take the blame for any "mistake" they made even if it meant ending the game for them. This was even more die hard than I like to play.

At the other end of the spectrum for style of play, came the remaining 9 voters who prefer a style similar to the official campaign, or, for 1 voter, would like the game to guide them even more so. For those players, I hope my own design preference (minimal help) does not exclude them, because of the design parameters I have implemented that allows a player to finish a quest even if they make mistakes - unless, of course, they really bodge things up by ignoring all the warnings and indications of what may happen if they continued along their current path. That said, I have also made the decision that the main quest cannot be broken, even if a player does make it "difficult" for themselves.

Quest Writing (Design Parameters)

After some consideration, I realise that my current "design parameters" for my module quest writing are way above any reasonable level of normal acceptance. I refer to the level of freedom I allow a player to do a quest with such parameters as (a) enabling a PC to be able to attack any NPC, (b) allow PCs to approach a problem from many angles (involving multiple NPCs), and (c) even allowing the PCs to enter a quest at a different stage. Writing for just one of these parameters is involved, and as I naively discovered, trying to accommodate for all three is simply an overwhelming problem that quickly spirals out of control.

Too Many Combinations!

This has come to light as I reach the final stages of a side quest that included every parameter listed above. Considering how long this particular quest took me to write (and that this quest is only an optional one that a player may not even play), I have decided that the designing of future quests in a similar manner (covering every angle as per my original design remit) is no longer a realistic goal.

I do not come to this decision lightly, as the end result of the quest I wrote that does have these goals included has turned out as versatile as I had hoped for. If I could have continued in this vein for every quest I wrote, then I believe the results would have been quite stimulating for the player. However, the continued effort required to achieve this kind of open-ended play is unachievable for a single developer, which I am. At least, it is if I want the module released sometime this decade.

Note: I do not intend to do away with any of these design concepts, but to avoid the kind of problem I had when writing the last quest I have simply decided to streamline the approach by aiming to use only one of these concepts (or two at the most) at any one time. And as the ability to attack an NPC cannot easily be prevented (or changed) without it feeling like I am "forcing the play", I expect any new quests I write from now on to involve fewer NPCs or limited access to the same quest instead.

To put this problem into perspective, but without going into too much detail, the last quest involved at least 4 important NPCs, 3 of which would be considered critical. (The quest itself involves even more NPCs.) Every NPC can be killed at any time by the PCs, meaning plot points had to make sense if the PCs managed to pick the plot up at a later point. Furthermore, the same quest could be accessed at 5 different nodes subject to which NPC was still alive and/or what the PC had already learned. This required an inordinate amount of variable and quest log tracking to ensure it always made sense when played. As it turned out, the nature of this particular quest forced these requirements of flexibility of design from me. However, with hindsight, there are one or two changes I would have made to reduce the amount of work, and if I had not already gone to the trouble of coding it, would have removed them from the original design.

Future Designs (Allowing NPC Deaths)

As I intend to keep the ability for the player to be able to attack any NPC at any time (and for other builders who wish to allow the same) I recommend these design structure points for writing quests:

1) Try to avoid further quest progression with the NPC quest giver, in case
the PCs kill the NPC after receiving the quest or at any stage
thereafter.

2) Ensure any other participating NPCs remain unknown (or undiscovered) until
their involvement is required, in case the PCs kill them before their
involvement in the quest.

3) Ensure to either allow the quest to be continued with the death of an NPC
(by the PC gaining information another way) or end the quest in the journal (if
for a side quest only).

4) Only allow "quest recovery" options (PCs can pick up on a quest a
different route) for the main quest only. (See next.)

UPDATE: I am looking at a system that makes NPCs permanently "friendly" (invulnerable) all the while a quest is active from (and further involves) them - and if there are no other mitigating circumstances. (I.e. If there is a way to do the same quest even when killing the NPC, then they will not be made invulnerable.) While this is a minor compromise, I believe it is justified as it allows me to concentrate more on the plot than spending too much time trying to protect against unexpected play.

Player Freedom (Poll results)

From the results of the "Player Freedom" poll to date, 28 out of 37 voters are happy with at least "minimal plot help", with half of those ready to accept "no plot help" and suffer the consequences of their actions. With this in mind, it would appear the builder does not need to be overly concerned about covering every angle of play (or a player's style of play). It also suggests the player is prepared to co-operate ("play along" with an obvious plot line) and not be upset at failing a quest if they have not done so. To put it another way, as long as the builder protects the player against "accidental" failings on their part (like destroying a critical plot item with a stray fireball), then the player is ready to accept that any antagonistic action they may take with their PC has the potential of ending the quest early (like if they killed the quest giver rather than helped them).

Therefore, rather than always allow a quest to be "recovered" if the player stumbles onto a path of the quest after having killed the quest giver (point 4 above), some quests would simply not be offered in such circumstances.

There are only 5 days left to vote in this poll if you want to have any more say.

Spell Alterations

Here is an updated list for the altered spells for Better The Demon:

- Virtue (D4 Temp HPs & longer duration.)
- Ray of Frost (D3 Damage)
- Divine Favour (Can scale to 6)
- Endure Elements (Increase Resistance To 3 Change Amount to 0)
- Summon Creatures (Duration 1 hour per level)
- Expeditious Retreat (Duration 1 minute per level)
- Magic Missile (Missiles increased to max of 10)
- Ray of Enfeeblement (Duration 1 minute per level)
- Resist Elements(Decrease Resistance To 12 Change Amount to 0)
- Ability Spells (E.g. Cat's Grace) (30 mins per level. Max 10 hours. d4+1 alter.)
- Invisibility (10 mins per level.)
- Knock (No scaling but line of sight required.)
- Animal Trance (Corrected range and caster level.)
- Barkskin (10 mins per caster level.)
- Aura of Glory (CHA from 4 to 2. Save Fear from 6 to 5.)
- Protection From Energy (Duration 10 mins per caster level. Resistance & Amount 12 x caster level.)
- Animate Dead (Permanent until destroyed. Scales with level.)
- Bestow Curse (Decreased effects to 2 as per description.)
- Magic Circle v Alignment (Changed to turns per level.)

Revised Scripts

It's been another week of dealing with the scripting sides of things for Better The Demon. When this happens, I don't have much "exciting" to report, although I can say I have probably done just as much work as any other week. It's coding 'behind the scenes', which does not translate to being able to show any interesting new screenshots. One of the biggest script changes I made to the module this week was another revision of how I handle the PCs a player adds to their party, either by the party creation system or by adding companions. I won't bore you with the details, but I am hoping the revised scripts make the handling of party created PCs more accessible to the code, which means I can have easier access to them with respect to them giving comments during the game, subject to their personality.

Power Scrolls

I have also been continuing to work through the spell scripts to complement my revised crafting system that allows a PC to cast a spell according to the PC's caster level (if higher) rather than the level the scroll was created. I wanted to do this to give scrolls greater longevity and usefulness to the PC that carries them. For instance, what good is a 1st level Magic Missile scroll to a 15th level wizard who can cast them with a greater number of missiles than this version of the scroll would do? In my system, the wizard's own ability enhances the usefulness of the scroll, meaning it will cast at 15th level, even if it was originally written at a lower level. (I have now completed all spells to 2nd level. Only 7 more levels to go.)

Item Longevity

Item usefulness is another of the prime aims for this campaign. Hopefully, this will have come across to readers who are following the blog. Stores will not be inundated with dozens of items way beyond the PC's means, nor be of many variations of similar things, but will be more specific and useful to all PCs in their adventure. Putting it simply, I hope to make the player more interested in buying items from a store than as a place for selling them.

World Map

I have also been expanding the 2da encounter tables for the overland map. Like editing spell scripts, it is a slow and laborious task, and one that I hope will reap the benefits for future modules once it has been completed. After all, once all the templates have been completed, it is then a lot easier simply to edit a single 2da file to take advantage of the new scripts. Although I have shown similar screenshots to this next one, I thought I would show you another with one of the new creatures encountered (a dire badger). It's an excuse for a screen shot anyway. ;) It also demonstrates some differences to what one would normally expect when on an overland map: the travel information system (new GUI); the vigour system (in the main window), the edited overland map frame (no rest or party button), the CR encounter colour for the creatures (main window) and the new Date GUI button (opens a larger GUI) on the bottom right of the screen.


I am once again at the stage where I hope to begin writing another quest. I have already considered doing more towards the main quest now, and in theory, writing should get a little easier from here on in, which could even mean signs of slightly accelerated progress! I have covered most of the systems I wanted to incorporate, and even though at least three of these (spells, crafting tome and overland map) still require a great deal of work, they are things I can chip away at between plot writing.

PLOT PREFERENCES: Do Not Forget To Vote!

We are into the last couple of weeks for the current poll. If you have not yet voted, then I am still after your vote (and feedback?) on your gaming preferences as requested in this post.

SetTag Makeover.

Just over a year ago I was pleased to announce I had worked out a rather convoluted system to allow a way of adding party members in such a way that they could still respond like companions. At the time, the problem had been not being able to easily assign a tag to the party member for accessibility when coding. However, not long ago a new function was added to the toolset to allow tags to be set on objects, and last week I decided to take advantage of the function to rewrite some of the core scripts around this part of the module. This is why this week's blog entry is both a little late and brief (as I am still making the final adjustments).

Using the new function has greatly increased the efficiency of the code. Here it is in use:

// ENSURE TAG SET CORRECTLY
string sNewTag = GetRosterNameFromObject(oPC);
SetTag(oPC, sNewTag);

This small piece of code replaces a ton of scripting simply because I no longer have to replace the original created party members with copies and thereafter ensure variables are carefully maintained if anything should happen to them. It impacts the following systems:

1) Initial setup of PCs.
2) Death and resurrection of PCs.
3) Further rostering of party members.
4) Between module transfer of PCs.

Many functions and heartbeat checks have been removed and replaced with one off scripts because of these changes, making the whole module less CPU intensive and more efficient as a whole.

PLOT PREFERENCES: Do Not Forget To Vote!

If you have not yet voted, then I am still after your vote (and feedback?) on your gaming preferences as requested in this post.

Power To The Player!

Although I am still tied up doing a fair amount of beta testing for people, I was still able to do some coding for my own mod in between sending back test reports. It was E.C. Patterson's Trinity that grabbed most of my play testing last week, which I hope to have finished early next week. First impressions show an extremely well put together mod with only a few glitches that need ironing out before release. Trinity is a story based mod with great scenery and areas that will keep the player wanting to play more. And while it may not push every hard core D&D fan's buttons due to lack of certain things like crafting and overland maps, it will thrill and excite those players who like to follow a good story and be bestowed with rewarding cutscenes, various style quests, exciting encounters and some interesting differences to play, like being able to climb in certain areas. I have yet to finish it, but the inbuilt timer says I have played five hours already and I reckon it will take at least another 2-3 hours more to finish.

Ranges & Feedback

One of the differences in Better The Demon will be the changes in range settings. Too often when playing I have found my PC running forward to cast a spell which I thought was quite well within range. And I miss the ability to be able to release a fireball at one side of an area to course across its width to the enemy on the far side. To this end, I have set the following distances for the known ranges (for both spell and ranged weapons):

• TOUCH: 7 Feet (Unchanged.)
• SHORT: 50 Feet (Increased from 26 Feet.)
• MEDIUM: 130 Feet (Increased from 65 Feet.)
• LONG: 410 Feet (Increased from 131 Feet.)

Furthermore, to help the player calculate the distance of an object from them for the purposes of casting a spell (or using a ranged weapon), I have amended the examine GUI to show the distance (and range factor in parenthesis) when a player examines a creature, placeable, door or object. As an addition, I have also increased the height of the examine window to help reduce the amount of scrolling to read an object's description. (Check the screenshot, although the item examined was not the best example as it does not have much description in this case.)

Multi Player Combat Assistance Tool

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I am writing Better The Demon to cater for multi-player play as well. This is no easy task, as there are always many other aspects of coding to consider even when you think you have a piece of code written and working. Another aspect of a multi-player game is the ability for players to be able to communicate to each other, especially when not in the same room, and to this end, I have included a small tool that every player receives in a multi-player game.

This tool allows a player to target an object, which then highlights the location with an effect to another player. This allows simple communication when trying to explain what they are targeting. Furthermore, the same tool also gives distance feedback in the chat window to the location selected, for ranged weapon and spell distance considerations. (See the screen shot.)

Lastly, this same tool allows the player to add lines (of red, white, green or blue) into the area, again to aid in player communication and discussion of player tactics in combat. The tool allows up to 9 markers to be set that the have beam effects join each marker so that the player can section off an area in question. This facility does not have to be used just with combat, but whenever the player may want to describe something to a fellow player across a WAN. However, it was primarily designed to help support combat tactics and complement the unique combat auto-pause system I have implemented within the game. (Optional use.) (*)


This image shows one blue line (two markers) already set and the player setting a third marker (beam from their head) to mark the point where the beam from the second marker will attach to.












After the target for the marker has been selected, the player can choose to set the marker or change the colour of the new beam before setting the marker.











The player has a choice of four beam colours to help represent different things.












Once the third marker has been set, a beam appears within a few seconds extending from the previous marker to the newly placed one. A player can set up to nine markers this way to draw a tactical zone if required.










(*) I have already uploaded a very basic version of the auto-pause combat system to the Vault for use with other modules, but the one that comes with Better The Demon will be more dynamic in that it can also be set to auto-pause on encounter and I am planning to have it give round number feedback to help casters determine when spells may be about to run out.

Rallying The Troops!

Finally, I have just finished working on another system to allow players to alter their party at certain locations during the game if they have a change of mind about the PCs they are currently using. I aimed at flexibility for the player, but have also kept in some limitations to ensure the game does not become unbalanced. To this end, the module only allows a party size of 6 characters in total. (Including other players, created PCs or companions. UPDATE: This is the limit for MP and SP games now.) As an aside, I do not allow the following anachronistic classes to be available in Althéa: Harper, Red Dragon Disc, Shadow thief Amn, Neverwinter Nine, Red Wizard, Arcane Scholar, or Doomguide. This is because they make mention of backgrounds that do not exist in the world of Althéa.

PLOT PREFERENCES: Do Not Forget To Vote!

If you have not yet voted, thne I am still after your vote (and feedback?) on your gaming preferences as requested in this post.