Profile for Vent
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Vent |
| Member number | 4186 |
| Title | Warrior |
| Postcount | 175 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Article - Don't Draw Focus! in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Thursday, April 22 2004 21:03
Profile
Ok, I deleted the second post to avoid double posting. And I try to do a more direct answer with a better grammar. I have a problem with this article when it quotes The Za-Khazi Run. You want to demonstrate that this scenario "Draw the focus" by giving to the player missions and area to explore that "Draw the focus". I think it's wrong, they don't "Draw the focus". Most often they fit the scenario original design choice. A first point is that you change the scenario subject. This scenario is about: - Travel through a wild area. - Need to find a way through a wild area. - Time limit to reach a fort in order to bring them powerful tools that will allow them to protect it. The scenario you suggest instead is about: - Run - Time limit to reach a fort in order to save it. - You seem suggest to save the fort. So the original scenario needs to put the focus on, travel through a wild area, need to find a way through a wild area, take care of time running. The scenario you suggest needs to put focus on time running. That's not only an improvement but also a strong change. I don't see well how you implement the run and do without - The fun of travel (no exploration?). - The need to find a way (linear and no exploration?). Two examples you suggest to implement are already in the scenario : - You suggest giants, in the scenario it's a little army of sliths or another path that take more time. But instead of a dialog choice that you suggest, you have to find the path yourself and for me it's a better solution. - You suggest save time or rescue a life, in the scenario it's save time or rescue a dead. Read better the unicorns part. It's not only a horn object to get from the giants, it's really a rescue. All of your other suggestions of change doens't show how parts of this scenario "Draw the attention" and then should be replaced or changed in order to avoid that. They just show how to polish better the scenario in order to increase the focus of the player on the main purpose. Not which part "Draw the attention". That makes quite a difference for me. The NPC addition you suggest is very interesting and could have improved the scenario as it is. Also making shorter the time could have been done too. Quote that the current version take some care about about these two points: * In comparison with BoE version, the time has been reduced to 14 days (from 30 I think). I agree it could be even shorter but I think more that it should be organized differently. For example if you do all greedy/curiosity quests you shouldn't be able to succeed the run, even after 20 replays. * About the time limit reminders, the scenario isn't that bad : - The beginning of the mission is really clear about that. And for any very average role player, it's hard to forget that the time is the core of the mission. So each time you have a choice to run or do something else (explore, make a rescue, satisfy your greed or your curiosity, accept a quest, search through an area) you ask yourself the dilema : Don't lost time or do it? - There are time reminders, ok, not as many than you suggest and not through a tool as good than a NPC in the party as you suggest. - At end of 7 days, a popup remind that the time is running and there are few other pannels like that until the end of the time limit. - There are some dialogs and events where the time limit dilema is mentionned through a dialog. - As the scenario doesn't focus only on time limit but also how to find a way through the wild area. That's even much more dialogs that focus the player attention on its main plot. I don't mean that this scenario can't be improved or even that it doesn't need to be improved but I don't think that it's will be done by removing parts you suggest to remove. That said, that would be great to see your run scenario. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Don't Draw Focus! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Thursday, April 22 2004 21:03
Profile
Ok, I deleted the second post to avoid double posting. And I try to do a more direct answer with a better grammar. I have a problem with this article when it quotes The Za-Khazi Run. You want to demonstrate that this scenario "Draw the focus" by giving to the player missions and area to explore that "Draw the focus". I think it's wrong, they don't "Draw the focus". Most often they fit the scenario original design choice. A first point is that you change the scenario subject. This scenario is about: - Travel through a wild area. - Need to find a way through a wild area. - Time limit to reach a fort in order to bring them powerful tools that will allow them to protect it. The scenario you suggest instead is about: - Run - Time limit to reach a fort in order to save it. - You seem suggest to save the fort. So the original scenario needs to put the focus on, travel through a wild area, need to find a way through a wild area, take care of time running. The scenario you suggest needs to put focus on time running. That's not only an improvement but also a strong change. I don't see well how you implement the run and do without - The fun of travel (no exploration?). - The need to find a way (linear and no exploration?). Two examples you suggest to implement are already in the scenario : - You suggest giants, in the scenario it's a little army of sliths or another path that take more time. But instead of a dialog choice that you suggest, you have to find the path yourself and for me it's a better solution. - You suggest save time or rescue a life, in the scenario it's save time or rescue a dead. Read better the unicorns part. It's not only a horn object to get from the giants, it's really a rescue. All of your other suggestions of change doens't show how parts of this scenario "Draw the attention" and then should be replaced or changed in order to avoid that. They just show how to polish better the scenario in order to increase the focus of the player on the main purpose. Not which part "Draw the attention". That makes quite a difference for me. The NPC addition you suggest is very interesting and could have improved the scenario as it is. Also making shorter the time could have been done too. Quote that the current version take some care about about these two points: * In comparison with BoE version, the time has been reduced to 14 days (from 30 I think). I agree it could be even shorter but I think more that it should be organized differently. For example if you do all greedy/curiosity quests you shouldn't be able to succeed the run, even after 20 replays. * About the time limit reminders, the scenario isn't that bad : - The beginning of the mission is really clear about that. And for any very average role player, it's hard to forget that the time is the core of the mission. So each time you have a choice to run or do something else (explore, make a rescue, satisfy your greed or your curiosity, accept a quest, search through an area) you ask yourself the dilema : Don't lost time or do it? - There are time reminders, ok, not as many than you suggest and not through a tool as good than a NPC in the party as you suggest. - At end of 7 days, a popup remind that the time is running and there are few other pannels like that until the end of the time limit. - There are some dialogs and events where the time limit dilema is mentionned through a dialog. - As the scenario doesn't focus only on time limit but also how to find a way through the wild area. That's even much more dialogs that focus the player attention on its main plot. I don't mean that this scenario can't be improved or even that it doesn't need to be improved but I don't think that it's will be done by removing parts you suggest to remove. That said, that would be great to see your run scenario. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Don't Draw Focus! in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 18:46
Profile
DELETED :eek: [ Thursday, April 22, 2004 21:04: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Don't Draw Focus! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 18:46
Profile
DELETED :eek: [ Thursday, April 22, 2004 21:04: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Don't Draw Focus! in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 16:49
Profile
I don't know if 15 days is too much or not. I'm sure that after to have played it once even without to have explore all and understand all options, that 9 days is too much. If you really explore all corners it's because you started with in mind the time limit allows you that. Otherwise you can't guess it so you don't lost time exploring. Also if you really explore all corners then you'll lost plenty time through small events that make you lost 8 hours sometimes more. I'm not sure the result but I'd be curious to know. If you just explore all "right" corners, well :) . If you start with the point of view that you must take care to not do quests and explorations for nothing then you'll have to make some backward run, you'll not do the best choices (as keep dragon scroll but not mushroom protection) and you'll lost time searching some stuff. And then I'm not sure that 15 days is such a large limit particularely if a party without path finder skill is allowed and if you get few bad luck events that make you lost some 8 hours, plus that you'll did few wrong choice. I see various problems : * A player that really explore all good stuff (eventually for a replay) should not be able succeed the quest in time. That's not the case in fact you'll even win time. * There are many little things that have too much time effect that the player can't predict and evaluate. * There are too many choices for which the player has mostly no hint about the effect on time spend. * It also not a good choice that a skill (path finder) could make a so big difference in time. What this coud mean that a party with mostly no path finder skill can't do the scenario or a party with this skill has too much time? * As pointed by the article, a problem that in a way or another the author should have attract attention on time limit more often. It's done through panels that popup to remember how time there is. But in general that's not enough. I think the subject of this scenario is very very hard to implement. And how I played it I got the luck that it worked really well. It's still not my prefered of the bundled scenario but it is in third place. Because of other reason that a run that doesn't work, and also because the run feeling worked for me and gave me less fun to not be able enjoy get my time and explore deeply. [ Wednesday, April 21, 2004 17:11: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Don't Draw Focus! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 16:49
Profile
I don't know if 15 days is too much or not. I'm sure that after to have played it once even without to have explore all and understand all options, that 9 days is too much. If you really explore all corners it's because you started with in mind the time limit allows you that. Otherwise you can't guess it so you don't lost time exploring. Also if you really explore all corners then you'll lost plenty time through small events that make you lost 8 hours sometimes more. I'm not sure the result but I'd be curious to know. If you just explore all "right" corners, well :) . If you start with the point of view that you must take care to not do quests and explorations for nothing then you'll have to make some backward run, you'll not do the best choices (as keep dragon scroll but not mushroom protection) and you'll lost time searching some stuff. And then I'm not sure that 15 days is such a large limit particularely if a party without path finder skill is allowed and if you get few bad luck events that make you lost some 8 hours, plus that you'll did few wrong choice. I see various problems : * A player that really explore all good stuff (eventually for a replay) should not be able succeed the quest in time. That's not the case in fact you'll even win time. * There are many little things that have too much time effect that the player can't predict and evaluate. * There are too many choices for which the player has mostly no hint about the effect on time spend. * It also not a good choice that a skill (path finder) could make a so big difference in time. What this coud mean that a party with mostly no path finder skill can't do the scenario or a party with this skill has too much time? * As pointed by the article, a problem that in a way or another the author should have attract attention on time limit more often. It's done through panels that popup to remember how time there is. But in general that's not enough. I think the subject of this scenario is very very hard to implement. And how I played it I got the luck that it worked really well. It's still not my prefered of the bundled scenario but it is in third place. Because of other reason that a run that doesn't work, and also because the run feeling worked for me and gave me less fun to not be able enjoy get my time and explore deeply. [ Wednesday, April 21, 2004 17:11: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| What articles would you like to see? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 14:51
Profile
I have read the two articles about dungeons, interesting. They aren't technical at all and could apply to BoA. But ok they quote BoE examples. About one advice I read, "Make sure there are at least two interesting events or encounters per level...". Well after to have play few Reamlz, Neverwinter and even Warcraft 3 RPG user made scenario, I'd say that the best is that everything should relate to story (not necesseraly the main plot of central subject ;) ). Any fights, any action, any puzzle, any places, any quest should have a story or have a bit of story wich is a part of a story. In short put scenary and sense everywhere and avoid throw in your scenario anything without scenarized it and gives it sense. [ Wednesday, April 21, 2004 14:58: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| What articles would you like to see? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 14:51
Profile
I have read the two articles about dungeons, interesting. They aren't technical at all and could apply to BoA. But ok they quote BoE examples. About one advice I read, "Make sure there are at least two interesting events or encounters per level...". Well after to have play few Reamlz, Neverwinter and even Warcraft 3 RPG user made scenario, I'd say that the best is that everything should relate to story (not necesseraly the main plot of central subject ;) ). Any fights, any action, any puzzle, any places, any quest should have a story or have a bit of story wich is a part of a story. In short put scenary and sense everywhere and avoid throw in your scenario anything without scenarized it and gives it sense. [ Wednesday, April 21, 2004 14:58: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Really Minor Bugs in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 14:40
Profile
I just played a bit without lockpick and woo I quoted a penalty of 6 if not 50%. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| melora opal in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 14:38
Profile
No you don't need kill/fight him. I know, in one try I did so. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Roses of Reckoning (BoA) is Released! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 14:34
Profile
That parts is well done, I saw three secrets including this one, not too easy and all was well done with a logic or a hint well done. The visual hint for this one is cool. I have put a review in Lyceum (but forgot mention the good secrets). You could find it tough, that's me ;) I still enjoyed it, thanks again. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Roses of Reckoning (BoA) is Released! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 10:24
Profile
Ok I have played it and got a good fun, thanks for it TM :) . Well I must says it has various minor bugs and some flaws you don't see in bundled secnario. But I had a good time and that was the more important. About the difficulty, I don't know. I don't see how dispel barrier spell could be linked to this point, it's for level 1 party that can hardly know that spell isn't it? I saw no way to learn new spell or did I haven't seen something? About that, if there are no way to learn new spell, it's something that could be improved. I certainly had to redo more than one fight and had to apply some coward tactics as to stay behind door, shoot from far (my rogue the only bow user proves to be mostly the more usefull), more than once start fight already in fight mode, prepare a bit some fights. All in all I agree the difficulty is ok, even if sometimes it's a bit special. I think I killed all beasts but carefully avoid non hostile vampires a lot too high level. In hard mode I found it impossible. That said my party was probably a bit strong because of special choices I did to change from those previously used. About energy potion I agree there are plenty and that's good. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Roses of Reckoning (BoA) is Released! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 04:25
Profile
I haven't played yet your scenario and it's not about it and I don't complain that it is too difficult or not. I'm just beginner so for sure there are still many possibilities I don't see. Well I'm also not new to computer games nor rpg. So it's just a feeling that there's something wrong in testing with a singleton to prove an ok difficulty. Tactics possiblity are the same? I don't think so as I don't think so that difficulties are the same. All the gold to spend for one char instead of shared by 4, all experience to only one char (yes far to mean 4 times higher level :-), no weak char, singleton could be more stronger char than the strongest in a party of 4, with singleton you could abuse of combat/not combat modes to move/combat when in party of 4 it's boring/lost of efficiency. That's plenty differences that could makes tactics different or with a different efficiency. A way to test difficulty, ok, but I don't feel it that good. Not to mention what about parties deliberetaly with weakness for fights and/or other strenght area to compensate a bit. The singleton will hardly test that sort of difficulty. Or parties paladin like that refuse do wrong things even the steal of an object in a house even if it isn't marked NY. Those will have much less money in plenty scenario. I don't mean at all that the difficulty setting offered by the game is a better tool. It is more a user tool and thanks to it to got me more fun in Jeff scenario. Finally, I feel that beginner parties require more care about having a not too high difficulty than higher level parties. To rise difficulty, make a challenging scenario and force tactics during fights or to manage scenario progression, it's much better choice to use higher level parties. Ok I go playing your scenario. :) [ Wednesday, April 21, 2004 04:27: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| What articles would you like to see? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 03:38
Profile
Article : Tricks to develop a strong main plot from a story plan/base idea. Better title required! :D Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| What articles would you like to see? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 03:38
Profile
Article : Tricks to develop a strong main plot from a story plan/base idea. Better title required! :D Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Filler in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 03:21
Profile
quote:Yes and what? Your article isn't about quest goal that should be related to the plot or central concept, isn't it? It's about events that occurs, ok during a mandatory quest. You advice to always linked them all to the plot or central concept. For example, the mage quest you quote shows that. It has a goal linked to main plot but it's a filler because its events/details aren't related to main plot. I answered about that. I don't think it's always the best goal that every events/details (even during a mandatory part) should be related to the main plot or central concept. To get your examples, the other example you quote is also something for which I disagree about a general advice. The werewolves events could make the forest live through a sort of random event. Having a forest with only spirits stuff could result in a sort of unrealistic feeling. Ok for this scenario as it is done, it could be a problem, but this could be not because of this choice itself. This could be because the forest doesn't live anyway, because it's a "no story" fight/event, because the scenario is too small or empty or its main plot itself too small. That mentionned, I'd like that it will be clear that I understand that your article focus the attention on an important aspect that many author could not see easily. It made me think and realize some scenario aspects more clearly. In fact your other article recently post "Don't Draw focus" also results in a general advice to make links/details that relate (all or mostly all) to main plot and central concept. But in this one for another reason (Don't Draw focus). Again it's a good thinking which is great to read. For both I have the feeling that the advice rules that result from these articles (links/details should relate to main plot and central concept) is very interesting, often a great point to think and advice to follow. But not necesseraly good for all scenario. Plus making also oposite choices could be important, usefull, in worse cases better than nothing. For mention, about mandatory parts, there are many way to make them mandatory. You have to go in a town or place for its shops. Because to go from point a to c you should pass through b. Because a NPC ask you a service totally unrelated to main plot. And so on. Still about mandatory parts, it's a very important aspect in a scenario because they are the only parts that you are sure that all players will have play (appart choices variations). And you'll find some that will play only them and he could get their feeling about the scenario from this experience. That's why organize the scenario in order to force the player discover a world diversity so better realism, could be an interesting choice despite it's not linked to main plot and central concept. [ Wednesday, April 21, 2004 03:25: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Filler in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, April 21 2004 03:21
Profile
quote:Yes and what? Your article isn't about quest goal that should be related to the plot or central concept, isn't it? It's about events that occurs, ok during a mandatory quest. You advice to always linked them all to the plot or central concept. For example, the mage quest you quote shows that. It has a goal linked to main plot but it's a filler because its events/details aren't related to main plot. I answered about that. I don't think it's always the best goal that every events/details (even during a mandatory part) should be related to the main plot or central concept. To get your examples, the other example you quote is also something for which I disagree about a general advice. The werewolves events could make the forest live through a sort of random event. Having a forest with only spirits stuff could result in a sort of unrealistic feeling. Ok for this scenario as it is done, it could be a problem, but this could be not because of this choice itself. This could be because the forest doesn't live anyway, because it's a "no story" fight/event, because the scenario is too small or empty or its main plot itself too small. That mentionned, I'd like that it will be clear that I understand that your article focus the attention on an important aspect that many author could not see easily. It made me think and realize some scenario aspects more clearly. In fact your other article recently post "Don't Draw focus" also results in a general advice to make links/details that relate (all or mostly all) to main plot and central concept. But in this one for another reason (Don't Draw focus). Again it's a good thinking which is great to read. For both I have the feeling that the advice rules that result from these articles (links/details should relate to main plot and central concept) is very interesting, often a great point to think and advice to follow. But not necesseraly good for all scenario. Plus making also oposite choices could be important, usefull, in worse cases better than nothing. For mention, about mandatory parts, there are many way to make them mandatory. You have to go in a town or place for its shops. Because to go from point a to c you should pass through b. Because a NPC ask you a service totally unrelated to main plot. And so on. Still about mandatory parts, it's a very important aspect in a scenario because they are the only parts that you are sure that all players will have play (appart choices variations). And you'll find some that will play only them and he could get their feeling about the scenario from this experience. That's why organize the scenario in order to force the player discover a world diversity so better realism, could be an interesting choice despite it's not linked to main plot and central concept. [ Wednesday, April 21, 2004 03:25: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Roses of Reckoning (BoA) is Released! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 17:20
Profile
And you are using the difficulty settings?? Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Filler in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 16:30
Profile
Cool reading, there are plenty good idea. Thanks for this article (and the numerous other you write). But I'm not sure I fully agree about the central subject. Avoid a filler without to link it to the central concept and to the main plot, is a bit extreme. I agree that your advice is the more safe. But I don't agree it always apply. Ok, a filler isn't ok but I don't think that everything which isn't linked to the central concept and to the main plot is then a filler. I feel you wrote that through this article. There are two points : 1 - Multiply links you'll multiply the fun, I agree but it's not mandatory to have only links to the central concept and to the main plot. 2 - Something not linked to the central concept and to the main plot could have a utility for the scenario and then isn't a filler. So overall I think that put links is the really general advice that always apply. I mean by links every sort of links. For example : a - Links to past events. That's for links to player actions, it's even better when it's player choices and that the player can realize that. Those are typical dialogs reflecting something happened during the play. They are also more general effects that result from an event. For example an area that change after a major event in the scenario. That's also just story links and not necesseraly to main plot. b - Links to future events. A typical example is a use of a fortune teller. But quests could be that in part too (and not only a goal for the player). Another example could be the build of a suspens through a future event anticipated by partial informations. Another example is through a NPC that you'll met and the player have links put to this future meeting. For example met more than one other NPC mentionning the future (mysterious) meeting at different time and degree. c - Links between NPC. Their the purpose isn't only a tool to give information (on story, NPC to met for quest or shop,...) but also to build a social density and eventually just for the fun. Typically one NPC will direct the player to another NPC for quest purpose, ok. Then a reverse link from the NPC met to the first NPC is purely useless but could be cool for the fun and to build a social density. Those links are also very fun when build with a NPC in the party. Either the NPC know another NPC and/or the reverse. d - Links with NPC. NPC joining the party is the best tool for that. A typical example is for some reason a NPC join, then after an event he have to leave the party. Ok but he could be a bit mysterious about the reason, he could mention that perhaps they will met again and so on. Then later the party met again the same NPC that will be a great fun particularely if the player get attached to this NPC and even if this NPC doesn't join the party again. But you can do that also through a travelling NPC that the party will met at different places and/or events. Evil NPC are also a good reason to do Links with NPC and not only though informations. Another example is classicaly through the master/mission provider/bob. e - Links to places. Typically a quest goal, a treasure map, a place description. Those are similar to the links to events but the event is in this case the place. f - Many other categories of links. Those categories of links mentionned above aren't fully distinct and you can find plenty other. Items links (sets), links to history or background information, and so on. In fact all those links are both care of details and more depth. But I think that thinking in term of links help to see many possible polishing. Some are easy to manage when other as the travelling NPC could need too much investment. That said why not use only links to the central concept and to the main plot? * Because this goal could prove to be really difficult to always apply. And some more links (details) not linked to main plot will improve the fun when trying links them all to the main plot could be a too difficult challenge. * Because your central concept could not allow that. For example in case of secret missions. * Because having everything linked to the central concept and to the main plot could result in a feeling of lack of realism of your world. Like having every merchant, every inn keeper, and so on related to your plot could be strange for many plots. * Because having sort of random stuff help build realism. I don't mean trully random but stuff that looks random because it has not obvious links and is unexpected. It's like an unexpected encounter in a forest. Appart for a very small scenario and even if you don't want build a world simulation :) this word realism has some meaning. The 4 bundled scenario are enough big to relate to this category. And for me, DwtD strongly fail in this part, strongly because too many things are linked only to central plot and the realisation doesn't make it realistic. Plus there are missing more links to other things than to a the central concept. Well, also the links to central plot are too often too weak. Another thing that I feel linked to all of this, is fights or more generally dungeons. Put story, links , logic, everything in all dungeons and fights. The best is that all fights have a reason, when possible a mini-story, a logic, links. Avoid as much than possible to throw fights in the steps of the player. But that doesn't mean that the links, story, logic, always need to be related to main plot and central concept. All of that said, as you mentionned in your article, it must be fun. Not all links will be of any use so keep your sweat for those that add some fun. Avoid harass the player but try to be short and efficient to make links only a plus not too much required reading that will bore most players. And the more difficult, you need surprise at least a bit the player. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Article - Filler in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 16:30
Profile
Cool reading, there are plenty good idea. Thanks for this article (and the numerous other you write). But I'm not sure I fully agree about the central subject. Avoid a filler without to link it to the central concept and to the main plot, is a bit extreme. I agree that your advice is the more safe. But I don't agree it always apply. Ok, a filler isn't ok but I don't think that everything which isn't linked to the central concept and to the main plot is then a filler. I feel you wrote that through this article. There are two points : 1 - Multiply links you'll multiply the fun, I agree but it's not mandatory to have only links to the central concept and to the main plot. 2 - Something not linked to the central concept and to the main plot could have a utility for the scenario and then isn't a filler. So overall I think that put links is the really general advice that always apply. I mean by links every sort of links. For example : a - Links to past events. That's for links to player actions, it's even better when it's player choices and that the player can realize that. Those are typical dialogs reflecting something happened during the play. They are also more general effects that result from an event. For example an area that change after a major event in the scenario. That's also just story links and not necesseraly to main plot. b - Links to future events. A typical example is a use of a fortune teller. But quests could be that in part too (and not only a goal for the player). Another example could be the build of a suspens through a future event anticipated by partial informations. Another example is through a NPC that you'll met and the player have links put to this future meeting. For example met more than one other NPC mentionning the future (mysterious) meeting at different time and degree. c - Links between NPC. Their the purpose isn't only a tool to give information (on story, NPC to met for quest or shop,...) but also to build a social density and eventually just for the fun. Typically one NPC will direct the player to another NPC for quest purpose, ok. Then a reverse link from the NPC met to the first NPC is purely useless but could be cool for the fun and to build a social density. Those links are also very fun when build with a NPC in the party. Either the NPC know another NPC and/or the reverse. d - Links with NPC. NPC joining the party is the best tool for that. A typical example is for some reason a NPC join, then after an event he have to leave the party. Ok but he could be a bit mysterious about the reason, he could mention that perhaps they will met again and so on. Then later the party met again the same NPC that will be a great fun particularely if the player get attached to this NPC and even if this NPC doesn't join the party again. But you can do that also through a travelling NPC that the party will met at different places and/or events. Evil NPC are also a good reason to do Links with NPC and not only though informations. Another example is classicaly through the master/mission provider/bob. e - Links to places. Typically a quest goal, a treasure map, a place description. Those are similar to the links to events but the event is in this case the place. f - Many other categories of links. Those categories of links mentionned above aren't fully distinct and you can find plenty other. Items links (sets), links to history or background information, and so on. In fact all those links are both care of details and more depth. But I think that thinking in term of links help to see many possible polishing. Some are easy to manage when other as the travelling NPC could need too much investment. That said why not use only links to the central concept and to the main plot? * Because this goal could prove to be really difficult to always apply. And some more links (details) not linked to main plot will improve the fun when trying links them all to the main plot could be a too difficult challenge. * Because your central concept could not allow that. For example in case of secret missions. * Because having everything linked to the central concept and to the main plot could result in a feeling of lack of realism of your world. Like having every merchant, every inn keeper, and so on related to your plot could be strange for many plots. * Because having sort of random stuff help build realism. I don't mean trully random but stuff that looks random because it has not obvious links and is unexpected. It's like an unexpected encounter in a forest. Appart for a very small scenario and even if you don't want build a world simulation :) this word realism has some meaning. The 4 bundled scenario are enough big to relate to this category. And for me, DwtD strongly fail in this part, strongly because too many things are linked only to central plot and the realisation doesn't make it realistic. Plus there are missing more links to other things than to a the central concept. Well, also the links to central plot are too often too weak. Another thing that I feel linked to all of this, is fights or more generally dungeons. Put story, links , logic, everything in all dungeons and fights. The best is that all fights have a reason, when possible a mini-story, a logic, links. Avoid as much than possible to throw fights in the steps of the player. But that doesn't mean that the links, story, logic, always need to be related to main plot and central concept. All of that said, as you mentionned in your article, it must be fun. Not all links will be of any use so keep your sweat for those that add some fun. Avoid harass the player but try to be short and efficient to make links only a plus not too much required reading that will bore most players. And the more difficult, you need surprise at least a bit the player. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Calls that we wish existed in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 13:39
Profile
Ok you was refering to NPC number NOT in party I hadn't saw this point sorry. That compatibility can't be keep, I disagree (ok I could be wrong, only the author can really say). Ok, changing this value through a call could break all scripts in the scenario. Plus this has an influence on the editor. I see a solution anyway : 1 - There is a default value of 2 for the max number of chars. This will preserve compatibility for older scenario and scenario that just keep the default. 2 - When you create a new scenario you have a new option to change the max number of npc that could join the party. The editor could know this value and compute npc numbers by using this value. The engine could also know this value and will use the default if none is set. 3 - There will be scenario file with this value set and other without this value set (at least older scenario. The editor itself could fix that by detecting this in a scenario it open. This will allow to fix users scenario and it could be used to fix bundled scenario. Another possibility is that the engine will be able to load a scenario file with this value set and scenario file without this value set then default value 2 is used. 4 - Finally when you cast, change the logging in order to remember to the player each couple key number/NPC name in the party. Ok this means more change than I first thought. But everything seems doable. Yes, seems. :) There's the creation dialog, check through engine and editor if this constant is hard coded (6 as first free npc number). Then change to use a value set in a variable. Then manage loading a scenario with this additional setting and keep ability to load scenario without it. Finally changing a logging. Really too bad. I strongly think that it's a real potential to be able to add more than 2 npc in the party. For what I had in mind, perhaps "follow" will allow me do it anyway. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Calls that we wish existed in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 13:39
Profile
Ok you was refering to NPC number NOT in party I hadn't saw this point sorry. That compatibility can't be keep, I disagree (ok I could be wrong, only the author can really say). Ok, changing this value through a call could break all scripts in the scenario. Plus this has an influence on the editor. I see a solution anyway : 1 - There is a default value of 2 for the max number of chars. This will preserve compatibility for older scenario and scenario that just keep the default. 2 - When you create a new scenario you have a new option to change the max number of npc that could join the party. The editor could know this value and compute npc numbers by using this value. The engine could also know this value and will use the default if none is set. 3 - There will be scenario file with this value set and other without this value set (at least older scenario. The editor itself could fix that by detecting this in a scenario it open. This will allow to fix users scenario and it could be used to fix bundled scenario. Another possibility is that the engine will be able to load a scenario file with this value set and scenario file without this value set then default value 2 is used. 4 - Finally when you cast, change the logging in order to remember to the player each couple key number/NPC name in the party. Ok this means more change than I first thought. But everything seems doable. Yes, seems. :) There's the creation dialog, check through engine and editor if this constant is hard coded (6 as first free npc number). Then change to use a value set in a variable. Then manage loading a scenario with this additional setting and keep ability to load scenario without it. Finally changing a logging. Really too bad. I strongly think that it's a real potential to be able to add more than 2 npc in the party. For what I had in mind, perhaps "follow" will allow me do it anyway. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Roses of Reckoning (BoA) is Released! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 12:56
Profile
I don't understand why playing and testing a scenario with a singleton. This game isn't at its best with a singleton but with a team. At least it's how I feel it. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Really Minor Bugs in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 12:52
Profile
LOL :D I hate english! :rolleyes: So I really don't understand what is the use of +0 lockpicks if they don't give bonus and aren't required. They aren't required for doors but other stuff? Well. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
| Calls that we wish existed in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, April 20 2004 07:39
Profile
quote:When reading the editor doc I felt upon this : quote:And for these constant item types : quote:So well, a documented bug is just a feature and there's perhaps no bug even if it's a bit complicate. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |