A Land Far Away

Assumption: NWN2 servers will, at some point, become as physically large as NWN1 servers are today.

Its the whole crux of the player (but not DM) density debate, smaller servers make meeting other PCs more likely. But they also keep us from representing Faerun as ideally as we might like.

The biggest problem I have seen is when PCs log in, they find themselves on seperate ends of the server, with little chance to meet each other. I see this happen all the time on the two servers I DM at, SD and BG. Much less common are PCs who seperate themselves after log in, and have trouble meeting up again.

Some people say caravans can solve this. How do we keep people from abusing them? Well, we can add price tags. But costers would HIRE adventurers, not the other way around. Who would ask Hignar for gold to ride their caravan through dangerous territory? Another problem is time: Caravans should really take time.

I thought about it, and many roads and areas are, for all intents and purposes, utterly safe. There is no reason we should force a PC to walk down a road if there are no RP opportunities, there is no danger, and he doesn't want to.

So my proposal is this: Implement an overland map with certain safe areas marked (if its incorporated into a random encounter system, great. If not, whatever). Unless the server is using the overland map for another travel system, PCs cannot enter the overland map once they have started playing. They can only enter it when they first log in. Then, the map will be displayed to them with possible destinations. They will be allowed to travel to any safe area within a certain distance from their last location. This distance is based on the amount of time they have been logged out. Travelling via the map, in real-time, will be no faster than walking in-game. The only difference is that the destination is not set as the "travel" starts.

For example, lets say Bob logs in in Baldur's Gate, and an impromptu DM starts a quest there, or maybe Bob starts a static patrol. Joe logs in in Nashkell. The roads between BG and Naskell can be safely travelled as long as your in a large caravan (and why walk alone when you can walk with an armed guard?). Normally, Joe might face a daunting walk to meet up with Bob. He's been logged out long enough that he could conceivably be anywhere safe on the server, so instead he simply selects to start in Baldur's Gate. And he does, where he and Bob can engage in whatever kind of adventurers they wish.

Disadvantages:
-It relies on meta. Most people meta to meet up already, though. In addition, many people simply miss each other for totally OOC reasons (logging in late, the lack of an ability to do something as simple as leave a note, ask a NPC, etc).

Possible abuse:
-Logging out to facilitate travel. We don't want PCs using the overland map in this fashion to simply travel on their own. Granted, I think if the walk is THAT boring, maybe the areas between those places shouldn't have been built anyways. But we don't want parties splitting up, with half of them logging out instead of walking. Without a DM on, I'm not sure how we can deal with this. One solution may be to make overland travel take more time than IG-travel.

-Using it to escape from jail, etc. Adding an option to the DM wand to remove the overland map option can prevent this.

For example, lets say Bob logs in in Baldur's Gate, and an impromptu DM starts a quest there. Joe logs in in Nashkell. The roads between BG and Naskell can be safely travelled as long as your in a large caravan (and why walk alone when you can walk with an armed guard?). Normally, Joe might face a daunting walk to meet up with Bob. He's been logged out long enough that he could conceivably be anywhere safe on the server, so instead he simply selects to start in Baldur's Gate. And he does, where he and Bob can engage in whatever kind of adventurers they wish.

Most...nay all DMs in my experience accross many servers will just say 'ok you find a caravan going to BG' and jump you there to ensure people are part of a quest (unless they are too high/low level or it would be OOC to join in).

Dorn wrote:Most...nay all DMs in my experience accross many servers will just say 'ok you find a caravan going to BG' and jump you there to ensure people are part of a quest (unless they are too high/low level or it would be OOC to join in).

That is a good point, and my post should have been more targetted to DMless situations. However, in some cases on a server like SD you can have say 2 PCs in one location you are DMing, then 4 scattered about alone as they log in. Its hard to deal with 4 seperate caravan riders if your busy, though the DM could simply port and have the PC imagine the RP. But many DMs won't do this. Also, if the server charges for caravans, you've then got to take the money from these PCs, who may or may not have enough gold on them.

Its a hassle, not a terribly big one but a hassle nonetheless.

I think this issue brings up the whole fun versus immersion debate. For immersion's sake it makes no sense that a PC should be able to jump that distance instantly. But, from a fun perspective, including the PC in some RP or a DM event, it makes total sense.

I am definitely a fun over immersion type, and think that, if ALFA was easier to move around and meet people, there would be more people online and actually playing, instead of logging on, realizing they can do nothing, and logging off.

I prefer some "adjusted" immersion if it means I have someone to play with.

*Nods*

When players find themselves wishing they had a book to read when their PC has to cross a long distance, there is somethign wrong with the system, I would say.

And if its OK for a DM to hop you across miles, then *assuming steps are taken to prevent abuse* why is it not OK for a PC to do it woithout a DM?

Thats teh crux, really - all or nothing. If its "counter immersive" and "unrealistic" for a PC to cross a sserver in seconds in order to get in some interaction with another player, then it is equally "counter immersive" and "unrealistic" for the DM to do it for them.

I don't want to see players hopping willy-nilly all over the servers, but who extactly benefits from the "enforced boredom" of long, dull Journeys?

Why not tie the porting ability to a item with say 2 or 3 charges? That way it takes a dm to recharge it and they can keep track how many times it has been used. Either that or have one that works once a day(rl). Could we even choose predetermined destinations? and even places that the item works at period?(aka couldnt be used in the wild areas)

Mayhem wrote:*Nods*

When players find themselves wishing they had a book to read when their PC has to cross a long distance, there is somethign wrong with the system, I would say.

And if its OK for a DM to hop you across miles, then *assuming steps are taken to prevent abuse* why is it not OK for a PC to do it woithout a DM?

Thats teh crux, really - all or nothing. If its "counter immersive" and "unrealistic" for a PC to cross a sserver in seconds in order to get in some interaction with another player, then it is equally "counter immersive" and "unrealistic" for the DM to do it for them.

I don't want to see players hopping willy-nilly all over the servers, but who extactly benefits from the "enforced boredom" of long, dull Journeys?

It's worse than just enforced boredom. Whenever my game takes a long pause, the thought that inevitably comes into my mind is "shouldn't I be doing somthing else? Can I really justify not doing chores/work while sitting here staring at the screen waiting for something to happen?" At which point I get a strong desire to log off, and have little desire to log back on later.

**

Stormseeker wrote:Why not tie the porting ability to a item with say 2 or 3 charges? That way it takes a dm to recharge it and they can keep track how many times it has been used. Either that or have one that works once a day(rl). Could we even choose predetermined destinations? and even places that the item works at period?(aka couldnt be used in the wild areas)

Because instant or near-instant caravan travel is OOC, and so are costers charging an adventurer a significant amount of gold (ie, tens of gold pieces) for a ride. Armed adventurers tend to be usefull as guards, something caravans typically have to pay for.

So, the answer is to introduce NON-instant travel, and allow the PC the choice between risk (e.g. hired as guard) and less risk (e.g. paying for hired guards). In the latter choice, the guards may not be up to the task, so there is still a reduced risk.

Implementing caravan routes, and allowing PCs the ability to pick one up enroute are enhancements to the above. The basic premis is that travel takes time & risk. We need to agree on that or nuke this idea.

If we want playability to trump, then simply allow every Party Leader to teleport the whole party to him. We can restrict this to x/day or x/DM Reset, prohibit use if anyone is in combat (or even in an area with traps/mobs). We can do a lot to enhance it, but the basic premis is that we don't want distance to matter to players.

Fionn wrote:So, the answer is to introduce NON-instant travel, and allow the PC the choice between risk (e.g. hired as guard) and less risk (e.g. paying for hired guards). In the latter choice, the guards may not be up to the task, so there is still a reduced risk.

Well, ICly caravan travel isn't necissarily fast. Its safer, and easier if your one of the passengers, but its not necissarly faster than walking. Yet in ALFA its treated as a near-instant teleport. Even if we make it take time, how much? Not as much as walking, that would make it pointless to put so much effort into. But any less would be OOC. I just don't think we should have quick-travel happen on-camera. DMs can of course advance time and the like, but PCs cannot.

I'm not offering instant travel with this idea, just a way for travel to happen off-camera, as it does in PnP. This thread is not directly related to caravan travel, and I didn't want it to be about caravan travel. Its about using off-camera travel vs. on-camera travel. We already do it between servers, the question is should we do it inside of servers?

If you want to keep it off camera then I think the idea about offering travel locations upon logging in would work.

I haven't played for two days, which is what, approximately 16 days in game ( I did some rounding there), so when I log on a message pops up with a list of places I could travel on the server in 16 days. If I want to accept this I choose a location. If I don't I cancel out.

Someone else logs in after I make my decision. They are far away from me. I log off, hoping to exploit the system and travel to them. But because I have only been off for a short period of time, my list of places to travel is almost non-existant.

this would prevent abusing the system, I think. Of course, I have absolutely no idea if anything like this could actually be done.

What we don't want, in my opinion, is the Everquest boat system between continents. Waiting half an hour for a boat, then half an hour sitting on the boat, may have been more realistic, but it was super frustrating.

GFWD wrote:Of course, I have absolutely no idea if anything like this could actually be done.

It can be done, or else I would not have started this thread. The question is, should we do it, and does it fit with ALFA?

I usually stay out of these discussions because I am limited in my technical understanding of things.

I think it needs to be done. And if it doesn't fit with the current vision of ALFA, I think the vision needs to be changed to fit this in. I have seen too many people log off because they were too far away to accomplish anything. There are too many wonderfully built areas of ALFA that never get seen because of boring travel times.

If people have the coin, and want to do it, I say let the system in.

Of course this will only work if the hardcore ALFAns don't then force the cost of such services so high that no one can actually afford to do it.

This should be something to add the ability to interact, not used as another gold sink.

The bigger barrier to finding people is not the size of the server, its the server boundaries themselves (i.e., number of servers)