Since you started the discussion, I'd like to know what's your take in our current system for PrCs and your thoughts about adding classes that are not shipped with the game (again, provided they are reasonable and well made).
Also, you raised concerns about allowing planetouched for the sake of preserving immersion. The same concerns have been raised by other members when it comes to the number of stealth PrC PCs out there compared to the others. This is of course more of a perspective matter, as you could simply say PCs are rare enough by themselves in a world mostly populated by commoner NPCs. So, do you feel we should place more restrictions in order to get those PrCs or lower the bar for others?
Rusty : DMA Q&A
Moderator: ALFA Administrators
-
psycho_leo
- Rust Monster
- Posts: 1162
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:10 am
- Location: Brazil
If I'm to read this post right... you're supporting NWN1 by happening to work on things that apply to both clients, appointing BB as the NWN1 support (and prompty vetoing -- as I recall, he approached the movement scripts with being "impressed" and being curious. I've also yet to be shown an actual area in an ALFA module that would be broken by those scripts, and Twiggy is the only HDM to register an opposition somewhere I could see it.) then neglecting a live server, allowing a mass exodus from it, and deciding to take it down from live status, all with the attitude I hear echoed in concerns of other Admin.
Forgive the angry wording, but I must say, I find such claims infuriating, especially when placed next to other Admin asking about unilateral decisions in a largely democratic representative governing body.
Forgive the angry wording, but I must say, I find such claims infuriating, especially when placed next to other Admin asking about unilateral decisions in a largely democratic representative governing body.
Just a small correction - this point isn't entirely true. The way the Charter has been designed is to give each Admin the independence to make calls which solely effect their own domain.Zelknolf wrote:...other Admin asking about unilateral decisions in a largely democratic representative governing body.
< Signature Free Zone >
The power to make unilateral decisions doesn't make them desireable. I think they are bad, and I, thus, am quite angry about it.Rotku wrote:Just a small correction - this point isn't entirely true. The way the Charter has been designed is to give each Admin the independence to make calls which solely effect their own domain.Zelknolf wrote:...other Admin asking about unilateral decisions in a largely democratic representative governing body.
-
Brokenbone
- Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
- Posts: 5771
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
- Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Rusty, since we're having a lot of exciting new NWN1 stuff coming from Technical folks, largely Zelknolf and Electryc... any general comments to provide on smoothing out the approach on this? The "flight" stuff was a bit of a disaster, lot of harsh words, though the rest of the maneuverability stuff wasn't.
Acceptable answers include (but are not limited to) just giving it to me and using best reasonable judgment on "phasing in" different new stuff, presumably being sent around to consult different affected parties. I take the possibly upcoming "scroll fizzle" stuff as an example, where maybe if that works out, then "horribly explosive scroll mishaps" come in later.
Anyhow, I guess explain the approach for everyone's benefit, how much DMA Staff discussion you'd anticipate, or HDM discussion you'd anticipate, or what things you'd throw out to standards or other larger consultations if it seemed the right thing to do. I don't mean for this to be a "creampuff" question, but if there's a concern on opacity of the decision making process, explanation helps.
Acceptable answers include (but are not limited to) just giving it to me and using best reasonable judgment on "phasing in" different new stuff, presumably being sent around to consult different affected parties. I take the possibly upcoming "scroll fizzle" stuff as an example, where maybe if that works out, then "horribly explosive scroll mishaps" come in later.
Anyhow, I guess explain the approach for everyone's benefit, how much DMA Staff discussion you'd anticipate, or HDM discussion you'd anticipate, or what things you'd throw out to standards or other larger consultations if it seemed the right thing to do. I don't mean for this to be a "creampuff" question, but if there's a concern on opacity of the decision making process, explanation helps.
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack
DMA Staff
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack
DMA Staff
Indio / NWN2
I should point out that you do have a vote, indio, along with all of our core NWN2 contributors. Where ALFAns are making significant contribution to our NWN2 development - essentially, the core builders - and do not have already 'DM-level' voting rights, I have granted them 'NWN2 DM status'. This carries the same rights as NWN1 ADM status, and thus grants the right to vote in DMA elections.
Oh, and before I implemented this decision, I consulted my fellow Admin (by posting in the Batcave) and the Head of the Constitutional Committee. I also announced the decision on public forums.
Concerning your point more generally, I of course appreciate your support. I am concerned, to say the least, about ALFA's prospects for NWN2 if supervised by someone who has no involvement in our NWN2 development work and, apparently, no policies on the matter either.
I should point out that you do have a vote, indio, along with all of our core NWN2 contributors. Where ALFAns are making significant contribution to our NWN2 development - essentially, the core builders - and do not have already 'DM-level' voting rights, I have granted them 'NWN2 DM status'. This carries the same rights as NWN1 ADM status, and thus grants the right to vote in DMA elections.
Oh, and before I implemented this decision, I consulted my fellow Admin (by posting in the Batcave) and the Head of the Constitutional Committee. I also announced the decision on public forums.
Concerning your point more generally, I of course appreciate your support. I am concerned, to say the least, about ALFA's prospects for NWN2 if supervised by someone who has no involvement in our NWN2 development work and, apparently, no policies on the matter either.
Hi PL, and thank you for the questions.
Prestige Classes in NWN2
My chief concern, when considering this matter, is for us to have a system that does not unduly burden our DMs while maintaining the integrity of our game-world's balance. I have not currently seen any stand-out proposal on how best to do this; the three options of none, a free for all, and a monitored system all have significant drawbacks. The reason I started the consultation exercise was to see if the experiences of people with Prestige Classes in NWN1 were able to shed any light on the matter. Some of the posts (and Private Messages) have been enlightening, particularly those from DMs who have worked on PrC matters, but right now I remain unconvinced that we are best served by any particular course of action.
Planetouched in NWN2
Planetouched PCs are on the list of ALFA's 'Dead Horses'. We've never added them to NWN1, and - for years now - we have had an unshaken consensus that they are not appropriate for Player Characters. Yet somehow, just because NWN2 includes them in the box, this appears to suddenly no longer be true and the assumption is that we will include them in our NWN2 incarnation. I do not see that any of the (incredibly slight) advantages that Planetouched PCs bring to ALFA (basically, that people can play as them, and I've never seen anyone say that what ruined ALFA for them was not being able to have a Planetouched PC) even coming close to countering the (significant) disadvantages they bring, one of which, as you noted, is an anti-immersive effect. Including Planetouched PCs seems to me to be rather symptomatic of a 'me first' approach to our game world. It is perfectly fine in a normal PnP group to have players being absolutely any kind of race, with any kind of mad skillz, and any amount of uber lewtz; as ALFA is not a normal PnP group, many of these basic assumptions simply do not apply. I strongly believe that including Planetouched PCs will lead to a very small increase in enjoyment for those who would like to play one, and a considerably larger decrease in enjoyment for the rest of ALFA.
Stealth PrCs
This issue rather relates to the more general question of PrCs I answered above. If we do put in place a system of monitored PrC awarding similar to that used for NWN2, I do not believe that it should be any more complicated that those used for NWN1. Certainly, if we include PrCs, we will make every effort to ensure that they are as canonical and well-balanced as possible.
Prestige Classes in NWN2
My chief concern, when considering this matter, is for us to have a system that does not unduly burden our DMs while maintaining the integrity of our game-world's balance. I have not currently seen any stand-out proposal on how best to do this; the three options of none, a free for all, and a monitored system all have significant drawbacks. The reason I started the consultation exercise was to see if the experiences of people with Prestige Classes in NWN1 were able to shed any light on the matter. Some of the posts (and Private Messages) have been enlightening, particularly those from DMs who have worked on PrC matters, but right now I remain unconvinced that we are best served by any particular course of action.
Planetouched in NWN2
Planetouched PCs are on the list of ALFA's 'Dead Horses'. We've never added them to NWN1, and - for years now - we have had an unshaken consensus that they are not appropriate for Player Characters. Yet somehow, just because NWN2 includes them in the box, this appears to suddenly no longer be true and the assumption is that we will include them in our NWN2 incarnation. I do not see that any of the (incredibly slight) advantages that Planetouched PCs bring to ALFA (basically, that people can play as them, and I've never seen anyone say that what ruined ALFA for them was not being able to have a Planetouched PC) even coming close to countering the (significant) disadvantages they bring, one of which, as you noted, is an anti-immersive effect. Including Planetouched PCs seems to me to be rather symptomatic of a 'me first' approach to our game world. It is perfectly fine in a normal PnP group to have players being absolutely any kind of race, with any kind of mad skillz, and any amount of uber lewtz; as ALFA is not a normal PnP group, many of these basic assumptions simply do not apply. I strongly believe that including Planetouched PCs will lead to a very small increase in enjoyment for those who would like to play one, and a considerably larger decrease in enjoyment for the rest of ALFA.
Stealth PrCs
This issue rather relates to the more general question of PrCs I answered above. If we do put in place a system of monitored PrC awarding similar to that used for NWN2, I do not believe that it should be any more complicated that those used for NWN1. Certainly, if we include PrCs, we will make every effort to ensure that they are as canonical and well-balanced as possible.
Last edited by Rusty on Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NWN1 Support
Given that this is a volunteer community, and I am but one person with limited amounts of time, the suggestion that somehow delegating part of my authority to another person constitutes neglect is profoundly silly. It would be as absurd as saying that I neglect developing Standards because I appointed a Staff Head to that role as well. The sheer amount of work that faces any active, engaged DMA is, frankly, extraordinary. I have been lucky enough to find some volunteers to help me manage it, and we operate on a cabinet-style basis. If re-elected, not only will Brokenbone continue to serve in the position of NWN1 DMA Liaison, but I will delegate to him even more of my power. For instance, he will be authorised to oversee all aspects of NWN1 DM acceptance. I have explained the reasons why I cannot approve of some of the changes made to our haks in another post, so I will not repeat them there. Suffice it to say that I think the suggestion that this was in some way an unreasonable decision would be stronger if the person who made the changes did not play a PC that massively benefited from them, if the changes themselves had been fully discussed before implementation, and if either TA or DMA had been explicitly informed about the changes before implementation.
I would have dearly loved to be able to combine being DMA with being able to DM regularly. Sadly, it is simply not possible, fits of indignant fury notwithstanding. Frankly, the idea that I have neglected NWN1 is an idea I find most curious, considering the achievements of the past six months and the energy with which they have been made. I do not recall any previous DMA achieving more, or providing more active support for NWN1, and they were not engaged in the simultaneous development of another platform.
Given that this is a volunteer community, and I am but one person with limited amounts of time, the suggestion that somehow delegating part of my authority to another person constitutes neglect is profoundly silly. It would be as absurd as saying that I neglect developing Standards because I appointed a Staff Head to that role as well. The sheer amount of work that faces any active, engaged DMA is, frankly, extraordinary. I have been lucky enough to find some volunteers to help me manage it, and we operate on a cabinet-style basis. If re-elected, not only will Brokenbone continue to serve in the position of NWN1 DMA Liaison, but I will delegate to him even more of my power. For instance, he will be authorised to oversee all aspects of NWN1 DM acceptance. I have explained the reasons why I cannot approve of some of the changes made to our haks in another post, so I will not repeat them there. Suffice it to say that I think the suggestion that this was in some way an unreasonable decision would be stronger if the person who made the changes did not play a PC that massively benefited from them, if the changes themselves had been fully discussed before implementation, and if either TA or DMA had been explicitly informed about the changes before implementation.
I would have dearly loved to be able to combine being DMA with being able to DM regularly. Sadly, it is simply not possible, fits of indignant fury notwithstanding. Frankly, the idea that I have neglected NWN1 is an idea I find most curious, considering the achievements of the past six months and the energy with which they have been made. I do not recall any previous DMA achieving more, or providing more active support for NWN1, and they were not engaged in the simultaneous development of another platform.
Decision Making
I set out, in my platform, the three criteria I use to evaluate the various issues that come to my attention. They were:
- Does this place an undue burden on our DMs?
- Does this ensure equality of treatment for all our DMs and Players?
- Does this compromise the balance and integrity of our game world?
Where a proposal or situation seriously violates any of these points, it is very unlikely that I will be able to support it. Sometimes the violation is so clear and obvious that I am able to make a decision on a question immediately; frequently it is not, and then I engage in targeted consultation in order to ascertain the viewpoint of other individuals, typically those most effected and most informed.
For example, the addition of DM-less flight to our game world was rejected chiefly because it places an undue burden on our DMs, although its implementation also had equality and balance concerns. The reason why DM-less flight places an undue burden on our DMs is because of the number of areas that make deliberate use of terrain in order to control PC movement and access. DM-less flight instantly invalidates the design element in any area where this has been done. This is such an immediately obvious problem that there is entirely no need to consult, poll, or even particularly discuss the matter. DM-less flight compromises elements of server design in a way that would require rebuilding, so I cannot approve of its use in ALFA.
Now, if we consider the more general question of non-magic mobility scripts, the matter is different. As initially released, mobility scripts suffered from a similar problem to DM-less flight: violating server design, thus placing an undue burden on our DMs. However, by changing their default status to inactive and requiring DMs to activate them in an area (thus preventing their use to avoid designed terrain channels), this concern was resolved. DMs can now choose if they want to spend time and effort adding mobility scripts to a server, as opposed to having to edit areas because of globally active mobility scripts. Again, this problem is so immediately obvious (and the solution so very simple) that to characterise my response to it as in some way unjustifiably unilateral is, to say the least, rather tenuous.
It was certainly unfortunate that these additions were made to our haks in the manner they were. Neither Cipher nor I were particularly aware that a release of updated haks was imminent and we were both rather surprised to see a post from Zelknolf in the General Discussion forum announcing their existence. In order to avoid any such future problems, Electryc (to whom Cipher delegated responsibility for NWN1 hak maintenance and development) and I simply agreed on a need to flag up any significant engine changes ahead of time; ideally before development, let alone implementation. Of course, none of this affects the position on mobility scripts that I have laid out above.
It is possible to contrast the handling of a very simple decision, such as mobility, with more complex matters of policy. I will take the development and implementation of the DM wealth training programme as an example, as it demonstrates a broad range of consultation and team work. I formally raised the idea of a wealth training programme with my Staff on August 2. We discussed it in both IRC and on our Staff forum, and on August 10 I raised the matter in the HDM forum. I asked teams for feedback on how they handle wealth issues, and notified them that I was considering implementing a training programme. This consultation lasted for nearly a month, and several HDMs and EADMs fed into it. The final proposal, which I published in the Admin/DM forum on September 5, was heavily influenced by the feedback I received in the HDM forum. I should probably also point out that the Player Administrator was sent a Private Message drawing her attention to the discussion in the HDM forum, and that she neither replied or contributed to the thread. Now, whether PA wants to comment on wealth training is entirely up to her, but - given the lengthy process of discussion and consultation that I have laid out here - I simply do not believe that a characterisation of my operating methods as unnecessarily secretive is, frankly, defensible.
The contention that I 'work over or around your peers rather than working with us' is also highly dubious. For a start, 'us' appears to mean Mikayla. Regarding the three other Admin: I work extremely closely with Cipher on a vast number of NWN2-related matters, I am in regular contact with Hialmar whenever a matter concerning both of our jurisdictions arises - for example, NWN2 hosting or the development of a new DM Applications utility, both of which Hialmar and I have worked together on -and I very rarely have need to work with Rotku at all. This is not necessarily because I don't want to work with Rotku, it is simply that there is little common ground between the DMA and Lead portfolios. Rotku is, of course, more than welcome to assist with any of the work that my Staff and I undertake, but that is a decision for him. It is not my job to discover if he has an interest in any particular policy I have initiated. I am also a little puzzled by the regular references to just how terribly Rotku and I get along; I don't claim we are bosom buddies, but it would be a strange act for Rotku to PM me in IRC and check I was going to run for DMA again, and compliment me on the work I have done during this term, if he and I really hated each other so much.
So... 'us' doesn't really refer to 'the Admin', it really refers only to Mikayla. Unfortunately, I don't believe that even this limited contention is true. Mikayla has been PMd dozens of times by both me and my Staff to solicit and opinion on various policy matters that we are discussing. These include (and I'm working here from actual copies of sent PMs):
- a question concerning technical resurrections.
- a question concerning the implementation of Remove Disease.
- as already mentioned, the development of the DM wealth training programme.
- planetouched PCs in NWN2 (Mikayla and I agreed that she would lead a consultation on the matter).
- Prestige Classes in NWN2 (Mikayla and I agreed that I would lead a consultation on the matter).
- NWN2 starting level (a long discussion).
- generally, Svirfneblin.
- NWN2 LA race rules (a long discussion).
This is by no means an exhaustive list of all of the conversations that have taken place between Mikayla and my Staff and I. Nor does it fully represent how lengthy and detailed some of those conversations were (we exchanged, I think, over thirty PMs on two particular issues, for instance). It does, however, demonstrate that the existence of a policy of deliberate non-cooperation is, in reality, largely a myth.
I set out, in my platform, the three criteria I use to evaluate the various issues that come to my attention. They were:
- Does this place an undue burden on our DMs?
- Does this ensure equality of treatment for all our DMs and Players?
- Does this compromise the balance and integrity of our game world?
Where a proposal or situation seriously violates any of these points, it is very unlikely that I will be able to support it. Sometimes the violation is so clear and obvious that I am able to make a decision on a question immediately; frequently it is not, and then I engage in targeted consultation in order to ascertain the viewpoint of other individuals, typically those most effected and most informed.
For example, the addition of DM-less flight to our game world was rejected chiefly because it places an undue burden on our DMs, although its implementation also had equality and balance concerns. The reason why DM-less flight places an undue burden on our DMs is because of the number of areas that make deliberate use of terrain in order to control PC movement and access. DM-less flight instantly invalidates the design element in any area where this has been done. This is such an immediately obvious problem that there is entirely no need to consult, poll, or even particularly discuss the matter. DM-less flight compromises elements of server design in a way that would require rebuilding, so I cannot approve of its use in ALFA.
Now, if we consider the more general question of non-magic mobility scripts, the matter is different. As initially released, mobility scripts suffered from a similar problem to DM-less flight: violating server design, thus placing an undue burden on our DMs. However, by changing their default status to inactive and requiring DMs to activate them in an area (thus preventing their use to avoid designed terrain channels), this concern was resolved. DMs can now choose if they want to spend time and effort adding mobility scripts to a server, as opposed to having to edit areas because of globally active mobility scripts. Again, this problem is so immediately obvious (and the solution so very simple) that to characterise my response to it as in some way unjustifiably unilateral is, to say the least, rather tenuous.
It was certainly unfortunate that these additions were made to our haks in the manner they were. Neither Cipher nor I were particularly aware that a release of updated haks was imminent and we were both rather surprised to see a post from Zelknolf in the General Discussion forum announcing their existence. In order to avoid any such future problems, Electryc (to whom Cipher delegated responsibility for NWN1 hak maintenance and development) and I simply agreed on a need to flag up any significant engine changes ahead of time; ideally before development, let alone implementation. Of course, none of this affects the position on mobility scripts that I have laid out above.
It is possible to contrast the handling of a very simple decision, such as mobility, with more complex matters of policy. I will take the development and implementation of the DM wealth training programme as an example, as it demonstrates a broad range of consultation and team work. I formally raised the idea of a wealth training programme with my Staff on August 2. We discussed it in both IRC and on our Staff forum, and on August 10 I raised the matter in the HDM forum. I asked teams for feedback on how they handle wealth issues, and notified them that I was considering implementing a training programme. This consultation lasted for nearly a month, and several HDMs and EADMs fed into it. The final proposal, which I published in the Admin/DM forum on September 5, was heavily influenced by the feedback I received in the HDM forum. I should probably also point out that the Player Administrator was sent a Private Message drawing her attention to the discussion in the HDM forum, and that she neither replied or contributed to the thread. Now, whether PA wants to comment on wealth training is entirely up to her, but - given the lengthy process of discussion and consultation that I have laid out here - I simply do not believe that a characterisation of my operating methods as unnecessarily secretive is, frankly, defensible.
The contention that I 'work over or around your peers rather than working with us' is also highly dubious. For a start, 'us' appears to mean Mikayla. Regarding the three other Admin: I work extremely closely with Cipher on a vast number of NWN2-related matters, I am in regular contact with Hialmar whenever a matter concerning both of our jurisdictions arises - for example, NWN2 hosting or the development of a new DM Applications utility, both of which Hialmar and I have worked together on -and I very rarely have need to work with Rotku at all. This is not necessarily because I don't want to work with Rotku, it is simply that there is little common ground between the DMA and Lead portfolios. Rotku is, of course, more than welcome to assist with any of the work that my Staff and I undertake, but that is a decision for him. It is not my job to discover if he has an interest in any particular policy I have initiated. I am also a little puzzled by the regular references to just how terribly Rotku and I get along; I don't claim we are bosom buddies, but it would be a strange act for Rotku to PM me in IRC and check I was going to run for DMA again, and compliment me on the work I have done during this term, if he and I really hated each other so much.
So... 'us' doesn't really refer to 'the Admin', it really refers only to Mikayla. Unfortunately, I don't believe that even this limited contention is true. Mikayla has been PMd dozens of times by both me and my Staff to solicit and opinion on various policy matters that we are discussing. These include (and I'm working here from actual copies of sent PMs):
- a question concerning technical resurrections.
- a question concerning the implementation of Remove Disease.
- as already mentioned, the development of the DM wealth training programme.
- planetouched PCs in NWN2 (Mikayla and I agreed that she would lead a consultation on the matter).
- Prestige Classes in NWN2 (Mikayla and I agreed that I would lead a consultation on the matter).
- NWN2 starting level (a long discussion).
- generally, Svirfneblin.
- NWN2 LA race rules (a long discussion).
This is by no means an exhaustive list of all of the conversations that have taken place between Mikayla and my Staff and I. Nor does it fully represent how lengthy and detailed some of those conversations were (we exchanged, I think, over thirty PMs on two particular issues, for instance). It does, however, demonstrate that the existence of a policy of deliberate non-cooperation is, in reality, largely a myth.
Thank you for your answer, Rusty.
However, I have to admit it does not do much to ease my concerns at all - if anything, I do feel that it does emphasis them. You have had two of your fellow Admin, as well as Zelknolf, come out and say that they find your attitude and approach towards dealings with fellow ALFA members concerning.
I am not looking for an explanation of how your approach is good and how you are in the right - because as far as I am concerned, there IS a problem, else I wouldn't be posting about it. What I am after is an admittance that there is a problem and more importantly, I want to know how you will work to fix it.
However, I have to admit it does not do much to ease my concerns at all - if anything, I do feel that it does emphasis them. You have had two of your fellow Admin, as well as Zelknolf, come out and say that they find your attitude and approach towards dealings with fellow ALFA members concerning.
I am not looking for an explanation of how your approach is good and how you are in the right - because as far as I am concerned, there IS a problem, else I wouldn't be posting about it. What I am after is an admittance that there is a problem and more importantly, I want to know how you will work to fix it.
< Signature Free Zone >
-
psycho_leo
- Rust Monster
- Posts: 1162
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:10 am
- Location: Brazil
That's not really what I'm asking about. Our current system is basically based solely on DM approval (if the number of quests ans sessions puts a strain on DMs is another matter). So if you, as a player puts a good effort towards roleplaying then inherent skills and traits for a PrC and manages to succeed whatever quest is presented, you are awarded the PrC. There is however, at least from part of the community (as you can see in some of the posts in your thread), a concern regarding the number of certain PrCs and the effect it has on immersion (I merely used planetouched PCs as an example). So what I'm really asking you here is if you think this does in fact presents an immersion problem. And if so, what would you do to address it?Rusty wrote:
Stealth PrCs
This issue rather relates to the more general question of PrCs I answered above. If we do put in place a system of monitored PrC awarding similar to that used for NWN2, I do not believe that it should be any more complicated that those used for NWN1.
That's a granted. But would you be willing as DMA to consider adding them?Rusty wrote: Certainly, if we include PrCs, we will make every effort to ensure that they are as canonical and well-balanced as possible.
Also, I understand you don't have a formed idea of what would be the ultimate ideal system for PrC awarding and I applaud you from trying to get feedback from others who had perhaps more experience than you with this. But what I really want to know is your opinion on our current system. I don't know if you were involved in any PrC quest as a DM, but you had the player perspective at least, so I'm sure you have an opinion on how it was for you.
Current PC: Gareth Darkriver, errant knight of Kelemvor
Se'rie Arnimane: Time is of the essence!
Nawiel Di'malie: Shush! we're celebrating!
Hallo again, PL.
PrCs and Immersion
I don't think PrCs have the same kind of anti-immersive effect that Planetouched PCs do, perhaps chiefly because they are not immediately visible. PrCs are, after all, more of a game engine effect than Race is, which can profoundly determine the basis for all game-world interaction; your character does not know that the three people sitting opposite you in the bar are all Shadowdancers or Pale Masters or whatever.
PrCs and NWN2
If we did include PrCs, either entirely free for all or in some form of moderated system, then I believe that it would be preferable to include as reasonably broad a selection as possible, with the obvious caveats of prioritising scripting time and not compromising game balance. In many instances we may be able to make use of community work, particularly that done by the Player Resource Consortium, to expand choice, if we decide to have choice at all.
PrCs and NWN1
As a player, I had no objections to or difficulties with the PrC system arising from the experience of my PC. Speaking as a DM (and DMA), I have seen players who I do not believe merited a PrC with one, and vice versa, but as reasonable people can disagree this is perhaps inevitable. To a certain degree, the 'template' system encourages certain forms of behaviour we may not find appropriate, and I think if we were to maintain some form of DM-monitored system, we could probably benefit from slightly closer inter-team communication. I think perhaps the major problem with the current implication is that the barrier to achieving a PrC is not always qualitative, in terms of RP suitability, but simply one of time management. However, as long as HDMs are exercising their proper discretion over the awards made on their servers - and that failing to achieve a PrC that a PC has the engine requirements for is a realistic option - the system seems not entirely unreasonable.
PrCs and Immersion
I don't think PrCs have the same kind of anti-immersive effect that Planetouched PCs do, perhaps chiefly because they are not immediately visible. PrCs are, after all, more of a game engine effect than Race is, which can profoundly determine the basis for all game-world interaction; your character does not know that the three people sitting opposite you in the bar are all Shadowdancers or Pale Masters or whatever.
PrCs and NWN2
If we did include PrCs, either entirely free for all or in some form of moderated system, then I believe that it would be preferable to include as reasonably broad a selection as possible, with the obvious caveats of prioritising scripting time and not compromising game balance. In many instances we may be able to make use of community work, particularly that done by the Player Resource Consortium, to expand choice, if we decide to have choice at all.
PrCs and NWN1
As a player, I had no objections to or difficulties with the PrC system arising from the experience of my PC. Speaking as a DM (and DMA), I have seen players who I do not believe merited a PrC with one, and vice versa, but as reasonable people can disagree this is perhaps inevitable. To a certain degree, the 'template' system encourages certain forms of behaviour we may not find appropriate, and I think if we were to maintain some form of DM-monitored system, we could probably benefit from slightly closer inter-team communication. I think perhaps the major problem with the current implication is that the barrier to achieving a PrC is not always qualitative, in terms of RP suitability, but simply one of time management. However, as long as HDMs are exercising their proper discretion over the awards made on their servers - and that failing to achieve a PrC that a PC has the engine requirements for is a realistic option - the system seems not entirely unreasonable.
-
fluffmonster
- Haste Bear
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:54 pm
- Location: Wisconsin, USA
You need to defend the first part of that statement better because it appears to be incorrect. There has not been an 'unshaken consensus' on planetouched since I've been here one way or the other. There have been implementation concerns and broad diversity of opinion on suitability.Rusty wrote: Planetouched in NWN2
Planetouched PCs are on the list of ALFA's 'Dead Horses'. We've never added them to NWN1, and - for years now - we have had an unshaken consensus that they are not appropriate for Player Characters. ...I strongly believe that including Planetouched PCs will lead to a very small increase in enjoyment for those who would like to play one, and a considerably larger decrease in enjoyment for the rest of ALFA.
Further, all your arguments apply as well or more so to drow. Will you puruse the logically consistent path of removing drow as a selectable race?