The NWN1 platform - changing customs and rules

[Arkan Bladesinger]

Make sure that the fellows get invested enough in their characters that they would care if they lost 'em.

This is worth +2

[NickD]

Another somewhat random idea. Maybe no CvC for the first year? Six months? Make sure that the fellows get invested enough in their characters that they would care if they lost 'em. It would at least help even the grounds on the emotional attachment. Not perfectly, but I'd bet enough to make the occurances as rare as CvC currently is.

If they start at 15th, there's not much chance of losing their character to a CvC against a character who started at 1st. No CvC ever at all.

... Or perhaps I can see CvC if there is a campaign where a DM or player makes a character that is specifically created to be the antagonist. Although I guess you'd have to put down some ground rules like no traps... Traps between PCs is broken, right?

[JaydeMoon]

Hey Jayde, add me to your list...currently inactive due to busted computer. Once fixed, I'll be active again.

Question...If DMs are allowed to play on the server they DM on with HDM permission, what about the HDMs who want to play too? Who's giving them permission? Do they need permission?

I'm in favor of start from 1st - 3rd, with any higher lvls being approved by DM. I like the campaign only idea, but I think it would be nice to have a PW character start higher, with appropriate safeguards. What if you've got a character idea whose background requires you to start at 4th or 5th? Should they be DM approved, with possibly posting on the DM/HDM forum so DMs are aware of them? That way, if someone comes up for CvC or griefing, the DMs can see that the character was a higher start. Is that worth it, or too much work?

Multiple characters are a good thing, but should be limited, I agree. A second or third max should be plenty. Do we want to cap it?

In fairness, added you to the inactive in ALFA with the caveat that you fully expect to get back in the game in NWN1.

I put you for yes on all three, I kind of extrapolated that for DMing where you play... looked like maybe you were saying 'Yes' but wondering how HDMs could get their own yes, in that case?

If I'm wrong, just kick me and I'll put you in for a no.

[Brokenbone]

CvC "bans" may not be the hottest idea. Someone throws down the gauntlet, a long term "traditional" PC may care to pick it up. Or a long term "traditional" PC may take the piss out of a campaign character, knowing reprisal is impossible. Something not sitting right there.

It may be a little exploration of whether we're talking about "new" PCs being campaign only, wander around and maybe casually link with campaigns, both at once, or only one at a time. Call them Campaign PCs, Advanced Start PCs, and Traditional PCs for the sake of argument.

Traditional PCs means "everyone who exists now." It could also be a newly created PC, even under some new program, who either rejects an Advanced Start PC or simply rolls up someplace the program isn't in effect (but might rub shoulders on other servers with others, someday).

Advanced Start PCs are anyone new who accepts a local DM team's offer to roll up at whatever "low level" is agreeable. Maybe it's third, maybe it's fourth. Maybe it's higher, though I do not think that is necessary. Some amount of gold is also counselled. An average wealth PC3 under our standards should have 3500gp worth of stuff, were it a PC4, you'd be talking 7025gp. If worried that Advanced Starters are likely to die and leave attractive corpses, maybe cut those amounts by 25-50%, and find a way to make it back up to them when they hit their next level (i.e., proving it's a "serious" concept).

I'd recommend kitting out be in some OOC start area, or through some agreed guidelines about "not spending everything in one place", potentially using the DM Award tables (875gp for a PC3's items, which disqualifies magic swords, full plate, some modest to powerful wands, or 1750gp for PC4's items, which does include MW full plate, and many modest wands but is still shy of 2300gp+ magic weapon territory). Since PCs would be getting "all this money at once", they'd not have gone through the costly series of upgrades Traditional PCs went through, i.e., buy the best armor you can... then get rid of it for better... then get rid of that for better... usually pawning over and over, on that and other items, at losses every time.

If this gold scene doesn't sound any good to sponsoring DM teams, forget it. Give 'em their 300gp and let them be enterprising, use their class skills etc. to dig out of that hole. DMs who interact with them may need to bump up rewards appropriately, as they'll be dealing with "below the low mark" characters for awhile.

I do not see any reason to restrict CvC initiated by, or defended against, by Advanced Start PCs. PC3s and PC4s aren't very scary, except to their peers or lessers. Any decent axe crit can kill anyone with under 30hp anyhow (orcbait), this is still "can die in one hit" territory. Still, DMs should be alert that there's decent IC motivations here, if someone were to go through a string of Advanced Start PCs and show some aggressive pattern, might reasonably disqualify the player from participating further in that program on your server (i.e., if you want another, roll up at 1st).

Campaign PCs are player characters who, from their inception, are designed to join a sponsoring DM's campaign. Not quite sure of how to describe a campaign, but you kind of know them when you see them. I keep seeing doomsday comments of OMG a level 15 will come out of nowhere and smite everyone. How about start level is, for the sake of argument again, equal or simply one level less than whoever is the current lowest level regular for the campaign. So if the campaign has a 12th, 10th, 9th, and an 8th, a Campaign PC could start at 7th. Another Campaign PC could be added at the same time or a day or week later at 7th as well, as opposed to "next one's a 6th, and whoever's after them is a 5th." Any of this adding or any "irregularities" (like "the lowest Traditional got outpaced by the newest Campaigner, and an Advanced Starter joined too, so we're not sure whose level minus one the next Campaigner should be???") should be resolved through discussion of the DM, possibly their peer DMs, possibly their campaign members, etc. Joining campaigns isn't necessarily a "right" anyhow, the existing group has to want new blood, and helps determine on what terms. Still, I would recommend the join-ups be the "lowest" of the PCs involved, as opposed to anything else, for balance reasons. The hypothetical group of 12/10/9/8 above could be really eager to have a cleric 9 join their party simply for "raise dead" abilities, or a wizard 9 join for "teleport", but again, let them join at 7th and work their way up to that level of "usefulness."

Wealth figuring would probably be the same as with Advanced Start PCs. Either give them full average wealth for level, or hold back a percent until their next level. Use the DM Award tables to make sure it's not all spent in one place (I got a +3 flaming longsword, and a pair of underwear!). Again, being able to "shop" for all your gear at once with a big budget is unbelievably efficient if you know how to optimize things, and not a lot of Traditional PCs carry a perfect "optimum" gear package.

As to CvC, well, may need to take a step back and double check when Campaign PCs are even intended to play. Principally, it's "during the Campaign." Still, there are ad hoc, DMless sessions where campaign members may get together (downtime RP, planning, shopping), could be done solo as well (especially for doing your potion shopping and other boring stuff that other people hate to sit through during a limited campaign session). I'd say those limited, "near to the campaign" types of play are okay. Travelling to far lands (need to shop in Arabel BRB) is not. Running around to antagonize other PCs probably isn't either. Anyhow, I am not sure a "CvC Ban" is all that appealing, since it can also be interpreted as "CvC Immunity"... a Campaign PC may run off his mouth against a Traditional PC or Advanced Start PC, or even another Campaign PC, and maybe, just maybe, they're picking a fight with the wrong guy. Sure the new Campaign PC Fighter 10 looks tough, but he doesn't look so tough when he finds out the guy he's irritating has a Wand of Hold Person. *hold*, *slay*, *take 15925gp worth of loot from PC10 body*

It may be that some soft guideline like an expectation that any significant interactions for the first several months of a Campaign PC's existence are expected to be within the confines of the campaign, and initiating CvC is strongly discouraged (so much so that your PC may be BOOTED from the Campaign, we'll get to campaign dissolution in a minute). It may also be that any CvC which "somehow takes place anyhow", would need review, and potential adjustments on any ill gotten loot gains if the Campaign PC, who may not have his wealth spread across pChests throughout Faerun, gets deaded.

A point that hasn't been discussed though is what happens when campaigns dissolve or the DM goes on hiatus or away completely? Traditional PCs simply scatter to the four winds, I would imagine any Advanced Start ones could as well. But what about Campaign PCs? All of a sudden a PC who's probably better off than an Advanced Start PC (maybe he's 7th, 9th? Who knows?) is released into the ecosystem, when really only four to six original campaigners were the ones who decided "this would be a good addition to our campaign" as opposed to "this would be a good addition to all of ALFA's Faerun." I think the Campaign PC may just need to be put on ice. Think of it like retirement, but ready to join another campaign (by petitioning / seeking interest) elsewhere. Those other campaigns can decide whether the PC is a good fit, no addition nor subtraction of levels assumed to be required, topic may be negotiable though, and if you want to join the campaign, player flexibility (as opposed to "flexibility of DM and his/her regulars") is expected. A reference from past co-campaigners may come up as well (especially if the PC was booted!) Net here though is that Campaign PCs always would need to have a "sponsor", and to the extent they can't claim membership in a campaign, well... have fun with your alternate PC, whether you've already got one, or need to create one. Again though, there are at least five campaigns I can think of in ALFA at present, covering a wide range of levels, I can imagine any one of them petering out still means there's at least "one chance elsewhere" to participate.

Can't think of much else to say about Campaign PCs, but there's probably more ins and outs that others'll think about... this stuff is "from the hip" anyway.

***

Anyhow, think the net here is that Traditional and Advanced Start PCs are pretty darn similar to each other, except the "not starting at 1st." ASPCs may be a little more "optimized" in terms of gear and whatnot, depends if they're given appropriate gold, but I don't see any reason to restrict travel, CvC, whatever. Campaign PCs are the weird ones, who may start off fairly powerful and wealthy, but whose primary existence has to be in a campaign format (which can limit CvC & travel) and if they aren't part of a campaign anymore, no more play with them til they find a new sponsor.

We should probably steer away from silly doomsday examples for now as well. Rusty and Nalo run low campaigns. JM's I think a little higher, but really covering a midlevel range. Valdimir and Arkan run campaigns where you're looking at 8th-12th territory, think FI's is similar, may have a wider range (both low, and with higher "guest stars"). Zelk's or depending on activity, Legio's, may be a bit higher. Chamu's higher still, I think. If people are saying "OMG 15s everywhere", well, the only way I'd see that is if the only campaign experiencing growth was Chamu's, still, I don't think his lowest regulars are 16th+. Low may be 12th or 13th, so a new join might be 11th or 12th? Well, whatever. Crazy examples that don't fit into the actual campaigns out there, aren't productive.

I guess someone could start a 100% new campaign, where they were soliciting "ten PCs, all must be level 20, we've hak updated Rick7475's House of Stone for a classic crawl, duration, 4 Sunday nights in November", again though, good judgment on how Campaign PCs would be permitted to go campaign-to-campaign would be expected.

[oldgrayrogue]

I'd like to offer a personal anecdote on how this may end up working in practice.

My experience is similar to Zelk's. Most people who play multiple PC's play a "main" and 1 or 2 "alts." Limiting it to three should satisfy everyone.

On my last NWN2 server (where I played over a year) I played a main who was a high level elven rogue/SD. He was one of the leaders of the elven faction on the server, a "diplomat" and spy and involved in very high level server wide plots and campaigns. I created my first alt frankly bc I got a bit tired of being involved in all the serious high drama and wanted a break where I could just have some fun with a sort of over the top character. I was invited to play a tiefling which was a special race requiring admin approval. I rolled up a completely over the top warlock/rogue tiefling Sharessan buccaneer from the planes who became stranded on Faerun by a planar accident. I had loads of fun playing this concept, stirred up lots of commotion and got tons of positive DM and player feedback. Basically this alt served to give me a break from my "main," a chance to play a different concept for a while and just have some really frivolous fun RP. After playing this for a while it reinvigorated my interest in my old mainstay, and when I returned to that character the RP was fresh, new, interesting and fun again. I later rolled up another alt, a NE Malarite human ranger/assassin, because frankly there was a huge outcry on the server as to how it was impossible to play evil effectively given DM bias to goodies and I was intent on proving the naysayers wrong. I had fun being bad with this character. It was a nice change and kept me interested and playing regularly.

Incidentally, when I played an "alt" for any extended period I would usually PbP that my "main" was off on some diplomatic or secret mission in another part of Faerun and would be away from the locale for some time, or simply that he and his IG spouse had gone off on holiday. This was to preserve continuity in my mind with the absence of a high profile PC on the server.

For most of the time I played these 3 PC's I was also a member of staff who enjoyed quasi DM privileges. I had access to the DM forums and was permitted to run one shot DM events we called "spice" to liven things up on the server. I also worked on developing statics, campaign plots, approving bios, character support etc. No one knew it was me doing it (except other members of staff) as I had a separate DM account and "nick." I must admit it was fun in chat hearing other players bitch about or praise my DM persona. I can honestly say I never once took out any negative comments on anyone ... because well ... this is a game where the goal is for players and DMs to have fun. Threads on the DM forums regarding plots any of my PC's were involved in would say "OGR KEEP OUT!" and well ... I would .. why would I want to spoil the fun for myself by metagaming? Other staff members acted similarly to me afaik. If anything I think this experience made me a better player and staff member and really helped to develop the ability to totally keep IC and OOC knowledge separate and apart and immerse in a PC when you are playing that PC. It really forced you to do that.

This was the way we ran it on my old server. I cannot remember more than one incident of DM abuse of a player in all that time bc of player/DMs. Just about every player and DM on the server new me and my main PC due to his status, and bc he was a very effective "spy" and diplomat he knew more about what was going on behind the scenes with most factions than most. I never used this "meta" info with my alts and in fact went out of my way to avoid any conflict of interest. There were never any complaints afaik about me or others similarly situated.

I have a feeling, given what I have learned of most ALFA players, that things could work much the same here without too many rules and regulations to bog it down. It was the honor system and based on trust and it worked quite well. If some one abused the trust, which was rare, we dealt with it. We all had loads of fun.

[Ksiel]

I think if we do move forward with these ideas, we need to go with the most streamlined and efficient way possible. The work load on those behind the scenes are more than enough as is. Some thoughts:

1 - Multiple PC concept
Unless there is a way from a vault stand point to limit the number of PC's you can have active, I would suggest just leaving this open. Who will want to go behind players and check to make sure that they only have 3 pc's and not 5? If someone had the time to play 5 seperate pc's let them. I don't see this being abused.

Also, who is going to want to keep track with this pc is a campaign pc, traditional pc, etc... More work = less fun.

2 - Retired PC's
I think there are too many problems with this at the moment to try and implement it. I have a retired PC that I would love to play again. Level 12 fighter/thief on Sembia, however, if I brought him out I wouldn't really want any stipulations on him. We should leave retired as they are, retired.

3 - CvC
One of the draws of ALFA, at least for me, is the possibility of CvC. I haven't been involved in a CvC in over 4 years, but the fact is it brings an element to the game. Who or how will you check in the case of a CvC if the pc is a PC that is authorized for CvC?

At least for the first step I think there are 3 things that have came out of this discussion that we need to focus on which will not bring added work. After we test these out then we can look at Retired PC's, DM's leveling PC's for campaign purpose, and the like.

These three changes would not cause any more work on anyone to test out and increase the fun.

1 - Raising starting level to 2 or 3.
2 - Allowing DM to play where they DM.
3 - Allowing multiple PC's.

Just remember when we talk about these ideas, lets try to do it in the most efficient way possible and get rid of the red tape instead of adding more.

[zicada]

I guess I might aswell say this publically:

I will always vote against multiple PCs. No matter the arguments, I believe it is a step in the wrong direction for ALFA.

On the other issues, I will only vote yes on issues that are ALFA wide. "Special treatment" for one 'faction' of ALFA would lead to too many new issues, and it simply is not worth it. That said, I will vote yes on allowing HDMs the ability to start new characters off up to level 3 if deemed necessary, for use in campaigns and such. This would be a global change.

The same goes for DMs allowed to play. I would vote yes on a global change to allow this.

The last thing we want is to separate NWN1 and NWN2 within ALFA. The arguments for some of the proposed changes to NWN1 would quite possibly work just as well for NWN2, and by making these changes global, we include everyone.

So to sum up:

- No to multiple PCs in any shape or form,- it just goes against pretty much everything ALFA stands for. If you want multiple PCs, play somewhere else, or somewhere else in addition to ALFA.

- Yes to DMs playing where they like. They add to the immersion, and no real alfa'n should even CARE who has the most gold or items or numbers. ALFA is not a competetive game where the guy with the most stuff "wins". If this change leads to better DM coverage and generally more happy good times, we should do it.

- Yes to raising new character level on a per case basis, globally. HDM's are to be trusted, and are capable of making decisions like these. Max level 3.

Realize that, if these proposed changes were to be implemented, and someone is found to take advantage of them for personal gain, they would be dealt with rather harshly. This means it would quite possibly happen once, and then likely never again.

So there you have it. This is how i will vote within the admin body on the issues presented.

[Nalo Jade]

I am also all for the easiest solution possible.

@ CvC ... A DM must be present so most of the concerns there are moot. Unless its a DM abusing their authority in which case we smite the DM and make things "right".

@ Advanced* Campaign Characters ... To me this is pretty simple as well. And the work would only be done by those that "want" to do the work, so their is no unwanted work load being pushed onto anyone.

You join a campaign.
*The HDM of the server "approves" the campaign character's level and wealth.
*A post is made in the Admin/DM forums so all DMs know it is a campaign PC.
*The character gets an undroppable item that indicates they are a campaign character.
*This item also diverts the contents of their corpse to a Pchest in a DM only area. This way DMs can deal with the higher wealth drop however they see fit.
*Campaign Characters cannot engage in CvC against traditional PCs without the consent of the traditional PC.
*If the campaign ends, the PC must be retired, unless it can join another campaign.
If the PC dies the player may create a new Campaign Character up to 1 level lower than the lowest level original surviving player in the campaign.

NOTE: *If you join a campaign at the normal starting level in ALFA, none of these apply, you are a normal PC that happens to be in a campaign, instead of an "Advanced" Campaign PC.

[Nalo Jade]

-snip-

I will always vote against multiple PCs. No matter the arguments, I believe it is a step in the wrong direction for ALFA.

- No to multiple PCs in any shape or form,- it just goes against pretty much everything ALFA stands for. If you want multiple PCs, play somewhere else, or somewhere else in addition to ALFA.

-snip-

Dern it. Can we recall you for your opposing view?

I mean ... the forums were down.

Well I guess that pretty much scraps that idea huh...

errr how many Admin votes does it take to make it possible to allow members to have one traditional PC and one Campaign PC?

[fluffmonster]

I'm certainly inactive, but I thought I might share some perspective from a long-time member.

Alfa to me is not what it was, and certainly not what it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be an expansive 24/7 PW covering the Realms. The expansiveness was the first casualty of reality. Overtime, the 24/7 became the second...sure the servers are up 24/7, but not the game. More and more, DMd campaigns have become the main attraction and ad hoc play the sideshow. Its become more a small collection of private NWConnections tables and less a PW. This isn't necessarily good or bad, its just the way it is.

Holding on to a past which isn't particularly relevant doesn't seem very helpful though. I have to wonder whether the Pillars were really just a furtive effort to hold on to a past ideal that was slipping away.

My point is that a revision of how we go about our game is entirely appropriate, and it is a good time to be skeptical of past values. I'll not wade into the particulars currently being debated aside from saying that to work, there will be more dependence on DM communication than ever before. When exceptions become the rule, the need for transparency and communication is absolutely critical. At the same time, I think we've become small enough that we shouldn't fear an honor system as we once did.

[zicada]

-snip-

I will always vote against multiple PCs. No matter the arguments, I believe it is a step in the wrong direction for ALFA.

- No to multiple PCs in any shape or form,- it just goes against pretty much everything ALFA stands for. If you want multiple PCs, play somewhere else, or somewhere else in addition to ALFA.

-snip-

Dern it. Can we recall you for your opposing view?

I mean ... the forums were down.

Well I guess that pretty much scraps that idea huh...

errr how many Admin votes does it take to make it possible to allow members to have one traditional PC and one Campaign PC?

Well, I'm just one vote. So if 3 admin disagree and vote for, then it doesn't matter.

[Nalo Jade]

Not to be mean, but simply because we disagree...I hope your view turns out to be the minority.

I'm not "picking a fight" or anything Zic, just feeling a bit more hopeful now.

Of course I would love to convert you to this darkside of thinking...but it seems pretty obvious from your post that is impossible, so I won't waste my time or yours trying to convince you one way or the other.

[Nalo Jade]

Would anyone be opposed to me posting a question about these changes in the NeverwinterConnections website?

If one of the goals is to recruit more quality players/DMs, it may be good to get some feedback from non-alfans.

I would want LA or the current PR rep to approve the message of course...but maybe something like this....

ALFA is currently debating some proposals from its members. Since the proposals may affect the decisions of potential new members, we have decided to see what the greater NWN Community thinks about these proposals.

The proposals set forth are as follows.

Allowing our DMs to play on servers that they DM on.

Allowing players to start at a higher level than 1st.

Alllowing Campaign Characters to start at whatever level the DM of the campaign chooses. (Though this character would be restricted to campaign play)

Allowing players to have more than one PC.

Would any of these changes keep you from joining our community?

Would any of these changes encourage you to join us?

I would also like permission to pose these questions at the DM picnic happening this Saturday.

[zicada]

Would anyone be opposed to me posting a question about these changes in the NeverwinterConnections website?

If one of the goals is to recruit more quality players/DMs, it may be good to get some feedback from non-alfans.

I would want LA or the current PR rep to approve the message of course...but maybe something like this....

ALFA is currently debating some proposals from its members. Since the proposals may affect the decisions of potential new members, we have decided to see what the greater NWN Community thinks about these proposals.

The proposals set forth are as follows.

Allowing our DMs to play on servers that they DM on.

Allowing players to start at a higher level than 1st.

Alllowing Campaign Characters to start at whatever level the DM of the campaign chooses. (Though this character would be restricted to campaign play)

Allowing players to have more than one PC.

Would any of these changes keep you from joining our community?

Would any of these changes encourage you to join us?

I would also like permission to pose these questions at the DM picnic happening this Saturday.

I think we should concentrate on sorting this out behind closed doors. Once we reach a conclusion to this, I'm sure nobody would oppose to posting. For now though, please don't post about this anywhere outside of ALFA.

[Nalo Jade]

On the other issues, I will only vote yes on issues that are ALFA wide. "Special treatment" for one 'faction' of ALFA would lead to too many new issues, and it simply is not worth it.

BTW FWIW...

I agree with Zic on this one. There is already enough "division" between the platforms that we cannot control...

Classes and Races that NWN2 supports that NWN1 does not, Cool graphics, whilst NWN1 is restricted from incorporating the WoRms tilesets, NWN2 being limited to a single server, While NWN1 has multiple live servers and plenty of campaign servers available.

So any further divide will only cause more problems between the folks that favor one system over the other...I don't think it would affect people who play on both nor would it affect people who aren't wearing "team colors".

I for one am happy to have both platforms, and wish I could play/DM/build on both ... someday I'm sure I will.

@ whether to post or not... appreciate your opinion Zic, as I am sure the decision makers are appreciative of your input... but like I said no need to worry I will wait till either the LA or the PR Head tells me what to do. The tone of your post almost sounded like you believe you are the boss of me... you are not my superior, just as a friendly reminder