The NWN1 platform - changing customs and rules

[Keryn]

My opinion is... That in a game that saw an atempt to move forward ( NwN2 ) but who accomplished many things but also left some others behind and where you can still today see server running nwn1 with 30+ players in a RP focused environment... ALFA NwN1 shuoldnt have been experiencing this.

The game is moving, everyday theres new amazing tiles and toys to add to the servers and lots of people still love this platform.

I think it is time for people to understand NwN2 DIDNT came to take NwN1 place, they both exist are qay diferent platforms with diferent possibilities and issues, of course NwN1 have them hammered out through the years and is overall a more solid platform.

That said, and looking to the figures where ALFAn servers are empty for most part, I would say it is time for each platform to look into the best interests and admit they are different and cant be seen in same fashion.

What FI said makes sense. I am not a fan of DMs playing where they DM, BUT lets face it, whos DMing NwN1? Arent they all trusted old buggers? Is the change of cheating that high that its worth not changing? I tell you something with an empty server theres no one to be woried with someone cheating because he will be alone!

More then one PC I don't see this need... And i think in a relatively small community where its easy to be alone in a server that might lead to changes of cheating, ALFA seems to be the place to really develop your character and get attached to it, perma death makes this happen but you having to focus in one PC alone adds to that.

As to start a level 1... Leave it up to the DM untill level 3 if you ask me...

[Brokenbone]

(1) Re: play where you DM - as long as the local HDM is fine with it, and takes steps to monitor that nothing "unfair" is afoot, maybe workable. Not for everyone, I can't imagine having intimate knowledge of a module (I've got an excellent memory for things like dungeon layouts, how NPCs are built, loot you can expect, which stores have what, etc.) and still find enjoyable surprises, but not everyone is like that. Monitoring probably includes peeking at the logs now and again to make sure no gross abuse is happening (DM Bob dumps 10,000gp into PC Bob's Pchest), keeping alert to player complaints / suspicions of unfairness (PC Bob's going to CvC me, and he knows exactly what my character sheet, gear and secret hideout look like!), and I guess somehow keeping information controlled in your DM forums (DM Bob being able to understand all twenty layers of a plot described in his DM forum, which directly impacts PC Bob... may need to start an offsite forum!)

(2) Re: 1 PC rule: rather than opening the gates to "as many as you want" or even "one per Live server", permit a 2nd PC. A simple restriction like "your two PCs should stay off each others turf and take all steps to avoid conflicts of interest" might do. Got a Sembian connected with the criminal underworld, and a Cormyrian who takes a bite out of crime? Maybe the Cormyrian shouldn't be rushing over to Sembia to seek crime plots, about which your Sembian PC has plenty of awareness. It definitely would not look kosher to other players, probably not the DMs either. Same goes for much less "plot" oriented type knowledge, like if there's a cave in the Moonshaes your level 3 wizard is scared to death of, so out of curiosity, you bring your level 8 Shadowdale ranger in, who "happens to come across that cave" with a wish to explore. That is, having a toolbox of characters suited for different things, and deciding on the fly that "this is a combat plot, I'm bringing the fighter" or "wow there's a lot of undead, I'm bringing my cleric 2000 miles for this", etc.

It may be that hard rules like "make sure you don't have two PCs on the same server at once" along with some general cautions on conflict of interest would be good. It may be that instead, hosting DMs need to be asked if it'd be okay to bring your alternate PC into their plot (whether at a courtesy level, or an actual permission thing) would be sensible.

I guess the hardest rule, which I'm not counselling, would be "give up mobility rights and have a PC on every server you agree not to travel to." Example: my Sembian PC has about a snowball's chance in hell of wanting to visit the kilted savages of the Moonshaes, to enjoy their salted fish, druids, and viking foolery. Maybe this means I could create a Moonshaevian bumpkin PC, where I agree to never ever take the unwashed lout to golden Sembia. Well, at least not while my Sembian PC is alive. In a case like that, fat chance much "unfair" could take place, my Sembian isn't going to clear out firbolg encampments for my Moonshaevian, just as the Moonshaevian isn't going to go learn about all the forest maps in Sembia that my PC has never felt the urge to find the secrets of. Still, it's a potential hardass rule if anyone really wanted to start that way on a pilot, with some future relaxation.

(3) Starting level. All the correct observations aside that LA / ECL is meant to say "this PC counts as a higher level than his hitdice reveal" being aside, the focus here is whether all PCs might start with some amount of XP (and maybe gp) in their pocket, if a local DM team supports it. I think it'd be fine if something like 3rd, or maybe 4th, was a starting level. Lots of good reasons for it, explored in other threads, about the ability to join a campaign without being the "caddy", not dying to the first rat bite, having some skills that may be worth a tinker's damn, etc.

So that the PCs aren't just "disposable loot delivery vectors", it may be that they need to start with a cheap gear package, maybe getting a boost to average wealth when they get validated for their first "earned" level. That is, while I don't see people rolling up level 1s and other PCs simply combing the woods for 300gp corpses, if people rolled up level 4s who produced 5000gp corpses (for the sake of argument), that might make for a very strange economy/ecosystem. Maybe letting a PC get a slightly larger than normal amount of starting gold, being forced to spend it or lose it at start merchants, and then a "bump" later when they've proven that the PC is serious as opposed to a lark or a "loot delivery" for a buddy (i.e., they've played through at least one new level).

Anyhow, since more than one person has complained about the "level one blues" over the years, and further since there's not enough non-campaign, "pure PW" play to permit level 1s to slowly advance on their own and have fun while doing it, a small head start, if the local DM team is into it, isn't such a radical idea.

***

Note with any of the three ideas above, they don't have to all come in at the same time, or even on all servers. Even one of the ideas, implemented on just one willing server, means you've got a testing area to see if patterns of play change, numbers of participants, if it's more or less fun, etc. If DMs feel leery about being the guinea pigs, consulting within their team and/or within their groups of players is how a consensus is arrived at anyway. It may be that you as a DM think this is a great series of ideas, but when you talk to your players, you find one bellyaches about "free levels" or another about letting a local DM join your party as a PC being more of a rival than they'd necessarily want (especially relevant for sneaky / shady adventuring where there's CvC chances, and your opponent knows every number on your character sheet). Alienating your regulars may be too high a price for "maybe" getting some new blood on a server. Never know.

Anyhow, hope the conversation stays healthy. Change may not necessarily be a bad thing, needs to be carefully thought through, and probably implemented only via baby steps, but there's a groundswell of support for it, I am thinking.

[zicada]

My personal take on this:

I think it is important to try to look at the issue without xray glasses on. Imagine ALFA, and in this case NWN1 as an instance of Google Earth. The problem i think, is that we all tend to zoom all the way in. When I "zoom out" and look at the entire "planet", the most important thing to me personally is to try and make as many of the inhabitants there happy. I personally honestly don't care how people do it. I'm not playing there personally, and only people who are specifically interested do. We simply need to run a poll on each issue to know for sure, and then implement the results.

On the other hand, making changes like these bring with them other issues. We are going to be running ALFA with 2 sets of rules,- meaning we have to figure out how best to do this. NWN1 will no longer be an integral part of ALFA when / if we make these changes. It will become a specialized side-attraction catering to a subset of ALFA members who are specifically interested,- and as such can no longer be called 'ALFA' per se, as it does not follow ALFA's basic ideological pillars and ideas. I don't see a problem with that really, but that's the way it's going to have to be I think. Some might argue that ALFA NWN1 already exists like this today. From an admin standpoint i know that nobody has expressly tried to make it as such, it's just natural progression. The NWN1 crowd do get attention, and quite alot of it, from the admin,- as long as they actually communicate. This thread should be proof enough of that.

[Zelknolf]

NWN1 will no longer be an integral part of ALFA when / if we make these changes. It will become a specialized side-attraction catering to a subset of ALFA members who are specifically interested,- and as such can no longer be called 'ALFA' per se, as it does not follow ALFA's basic ideological pillars and ideas.

The fact that you believe this shows how little business you have posting in this thread.

If you were to ask me or the players I DM, NWN2 is the quirky side-attraction with less game, fewer features, more bugs, and a culture contrary to what they've accepted as ALFA.

Note with any of the three ideas above, they don't have to all come in at the same time, or even on all servers.

We'd probably have to get a few servers in on it if we were to do the multiple PCs thingy, but I'd support it, and if standards ever gets off of its giant ass and has someone (anyone) log into Waterdeep (2 people have logged into WD this month according to my logs - kmj and myself.) to review it, I'd definately approve DMing/playing on the same server.

Course, I'd add rules to the tune of "you can't DM your enemies" and "you can't amp up rewards for your friends." -- would prolly insist that other DMs review the "quality" half of the RP scripts and whatnot. If anyone abuses the position, there's a delightful thing called the ban stick; I'll have GSID and public CD key from the logs, and HDMs have the power of server ban (as well as the responsibility to ensure quality of the server).

In my opinion, those two changes would have the potential to defeat level 1 issues. We'd be adding a lot of play options for people, and it might be enough to make things seem interesting/ spur activity (the ultimate goal, ne?); it might not. ALFA in its current shape sorely lacks static content, and players who want it are stuck hovering around Shadowdale's statics. Might make the level 1 blues continue to be an issue. I, for one, would rather solve it by culling template areas and adding statics, but hey, that's me. In either case, I would want to see how that played out before deciding to fight the demons of PCs who are greater than level 1.

[Nalo Jade]

I finally got a chance to sit down and read this...

I'm glad this dialogue is happening.

For those that don't know I am an active DM on NWN1 with a campaign that includes 10 players, many of which are new to ALFA, or returning players, or folks who wish to play on both platforms.

Other PWs on NWN1 are active, thriving even.

Even in the "golden days" we had many empty servers...I absolutely believe we can be more active. If other PWs can do it, then we can too.

These rules do not "increase" happiness and fun for anyone, even in the "golden days".

They are simply a restriction on all for the possible actions of a the few.

We already have an application process, and the ability to ban folks for violating our trust. Personally I say "give people enough rope to hang themselves."

If we can't trust Members then they shouldn't be members. To me it makes things much simpler, and keeping things simple is better than complicating situations with too many rules.

To the points.

RE: DM where I play. I see nothing wrong with it, I never intended on playing, so this doesn't apply to me...but it also doesn't make it "less fun" for me. If it was an option I may decide to make up a PC and play once in a while...I didn't intend on playing because I wanted to be able to DM the campaign and have the freedom to let the players decide where they want to go IC and not tell them sorry you can't go to that server...of yes its part of ALFA, but I can't DM there so for the purposes of that area...well it kinda just doesn't exist...or something else lame...

RE: Remove 1st lvl Start only This rule is HUGE to me and my players. All I can say is, I too have caught wind of another exodus...this isn't meant to be a threat, but since the "cat is out of the bag" this rule is a major point in favor of moving the campaign to a new venue. If it was changed so that if a PC died I could let them roll up a new PC at whatever level I as the DM decide is appropriate that would make me more inclined to keep the campaign here.

RE: Multiple Characters Personally I agree 100%, it affects me and my players because they are in a campaign, this means if they want to stay IC, and I leave them at a dramatic stopping point in a dungeon, they can't play until we meet again next week...if they could have a non-campaign character, we would absolutely see more life on our servers and that would spiral into drawing in more players...

I didn't want to mention the "moving the campaign" but after much thought I decided it is important information to consider, especially the players in the campaign, and the decision makers who will rule on this proposal.

I would love to help brainstorm ways we can "accomplish" this...

We can do anything we set our minds to, its not a matter of whether we "can" make it work...its a matter of will we do it.

[psycho_leo]

- DM where you play: I'm fine with it on a case by case deal. If someone has been here long enough, has DMed and played with no problems and the HDM of the server trusts him enough not to be a problem, I'm cool with it. As zelk says, if it turns to be a problem, just remove his/her DMing rights.

- Multiple PCs: Personally I probably don't even have time to dedicate to another PC right now, but again I don't see it as big deal if its done as BB proposed. Allow for a 2nd PC (not as many as you want) in a different server and watch for crossing plots.

- Lvl 1 start: I wouldn't go as far as letting people start at any given lvl, but I'd support a lvl 3 or 4 start.

[Rotku]

Scrap the one PC rule for NWN1. Scrap the No DMing on servers you play on (maybe for both [Insert question mark here - I can´t find it on this key board]). But I´ve never been a fan of removing the level 1 start.

With the one PC rule, I don´t know if it has been stated above (don´t have the time to read yet), but it would be nice to see one main PC, then another one or two CAMPAIGN PCs allowed, whcih can only participate in Campaign X or Y.

[Ksiel]

I am a player (NC) and DM (Sembia).

1 - Move starting level to 3rd.

2 - Can not play on the server you DM on should stand.

3 - Allow multiple PC's per player.

I believe the above would assist in bringing more enjoyment to current DM's and players, however, I don't believe it would help us get more new members in to play.

[Nalo Jade]

But I´ve never been a fan of removing the level 1 start.

I agree, I would support level 2 start for all players though...

More importantly though I would like to see campaign players starting level left up to the DM. The level 1 start rule imo has a major impact on the survivability of a campaign, once the bulk of the campaign players have attained even 5th level...it becomes increasingly difficult to continue if you lose a few key roles in the group due to attrition, RL, or IC death...replacing that role in the group would be better served if the replacement character was close to the same level as the other players.

[Zelknolf]

I agree, I would support level 2 start for all players though...

More importantly though I would like to see campaign players starting level left up to the DM. The level 1 start rule imo has a major impact on the survivability of a campaign, once the bulk of the campaign players have attained even 5th level...it becomes increasingly difficult to continue if you lose a few key roles in the group due to attrition, RL, or IC death...replacing that role in the group would be better served if the replacement character was close to the same level as the other players.

I get the feeling that we've glossed over part of BB's suggestion that would be pretty key for exactly this idea:

Why not allow players to have only one PC that may participate in whatever, but they're on the usual progression table (start at level 1, find some statics if ya want to advance faster than by sessions participated in), but allow them to have a PC of whatever level that may only participate in a campaign? We pull level X NPCs out of our collective arses all the time, and a PC that is only involved in one plot at a time (and, perhaps, wouldn't be allowed to CvC and wouldn't drop full inventory in the event of death -- I'm sure the relevant DM could easily snag the corpse and drop however much stuff the group should be finding based on wealth/recent XP gains. The fact that it'd be a "properly" equipped character for its level -- which would probably be one level lower than the party, per ye olde DMG -- might even make that not so much of a concern.) would have about as much impact on the game world.

At the very least, I think that would address the concerns of those who oppose higher starting levels, my own included; if there's no CvC coming from high-level characters who haven't had time invested into them (especially against characters who have), there're no miraculously appearing level 15 server-hoppers trying to muscle into every plot (I'm quite attached to the fact that those ones are rare and that my regular players despise their players with as much intensity as I do), and there aren't stupid deaths of those miraculously-appearing level 15s pooching the game economy/consistency ("Hey, this random dead body in the woods that neither I nor anyone else on the server can identify has a bastard sword +5! And a tower shield +5 with 5/- negative and divine resist! And gauntlets of +6 str! Wow, all with no backstory and generic descriptions!"), I'm happy.

[Brokenbone]

I also agree there's a valid concern with "someone powerful coming out of left field, and smushing a long term character for kicks" is a possibility if either starting levels are negotiated to be too high, or if some kind of "campaign of instant 10ths" went off the rails, with folks wandering around as bullies (or teams of bullies) between sessions.

It's probably especially in that latter case of characters whose reason for existence is a campaign, that some kind of "no play of consequence between sessions" may make best sense. Yeah, log in to shop for potions or hang out swapping stories, other stuff that helps the scheduled campaign run smoother... but popping up out of nowhere, and picking fights, can sure make it look like either high stakes gambling, griefing, or even twinking (on assumption these instant PCs also pop up with instant gold). I.e. all OOC behaviours we do not like. Your insta-PC has 10,000gp, and his intended victim has been in ALFA's gameworld for two years... maybe he also has 10K on him, only one way to find out! If you win a fight, you get their loots. If you lose it, no sweat, you can roll up your next insta-PC in five minutes and try again (which could be griefing). Similarly, "throwing" fights to benefit buddies (here, enjoy my 10K corpse, I'll roll up a new one in a minute) is also an unfortunate prospect. It's not something that people do with characters they've put months or years into.

Anyhow, it's probably especially with instant, powerful PCs, that a tight leash may need to be kept. If you want to be able to wander ALFA in the traditional sense, CvC whenever/whoever you want, accepting a position (including the shiny powerful new PC) in some kind of restricted campaign may not be for you. It may be that this idea would never work, "long term, traditional" PCs might have a legitimate beef with an "instant new PC", and find there's no way to remain IC except to kill 'em (and get all their insta-loot), maybe that is where some level of mediation through DMs or through scripting would have to become involved in the loot drop. Insta PCs end up with a no-drop token that causes an alternative corpse to spawn as a placeable on PC death, which won't display the traditional Loot/Mutilate/Carry options (maybe instead a "mark log with DM request" option), though it still creates a Death Chest and other required backoffice stuff for a DM to hand-sort the loot out, if required. ("Oh, this level 8 dwarf who attacked you for no reason, his armor was cruelly damaged when you smote him, and his keister broke a couple potions he had in his belt... you do find some gold though. Perhaps he left the rest of his worldly possessions at home, wherever that is."

[psycho_leo]

If admin somehow decides to allow for PCs to be created at any lvl higher than one wit the help and approval of a DM for a campaign, a reasonable compromise is that this PC is only ever played within that particular campaign, i.e. no running around the server DMless slaughtering spawns and picking fights with other PCs. Restriction is the price you pay for free lvls. This would effectively prohibit any sort of CvC action outside the campaign (if you can't meet it, you can't fight it). I'd also recommend that players in the campaing have a say in giving PC Bob 15 lvls and magic gear (I would as a DM even if it wasn't a rule).

[Zelknolf]

I'd also recommend that players in the campaing have a say in giving PC Bob 15 lvls and magic gear (I would as a DM even if it wasn't a rule).

+1!

If the players don't like the idea, giving the promotion would kill fun for more people (the other players) than it would help (the level'd guy).

[Mulu]

I don't know how well ALFA actually functions as a two platform system. Maybe it just needs to call it and undergo mitosis. That would probably be more effective in the long run than trying to bargain with an admin body that is primarily interested in NWN2 and keeping the rules unchanged. Plenty of people could stay active in both, no acrimony necessary, but it would allow a pure focus and of course any rule changes the membership wanted.

I've played on a fair number of other PW's. I'm a little curious as to what PW's ALFA NWN1 is currently being compared to. I have yet to find the "perfect combination" of rules and features, though some are admittedly a lot closer than others. May as well just lay it out, their names and attractive features, if you really want to analyze it properly.

And yes I'm inactive in NWN1 and NWN2 in ALFA currently, but it's because the rules/systems suck. I love the players, and would gladly play again if the system was improved, so I'm very interested in this. I play NWN1 almost every day.

[Swift]

While i feel neither here nor there about starting level (i personally think you can do a huge amount of character development prior to level 3) or multiple PCs (i play other games, letting me have a second PC isn't going to make me play more), the "No play where you DM" rule has been, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons that Silvy for NWN2 has struggled from day 1 to get enough DMs. Even now, there are only one or two active DMs on the server, primarily because if you want to play NWN2 in ALFA, you only have 1 choice.

Get rid of that rule. Even just trial a removal of the rule. If everything goes pear shaped, point, laugh and say 'i told you so' all you want, but at least give it a shot.