Server proximity

[Ronan]

Hmm, well, to the people who voted no: Why? Do you prefer servers farther appart? Or does the distance between them just not matter to you at all? Does your PC ever travel, and if so, do you bother RPing out the distances and such?

[Grand Fromage]

The old admins forced it by limiting the build area to only one part of Faerun. It's remained tradition since, and there are only so many interesting locations in that section of the world.

Was this before the quake?

Yes, though I think the server map was made before NWN even came out, so I'm not sure who precisely made the map.

Hmm, well, to the people who voted no: Why? Do you prefer servers farther appart? Or does the distance between them just not matter to you at all?

The distance is irrelevant.

Does your PC ever travel, and if so, do you bother RPing out the distances and such?

Yes and yes.

[Ronan]

The distance is irrelevant.

Hrm, why do you say this? You'd be just as happy with a Thay and Waterdeep as a Silverymoon and Waterdeep?

[Grand Fromage]

The distance is irrelevant.

Hrm, why do you say this? You'd be just as happy with a Thay and Waterdeep as a Silverymoon and Waterdeep?

Yes. Thay and Waterdeep is a more interesting set of servers. Interesting places in Faerun tend to be some distance apart from one another. Calimshan, Amn and Waterdeep are all cool, but then you have Baldur's Gate and Tethyr in the way. Or Anauroch, Sembia and the Moonsea, with the Dalelands in the way. Better to just skip over that than have to build it.

[fluffmonster]

"Do you RP travel?" hmm...that would seem to be the crux of it, wouldn't it?
Myself, my PCs have traveled relatively little. Do I RP it? That question isn't the relevant one...its *how* I RP the travel. Its usually as simple as "I came from X" if someone asks and leave the inconvenient details out. But this isn't really about how I do it, is it? It seems about some unspoken expectation about exactly how travel should be RPd. More than that, there seems an unspoken pessimism that travel between regions that aren't next to each-other can be RPd at all adequately. So why don't we just come out and address this directly instead of mandating proximity to avoid the issue altogether?

The only other argument for proximity I've heard that has any oomph is global plots. Not a lot of oomph, but way more than the travel RP issue.

[Ladellon]

My vote - I don't care.

Just adjust the paradigm to accommodate either situation.

If the servers are cohesive - great, but not at the expense of turning away talented builders, DMs, players, etc. It's not worth it.

If the servers are scattered - don't make it so freaking difficult to get between them (ie- know where the ATs are located that should be obvious to any self-respecting Faerunian adventurer.)


Laddy

[AcadiusLost]

Hmm, well, to the people who voted no: Why? Do you prefer servers farther appart? Or does the distance between them just not matter to you at all? Does your PC ever travel, and if so, do you bother RPing out the distances and such?

Voted no, without a particular opinion about how near or far the servers should be. To me, the quality and immursiveness of each individual server is vastly more important than their relative positions on the "big map".

My bias from a player standpoint is via a longlived and infrequently travelling (crossserver at least) PC. When I have travelled, generally a fair number of sessions were spent at each locale, with consideration given to the distance, and a mind to the immursion of other PCs (avoiding specifics of travel distances and times, etc).

As a builder, I think it is important for people to be able to build the areas they really want to build, as it can be uphill work- it needs to be a labor of love, really. I would rather not put our builders in the position of sidelining the project they really want to do, in order to be able to actually contribute. If we do end up with many remote servers, and many frequently travelling PCs, immursion may in fact suffer. However, I don't think this is a primary concern.

There seems to be a fair bit of disagreement about what "diversity" entails in terms of server builds. For me, I'd like to someday take a PC on a grand voyage, which includes areas that really feel "different"- whether it be a harrowing, scorched trek across the great desert, a pilgrimage to the Monestary of the Yellow Rose, a trek through the Chultan jungle, that sort of thing. Certainly, each server will be diverse in it's own way, and the heartlands have a lot to offer. If we ended up with only the heartlands, would it be bad? Not really- but if we're looking at tiebreakers, I'd rather see distant locations, and give our playerbase the trust to treat them as such.

Hope this clarifies.

[Fionn]

I voted DC - if I had to choose, it'd be a No. While it would be nice to have a contigous map, I REALLY don't want to see all the heartache about [Thay] not being allowed because it's too far. We've played that game already - lost some good DMs to it too.

[Audark]

I voted no, but along with Mik I would say proximity should matter "somewhat" in the minds of the selection team, but that it should be a small aspect of the overall importance of diversity.

I want interesting servers, with very different settings, terrain, politics, etc. I want it to be a culture shock dealing with my new environment that I haveto adapt to through RP.

I would prefer if that can be done without traversing thousands of miles in a single portal, but if thats what it takes to get between the best 5 proposals based on all other considerations, I am fine with that.

[Ronan]

I voted no, but along with Mik I would say proximity should matter "somewhat" in the minds of the selection team, but that it should be a small aspect of the overall importance of diversity.

Technically that would still be a "yes" vote, as the importance of the proximity was left undefined, and could be a very small factor. In any case, it still seems like most people don't think proximity matters at all.

This comes as a bit of a shock to me. In my mind anything which effects how we play the game should effect what we build, in some way, shape or form. Unless we get a 64-bit binary or the game is significantly changed from what we imagine, I do not think we will be able to represent any geo-political area of much size with much detail. Thats basically why we dropped Tethyr, there was just no way we could have made enough of it decent detail, baring technical changes to the game (and even then it would be really hard). The result of this could be a group of small servers with little connection to each other, which do not paint a picture of any one part of Faerun very well at all.

I really had no idea people considerd so much of Faerun boring. In my mind the less-exotic parts are still part of the world, and belong there as much as anything else. I guess I assumed people would go do a different campaign setting if they found so much of Faerun uninteresting. I had actually hoped for more "mundane" content in NWN2, as I felt the over-emphasis on points-of-interest painted Faerun as much higher in magic and strangeness than it is supposed to be, and thus diluted FR's uniqueness. Though I suppose my viewpoint is more directed to the design of the world of a whole as any one specific spot, since I'm not likely to do much building in NWN2.

I would rather not put our builders in the position of sidelining the project they really want to do, in order to be able to actually contribute.

Neither would I, but we already are by limiting the number of servers that can be built. Thats decided on, and people want it, though I do not. The question is then what servers to allow, and I think we could probably find people who want to build servers near each other if we wished (Sea of Swords, Sword Coast South, Waterdeep, The Silver Marches, Eryndlyn, The Savage Fontier, The Savage North). I think its more of a matter of choosing who's project to sideline, so I'd say the heartache is already there, its more just what name we give it. How much more do we value a selection of servers with proximity? Just a tiny bit? From this poll, I'd say not at all.

For me, I'd like to someday take a PC on a grand voyage, which includes areas that really feel "different"- whether it be a harrowing, scorched trek across the great desert, a pilgrimage to the Monestary of the Yellow Rose, a trek through the Chultan jungle, that sort of thing.

So do you expect some sort of a travel/encouter system to facilitate this, or do you have no problem with the vast bulk of this voyage being off-camera? While my desires as a player are similar, to travel and see ALFA, I don't see this as being enjoyable unless the travel is more than stepping on a portal and ending up at your destination. Different feeling areas can of course be had without much geographical distance, say a combination of desert/underdark/forrest/rural/urban around the Silver Marches and into the Anauroch a bit. Though I suppose no one would want to build all that.

[Swift]

I had actually hoped for more "mundane" content in NWN2, as I felt the over-emphasis on points-of-interest painted Faerun as much higher in magic and strangeness than it is supposed to be, and thus diluted FR's uniqueness.

Perhaps it has, but you do have to remember that, barring a few instances im sure, everybody plays an adventurer of some sort. We dont play common folk, we play people of note, people that rise above the everyday man, people that do things that few others probably would. We chase orcs, we hunt dragons, we keep cities safe, we deal with politics, we raid pirate ships and hunt pirate treasure. Mundane areas generally wouldn't interest these people, because if they are classed as 'mundane', they are probably not in need of someone above the norm.

We need to represent places that would be the most likely to attract above average people. If everyone played bar owners and only one in twenty played adventurers of any sort, im sure the more mundane places would be built with more importance.

[Ronan]

Perhaps it has, but you do have to remember that, barring a few instances im sure, everybody plays an adventurer of some sort. We dont play common folk, we play people of note, people that rise above the everyday man, people that do things that few others probably would. We chase orcs, we hunt dragons, we keep cities safe, we deal with politics, we raid pirate ships and hunt pirate treasure. Mundane areas generally wouldn't interest these people, because if they are classed as 'mundane', they are probably not in need of someone above the norm.

Well I do agree with you, but I think I didn't make my point clearly. By mundane content, I more ment something less exotic. Not Thay, Calmishan, Shade, or Evereska. Not necissarily content for the common man, but just areas which represent Faerun as it is ment to be. Normal parts of Faerun to be contrasted with the exotic cultures. And normal parts of Faerun are filled to the brim with adventure opportunities, and places no commoner with a wit of sense treads. Its just the nature of the campaign setting, its riddled with adventure hooks.

But while we are on the subject, I also ment that the extraordinary nature of adventurers was diluted by an under-represented common man. And yeah, to higher-level characters most common-content is a waste. But to lower levels, not all that different from your average farmer, the more-common content is more playable. In a poor farming village with a minor lord, a small keep and a handfull of soldiers, the party of level 1s can be heros. In Thay, they'd be turned into slaves. There isn't a lot of content for lowbies in ALFA currently, especially if they want to be much of an adventurer or hero. Thats one thing I wanted to occomplish with The Sunset Vale, is content for a broader range of levels. Let the lowbies rescue the farmer's wife from orcs and save the day, or alert the town guard to approaching raiders and actually help out in the battle, instead of watching a red wizard evoker come in and blowing all the raiders to little chunky bits.

[ThinkTank]

[ I Dont Care: O ]

*click click*

[Mayhem]

Distance seems to be being equated with "inaccesability by players who normally play on another server"

If inacessability is then equated with "a good reason not to select a proposal", it sounds a very small step to saying "we don't need an underdark, as it will be inaccesable to 99% of people on other servers".

I don't think everyone would agree...

[Audark]

I voted no, even though I think it should have some weight, because I do not want to see proximity become a big issue later on in server proposals. I would much rather have it carry no weight, then have a larger emphasis placed upon it than I would like.

and honestly, I doubt I would ever go to Thay, I doubt I would ever go near Zhentil Keep for that matter *shrugs*

I want the best server proposals to win, the best teams, the best plans, why everyone is voting No is because a proximity clause appears to be something that could be used to exclude servers even if their plans were superior on other merits. To me it's better for proximity to be a dead issue here and now, than for it to potential be used later in events that would stir up drama.