Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

You guys wrote five f'n pages in one day, and did not save any rant material for me!
What am I supposed to complain about now?!
Guess you folk did not think about that much, did yas!!!

Well I suppose there was a lot of really good points made in these five pages.

I think almost all of us came to the conclusion that its not just an argument to:



AND its not an argument to



So in this analogy I guess you are wondering why we are all US Republicans?
Well I can not answer that question for you, you need to figure it out for yourself.

But hopefully we don't have to get paranoid over one or the other happening.


It is the balancing and compromising that is important. And it is important because I think the UD is a bit small, and we underdarkers like knowing there is more to our world then just our tunnels and the very few friends that log on with us.

We are all adventurers- so lets adventure.

My opinion:
-I agree that it should be tougher to cross over from one side to the other. I do not necessarily think it should be tougher to teleport though. Hard but not next to impossible...it was previously too hard IMO. Or maybe make that trade route very expensive- now there's an idea..
-I believe you should be KOS if you are on the other side as suggested already. I thought it was already this way...
-I liked the 'give upperdark to the underdark side' arguement, removing the neutral zone. The more people mention it the more I realize it is becoming more of an Under-Xvarts than it is an Upperdark. A place for horrible RP.
-I like the requirement for crossing to the other side for RP reasons. No reason to change that.
-I vote to remove the no exp mechanic- its pointless- a non issue. Does anyone even know of a serious violation of one side grinding where they should not? There is more important things the builders should work on.
The original poster example was bad RPers in the Upperdark not the Underdark right?
-Aarons point, if I understood it correctly - about experiencing, seeing what the drow did rather than just hating them because of stories you may have once heard- was such a good point. The RP between the 2 sides has been a lot of fun an even exciting. Its much more interesting than sitting around with your fellow pink skins or black skins (Im not racist- your racist!) talking lore about how dum the other side are....and never actually interacting with them.
-But it was also wisely pointed out, that it seems we should not have this interaction whenever we want it- it cant be too easy, or it will become homogenized.
-As I understand the lore, it should be rare to see a drow on the surface...you should think to yourself WTF when you see one....be freaked out. Or like, ermargard, kill it! Or like, finally my chance to risk my life and fate itself, to make an ally, for my plans to conquer the world (Im not skeletor -your skeletor!).
-I like the campaign idea with the small possibility to change/affect how we all interact with each other on each side. Imagine if we all became friends! (no, your the dirty hippy).

I recently RCR-ed a character of mine, actually just few hours ago, and rolled an underdark character. I saw three 'cities' to enter from Nexus. I picked Rockrun, and even after about 20~ area transitions, I was still unable to find a single monster to kill. At that point I did not care for CR, I just wanted to find something to kill... And I did not, so I just went back to surface and had one my character die to a summoned vampire fighter that landed 4-5 crits in a row. This was way more fun as an experience.

And this has gotten me to think... Why is no one playing in the underdark? There are two very good reasons to play in the Underdark:

• If Forgotten Realms is known for something, it is the Drizzt Do'Urden books, and even the most memorable D&D based games have had something to do with underdark and drows. You get to kill Drizzt in the Original BG games, you get a drow as one of your party members, you vist a drow city in BG2. In NWN1, anyone remember the Hordes of the Underdak expansion?
• Then lets not forget that mechanically speaking, the 'underdark' races are just superior. Anyone want to argue against that level 30 Drow Spell Resistance?

So why is it that the underdark is pretty much abandoned, and I think there is one simple explanation:

• Underdark on this server is more 'video gamey' than anything else on the server.

On the surface, I think we have about three areas that have their 'map' hidden, the grey-orc grind forest, and the two minotaur mazes. Personally, I am not fan of these areas simply because they do not have a proper map. The 'hidden map' does not create any added challenge, it is only a source of pure OOC annoyance. It just means that you have to memorize the maps, it means it takes a little longer to figure it out... It is just annoyance.

Now, I went to Rockrun, half of the areas were without a 'map' - and from my past visists to the underdark - more than half of the maps in the UD are likely to be without a proper map, and map markers. This is not good video game design. And yes, I know that this is a 'feature' intended to make the UD more difficult, but it only makes it more annoying. The maps are gorgeous, I could and would just make grey sand tunnels and be done with it, but the lack of basic core game features makes these areas annoying as hell.

This is the reason why you do not really start out in the UD, it is more prerrable to just RCR to level 20. This is the reason why most stay on the surface until they reach level 30, and only then do they head to underdark because exploring it is that annoying, and you can finally do it without suffering that experience loss. This is the reason why surface-underdark interactions result in the usual PvP related headaches to the DMs. If a group of level 30 surfacers go to underdark, what is a random level 10-20 underdark character going to do about that, or the other way around?



So I say, build that wall, and make it ten feet higher. Let UD keep its map design without the core game features, and the less we have that on the surface, the better the surface is.

(Honestly, if you do not want to see the minimap, press 'N' on your keyboard, and unbind 'M' key altogether.)

It's amazing how many people have opinions without having really played in the UD. Problem with UD is not what a lot state, it is lack of meaning. Dead end. So we create conflict with surfaces to create a plot. Then we run into the issue of "A drow pvp'd me all drow must be like that!" Without telling the difference between guilds.

Along that line of thinking the hacker was a surfaces, all surfaces must be like that!

As for drow being rare when not hostile, well an app was required for that. But that app never really gets enforced, and if approved you get so loot on both sides, but you still may not grind on the other side. Not enforcing it has made me have to pay a price for my approved drow. But also I think for one to get approved it should take a ton of to, not just a want and your wish is granted. In my situation conflict in the UD resulted in the removal of three of us in the UD, 2 perm deaths, but surfaces players threw a hook at me at what looked like the end and bam, I was stuck on the surface.

The point I have is I really don't think a drow should be made with the day 1 intention of living on the surface, if it happens rp should have forced it.

Sun Wukong wrote: The 'hidden map' does not create any added challenge, it is only a source of pure OOC annoyance...

... the lack of basic core game features makes these areas annoying as hell.

Commentary
The hidden map design in the UD is pure pain for any new player to the server or new character to the UD. It does not aid immersion, only increasing difficulties to playing in the area or getting used to the UD. A highly trained UD ranger will still get lost because the player hasn't memorised the map.

Suggestions

• Give UD characters their mini-maps back
• Give UD all of the Upperdark levels
• Remove all routes to and from the surface
• Have all movement between surface and UD organised by DMs or by application
• Existing UD characters on surface select which they will stay on. Permanently
• Have guilds able to purchase a specific portal with a cost(gold/xp/tokens) to use that moves them to an allied guild on the surface. Swifnerblin to Dwarves for example.

Responses
Frankly, the frequently repeated expectations that this should be handled solely IC and by DMs monitoring and giving out perma-strikes is ridiculous. We have few DMs on at specific times who simply cannot be everywhere and monitor everything. IC responses will almost invariably be hostile or "leaves the area". The first is just a PVP/drama-fest, the second normalises the supposedly extremely rare event.

• The point of automation and mechanically implementing rules or setting based lore is to remove the need for a person to be on the other side. This reduces strain on the DMs and stress that comes with being forced to "play police" instead of creating stories.
• IC consequences is currently being used as code for PVP and perma-strikes. This is not a consequence for many players, this is a reward.
• Removing incentives to going to the opposite area is not negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is punishing a behaviour, such as perma-strikes or item loss.
• The existing system achieves its objective of de-incentivising the behaviour of switching regions to grind for loot or xp.
• The interactions between UD and surface, both lore and server wise, are intended to be rare, semi-mythical and possibly very dangerous. There also used to be other issues that have already been mentioned. Stop asking why it was decided to be done.

Frankly, the frequently repeated expectations that this should be handled solely IC and by DMs monitoring and giving out perma-strikes is ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous...but that's NOT what people are actually saying!

The DMs do have the Role to setup the environment that we can RP in, as well, develop that environment to reflect and challenge our RP efforts.

That seems pretty obvious, and hopefully the DMs won't make it easy!

Israe wrote:Problem with UD is not what a lot state, it is lack of meaning. Dead end. So we create conflict with surfaces to create a plot.

Alternatively, such a dedicated, amazing RP group like the dedicated UDers could get a dedicated UD DM. The DM would create a metaplot for the UD, distribute the information across events dedicated to guilds and eventual special requests, and help the players manage the conflict that would naturally evolve as a consequence. It's been done before, with pretty good results.

The surface conflict would be "just another thing" a UD character could possibly do, if a strong RP angle presents itself.

End of the problem?

Steve wrote:

Frankly, the frequently repeated expectations that this should be handled solely IC and by DMs monitoring and giving out perma-strikes is ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous...but that's NOT what people are actually saying!

You are not suggesting it Steve. However...

Evidence you are wrong.

KOPOJIbPAKOB wrote:I agree with IC measures stated above. I suggest a compromise that you lift all the XP/loot restrictions, but if a surfacer is slain in the Under/Upperdark he will be permsatricken or imprisoned, it would be fair and much more interesting according to RP.

...I agree with IC measures stated above. I suggest a compromise that you lift all the XP/loot restrictions, but if a surfacer is slain in the Under/Upperdark he will be permsatricken or imprisoned, it would be fair and much more interesting according to RP.

adobongmanok wrote:Lift the mechanical sanctions of exp discrimination and let things be handled IC.

cosmic ray wrote: Now, my opinion is that all such OOC constraints should be lifted and only IC ones should apply, but I am not suggesting that. I'm suggesting a COMPROMISE between that position and the current state of the server.

Incarnate wrote: Certainly not, everyone should be allowed to go where they want IC as long as they have a valid IC reason but be prepared for IC-consequences.

... a proper solution to deal with the problematic issues/players - which most likely would be handling them directly and accordingly.

...Then if someone decides to report your character IC'ly for not attempting to kill it, then it would still further the story of these characters.

NegInfinity wrote: I would like to have more permastrikes and IC consequences, though. Not brainless mechanical barriers.

...With all that in mind, I think script-based incentives to "enforce" something are misguided at best. Create consequences instead of mechanical barriers.

...The correct approach would be enforcing IC consequences and rewarding lore-appropriate behavior

...I think there should be an IC incentive to encourage lore-appropriate behavior, and not a mechanical barrier.

Also, I think it would make sense if NPCs occasionally performed a crackdown on drow and drow supporters (and in UD that would be surface and surface supporters). With permastrikes, hangings and all. That one will be fun.

Diamore wrote: You are not suggesting it Steve. However...

However, this is the price for having RP server and not brain-dead action grinder.

There should be enough IC response to justify the rumors of other side being dangerous. Doesn't have to be the DMs, by the way. Players could react to events as well. Doesn't have to be EVERY trespasser. But it should be there... otherwise if a character makes it to other side with no resistance, then they can only conclude that surface/UD isn't scary at all, and the rumors were lies spread by weaklings and cowards.

I don't really want to have my character story interact with a script. That's not what I play BG for.

The main attractive reason is having characters and environment to interact with that is way beyond anything that could be possible in a single player game.

And measures like this script go against what makes the BG attractive in the first place.

Basically, would you want your DM to be a script? I wouldn't. I'm interested in human-driven interaction, where both sides provide their characters for the story.

NegInfinity wrote:There should be enough IC response to justify the rumors of other side being dangerous. Doesn't have to be the DMs, by the way. Players could react to events as well. Doesn't have to be EVERY trespasser. But it should be there... otherwise if a character makes it to other side with no resistance, then they can only conclude that surface/UD isn't scary at all, and the rumors were lies spread by weaklings and cowards.

without devolving this thread, i just wanted to add to this idea that i FULLY support. why does it have to be restricted to just UD/Surface transitioning. why cant the snake queen be deadly or the crypt lich. or the FGK? they are not right now because no one has ever been killed by any of them. guess what gets roll played? the FGK and snake queen are not scary. that is dumb.

anyway...
to make clear my misunderstood quote about hearing and talking.. i was creating a paradox of what i think (because of lore) what should and should not be. there should be tall tales of drow on the surface. there should not be, "hey guess who i talked to today? Th'vayaxian the super cool drow wizard that helped us kill the black dragon yesterday."

with the open borders, this is the avenue of devolution that will take place in regards to the over-accepting and fearless attitudes of surface players using 21st century ideologies and the UDers that may water down there own ideals in order to do something.. anything.

sorry. this is not a route i want to see the server go down. will it create RP. yes. will it be good RP? no.

Any rp is better then none, cant have your cake and eat it too. Choose one or the other but you cannot choose both.

To me this seems to boil down to it being because of a consentual pvp immersion-breaking aspect they needed to find a solution around that, so they made the travel rule and enforced this mechanic - to keep immersion.

To me it seems like a bandaid solution, that doesn't fix the issue, all it does is limit the IC-interactions through removing the incentives for going there with but all the repercussions and dangers for going cross-realm is still there. Not to mention that most characters won't be able to have a valid IC or RP reason for going cross-realm as per the stated rules.

In my opinion, if they want it this way, UD should've be left as a monstrous PvE only area, no matter how fun or interesting it can be to play a UD character.

V'rass wrote:Any rp is better then none, cant have your cake and eat it too. Choose one or the other but you cannot choose both.

Invoker wrote:

Israe wrote:Problem with UD is not what a lot state, it is lack of meaning. Dead end. So we create conflict with surfaces to create a plot.

Alternatively, such a dedicated, amazing RP group like the dedicated UDers could get a dedicated UD DM. The DM would create a metaplot for the UD, distribute the information across events dedicated to guilds and eventual special requests, and help the players manage the conflict that would naturally evolve as a consequence. It's been done before, with pretty good results.

The surface conflict would be "just another thing" a UD character could possibly do, if a strong RP angle presents itself.

End of the problem?

I agree with this statement.

Invoker wrote:

Israe wrote:Problem with UD is not what a lot state, it is lack of meaning. Dead end. So we create conflict with surfaces to create a plot.

Alternatively, such a dedicated, amazing RP group like the dedicated UDers could get a dedicated UD DM. The DM would create a metaplot for the UD, distribute the information across events dedicated to guilds and eventual special requests, and help the players manage the conflict that would naturally evolve as a consequence. It's been done before, with pretty good results.

The surface conflict would be "just another thing" a UD character could possibly do, if a strong RP angle presents itself.

End of the problem?

Band aid.

That's an extended DM led RP group, not a functioning section of the server.

kleomenes wrote:

Invoker wrote:

Israe wrote:Problem with UD is not what a lot state, it is lack of meaning. Dead end. So we create conflict with surfaces to create a plot.

Alternatively, such a dedicated, amazing RP group like the dedicated UDers could get a dedicated UD DM. The DM would create a metaplot for the UD, distribute the information across events dedicated to guilds and eventual special requests, and help the players manage the conflict that would naturally evolve as a consequence. It's been done before, with pretty good results.

The surface conflict would be "just another thing" a UD character could possibly do, if a strong RP angle presents itself.

End of the problem?

actually it is just a single stitch in a wound that requires several.

edited because it did something weird.