NWN2: Storm of Zehir expansion (now confirmed)

[Hümmelgümpf]

June 27, 2008, 8:29 AM - skyway actually liked something.

 

[MetalCraze]

well on 1 side it's maybe a good idea to make multiple party members make decisions (from your person).
on the other side I however afraid that this may lead to a dumbing down. basically you could create and balance your team in a way that it will always win in dialogues (f.e. high lore and spellcraft for party member 1, high bluff and intimidate for p.member 2, high diplomacy and charisma for p.member 3 and so on)

@Anthony: won't it lead to "always win"? or are you planning to actually restrict the player somehow to prevent such gaming?

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Why should it be restricted? That's how things work in P&P. Everyone contributes, not only the party leader.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Remember, like I stated at the beginning, this isn't a finished system and all of this could change as we iron out more wrinkles.

I'm glad to see people like it though.

 

[MetalCraze]

Why should it be restricted? That's how things work in P&P. Everyone contributes, not only the party leader.

it is a singleplayer PC game, not P&P. I don't want to easily win here, but I won't miss a chance to make my party members ubercool thus winning in dialogue situations (and probably seeing too much content in just a single playthrough which isn't good - Anthony, take notes). but I'm sure Obsidian will come up with some way to balance this.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Why should it be restricted? That's how things work in P&P. Everyone contributes, not only the party leader.

it is a singleplayer party-based PC game, not P&P.

"Party" as in "team".

 

[SimpleComplexity]

I don`t like it. As skyway said you can basically make a uberparty, which opens every lock, gets every dialogue line they want etc. If you combine all four members into a person, it`s like you are playing one person, who has high stats in every thing. Okay, thats what some people want but im not a big fan of it.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

At least it's optional...

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Yeah, it's called a well-balanced party. Chill out, folks, it doesn't mean you will see everything in a single playthrough. Judging by previews, good, chaotic and evil parties will be doing very different things.

 

[Shannow]

Is there something wrong with my eyes or are those screenshots from NWN1?

from NWN2 OC

Now. They realised their mistake. No wonder some fucktards claim NWN2 to "look just like" NWN1


EDIT: The dialogue system is exactly what Gragt and I suggested previously. I think it is much more natural in most situations and I'm happy that it is at last being implemented.
I really don't understand the "überparty" whine though. "Oh noes, we are not fucked in the anti-magic zone because our warrior-types can still take care of enemies!"; "Oh noes, we can open all locks and disarm all traps and still fight, sling spells and buff our party because we're not all pure rogues!"; "Oh noes, our fighters didn't make their reflect/will saves and our rogues/clerics managed to save the party!"
I could obviously go on and on about stupid whines against balanced parties but you get the gist

 

[Ismaul]

Why should it be restricted? That's how things work in P&P. Everyone contributes, not only the party leader.

it is a singleplayer PC game, not P&P. I don't want to easily win here, but I won't miss a chance to make my party members ubercool thus winning in dialogue situations (and probably seeing too much content in just a single playthrough which isn't good - Anthony, take notes). but I'm sure Obsidian will come up with some way to balance this.

The problem doesn't come from Obsidian, really. It's a flaw in the D&D 3e skill system, where conversation skills are mostly win buttons unless your DM house rules it to make it more dynamic and interesting. Supposedly 4e tries to fix this by involving all the party in dialogues, and making those multi-step so that "winning" at conversation means winning a dynamic back and forth exchange (getting more wins than losses).

Making a system like that would be some work. First, back and forth requires more written dialogues lines. Opening with intimidation will lead to a much different exchange than with diplomacy.

You also need to add the possibility of failure depending on your choices instead of only on the skill rank. Sometimes, what you say just doesn't have the effect you want, even with a high skill. So choosing the right skill (Intimidate, Diplomacy, Bluff or ...) becomes more important than having a high rank, since on can assume that with a full party someone has it maxed.

Anyways, I'm glad for the new conversation system. Even if it's not optimal, it can't be bad. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

 

[Lurkar]

Yeah, it's called a well-balanced party. Chill out, folks, it doesn't mean you will see everything in a single playthrough. Judging by previews, good, chaotic and evil parties will be doing very different things.

Hah, was wondering when someone would bring this in.

Guys, having four people with good skills is sort of the point behind having a party. I don't think anyone's going to say "Well, I can make four people for my team, but I better make sure one of them sucks! I don't want to be GOOD at things, I want to make sure one specific person that I've arbitrarily designated shines because of how shitty he is at something!"

On that note, I adore the new conversation skills thing, and am slightly shocked that, I do believe, this is the first game ever to do it. Oh god.

 

[MetalCraze]

@Shannow:
now now. I have nothing against well-balanced parties, in fact I won't have any other. it's just while I like this system I'm afraid that advancing through conversations will be all to easy. well-balanced party is a key to winning, sure. but please - not so easy.
probably one thing that will balance this somewhat is giving secondary party members penalties in dialogues to their dialogue skills. like NPCs won't treat them all too seriously because none of them is a leader of the party (for example)
as SC pointed it out - I will be able to create 4 characters which if treated like 1 will have ideal dialogue skills. in P&P you have 4 people controlling 4 characters - so they can make 4 times more mistakes in their choices. and that balances. in single-player PC game a person that knows D&D will be unstoppable diplomat.

 

[Aardwark]

I hope they'll also include conversation options based on how bad your abilities are. A character with low Charisma or Intelligence putting forth a not entirely understandable sentence or a character with 0 Lore asking a question about the obvious.

One should not be limited to creating übermensch in order to unlock new conversational options, lack of skill should also have some sort of flavour.

 

[Texas Red]

Well, good, but hardly ground-breaking.

Hey Anthony, can you suggest giving charactes "personality soundsets" like in Wizardry 8? It's not even that simple. Let me explain:

In Wizardry 8 you create a party of 1-6 adventurers. You select a race, a class, a portrait, a name, and, here's the twist, a "personality" for each one. The "personality" is more than just a sound-set - it'll influence party-banter (certain personalities have quips they exchange, for example) and at key points your party-members will say some line to comment on what's happening, be it something as trivial as someone in the party dying or as moving as you getting plot item #3.

It's the only game I know that had this - and I'll tell you something, it -really- made your created party -so- much more memorable. But it's only an option if you have many different and good voice-actors and a sweet writers because it's a huge amount of work for a gain that might be comparatively subtle.

Just a suggestion!

How they make shiny metal man?

 

[Shannow]

Two points: I never played p&p but I always assumed you made normal skill checks for dialogue skills: d20 + skill against an DC depending on the situation. In fact, IIRC, I played mods that used that. Thus no insta-win that some people seem to be worried about.

Second: There could be negative stats like whininess, codex-derail, greed, superstition, religious bigotry, etc. A party member could influence dialogue "negatively" in certain situations. E. g.: The paladin with the high diplomacy skill refuses to talk to the warlock npc because he is an holier than thou asshole and the other party members even have to convince him not to burn the witch...eh..warlock.
Thus the party cannot always rely on single characters for skill checks. Forcing the player to plan better, adapt, seek alternative solutions or deal with it.

Now, both will not be implemented in NX2 but at least the first point "should" be implemented, imho. Especially in a more sandboxy game style.

 

[Warden]

basically you could create and balance your team in a way that it will always win in dialogues (f.e. high lore and spellcraft for party member 1, high bluff and intimidate for p.member 2, high diplomacy and charisma for p.member 3 and so on)

That's my little concern as well.. the same applies to choosing a leader when you use the overland map - choosing the one with the highest spot will be a no brainer. Maybe if the ability to willy-nilly switch leaders could be somehow restricted... let's say, you could switch it only after an adventure or two.
You should definitely not be able to switch your leader (talker) when you start a conversation with an npc.

Anthony, a question about the generation of the party - can you generate only one character (i.e. your pc) and play without the other 3 bonus custom-made characters? Bascially, soloing the game and later on eventually getting some cohorts? That would certainly add challenge in the skill-usage department..

 

[fastpunk]

basically you could create and balance your team in a way that it will always win in dialogues (f.e. high lore and spellcraft for party member 1, high bluff and intimidate for p.member 2, high diplomacy and charisma for p.member 3 and so on)

Eh, you still need to invest in other, non-dialog related skills too, because you won't be talking all the time. Keep in mind that few builds get enough skill points to cover their class specific skills and invest in dialog specific skills too. Look how many skills NWN2 has. You're not going to cover everything you need with 4 party members:

Appraise
Bluff
Concentration
Craft Alchemy
Craft Armor
Craft Weapon
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Heal
Hide
Intimidate
Listen
Move Silently
Open Lock
Perform
Search
Sleight of Hand
Spellcraft
Spot
Survival
Tumble

Your spellcasters will focus on Concentration first and foremost while your run-of-the-mill fighter doesn't really get much in the way of dialog skills, only Intimidate. Plus, you still need someone who can craft a few items, someone who has good Survival, Spot and Search for the Overland map, not to mention someone who can take care of locks, traps etc.

 

[Warden]

With just a single rogue you can maximize more than half of the available skills..

 

[Lumpy]

Admittedly, you could max all the conversation skills with your main character in the OC and MotB as well. Still, it's much easier at the moment.
If it's an RPG, it has to have content you won't access with a certain character. In AoD, much content is locked because you don't have the skills. In SoZ, though, that doesn't seem to be the case, so there'd better be lots of different choices and paths through the game.

 

[Spectacle]

With the way the D&D skill system works, it should be quite easy to distribute all the conversation skill across a party of four without sacrificing their effectiveness at combat or other tasks. If every party can succeed at any conversation skill check, what's the point of having the check at all?

 

[thesheeep]

With the way the D&D skill system works, it should be quite easy to distribute all the conversation skill across a party of four without sacrificing their effectiveness at combat or other tasks. If every party can succeed at any conversation skill check, what's the point of having the check at all?

Because you could still make a party that isn't perfect.
Which would be ineffective, but most probably more fun, since more RP-like

 

[Warden]

If every party can succeed at any conversation skill check, what's the point of having the check at all?

There's no point..
The point maybe exists if someone is a complete nab and newb in d&d.. so he'll... I don't know..
Yep, it's theoretically impossible to fail. :/

They should seriously reduce the available skill points at level up.

 

[Warden]

Because you could still make a party that isn't perfect.
Which would be ineffective, but most probably more fun, since more RPG-like

You mean like.. we should make stupid and bad tactical decisions on purpose to correct the faulty design decisions?
I don't think so.

Anyway, skill points are so abundant that you simply cannot fail at distributing them, even if you want to. Especially if you have 4 custom characters available.

 

[Shannow]

With the way the D&D skill system works, it should be quite easy to distribute all the conversation skill across a party of four without sacrificing their effectiveness at combat or other tasks. If every party can succeed at any battlel , what's the point of having battles at all?

Fixed.