Mea Tulpa

Geneforge 1 did the best job of it out of any game, though: canister use provided an explanation just like the Geneforge did in G4, but on top of that, you are practically the only Shaper in the game. Your abilities are explained simply by being a Shaper and having had Shaper training, and this is stated explicitly.

Simple fact: Geneforge is not going to have that kind of community. Without either (a) some kind of mass media publication of the sort that fantasy novels and TV shows enjoy, or ( a scenario editor as accessible as BoE was. Personally, I would really like to avoid total fabrication in ET. That way there's no need for an Apocrypha / Sourcing system like we use in EE now. Reasonable extrapolation is one thing, but genuine fanon is another. Perhaps a good way to put it could be as follows: 1) "The primary purpose of ET is to organize and present information about the world of Geneforge, as presented in the games." 2) "Other information may be included provided it neither conflicts with nor muddies this primary purpose. Such information should be clearly labelled and separated from general content." #2 suggests that anything besides story/world information can be included if there is a compelling reason, but it should be clearly separated and labelled. I really think page sections are the simplest way to do this; either "Fan fiction" or "Gameplay details" or whatever. The only thing this interferes with is the stupid conceit that the encyclopedia is actually written IN the world of Geneforge. Which adds nothing. An encyclopedia project is not an RP. The general content can be written in the same realistic tone without fabricating a Defniel University.

Spoiler warnings seem kind of redundant. If you don't want spoilers you have no business reading an encyclopedia about the game world. Common sense really, and otherwise we'd have to slap them on everything. The books and series that have their own wikis tend to be sprawling series with large fanonical communities, the other thing I mentioned besides the editor. Geneforge has no fanon, really.

No, it's definitely not two ideas. Besides what's quoted above, I also said that I think a FAQ type wiki is pointless. I was simply suggesting that, in the absence of a scenario creation program and a fanon community, I didn't think it was necessary to be as strict as EE in pretending we didn't know we were talking about a video game. I particularly dislike the separate namespace idea. Even with sidebar or tab links, that becomes a hassle to organize and to navigate. It's extra work for us, it's extra clicks and time spent for site users, and I don't see what it adds. What exactly is the problem with having OOC information, if there is any we deem relevant, on the same page? In all likelihood there would be very little.

What do you think about the following standard: using a "=== Gameplay Information ===" section for any out of character information we may want to include? This preserves the main article text in the EE tradition while allowing for inclusion of OOC info without contorsion.

I'm not sure I see the sense in making ET a repository for FAQ-type information -- which would be redundant and not useful -- or for build ideas or other strategy or play hints, which are subjective and do not belong in an 'authoritative' style project like an encyclopedia. I do think it would be nice to be able to say "The Guardian Claymore provides a +2 Strength bonus" rather than "The Guardian Claymore enhances the physical prowess of those who wield it."

I just did a test. With a fresh Pacifist, the follow spells were castable in combat mode: - Light - Invisibility - Long Light - Light Heal - Weaken Poison - Sanctuary - Symbiosis - Cure Poison - Light - Heal - Light Heal All - Cure Disease - Restore Mind That is the COMPLETE list. Pacifism not only stops Bless and Haste, Summon Spirit and Flame Cloud, it also stops Dispel Field and Scry Monster! (Obviously, this list does not include spells unavailable at the start of the game.) The workaround is that Pacifism has no effect outside of combat mode, so in walkabout mode a Pacifist can cast summon spells (as well as Dispel Field and Scry Monster). But most other prohibited spells can only be cast in combat mode, so they can't be used at all. Ridiculous.

That's a good question. The lack of a scenario creator and fanon community makes this very different. First, I think we can say that ET should only have information from the games and not anything that's made up. In another direction, I don't think anything would be added by writing the encyclopedia "in character" as EE is. It would probably be more useful to discuss "out of character" information like creation stats if we find it useful. Thoughts?

I'm confused. Your complaint is that PCs and NPCs have access to different ability sets. But then you suggest that you don't need EVERY PC spell to be used by NPCs, nor do you need the players to have access to EVERY NPC ability. So, to clarify: is your actual complaint that you feel there isn't ENOUGH overlap in the skill sets? (By effects, I mean all effects. A PC and an NPC on the same side of battle, with identical stats, standing in the same place, who use the same spell/ability will cause -exactly- the same effects.) I suspect there are two reasons NPC casters don't use area of effect spells, Prismatic Shield, and such. One, their definition files originated in Geneforge 1, which had no area of effect spells. Two, a more complex AI might be required. That obviously isn't a prohibitive restriction, but it raises the question of whether it's worth investing time in.

Sorry, I had just meant computer RPGs. (Though tabletop RPGs are hardly a shining example of modularity: Levels vs. Hit Dice, anybody?) I can only think of a few CRPGs that really use the same algorithms, all the time every time, for your side and the opposition. The old gold box AD&D games mostly did, and a number of unit-based games like Final Fantasy Tactics. And Pokemon. The rest of the old games, as you say, pretty much all treat them differently. I'm not convinced modern games treat them the same, though. What games were you thinking of? -- In latter-day Spiderweb games, the magic systems are identical. PCs and NPCs have access to different sets of spells, which frequently (though not always) overlap. But I think there are very few games (if any) where every PC spell is used by some monster, and every spell a monster uses can be learned by a PC. So in that sense I guess they aren't identical, nor are they in any games I can think of. My priest and mage have different spell sets, but are still governed by the same magic system; likewise for Ruth. What I really meant, though, was that the effects are handled exactly the same way for PC and enemy casters.

My one concern about terrestia.ermarian.net is that it inherently sounds like it supports Geneforge-Avernum syncretism.

Apparently it also prevents the character from indirectly damaging the opponent in any way, including by summons, field spells, buffs and debuffs...

That's five people counting myself and (I am assuming) Celtic Minstrel. Assuming at least three of us follow through, that should be sufficient to make ET worthwhile. (Hey, it's a new ET acronym.) I'll volunteer for admin duties, since my experience with EE might be helpful there. Aran, let's make this happen. So the next question is: terrestia.ermarian.net or geneforge.ermarian.net or something else entirely? vlish.ermarian.net? shanti.ermarian.net? danette.ermarian.net? defniel.ermarian.net? barred.ermarian.net?

Nearly all RPGs treat the PCs differently from other characters when it comes to combat mechanics. This may not be ideal, but it's certainly standard! Complaining about "two different magic systems" is misleading because the magic systems are identical. One rule about summons is different, not anything about magic.

Encyclopedia Terrestia. Aran tells me this is quite doable. The bandwidth isn't an issue and the installation is simple. I think it could be neat, so the question becomes, are there several people interested in contributing to it? My own involvement would probably be organizing, categorizing, editing, and making lists and templates. Are there others who are interested in actually writing articles? If so, this could be a good project.

Excalibur, a wiki article is not the same as a wiki. Wiki is also not short for Wikipedia, in case that was the confusion. The reason an E/A wiki makes sense is that there are numerous world elements (be they people, places, races, laws of nature, or what have you) that do very different things in different games in the series. In the Geneforge series, world elements tend to either be one-shot appearances, or be fairly static. There are a relatively small number of recurring characters, compared to literally hundreds of recurring characters in the Avernums. There are no recurring locations. Individual creations, apparati, and magical effects do not change much over the series. Instead of learning something new about clawbugs in each game, each game tends to say the same things about clawbugs. The result is that, unlike Avernum, there is not a lot of information to cross-reference. For most subjects you can find all the information there is by checking just one part of a game. That said, I wonder how much work it would take Aran to set one up. EDIT: I changed my mind. This sounds neat, even if less useful than EE. Aran, how much work would it take to set one up?

EE draws from Exile as much as Avernum. And, no. EE exists mainly because of Blades scenarios, and secondly because of creative forum activity years ago. Geneforge has neither of these things. While a site covering some of the major players, locations, ideas, etc. in Geneforge might be cool, the world isn't even remotely as expansive as Ermarian is.

You're missing a quote.

Part of the fun of E/A 2, as well, is seeing how people and places have changed in the six years since E/A 1.

I believe the Manna spells didn't appear until Exile II, and even then you don't start out with them. That said, the beginning of E2 has more direction and more supplies than E1.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Haste isn't going anywhere. This is a simple fact. A lot of players like it, and that's the kind of removal that would get Jeff way more hate mail than a fourth appearance of Rentar-Ihrno would. I'm serious about that. Thuryl was spot on about the impact of tactical options. (1) Every usable tactic increases the gulf between the tactically astute player and the beginner. The degree of increase depends on the utility of the tactic, and its difficulty to figure out and/or execute. Haste is very strong, but also easy to figure out. A more dangerous gulf-creator would be the hit-and-run tactic, or the closed-door tactic, employed in Geneforge 1-3. Two other things usable tactics can increase, depending on how they are balanced, are strategy-based fun and grinding/boring. (2) Having a variety of interesting tactical options, none of which are overpowered, increases strategy-based fun. It doesn't remove any challenge from the game, but it makes it more interesting due to the variety of approaches possible. Obviously, the more tactical options you have available, the harder it is to make sure none are overpowered. (3) Having one or two tactical options that are much stronger than all the others increases the grinding/boring factor. Using those options is a no-brainer and there are few situations where you don't want to. This means that the choice to use them is not interesting and any time spent performing those actions may feel boring, especially if the actions take more than a few keystrokes or clicks to complete. Haste is bad because of effect #3. The idea of haste itself is cool, but it's just so strong that it blows everything else out of the water. That said, part of the reason Haste is strong is that other options simply don't exist. The tactical palette in Avernum is slender: you can attack (given the similarities in formulae, melee, missile and magic attacks are just different flavors of one tactic), you can heal, you can increase damage capacity, you can increase defense, and you can summon random creatures. You can use disabling attacks (stun/slow/daze). I think that's everything. Compare this situation to Exile 2-3. Haste was in fact MORE powerful in Exile than in Avernum, because at high levels it allowed three attacks or spells per turn even without speed items equipped. But it was less unbalanced. Why? Because other tactics were stronger, and there were more of them. Melee attacks were processed very differently from magic attacks, and were potentially devastatingly strong. Magic had a plethora of options: besides the ones Avernum has listed above, you could create damaging fields, create antimagic fields, mindduel, mass poison without causing spell damage, use symbiosis, mass charm, mass disease, or you could summon the creature of your choice, utilizing any number of other tactics. Exile excelled at effect #2. There were so many ways to do things. And so Haste was strong, but not always the most important tactic. Often it was less critical than an antimagic field or the right Simulacrum. In the early game, it was usually less powerful than a good Fireball, and in the late game the availability of Major Blessing greatly mitigated effect #3. The engine change in Avernum 4 cleansed the series of half its interesting tactical options. Goodbye to Simulacrums, forcecages, and walls. Goodbye to melee and magic damage being calculated in different ways. Meanwhile the lack of group haste pumped up the boring factor. Haste is a problem, but it's also a symptom.

I vote for an overhaul of the War Trall's stats, because based on past experience, that's the only thing that's likely to happen. We know the creation models take a long time to make, and the model itself is fine -- not awe-some or awe-full, but fine -- so let's keep using it. In order to differentiate it from the other two shaping categories, it really needs to be melee oriented. None of this missile throwing business! Take away its ranged attack, but make its melee attack gigantesque. Don't give it quick action or extra AP or funky special abilities. Just give it an attack so strong that it does more damage than a Gazer or Drakon of comparable level. It ought to, given the disadvantages melee (and the entire battle creation set) have even against equally powered missile attacks.

I think there are two useful perspectives on Haste. One is the gameplay perspective we are already looking at. Another is game balance. The instruction manual says Haste is "extremely useful." This has got to be the understatement of the year. If Haste did nothing but double the damage output of your warriors, it'd still be a great spell. But it also hands you tremendous flexibility by being given two actions per turn indefinitely. You can mix and match spells. You can heal everyone without having to put your offense on hold. Group heals, group cures, and even area of effect spells become much less important than they would otherwise be, since you can spread out whatever you do. The ability to do 2 things in 1 round makes it hard for your opponent to get you in a tough spot by putting you in "check" type situations where you have to heal, kill the summoned monster, etc., a tactic frequently used by bosses in other games. The game balance question I ask for spells is: how high could this spell's SP cost go, without my becoming unwilling to use it? For most spells in A5 this number is close to their actual casting cost. War Blessing, Protection, and some of the heal spells have a higher number, because they're so useful. But Haste? Haste has no high number. It could cost all my wizard's spell points to haste a single character, and while I wouldn't cast it frequently, you can bet I'd still cast it once in most tough fights. More realistically, Haste could cost 15 and I'd still use it frequently. It could cost 50 and I'd still use it repeatedly in boss fights. And this is ignoring the fact that the world is full of haste potions... As SoT comments, the haste effect is so powerful that it drastically alters the balance of the game. It is so powerful that we cast Haste even when it's a grind. Imagine. Imagine a world without haste...

Interesting. I did the following test: four identical characters (Human Soldier defaults, no traits) fought the first four skeletons in the game. Each character received between 144 and 156 experience, inclusive, in every trial. For the first set of trials PC #1 did all the fighting (and defending) and the others stood back. PC #1 got an average of 151 experience (range: 148-156) and the others got an average of 147.6 (range: 144-154). For the second set of trials each PC stood by a crate and did all the fighting (and defending) for one skeleton. For these trials the average experience earned per PC was 149 (range: 144-152). This does seem to suggest that, overall, the fighter (if not the killer) gets a very tiny bonus. In individual cases he may get less XP: this was actually true with comparison to one other PC in 50% of the first set of trials. However, taking all three other PCs into account, the killer got more than a passive PC 66% of the time, the same amount 17% of the time and less 17% of the time. Conclusion: there is some kind of bonus, but it is very tiny, possibly tinier than the random factors, and certainly tinier than the adjustment made for your experience level. Therefore, in the long run, it is practically irrelevant.

Thinking about it again, the real issue is Haste. War Blessing, Protection, and Prismatic Shield take one keypress each under the current system. You can press three keys next to each other for them all using one hand. Hasting the party takes a minimum of eight keypresses that are not next to each other. Steel Skin et al. also take more keypresses, but you don't repeat them for every fight, and for more of the game you won't use them: either because you don't have them, or don't want or need to pay their high SP costs. Also, Haste is by far the strongest of the buffs, so it's the one you're least likely to pass on. Group Haste seems like a very strong ability, and if you couldn't buff BEFORE combat started, it would be extremely strong. But you can; and since it rarely matters if your precombat buffing takes you four turns or seven, Group Haste wouldn't actually be any kind of power boost at all.