Vent

I believed I had finished with one but the curse continue!

 

1 - Dates

About your source for the date, common, yes I read your post but I just saw a technical reference, I don't call that a story reference. I just wanted the quote and when it happens. Are you sure it can happens and that it's not a lost text?

 

2 - 'Baddie' but on a moral point of view

The 'baddie' was from a morale point of view and can't be the pollution effect from any point of view you look at it. It's Vinnia and eventually the Empire.

 

3 - Hole in the past story and moral

I'm not sure to have understand your part about the archeological point of view. If it's about having an unclear moral on this part of the scenario because of a hole in the story, I think this is wrong.

 

If there's a moral there, it is tiny and it's only around Vinnia and the Empire, not at all around Palhatis. There are plenty clues about that. The main hole in this part of the scenario is why Palhatis hadn't push the button after to have set up the clean up mechanism. But there are no big hole around Vinnia and the Empire.

 

Trying to search any moral reason that explains why Palhatis hadn't made it, makes no sense for me because the moral is centered around Vinnia and the Empire. Additionaly, I don't see any moral reason explaining why he didn't push the button. Furthermore he is obviously good and there's not a single clue showing him tortured by his own decision to not doing it.

 

I don't say that the scenario give any direct clue about that, but I can imagine plenty reason not linked with moral:

 

Firslty, you should quote that there's no urge to do the clean up. So there was no reason to sacrify any live. Palhatis could hardly predict his own murder and when he realized that, it was too late.

 

You should quote that Palhatis did plenty things during less than one week. At first he tried to struggle against the closing of the school and then he tried to warn the empire about the future pollution problem. That phase certainly take few days. Then he build a clean up solution. He informed the dragon. He build a shade. And finally he get killed by Vinnia before the school was closed so before the end of the week.

 

You should also quote that during this week, the empire obviously get brutal control of the school, burning places, murdering people. As Palhatis had lost any confidence from the empire, he most certainly had limited action in the school.

 

So some possibilities linked with indirect clues:

- Palhatis lost all responsibilities at the very beginning (strong clue about that) and before to have set up the clean up solution. So he could not have been able to go in the waste area anymore and after get killed before to set up a solution for that.

- Suicide/teleport problem. If teleport was that easy to build in less than a week, there would have many teleport in the school. He hadn't enough time to build one and pushing the button was a suicide.

- There could have been guards there, firstly going there could have been difficult during the evacuation, secondly triggering a brutal reaction could have cause useless death of all people still in the school or at least guards near to the waste.

 

4 - VoDT and moral

When you wrote: "If VoDT has anything to say about pollution (which I still don't really think that it does, but let's just assume)" then I agree with you. And that's all where I was turning the debate after to have play deeply the BoE version: Why reproaching it its moral treatment when this scenario doesn't have a real moral contents?

 

That said, if as you suggest, we assume that the scenario is developing a moral, despite it's not the case, then I agree, it would be much better that the pollution should have been technically much more contemporary and the archeological point of view should has been changed in order to get a detailed moral development... if the scenario had choose that way.

 

My problem is that the scenario hasn't those choices, isn't wrong to not make them and then is a wrong example for this article, ASR would have been a much better example for that subject.

1 - Clan word

About clan word, ef explained it right, appart that I'm also really uninterested by a clan post just because experience shows that 99% of the time they don't bring anything to a debate. That said:

1 - There's nothing wrong in a clan post, it's normal human behavior with good aspects.

2 - I saw only his first post as a clan post and in fact only in its first part, I didn't read further before.

 

2 - Art vs Entertainment and Moral

About art vs entertainment, I agree with Qalnor, there's no real links. But there's a link between the two because the capitalism model gradually made evolves art quality on economical criteria. For most type of art, the link of the art with the economical criteria is the entertainment value , that makes the aparent link bewteen art and entertainment.

 

Moreover, mentality are evolving. Many people that will be agree about the difference between art quality and art economical value could have sometimes a first reaction that show the reverse, I constantly see that at TV cultural shows, something that still exists in my country.

 

About moral and art, I don't see more links. My first reaction would be, how about the music? It can be art without any moral. For movies, novels, cartoons, scenario or even games, they all create (or could in case of games) stories. Is that make quite a difference with music? Certainly, but that would be a dogmatic point of view to require a moral in any story that is art.

 

This leads me back to the VoDT example in the article.

 

3 - Moral in VoDT

No, if there's a the 'baddie', it's Vinnia and the scenario is very clear about that. That pollution effects are bad don't make the pollution a "baddie" on a moral point of view.

This is an extreme advice I disagree with. Jeff has any rights and particularely not giving any clear moral messages, lessons or thinking material. He is not wrong to use pollution effects in his scenario and not cover at all the pollution moral subject with a modern point of view. You demonstrate that this is a wrong choice through this sentence:

I can't agree at least from a player point of view. I strongly enjoyed this scenario and I never wanted that Jeff give me more morale stuff about pollution.

 

Furthermore, there's a strong doubt on the reason that some people didn't like some aspects of the scenario. Did they really get disturbed by a lack of moral development or did they get disturbed by an archeological approach of the story that hapened 130 years ago?

 

4 - Archeological point of view

I'd like that those who, unlike me, get disturbed by this pollution subject, forget it one minute and look at the scenario with a different point of view.

 

One secondary but very important element of the scenario is that beside the main story, the adventurers could find many clues about the story that happened about 130 years ago (about 130 years is the safer guess). This subject is secondary but in term of scenario fun I think it is primary.

 

It gives to this scenario a lot of its mystery. In fact, at the end, this old story keeps some mystery. Is that a wrong choice or not is a difficult debate. Like an archeological approach, we end to not get 100% of the clues that explain 100% of the details with a 100% certitude. I'm not sure that this is that wrong.

 

That's my first feeling and strong disagreement about comments on this scenario. I strongly suspect that some people get disturbed, not by not having a fully explored morale subject, but by not having at the end of the scenario 100% of the past story with a 100% certitude.

 

Perhaps Jeff was stupid enough to not see the holes in this part of the scenario. But the holes are so basic that I'm not sure it's the good guess. Furthermore, there are some details that show that it's a better bet to think it as a deliberate choice. At what date happened the past events? We get at least four different dates (I count one I never found when playing the BoE scenario, but quoted by Kelandon). Almost 100 years for many people living in the valley, more than 100 years but less than 127 years for a dragon, about 130 years for a dated Empire order, 80 years for a source Kelandon didn't explained. I see it not as a Jeff stupidity proof but as a part of creating an "Archeological" approach.

 

Not having 100% of the details with a 100% certitude isn't bad for me. Keeping a part of the mystery is building an "archeology" atmosphere for this part of the scenario. Objectively it's not that bad to let player imagination running freely.

 

That approach is certainly one step further in comparison of giving full explanation of the old story. That doesn't make it bad. Am I alone to have seen this part of the scenario like that? I doubt.

 

5 - Moral development holes or story holes?

No, this scenario use the pollution effects but doesn't make any moral about it, it's hard to make moral about bad effects. They are bad, that's all, there is no moral in that. 130 years ago that's something else but this collide with the archeological approach I explained above.

 

That's my second problem, as I explain above, the archeological approach ends to an explanation of the old story that has unexplained parts. There are two points. No it's not better to develop in any scenario a complex grey moral. No it's not a hole in moral treatment, it's a hole in story and not necessary a wrong thing as I explained about the archeological approach.

 

What surprise me is that "nobody" complain about the holes in the story but see them only as lack of moral development. Only because of the archeological approach in this part of the scenario, it is a wrong example to use it in an article about moral.

 

Worse is that holes in moral development are also holes in the old story, that involves confusion about what is the real problem on this aspect for some people. That's a second reason that makes this scenario a wrong example in an article about moral.

 

To anticipate answers already answered, no, a story can be coherent and good without to have a sophisticated moral development. What could have been the (fully explained) old story is for me a typical example. The story hole about the push button prepared in secret but not used by the 2 good mages has nothing to do with a grey moral development. That's still a hole in a story 100% explained.

The reason that Vinnia didn't used the push button has a strong clue, she just never knew anything about that.

clan is a worse insult than jerk, lol english is a strange language!

 

You are taking that too seriously, a lot.

Sure Kelodon you're 100% right, you know the coding without to have see any code line.

 

All my posts about that was hypothesis in order to give some example that could explain why BoE had cost so much effort.

Jobs plus playing more VoDT BoE before detail it retrain me from coming here, that wasn't that bad!

 

Kelando reactions became too much personnal , at this point it's useless to debate of anything with him, he just hate me, ok no debate and I'll survive.

 

Kyna, your post and late coming in the debate are typical clan attitude that don't worth any answer because 99% it's useless stuff that are mainly uninteresting clan reactions. Think a bout that a little.

 

I'll answer anyway to your last post because afterall beside saying people can't be wrong because they are clever, it has some interesting subsdiary points.

 

-------------------------------------------------

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

So my point is completely valid thanks to agree with that. A note you can found:
Don't forget. Caretaker key left with Provost. Healing Scepter still with Apothecary. Be sure to recover. If only we were given more time. Vinnia will have my head if they're left. Be sure not to forget.

That note shows the urgency, if that doesn't refer to both school closing and Vannia, well I could nothing for you.

Kyna, is that and all quotes I did, just a dream? You are speaking about facts but I saw nothing in your post.

Nice joke.

Thuryl, it's not the moral that doesn't make sense on this point, it's the scenario.

 

Don't you see that point?

 

In fact you are giving too much credit to it by supposing there's in fact a morale explanation.

 

Can't you imagine another explanation? As a technical problem? Until the school isn't empty he can't do it. Then no time to do something at a point and later he is dead. I don't say it's the explanation but just that this aparent scenario incoherence has no link to moral.

Ok, I don't have a lot to add than I already mentionned. But about point 5 as you want more explanation:

 

Vannia used the opportunity to discredit the two other mages. Is she succeed she will discard two concurents, so more power instead to share it with the two other mages.

 

Furthermore she used the oportunity to please to the Emperor. He doesn't care about future pollution that will happen when he will be dead. He just want to hear that the school is closed ASAP as he asked.

 

She hides the problem because not doing so was to admit that the school should not be closed or at least that its closing had to be delayed. This could have unpleased to the emperor and furthermore she would have lost an oportunity to discredit the two other mages.

 

If you answer me that it's not explained in the scenario, I give up.

I just quoted your post. I'm sorry but this was a quote from you post. Ha well, apart for this point, I agree with you.

Ok, I'll answer quote per quote to some points of you post.

Yes you are wrong, I gave you a quote and it's not even a dragon talk but a story comment so no lie. We could be both right and the scenario wrong.

Wrong, I gave you plenty quotes that gave good reasons of this behavior.

Yes and that exactely what I quote from the scenario, Vinnia wants more power.

Wrong, I gave you BoE quotes.

I think it's wrong, check my explanation, just avoid a suicide and no time to build a better solution or a teleport portal.

Lol, I agree.

Wrong, see post I quoted.

Well perhaps but I think it's an important choice of the scenario that explains why the 100 years old history isn't so obvious.

Ok, I agree in part and disagree in part but I don't want to discuss about this poiint so you're right!

Well what to answer to that? I gave you plenty quotes of BoE, did I really didn't understand them? I don't think so, I could be wrong. I'll read again your previous post but I doubt I didn't undertood it.

Ok so you don't need to define a script language to have different set of procedure for different NPC behavior. You don't even need to do different set of procedure in order to program that.

 

So when you wrote:

 

The difference between that and scripting is that scripting would allow a different set of protocols.

 

That's not true, Jeff and Avernum don't need script to do that, it's not linked at all to the use of scripts.

1 - I*, thanks for the precision, I always wanted to write moral.

 

2 - Kelandon, so my explanation about the non use of the push button is ok? In fact you didn't read it, I added it in an edit.

 

I mention it again:

 

Did the mage mastered teleportation? Did they had time to set up a teleport portal? I don't think so and then pushing the button was doing a suicide. That's a good reason to not push the button when the problems aren't here and are in the long term.

 

3 - About the 100 years

I quote a dragon phrase:

"For over 100 years she waits after they leave". Over 100 years so I don't see how it could be 80 years appart if it's another date, the sealing date.

 

4 - About the importance of 100 years later quoted by nobody

Wrong at least once, read coreyh post.

 

5 - Why Vannia act like that?

I already explained, an oportunity to get the power for her alone and to discard the two other mages. Some quotes from the beginning of my play of the BoE version:

 

Vinnia plans something I dunno what, she means us no good. Desperate time my friend, I have done my best in master control to make sure disaster can avoided. We ca only hope someone makes it down here, before disaster strikes.

 

At this point Palathis understand nothing of Vinnia plans.

 

Quote also, that "makes it down here" seems to be a problem.

 

Later:

Curse that Vinnia! It is bad enough that we are being shut down. Must she also force us to abdicate all responsibility?

 

For me it's clear that vinnia wants eject the two other mages. It isn't for you?

 

So more:

It is clear that she listen to the Empire ad no one else. She works against us as well. I know that she speaks against me. I can hear now. 'Palathis schemes against us. Palathis is a traitor. Palathis spread rumors."

 

Particularely obvious, the reason, as I already wrote, just to eject two concurents and get more power.

 

A last quote:

I don't know what she plans against me, but my speaking our against the evecuation and what we're leaving behind have only made me enemies. I wonder what is to become of me."

 

Oops, all seems going wrong.

 

About links with nuclear waste problem, I won't discuss. I strongly doubt that all points need to be exactely the same. Anyway, You can't predict what will happen in 100 years.

No, you can transform all the NPC scripts in pure set of data no protocol problem here.

 

That said if all NPC behave in the same way, in fact that's not true, they have different behavior, then BoA improved a lot this area. This could have been done without any scripts.

From the error message you suspect an error in your strings. Sometimes a wrong hidden character could cause this sort of problem.

 

I suggest, that you delete and rewrite manually all your strings set up.

 

Just put sample lines instead like:

text1 = "myText1";

 

Try again if it works then there's a problem with your string. Restitute some original strings until you detect which one causes the problem then try rewrite it manually (no copy/paste). That could solve the problem.

 

Quote that the error message could be wrong, that sort of thing could happen.

Yes the problem is also to support in BoA more features than was needed in Avernum. I had already mention that in a previous post.

 

You quoted two features added. But are you sure that all NPC behave the same?

 

It's not because it's a single program that it doesn't have any subroutine (or functions). A good design would be to have some subroutines to manage different NPC behavior, no need of script for doing that.

 

That said if you are right and if all NPC behave in a same way then perhaps there's only one subroutine. But how are you sure? In fact in theory it's even possible to do just a subroutine that get in input complicate set of data in order to manage different NPC behavior.

 

Perhaps it's the case even in BoA. Furthermore, it's most probably the case if like I bet, Jeff didn't implement any compiler.

 

Well I didn't want to enter in those details and supposed (it's possible) that there was in Avernum subroutines for NPC very similar to NPC script design. Even if this was true there's a large area for plenty work before to get the BoA scripts.

 

It's what I tried to explain.

1 - About the closing of the school 100 years ago

The dragon mentions that, some other NPC too, like Axel that mentions a century ago. Why it's in fact 80 years? Perhaps sealing date? There are evidence that the two dates couldn't be the same like cobold invading the school and later they are closed in by mages.

 

2 - About the first effects

They apeared 6 years ago (not six month, sorry for this error).

 

3 - The push button

That's not a moral problem not well managed in the scenario.

 

Forget one second any morale subject. Look at this fact, it is "just" a possible coherence problem of the story.

 

In fact I'm not sure it's even a coherence problem. Afterall did the mage mastered teleportation? Did they had time to set up a teleport portal? I don't think so and then pushing the button was doing a suicide. That's a good reason to not push the button when the problems aren't here and are in the long term.

 

Anyway, instead of "coherence problem", apply any that you understand:

- "logic problem".

- "realism problem"

 

It's not because this scenario is quoted in an article about morale that a coherence problem is a problem with its management of the morale.

 

Yes there's a morale problem despite this possible coherence problem.

 

I won't quote you any script line because I curently play the BoE version (and write notes since this replay) and still get a lot of fun that I don't want spoil.

 

Concerning my first approximate interpretation, it is close to what has explained TiaraLi but with certain differences that I must check.

 

The TiaraLi version isn't an hypothesis for a major part. Apart if you want consider that the various notes found are lying but that makes no sense.

 

There are evidences that:

- There are three leaders of the school.

- Vannia want to hide to the Empire any possible problems, particularly the future pollution problem.

- Vannia is agree to close, to leave and to seal up the school.

- The two other (Palhatis and Pergaltho ie P&P) are against her.

- P&P don't want to leave and close the school because of what they let behind which is a future danger.

- P&P want warn the emperor about that problem but they didn't succeed because of Vannia strategy.

- P&P take care to prepare a solution in order to solve the problem once the disaster will have started.

- They obviously can't push the button now. About that, I have a sample explanation, they don't master teleporting so doing it would be doing a suicide. A good reason to not doing it when the problems aren't here and are in the long term.

- P&P and Vannia are struggling for getting the favor of the emperor. Vannia want the power for her only and want take the opportunity to make the two other abdicate all responsibility.

- Obviously Vannia saw an opportunity to get the power for her only, through this (future) pollution problem and the closing of the school.

 

For more, more details like what happened exactely to P&P, as I explained, I need to play BoE version and BoA version.

 

So with Vannia we have a typical struggle for the power, personnal ambition. It is also a typical kind of attitude of some persons in charge. Under their responsibility, there is no problem, never.

 

Unlike TiaraLi, I don’t see there, a questioning of the responsibility for governments for this type of problems.

 

I see there more the description of the risk of a lost of responsibility for causes for which the effects are dubious and in the long term.

 

In this kind of case, the personal ambitions take the top quickly. It’s more a questioning of the companies whose first objective is the interest, of the people whom the ambition can quickly make them forget possible long-term consequences.

 

This kind of attitudes can go up to hide the facts with more or less sincere justifications: It’s not certain, it’s in the very long term, and by then, the problem will be regulated.

 

All of that is a morale problem.

 

If you want we speak about morale I can push even further. One morale of the scenario is that for dubious possible long term problems, we can't be confident in capitalism mechanism. We can't be confident in companies and personnal ambitions in order to manage long-term problems.

 

If they can hide possible long-term problems and win more money, someone will do it. That's why external controls and rules are necessessary.

 

Furthermore, to keep working the capitalism mechanism, many of those sort of agreement need a worldwide treaty. What to think about a country that refuses to sign some when it has nothing better to propose?

 

There are worse, some other countries had already decided to sign but they get pressured to make them change their decision and some finally didn't sign.

 

4 - 100 years later

Then I doubt those people succeed to enjoy this scenario:

- What makes special this scenario is exactely that.

- What makes the more subtil fun of the scenario is exactely that.

- Searching to find all clues, notes and evidences is a big un of this scenario including from a replay point of view.

 

I think BoA version is a bit improved on that part.

 

5 - About link with nuclear waste and warehouse (submarin or not)

I agree that that doesn't fit well. But the the point of comparison isn't a current science problem, as you seem to suggest (I don't see any morale problem here).

 

It's about leak that could appear 100 years later, and cause a pollution in a limited area. Sure there won't be any push buttons.

Why not?

 

Some suggestions:

* Article's Article - Your first Article

* Article's Article - The 10 Dread Diseases

* Article's Article - High Level Articles

* Article's Article - Don't Draw Focus!

* Article's Article - Filler

* Article's Article - Designing Quality Articles

* Article's Article - Basic but Vital Tips

 

Sounds interesting?

Using VoDT as an example in this article is a bad idea, in my opinion! I note two reproaches which are still due vis-a-vis to contradiction:

1. VoDT doesn’t treat pollution according to a contemporary angle.

2. One reproaches him a coherence problem of the story, and NOT a problem of treatment of morals. The reproach is this question, “Why the deposit of waste had not been destroyed?”.

 

1 - Concerning item 1, indeed, this type of pollution is out of our current main concern. The contemporary concern is to be unable to control a global degradation of planet.

However, the type of pollution, which VoDT shows, is a pollution that is much localised on the scale of the planet. Blow, in our eyes, this aspect can appear out of the contemporary subject.

 

For the defence of VoDT, there are three aspects:

* Initially, the scenario occurs 100 years later from what will be the cause of pollution. It’s not specified when really pollution starts, however, its devastator effect will take place in 100 years later, but the polluted area is very limited. It’s true that that can seem a minor problem of pollution in comparison with the contemporary problems in the center of the debates. However, pollution is a vast problem, and this type of pollution remains completely current. This scenario doesn’t cover a subject on the spot of the lights, but it points out an aspect of the pollution, which is forgotten a little. I think that it’s not justified to reproach it this choice.

 

* Obviously, when one speaks about warehouses of waste, one thinks of those of radioactive waste. In this direction, the scenario covers the subject rather well.

 

* Concerning the moral approach, the major design choice of the scenario, 100 years later, leaves little place to an effective debate. It’s difficult to present the reasons justifying the choices involving this catastrophic situation. That can even pose a serious problem of morals by giving the impression to justify murders of children. On this subject, I repeat myself, it is an interesting choice to present and develop two aspects of morals, the white and the black. Advising it systematically is an error. The trap is to justify the unjustifiable one, at least, for certain players. Moreover, for certain subjects, that can be very delicate and it is preferable to be a Master writer to do this type of treatment.

 

2 - Concerning item 2, this question has nothing to do with the morals of the scenario. The moral problem is linked to those who wanted to hide the potential problem. It’s not linked to know why those who feared the future danger did not act. This last point is purely a possible coherence problem of the story.

 

To answer this point I am not yet ready to make an interpretation. I played only once VoDT BoA. In this moment, I play VoDT BoE. I already noted differences, but I did not finish this version yet. It will be necessary then that I play VoDT BoA again because I am not certain to point out some of the indices well to me.

You mean that there was internal functions with the same usage than NPC scripts? Certainly but they where written by Jeff and in C.

The script language isn't only an additional step like: At the load of the scenario, the program read the scripts transform them in C functions and function calls, compile them, and go on.

Be agree that all these steps are additional:
- Read the script files and translate them in C.
- Compile the resuting C code (in fact I doubt Jeff do that but there's an additional step anyway).

But the core of the problem was certainly to externalize the programmation of these scripts.

This require that the engine is rock solid agaisnt any (most) attempt that can do the scenario authors by using the scripts. Unlike when he was doing Avernum, Jeff couldn't be here to fix the engine or the "script" if there's a problem.

This design in two parts:
1 - The engine.
2 - Possible calls (and data definitions) to program different NPC behaviors.

That was certainly done for Avernum, but:

Probably not at the same level of quality and testing. That's more particularely true because Jeff was doing it alone.

What was possible to program in C functions various NPC behaviors, was a definition for Jeff who is a programmer and who knows the engine.

Scenario authors are completely different users. They don't know the engine, they aren't necessary pure C programmers and they know nothing of the engine. This is a very different requirement:
- The documentation needs to be written in detail instead of being inside Jeff head.
- The documentation need to be fully right. If something was not possible for Avernum, Jeff was fixing it or was doing it differently. If something like that happens with a script you could get an unhappy user.
- The documentation needs to be enough simple. The scenario authors should not need to have to understand how the engine works. The definition of each function needs to be sample

All of that could have consequences, it's not just some written documentation. For example, this could require to change somehow the design of the engine in order to be able to define a script language or calls that have a definition enough simple.

I'm not sure that will help, but I tried.

Drakefyre, I don’t know for the party maker you did but I know that I used a lot a similar scenario utility for neverwinter.

 

In fact, I’m not surprised that not a lot of people used your tool because you hide it pretty well. I searched throughout all your (cool) site and in few other sites and didn’t succeed to put my hand on it. At least I didn’t felt on your tricky traps set all around the net with false url like the trap where dragongirl felt in.

 

Kelandon, your post was initially made for authors not for players, perhaps there's not such a demand from authors.

 

If you provide a tool that only allows setting the level you want, that will be already great from a player point of view in order to manage better the skills points available. Therefore, if you prefer to release it with only base features and see later when there are scenario for higher-level parties, go on, stop chit chat, go back work, finish it and release it.

 

I agree that until there isn’t any higher-level scenario, the urgency of a more sophisticated tool is very low.

 

That said, from an idealistic point of view and from the professional grumbler that I am, that doesn't solve all the problems:

- As you explain, getting items is now very boring with BoA character editor (with BoE character editor it’s much more cool), you can only get a limited set of very powerful items. That’s why few shops with items available in the original game would be very useful.

- Allows the player to get the amount of gold he wants is just to let him buy the items and saw the regular prices without to quit the scenario.

- For a player, when creating a party, the problem is always what items, spells, alchemy and gold a party of this level should reasonably has. That’s why I suggested two sorts of merchants, one set with any items and another with items level roughly adapted to the party level. You could also add a standard amount of gold available that roughly depends on the party level.

For levels 1 to 32, the BoA bundled scenario could be used to determine roughly what items at which level. After that level, it’s just a suggestion, in fact that could be also a suggestion to authors that want create higher-level scenario.

- From other similar tools that I saw like one for neverwinter, some other features could be useful:

* Having sort of dumies of different levels to test if you can hit them or not and at what rate.

* Having arena with various set of monsters and different proposal depending of the party level.

* Having some locked door of different level, in fact not very useful for lock picking but could be useful to see the effect of the unlock spell.

I disagree and I'm tired to try to explain, there's a pollution morale in this scenario that's all I mean. And I also disagree that it's a good example of a wrong use of morale. That's also a great scenario.

Ok guys, I agree I haven't saw yet enough BoE examples of readme to have a general judgment.

 

Drakefyre, I agree, the hints or walkthrough is much better in a separate file(s) but as a part of a package and not through an url that could have disapeared or an email to contact that could not exist.

 

So yes technically it must be in a separate faile but it should be like an annexe of the readme.

 

About that, when a package include more than one file, it's good to provide a list of the files in the package with a short description for each file.

As you can reuse a script, you can reuse a "subprogram" or more exactly in C language, a function. You just don't need to design a script language and only the set of data are really dynamic and non dependent of the code.

Just imagine that the scripts are in fact directely written in C and can't be call directely by any authors with a perverse imagination and fantasy.

In fact it's a bit more complicate because two points:
* The engine itself will probably need to be reorganized arround the use of scripts.
* In a team with separate scenario makers, it's mostly required to design an engine arround scripts.

It's always dangerous to exploit non documented features, it could not work at next release.