PoD person

I disagree. Your character would be able to see an enemy starting to weaken, and there's something about that last desperate burst to kill it before it kills you (rather than just reload because you're almost dead and you don't want to watch a death screen) that makes me incensed whenever there isn't a health bar.

Jeff, I don't know how coding this would work, but would it be possible to make the game letterbox on widescreen monitors? G3 gets all strectched out on my 1920x1200.

Also make sure that you're not placing doors, windows etc. from a wallset that doesn't have them. That pisses it off.

Quote: Originally written by *i: Quote: Originally written by PoD person: Archaeologist recruits party as escort for expedition. Party clears out nasty bug infestation. Archaeologist retrieves artifact, attacks party, disappears. Party finds archaeologist on throne, he calls party uppity slaves and throws them in dungeon. Party learns of ancient slave rebellion, finds artifact of some sort. Violent confrontation with archaeologist ensues, he comes to, confused, and he and party hightail it out of there. A decent start, but needs more fleshing out. I'll offer a few suggestions that you are free to use in any capacity you wish: Probably more interesting if the party is a bunch of students or apprentices to the archaeologist. The stock hired adventurers is a bit too cliched. It gives a better motivation to why the party is there. Also, freeing their master from possession later on would make a good plot motivator. The artifact needs to be defined. I assume it possesses the archaeologist so what is it, an idol, a sword, or something else? Answer this question before proceeding anywere as the type of artifact dictates the story. Bug infestations are a bit cliched. They could work well, but make the bugs special or unique in some way. Preferably related to the artifact at hand. Perhaps a cult of Aranea could be fairly interesting. Throne? I got totally lost here. Almost feels like two separate scenarios at this point. You really need to flesh out where this comes from. Perhaps instead of searching for the artifact outright, how about they are searching for a Lost City in the mountains? Perhaps the people in the Lost City would have the trait of immortality (they can still be killed, but otherwise live forever) and they enslave mortals. Not sure how the violent slave rebellion works in? Is the artifact a different one or the same one? I'd vote for recovering the artifact, feels less random and two artifacts are a bit much. I neglected to mention that the scenario takes place in a ruin. I like your suggestion that the adventurers are not simply hired, but I don't think they should exactly be students of the Archaeologist. Rather, I'll say that they're students at the university where he teaches. They aren't archaeology students, they're military/magic students, and they're coming along as research volunteers, because the archaeologist doesn't know what's in the ruins, whose location he has learned of through some cliched means. I chose bugs to infest the ruins because they have the potential to be quite nasty while not being in any way supernatural. Basically, they're just the justification for bringing non-archaeology students along. I'm thinking though, that I might put the ruins in the snow and use some sort of Yeti/Abominable Snowman creatures. Or, perhaps, something using the swamp dweller graphics from ASR. Anyways, the nasty but not too challenging infestation defeated, the party and the archaeologist discover, in a place of prominence, an artifact. After messing with it a while, the archaeologist realizes that it is some sort of incredible advanced information repository, and starts reading from it. Perhaps, he even shares some information with the party, and they get boosts to certain stats/spells. As it goes on, he becomes more and more engrossed in the artifact. Eventually, the party gets bored and goes to sleep. When they wake up, Herr Professor has vanished. Without their chaperone and ticket home (try returning from a UROP without the sponsoring prof), the party goes into the ruins to look for him. When they find him, he is seated on a throne in the ruins. The throne room has remnants of an ancient battle everywhere. The party is relieved to see the professor, but he doesn't seem to know them. Instead, he seems to think that they are uppity slaves, and he reads some spells from his artifact, teleporting the party into a dungeon. I'm thinking the cell the party winds up in will just have a crumbled wall - the "professor" doesn't realize that the city is a ruin. While in the dungeon, the party should notice yet more signs of ancient violence - skeletons in loin-cloths weilding crude weapons collapsed next to ones decked out in flimsy ceremonial gear. Eventually, as they approach the throne room, they should find one, massive, armored skeleton holding a wand/orb/spell-casting item of some sort. When one character uses this on the "professor," the character should be transported to some abstract astral arena and square off with the shade possessing him. I can't really figure out a way to work a moral dilemma in there, except maybe for the party to run away or to just kill the professor instead of exorcising the ancient ghost.

Archaeologist recruits party as escort for expedition. Party clears out nasty bug infestation. Archaeologist retrieves artifact, attacks party, disappears. Party finds archaeologist on throne, he calls party uppity slaves and throws them in dungeon. Party learns of ancient slave rebellion, finds artifact of some sort. Violent confrontation with archaeologist ensues, he comes to, confused, and he and party hightail it out of there.

Not post count. Scenario count. 'Tis a meritocracy; get used to it.

The prefix lets you know whether the function returns a number or not. If it's preceded by short, then the function will return a number that you can use in the script. If it's preceded by void, then it'll do something in the game, but won't return a number.

Take a look at the first chapters of a C programming book. The docs don't explain C (which is what AvernumScript is) logic well at all. Once you get that, it's just a matter of finding the calls you need in the appendices.

I'm not a tester, but, in the room where there is a Rentar-Ihrno shade with a pet dragon, you forget to turn off set_total_visibility() after the cutscene, so you can see everything and nothing is added to the automap.

No, the memory cell holds the item class. The user would have to write his own state in the creature script. If there were two extra memory cells, maybe one could serve the purpose you describe, but I think the state belongs in the creature script, anyway.

Use it for an "item vulnerability." Use who_hit_me(), then use char_has_item_of_class_equip(). If the character who last damaged the creature has a scenario-specific item equipped, call a state. like so: Code: if(who_hit_me()>=0){ if(char_has_item_of_class_equip(who_hit_me(), get_memory_cell(9), 0){ set_state_continue(whatever); }} EDIT: This code goes in the START_STATE...

Well, if one were to recoil in terror from the cutscenes in Undead Valley and move on to another scenario...

It was, in fact, accidentally triggered many times in Undead Valley. Of course, that's Undead Valley.

Speaking of Morog's sceptre, every time I've tried to use it, my mage's hit percentage has been absolutely atrocious. How exactly does one go about improving it?

I think pole weapons should be +1 level of melee damage with pole. Otherwise, this is great.

Blademaster isn't more powerful, it's just that it's usually cheaper than your primary weapon skill, so you can get more of it for the same amount of skill points. Archery doesn't get assassination, so I have no idea how you do so much damage with your archer, but more power to you. With assassination, my fighter was getting up to the 450-550 range with Maximillian. EDIT: So, yeah, lack of assassination may be why your archer does so much more than your melee character. Plus, a tank is useful just to absorb the enemies' attacks, and if it can kill stuff too, that's excellent. If it can do so efficiently, the rest of the party becomes basically unnecessary.

Adlerauge isn't unbalancing if you also get Maximillian, which will restore your melee weapons user to his/her proper dominance. Mage killing is easy enough with a bunch of AP boosting items and haste, because my fighters can cover more than their line of sight in a single turn.

Ah, Thuryl, but my casters have the ludicrously high amount of endurance it takes to get Magical Efficiency, and thus have, like, twice as much health as my fighters. It is true, though, that my priest is now about ten levels ahead of my mage, on account of not having any advantages.

Thuryl, if you HLPM-generate your parties, why bother with the disadvantages? The HLPM, as I understand it, will spit out a level 40 party, regardless of whether all the characters have Sickness Prone, Brittle Bones, Elite Warrior, or Natural Mage. While I'm kind of on the subject... No Natural Mage, Thuryl? Gah. EDIT: I would also really, really like to know how to do a singleton, and whether or not combat with one is always won by the skin of one's teeth, because, in that case, I just won't bother.

Good idea for a topic, Thuryl. I've found building 4-person parties to be easy enough, but how in blazes does one carry off a singleton? I tried Drakey's warrior-priest configuration (Divinely Touched, Fast on Feet slith), but I got mauled by the goblins in Backwater Calls and gave up on that in a hurry. In terms of advice... I find that, at high levels, melee is the most efficient way to kill just about anything. Once my party goes through a lot of scenarios, I tend to accrue a substantial amount of AP bonus items, to the point where my two fighters can each attack three times in a turn when hasted. Dealing 400-some damage (Maximillian, Hidden City Spear) six times in a turn is something I can just never do with magic, and I'd rather use the spell points to bless/haste/radiant shield. If something is far away, Adlerauge usually suffices (especially three times a turn). (Note: Even without the unbalanced Hidden City Spear, my pole guy was still doing about 250 a hit) My high-level party has a dedicated mage and a dedicated priest, and I often feel the squeeze on my priest (i.e. too many things need fixing in one turn of combat). I definitely recommend having two characters with Heal at a reasonably high level, so that one of them can do that while the other removes statuses or blesses as needed. EDIT: Also, being able to cast heal twice can help you avoid casting Divine Restoration, which is a major plus spell points-wise. Oh, and Radiant Shield is a life-saver once you get into higher-level scenarios and everything and its uncle can cast Control Foes. Super-powerful weapons and 10 AP are a huge liability when your fighters can get confused. I use mage spells for about the same things Thuryl does, with the added qualification that Arcane Shield can be quite useful for my strategies as well (especially since my priest, who tends to be encumbered, often only has one spell per turn), because my fighters do pretty much everything. Create Illusions (especially at level 10 - thank you Canopy) is a lifesaver against archer-type enemies and enemies with powerful melee attacks, but spellcasters can clear them out in one turn, and still damage the party.

Yeah, but, with a pre-made party, I wouldn't have had the joy of seeing "The strain of the Drake's magic on Q-money is visible ... Q-Money suddenly goes berserk and starts attacking you!" Seriously, though, Thuryl's point is good. Since Bahssikava was essentially a gritty scenario, it probably would have benefited greatly from the additional drama that you could have provided (the scenario provides ample evidence that your storytelling ability is up to the challenge) by lessening the party's anonymity. I will say that I did like the way you got the sliths to thank my party by name, and the way that the tunnels encounter referred to my lead character by name.

Yeah, but, with a pre-made party, I wouldn't have had the joy of seeing "The strain of the Drake's magic on Q-money is visible ... Q-Money suddenly goes berserk and starts attacking you!" Seriously, though, Thuryl's point is good. Since Bahssikava was essentially a gritty scenario, it probably would have benefited greatly from the additional drama that you could have provided (the scenario provides ample evidence that your storytelling ability is up to the challenge) by lessening the party's anonymity. I will say that I did like the way you got the sliths to thank my party by name, and the way that the tunnels encounter referred to my lead character by name.

Hate to play this card, but DreamGuy has a problem with the community's definition of linearity, and the community has a problem with DreamGuy's, so let us turn to the lieutenant arbiter of semantics, Merriam Webster (because my copy of the OED, although near at hand, is damned heavy). The definition most applicable to the current debate is actually a definition of linear, but linearity is not included except as an abstract noun of linear. So, without further ado: Quote: 4: of, relating to, or based or depending on sequential development. Thus, a linear scenario is merely one in which there is a marked sequence of events, which clearly proceed from one another. Because the argument about linearity seemed mostly to center on gameplay, rather than events proceeding from one another, Thuryl defined new terms which were more in terms of gameplay than of plot, and with quite a bit of panache, I might add. He isn't even disagreeing with you, DreamGuy. He simply said that some people like what you like (rollick - options), and some people like what I, a player and not a designer, like (grit - suspense). Edit 2: Sorry, Thuryl and community, for going off topic like this, because the article really was excellent. I think it distills quite admirably the different kinds of scenario experience. Plus, it moved World War Lineariy back to where it belongs. Namely, a matter of personal preference. Edit 3: Indeed, AL. Idiocy has been removed. Apologies.

Hate to play this card, but DreamGuy has a problem with the community's definition of linearity, and the community has a problem with DreamGuy's, so let us turn to the lieutenant arbiter of semantics, Merriam Webster (because my copy of the OED, although near at hand, is damned heavy). The definition most applicable to the current debate is actually a definition of linear, but linearity is not included except as an abstract noun of linear. So, without further ado: Quote: 4: of, relating to, or based or depending on sequential development. Thus, a linear scenario is merely one in which there is a marked sequence of events, which clearly proceed from one another. Because the argument about linearity seemed mostly to center on gameplay, rather than events proceeding from one another, Thuryl defined new terms which were more in terms of gameplay than of plot, and with quite a bit of panache, I might add. He isn't even disagreeing with you, DreamGuy. He simply said that some people like what you like (rollick - options), and some people like what I, a player and not a designer, like (grit - suspense). Edit 2: Sorry, Thuryl and community, for going off topic like this, because the article really was excellent. I think it distills quite admirably the different kinds of scenario experience. Plus, it moved World War Lineariy back to where it belongs. Namely, a matter of personal preference. Edit 3: Indeed, AL. Idiocy has been removed. Apologies.

A Deus Ex Machina is a previously unintroduced character who provides, by virtue of his/her deity, a resolution to the drama in a play. It is rightly regarded as a kind of cheating, because it bespeaks the author's inability to resolve the plot through conventional means. Dei Ex Machinis are not, however, anything outside of the protagonist who advances or complicates the plot. The name for those is antagonists. Sometimes the protagonist's choices are determined by the antagonists' actions. In fact, it should be so a fair amount of the time, because drama is in the protagonist's responses to the antagonists, not in doing what he/she wishes, at his/her leisure. Oh, and DreamGuy, be consistent with your objections. You whine first about how Bahssikava prevented you from doing what you always do (uncharming your character), and then complain that a lot of the combat required you to do what you always do. The latter objection indicates that even you think that combat, if you're left to do what you always do, is boring. So, how does the designer stop you from doing what you always do, unless he restricts you? (He adds special spells. But he still restricts you.) No one here is calling Bahssikava perfect. Read what I had to say about it on CSR. However, its problems had less to do with choices or lack thereof than with the presence of filler and sparse present-tense plot development. Instead of crucifying Kelandon for refusing to implement some sort of sweeping movement to non-linearity in his scenario that would have necessitated the deletion of tons of scripts and the writing of tons more, why not take the bad with the good, say what he did well, and how he can improve his next scenario, in the context of what he already did well? Edit: And if you want to call him lazy, why not actually open the folder and look at the scripts? It is a lot of work, and sweeping changes would have taken a lot of time. I, and others, would rather just have him release the scenario so I can play it already, instead of restructuring the whole thing at one indignant member's behest.