Donald Hebb

Max Power? Wait, OMGJ Max Power? ...probably not. The answer should be and will be No. Group projects bring both people down. Avernumscript isn't particularly difficult. I suspect that if you want to make a scenario, you'll be able to learn enough of it to get by. (I was, after all, able to put forth RoR-BoA in a matter of three weeks after the game's release.)

I wonder if Jeff made this scenario from the perspective of an angry mother? "Pick up your messes, young man, or hundreds of people will die, and you will go down as a murderer, and an awful person in general! Now don't you give me that look, young man..."

Clearly, B2 presents who's "right" in the traditional sense. I'd be able to argue a case for every single character in Echoes, but that's beside the point. The point is that there's more ambiguity in Bandits seems to acknowledge. EDIT: Quote: In reference to Sauron, there are reasons behind his actions, if you really want to study the Silmarillion. The reason behind his actions is the destruction of Postmodern thought. http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html

Correct. For instance, how do you know that Katothen is the good guy?

Quote: Originally written by The Creator: I think the reason why Marx comes off as so much more sympathetic than Pinochet is that he has motives. Not that they're necessarily good ones, but just the fact that they're there makes him better by comparison. And hey, Marxist-Leninism had motives too! Damned good ones, and far better than "we-want-power" motives of both Imperial Capitalism and the Czars who were rebelled against. Does that make a Bolshevik Republic a morally feasible response? Eh, it's the party's choice. Quote: In reference to Marx being presumed alive in Bandits 2, considering that the party is placed in a situation where they can decide the outcome, I assume that it would be natural to expect them to make the 'right' choice. Your link is rather weak. The party is not "presumed" to make the correct choice, they're only presumed to make the choice that I have them make in the next scenario. (In this respect, I was more-or-less chosing the outcome that would give the two a reunion fight- Katothen most definitely would not go out of his way to revive Pinochet, and Deacon would also have no reason to re-animate Marx.) Part of the reasoning is that this scenario is taken from the Sanctuary perspective. Katothen is, unless you haven't picked this up, fatally emotional. Pinochet by his nature has no real motives, and even though Marx uses violence to achieve his means, he at least has a "good heart" (quotes representing ambiguity). Katothen also uses violence to achieve his means (although admittedly, his case is different in many other ways). Unless B2 is to occur from the perspective of Deacon (which would be quite interesting indeed!), it would make sense to have the party choose not necisarily the right choice but the pro-Sanctuary choice. Quote: Thuryl - I agree very much with most of your comments, especially Changing Faces. The first time I played it I got stuck shortly before the end. It was better that way. The first time I played it, I got stuck towards the beginning. It was better that way.

Quote: Originally written by The Creator: I think the reason why Marx comes off as so much more sympathetic than Pinochet is that he has motives. Not that they're necessarily good ones, but just the fact that they're there makes him better by comparison. And hey, Marxist-Leninism had motives too! Damned good ones, and far better than "we-want-power" motives of both Imperial Capitalism and the Czars who were rebelled against. Does that make a Bolshevik Republic a morally feasible response? Eh, it's the party's choice. Quote: In reference to Marx being presumed alive in Bandits 2, considering that the party is placed in a situation where they can decide the outcome, I assume that it would be natural to expect them to make the 'right' choice. Your link is rather weak. The party is not "presumed" to make the correct choice, they're only presumed to make the choice that I have them make in the next scenario. (In this respect, I was more-or-less chosing the outcome that would give the two a reunion fight- Katothen most definitely would not go out of his way to revive Pinochet, and Deacon would also have no reason to re-animate Marx.) Part of the reasoning is that this scenario is taken from the Sanctuary perspective. Katothen is, unless you haven't picked this up, fatally emotional. Pinochet by his nature has no real motives, and even though Marx uses violence to achieve his means, he at least has a "good heart" (quotes representing ambiguity). Katothen also uses violence to achieve his means (although admittedly, his case is different in many other ways). Unless B2 is to occur from the perspective of Deacon (which would be quite interesting indeed!), it would make sense to have the party choose not necisarily the right choice but the pro-Sanctuary choice. Thuryl - I agree very much with most of your comments, especially Changing Faces. The first time I played it I got stuck shortly before the end. It was better that way.[/QB]

Not entirely! What you could do is set it up so that you have the different "phases" of the explosion as hidden monsters that you place, move and update the screen every second with. It's damned difficult and probably not worth the effort, but go ahead and try.

I'd consider Streila better than Unbalanced Accounts... Eh. I agree with Creator on this one.

The diachotomy of karma and reputation is not the point of this article. The point is to demonstrate means by which to create an interactive world.

Quote: Originally written by The Creator: A. You don't actually force the party to side with Marx, but you do paint Pinochet big, bad and black while Marx is presented as the victim. He is never portrayed as doing anything bad - sure, he leads a bunch of bandits against the evil mayor, but he's just trying to get his family back. Also, the sequel assumes that you sided with Marx. But to an extent, Marx is a victim. (His child was, for reference, robbed from him.) The question is whether or not he is moral. The only reason that he is portrayed as being good is because he leads you to his home, complete with charming little memoires of his days past. He acts like he is the victim, he acts like is good. Still, he did commit, um, murder. Of his wife. And saying that the winners are the good guys is a pretty piss-poor assumption on your part. Pinochet beat the Chileans, was he moral in doing so? History doesn't tell us who's right or who's wrong, only who's left. Quote: B. Did I say anything about mainstream capitalism either? If, as you say, Bandits is about imperialist Capitalism vs imperialist Communism, it still leans heavily in favour of the latter. See the previous (and Thuryl's) point. Marx tries to murder Pinochet, Marx tries to murder the party, Marx successfully massacres plenty of innocent folks. He is not the "Good Guy" here. Not necisarily, anyway. Quote: Originally written by Rufo: Maybe I'm just entirely stupid , but if you refer to the "real" Marx and Pinochet, I actually don't think Marx ever murdered (or sent someone to murder) anyone. Lexicons says he "participated in the revolution", but then mostly as a writer and not as some kind of killer. Bandits isn't exclusively about Marxism. Let's remember that Marx was also homeys with Lenin- then it would be safer to say that this scenario deals with Marxist-Leninism, which is definitely a more pro-murder philosophy. Portraying both ends as being Bad- ie. both Pinochet and Marx- was the point I had more-or-less intended. Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) is a dirty robber, but is revolution (Marxist-Leninism) really worth it? If you sided with Marx, your answer is yes, Creator.

Just curious here, but how does Bandits not allow you to choose your side? If nothing else, you will probably be forced to side with Pinochet. If you side with Marx, it's only 'cuz you chose to. (And I'm not sure how a political story could be told in ~10 towns, half of them being "extras".) And that said, are you absolutely sure that Pinochet represents "mainstream" capitalism? The mayor's namesake- Augusto Pinochet- was a man who charged into Chile at the order of the US and assassinated the elected, Socialist president of Chile and set up a Despotism. He had no scruples, and neither did his counterpart in my scenario. Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) murdered, Marx murdered (imperialist Communism). Heck, Marx is a BANDIT after all- I never go out and say that he's good. I'm afraid you're more-or-less interpolating from my political standpoint rather than taking it for what it is.

Kefka sucks.

For a topical example of bad humor, see Zankozzie's cameo in Chains. Or alternatively, Harold/Valzgoth in RoR-BoA. For a topical example of good humor, see my personal cameo in RoR-BoA. The difference is that while Chains probably could deal with Z's cameo in its beginning, it couldn't stand it very long into the scenario- whenever the plot is "in gear", which is basically the entire scenario up from its very beginning to its very end, placing funny is a mistake. In RoR-BoA, the plot is an afterthought in the beginning, and only begins to unfold part-way through. The Jeremy-cameo before that point is okay, because the plot gelatin hasn't been added yet ( ). When it has, sticking in guys like Harold and especially Valzgoth just doesn't work as well.

Quote: Originally written by Nasarius: I agree; if you have to reload more than 2 or 3 times to kill it with an appropriate-level party, it's too hard. I reloaded, like, 10 times to beat the rubies in RoR-BoA with a singleton. And you should realize that I don't find the scenario to be overly difficult.

Article - Karma, Dharma and Somesuch This article, apologies beforehand, will borrow heavily off of The Responsive World by Drakefyre and Player vs. Party by The Creator. Assume that you want a responsive world in "Quest for the Sword" that will have major or minor consequences based upon the actions of the party. This is a Good Thing- having people get irritated at the party for being rude or annoying is realistic and will add a new dimention to your scenario. The most-often used device in Blades to do this is Karma. What is Karma? Apologies to Hindus, but the Karma you may be familiar with is not the karma used here, even if the principles are similar. Karma is usually a two-ended spectrum with one end being "Good" and one end being "Bad" (or some variants thereof). When the party says or does a "Good" thing, the karma is raised, and vice-versa. Telling the mayor that her dress doesn't make her looks fat, of course, will not have as much of an impact as killing a dangerous group of bandits. On the flip-side, kicking a beggar will not be as consequential as murdering children. How does one use Karma? Imagine a flag- one you will know instantly. I use 99,9, you may use whatever pleases your fancy. In the beginning of the scenario, set that flag to the "middle" ground. Assuming that 0 is totally evil and 100 is good, set your flag to 50. Whenever the party does something minorly good, raise their flag by 1. Whenever the party does something bad, lower their flag by 1. This will usually entail dialogue responses. Why does Karma matter? Suppose a party encounters a group of wandering guards outside. If the party's karma is high, the guards will welcome the party with open arms and invite them into the nearby city of Heidenburg. If the party's karma is around the center, the guards will point the party to the city, but will not be as friendly. If the party's karma is relatively low, the guards will tell the party not to visit Heidenburg. And of course, if the party's karma is insanely low, the guards will attack. Suppose a party speaks to an innkeeper. They can buy a room for 5 gold if they're neutral or 10 gold if they're disliked. They can get the room for free if they're adored, or not get it at all if they're hated. Karma can and should be used for everything under the sun. Which calls should one use in dialogue for karma? That's tricky. Dialogue with karma can be made by following a few basic templates, however: Action based on Karma --------------------- begintalknode 18; state = 4; nextstate = 5; condition = get_flag(99,9) >= 40; //This is to check if the party has been good, or at least not overly evil question = "What kind of town is this?"; text1 = "_Oh, it's nothing much. A nice, decent place for hard-working stiffs like myself._"; begintalknode 19; state = 4; nextstate = -1; condition = get_flag(99,9) < 40; //This is to check if the party has been overtly evil question = "What kind of town is this?"; text1 = "He glares at you."; text2 = "_We're a hard-working town, and we don't like your kind of rogues around here._"; text3 = "_So git, you mangey mongrel!_"; action = END_TALK; In this example, the party has the same question, but can receive two different responses, depending on their reputation. Obviously, you don't need to do this all of the time. Simple text-hiding calls in the "code = " portion of your script can work just as well. Also, you can set your dialogue to call different codes depending on whaty the party is. You can up inn prices, you can end conversations before they begin, you can even have variable shop prices! A whole slew of things become possible. And of course, the list goes on. You can have the road to a rich, trading town with quality goods be guarded by a guardpost that the party cannot cross if they have a reputation as a group of rogues. You can have the servants of evil ask you to join them, if you're evil enough. And perhaps, if you are an ambitious enough designer, you'll allow the party to do so! Use karma/reputation wisely in your scenario, and you will create a far more dynamic world for your players to prance around in.

And E:A. And Bandits 2. And, for that matter, a whole slew of my scenarios.

AC2

Another thing- terrains with special ability 7 (party cannot rest) will not allow the party to enter the town. This is irritating, since my desert terrains cover whole towns, and the party is forced onto solid stone beyond the town's edge from time to time. Bah.

A possible solution for #4 would be to change the creature type to a nigh-on identical version, except with different immunities. (Icon shifts could be used in interesting ways here.)

A possible solution for #4 would be to change the creature type to a nigh-on identical version, except with different immunities. (Icon shifts could be used in interesting ways here.)

This could easily be an article, were it not for its poor English. IIRC, however, you are not a native speaker (thus making your rants coherently is a large plus). I would nevertheless suggest that you use an English spellchecker on Microsoft Word.

No offense, spiderbytes, but I couldn't make out a single word of what you were saying. PC users will see "Avernumscript" before other PC users? Well, obviously. But nevertheless, there's still 1 (soon to be 2, assuming Khoth puts it out quickly) scenario already out for BoA by Mac user(s). The PC'ers, regardless as to whether they are testers or not, already have a disadvantage when compared to all Mac users.

...come to think of it, Creator's right. My scenarios are all sequences.

Do you people not listen at all? Jeez! Post on the online form when it comes about. That said, I'm curious (to Jeff) as to why PC beta-testers are ineligible for the contest. Mac non-beta users are at more of an advantage (especially myself, and soon to be Khoth) than PC beta-testers would be.

I have played many Blades scenarios, and far too many in my opinion- even solid ones- have given me difficulties in direction. Just where was I supposed to go for the dungeon again? Who did the scenario's intro text tell me to report to? What was the password I needed? Where is the crucial city? The list goes on. As a designer, you do NOT want your players to ask these questions, even if it might technically be their fault. If your scenario has a plot, you will want your players to know what it is and which physical location(s) it's taking them to at all times. There are a few ways to alleviate this sort of confusion. The first way is the most obvious, having sufficient details of the quest given beforehand! If the mage says "Head East" (a good song, BTW), you won't know to visit Heidenburg by the river Fluss in the small copse on its southern shore. Also, your party will not know to visit the hidden wizard's hovel in the southeastern corner of town, hidden by an illusiory tree. If your plot will allow your player to know where to go, then TELL them where to go as precisely as you can manage. If you're unsure as to whether or not you should describe more or less where the party should go, describe it more. Better to have the party know where they are headed overly well than to have them be lost. The second way is having some event helping the party along the way, such as a group of soldiers that tell the party to visit Heidenburg to the east or having the recluse wizard greet the party in town. It's an art to do this skillfully- would the party really be perceptive enough to notice that a tree isn't real? Perhaps, perhaps not. Using Nature Lore might help in some instances, ie. "You see tracks leading in this direction...". Obviously, cataclysmic events will always draw the party's attention- if a meteor crashes into Heidenburg while the party is outside, it's expected that they will visit the city in turn. (I've never seen this done, but don't have something cataclysmic happen in the place that the party ISN'T supposed to go either.) The third way is the Quest List. The quest list is, in Avernum, a far cry from perfect. The lack of description you can give to any one quest item will prevent you from giving the most direct directions possible. Saying both where the party has to go AND what they have to do may just be too much for the description field. A possible alternative might be having a quest of the same name with (Cont.) appended to the end in order to give a more detailed description to the end. The fourth way, connected to most of the others listed, is an intuitive outdoors. Road signs will lead the party in the right direction, as will descriptions of the terrain and which cities are in which directions. ("You see to the north, on the south shore of the lake by the copse, a bustling community...") Saying that you see a city doesn't have the draw of the other three means, but is virtually necessary in order to guide the party along. The other three means should be what drag the party from town to town, but it never hurts to have a clear path from Heidenburg to Schwenz for the party to follow. Perhaps I'm missing a few means by which the party can know where to go. In fact, I'm sure that I am. These, however, seem like the most effective ways to me. The main point of this article is to prevent your scenarios from not being cohesive enough that the party can't make jumps between point A and point B on their own when required. Getting from Heidenburg to Schwenz is necessary, don't lose the party on the way.