Thaeris

Lore questions are fun! And, a lot of the answers are speculation, which is also fun! Allow me to curb my enthusiasm at this point...

As of this point, I am only familiar with the original Avernum trilogy, so bear that in mind. However, speculation on the Slith and the Vahnatai is a really interesting subject to delve into. I assume the statement on the Slith being invaders has something to do with them being "new arrivals" into caves which the Vahnatai consider being their territory. Note that while the Slith are known to the Vahnatai, humans and Nephil are a bit more of a mystery to them. So, there seems to be a certain level of interaction between the two species, but the nature of that interaction is unknown.

...If you want start speculating, a good question to ask is when the violent Sliths were first exiled from their caves. I know Encyclopedia Ermariana has some dates pertaining to that event, but I'm not sure how much of that is canon. If none of it is canon, and the violent Sliths were forced into the Lands of Exile - what were then Vahnatai lands - just prior to the beginning of the last Resting Period, then that is an interesting scenario to consider.

OR, perhaps in general, the Slith and Vahnatai do not always get along well together. This makes sense, of course. Why would either species need a martial culture (which they both clearly have) if there is not the occasional scuffle between members of their own species as well as other species? Of course, there are other hostile creatures down in the caves, but look at it this way: you can argue that spears (which the Slith employ almost exclusively) are utilitarian arms for all circumstances, but a sword is not an ideal implement for dealing with beasts - it is a distinctly martial arm which is made to be used against martial targets, if you will. There's definitely room for some interesting stories on that front.

This is a wee bit of a threadjack, but were the Celts able to wear any sort of armor (aside from torcs and shields) in the original Nethergate? I don't remember them being able to do so at all.

Back in the day, you could get the games as physical media. In fact, I bought Av 1 & 3 directly from Spiderweb with the hopes of getting them on disk, but that time had sadly already passed.

...The original Nethergate and Avernum 2 artwork does look really cool printed directly to the CD, however. I'm not open for sales, mind you.

Oh man... an Avernum mysteries split-topic would be welcome right about now. :D

If you're playing Resurrection, this input may be of no use, but for the original game, the "commonly shared" circles should be fully accessible. The trick is finding someone to teach you the spells! Also, you may have a harder time training in the spell circles as well - Romans take to certain training better than the Celts and vise-versa.

I believe the "unlockable" circles for the Romans are Craft and Beast circles, at least in the original game. You cannot train in those circles at all - instead, you have to get special items to train one character in their use. I don't believe there are any trainers for the higher spells in those circles concerning the Romans, but a few places will impart to you the knowledge of Stone Guardian, or perhaps the high-level equivalent in the Beast Circle. So, when it comes time to go to Annwyn, you probably will not have use of the "create food" spell, or, I at least never found it.

...The Spirit Circle is completely inaccessible for the Romans. If you ever learn Doom, you'll never be able to cast it.

Another item of interest to consider: insect life. The giant spiders - not technically insects - are noted to consume very LARGE insects in the caves. What these insects are is not always defined. So on that note, I would ask this: when were giant roaches introduced? I know these only first appeared in Avernum 3, but did they appear earlier in the Exile series? Just filling in a knowledge gap here on that one...

Otherwise, there are chitrachs from the lower caves. Encyclopedia Ermariana gives some notes on their lifecycle, though I am not sure from memory how much of that might be "canon." I only bring up the mention of "canon" as I don't recall the bits about their breeding cycle, though their nests can be fairly well distributed in the "hive cluster" areas - I want to say the best example of that was in the Resting Cell... whateveritscalled... in Exile / Avernum 2. Regardless, the entry there is still great for developing a setting or scenario.

That said, are there any ideas on what the "giant bugs" might actually be in the upper caves? Are we dealing with dipterans (giant, nasty flies), beetles, or even ants or wasps? If these organisms are prevalent enough to feed very large spiders - or maybe even goblins - it seems strange that they are not of more note in normal gameplay. I figure this can be attributed to either oversight or a conscientious decision to avoid some rather serious "nightmare fuel" in the games.

I have an item of curiosity to tag onto this: how does Blades of Avernum deal with item limits?

With my limited programming experience, one thing I would state is that a fairly conventional means of dealing with data storage is to create a fixed matrix into which values are stored or exchanged, etc. Once the program is complied, the size of the matrix cannot change. The question I have on this front, as it seems to be what's going on in Avernum, is how that matrix changes from area to area. For instance, when a dungeon is created, is an item matrix created proportional in size to the dungeon, or is it fixed in size? Or, is that a control feature that is not accessible for the end user?

...I ask about this, as BoA - which I have not tinkered with - because (a.) people might be aware of such a feature by some means and (b.) it's likely very similar to what is used in Avernums 1-3.

On an additional technical note, if you wanted to get past item limits and you were using C++ (maybe just straight C as well), you'd use the vector library, which can create dynamically-sized arrays on the fly. I suppose you'd have some additional risks of memory leaks or other such shenanigans that I'm not experienced enough to have encountered when writing console-window applications.

4 hours ago, Edgwyn said:

Just for giggles, I looked up the definition of twitch based games on Wikipedia.  I realize that I only looked at one source, but I am not trying to advocate for this particular definition, only to provide a definition.

 

"Twitch gameplay is a type of video gameplay scenario that tests a player's response time. Action games such as shooters, sports, multiplayer online battle arena, and fighting games often contain elements of twitch gameplay. For example, first-person shooters such as Counter-Strike as well as Call of Duty shooters require quick reaction times for the players to shoot enemies, and fighting games such as Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat require quick reaction times to attack or counter an opponent. Other video game genres may also involve twitch gameplay. For example, the puzzle video game Tetris gradually speeds up as the player makes progress.

Twitch gameplay keeps players actively engaged with quick feedback to their actions, as opposed to turn-based gaming that involves waiting for the outcome of a chosen course of action. Twitch can be used to expand tactical options and play by testing the skill of the player in various areas (usually reflexive responses) and generally add difficulty (relating to the intensity of "twitching" required)."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch_gameplay retrieved on 9/23/20.  

That's fine, and it's probably the right definition! However, it was the only term which came to mind which seemed to convey what I was trying to get across. I assume I've done the latter, maybe?

22 hours ago, "Nothing Left" said:

Ah, gotcha.  I guess I'm a little confused as to what you are classifying as skill-based versus not skill-based.  You include both "twitch" (real-time action?) games and turn-based games in skill-based... but exclude games from that category if they involve statistics and probability?

 

I don't understand why having stats or including random elements excludes a game from being skill-based.  Lots of games without those things involve minimal skill, and lots of games with those things can be remarkably complex.

Again, hole digging on my end. I suppose I'd call something "skill-based" when you have direct involvement in the "simulation," if you will (we can call all games some form of abstract simulation, can't we?). Alternately, I'd call something "stat-based" when you have table values or routines determine the outcome of a given instance. I... am not sure I excluded games that involved statistics. Instead, I was merely trying to convey that I like the premise of using both aspects in a game, and that use of a skill-based system is a means of bypassing some of the restrictions of a purely (or very heavily) stat-based system. Unfortunately, it seems that I made the mistake of using the term "twitch" to describe this. In my defense, my item of reference was Mount & Blade; in which, "twitch" is an applicable term.

...And yes, execution is key! A game should either be fun or otherwise draw your interest to keep you playing - even if it's not necessarily "fun." If you fail to do either, you end up with a chore on your hands. And indeed, something like the old Avernum games were in fact very simple, and that made them very approachable. If you cannot make some extra degree of finesse in something like that fun, you're not going to get much of a following.

Ha! I am watching / listening to this right now. Jeff just had a character die, and instead of rolling with it, he reloaded the game to an earlier point. I laugh at this, as this is exactly what I do, and I'm pretty sure it's what everyone else does as well. 😛

Perhaps I am lacking on the definition of "twitch" myself. Sorry about that. To my mind, you might have a system which is principally based on statistics, probability, etc., while another is based principally in a skill-based input, and may have very little to do with those statistics, etc. I think "twitch" systems fall into the latter. Waving hands is, from what I can tell, purely skill-based input, despite being turn based.

I might be digging myself a hole here. I am certainly not trying to confuse anyone in the process, however.

27 minutes ago, Edgwyn said:

I was worried for a minute that I was going to have to learn the difference between Quarte and Sixte.  It's been a while since I played A:EFTP, A:CS or A:RW, but couldn't the battle disciplines (assuming that I have the terms correctly) be seen as a step towards what you are saying in the second paragraph that I quoted?  They allow a player to choose additional skills/effects beyond the standard sword attack.  You can choose which ones better fit your tactical situation based on if you want more damage, knock back, area of effect, or hasting and how long of a cool down you are willing to tolerate.

Very possible! I live in the past, so I've not played the re-remakes. It's good to know that there are now new features that improve the viability of combat in that regard.

10 hours ago, "Nothing Left" said:

 

If I'm hearing you right, having a rich enough set of possible actions would also accomplish this -- in particular, this presumably means not just having a generic attack command, but having a variety of situationally relevant attack commands, that interact not just with enemy stats but with enemy actions, affecting how well different options will work (and vice versa, with enemy actions affecting your own).

 

This immediately makes me think of Richard Bartle's abstract, simultaneous-submission game, Waving Hands -- it's not an RPG at all, but has this same sort of dynamic that we see in complex martial arts.  Here's an example of play from one incarnation, and a thing I wrote about its dynamics long ago.

I suppose that's a possible interpretation. I think what I would most enjoy seeing is a system that stills use stats, etc, but simultaneously allows the player to interface with the action directly. Again, this is what I found so impressive about M&B in my limited scope of games that I've set down to actually play. As per Warlock, that is interesting, but it is indeed fully skill, or perhaps "twitch" based, if you will. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like a different animal. Very cool, though.

...The challenge with using both "direct input" and probability-based interfacing in a game is likely streamlining everything such that it's not a chore to play. That would go equally well for both a tabletop game as well as a computer game. Going back to Warlock (Waving Hands), that seems really involved. Once you get used to it, perhaps it's not so bad, but it does not hit me personally as something which is enticing. "Streamlining" when it comes to conflict actually might benefit from more realism, actually, as fights are often pretty quick. If you can balance a game for quick, dirty, and realistic fights, then the chore of having to commit to the fight, choose how to fight, and then use your stats during the fight should become less.

There were a few questions about weapons degradation / breakage as well. This again would need to be an area where careful balance is in play. If the feature ends up being a miserable chore, it's not good for gameplay. But, it does again have that potential of making things you'd otherwise just trash turn into potentially useful items.

4 hours ago, Edgwyn said:

1.  I, in general, do not play twitch games (Skyrim being the closest to a twitch game that I play).  I am at the point in lift when I no longer have the reflexes of a 20 year old, and a game in which I have to have those reflexes is not fun to me.  Player skill can be expressed in different ways, such as strategy, tactics, training, equipping, etc.  I completely stay away from the on-line first person shooter type games, because battling against a bunch of players whose skill with an X-Box or PS IV controller exceeds mine, despite my skill with a rifle exceeding theirs has no appeal to me.  I am not saying that others could not/should not find twitch games enjoyable, I am just saying why I do not.

I completely agree with that! However (and this is not the first time), I think there is a slightly different set of terms by which I am defining "twitch." I'm certainly wrong for using the incorrect terminology if that's the case, however.

Rather, what I had in mind was a skill-based input by which the player has more involvement than simply letting a probability routine determine what happens next based on a set of stats in a table. Depending on the game, control over your position may offer certain tactical advantages - in fact, most games are probably designed with this in mind. Beyond that, however, I think most games offer the option of simply doing an action, and not necessarily any input on how that action is performed. The latter might make a real difference!

...I bring this up as I'm a fan of so-called European Martial Arts / HEMA / whatever (sword fighting, or what have you), and the nuances of combat are really fascinating, and they make a huge difference in the outcome of a given fight. So, having some input over that in regard to the overall situation strikes me as very interesting and therefore relevant. In this instance, "twitch" to me does not have to mean a reflexive input, but rather a modicum of extra control which involves the played directly in terms of gameplay. So, yes, I have to be using the wrong terminology, but given what I badly communicated the first time around, I'm still not sure what else would work to describe it.

As an example of this idea, one thing that has crossed my mind in passing would be some sort of RPG - it could be on the computer or on the table - where you might have your standard stats, but you might very well execute combat with, say, a deck of cards. You can therefore apply skill beyond position in the environment, and not be totally reliant on stats and probability.

I don't want this to be my thread. I just kind of want to hear different thoughts on game design, be it in Jeff's games or stories, or wherever else. It's an interesting topic, and it kind of fits right in context of a game forum.

...But because I instigated this, I also have to start.

1. I think "twitch" aspects to gameplay are important. They let the skill of the player overcome factors which they otherwise could not overcome themselves by stats alone. This can and has been incorporated into RPG-type systems, and I think games like Mount & Blade did this very well, with stats effecting performance, but it was up to you the player to make that performance mean something. Or not mean something.

2. Maybe it's better that stuff doesn't last forever. In fact, maybe you can combat some bad "game tropes" by picking and choosing realism for the better. Consider items and tools breaking down with use. If your kit is not in fact indestructible, even with maintenance, then item drops have more meaning than simply having to pick up and sell stuff from your vanquished foes. Some of those fancier swords you find, but not as good as the nice sword you found or bought at some other point of the game, suddenly are potentially more than just things to sell where you can. They might actually be necessary for your survival! Even more interesting to think about: it's potentially quite hard to have a massive stash of cash in Avernum, and all the while the available goods are crappy while the kit of your enemies is crappy as well. Those fragile stone weapons might break a lot, and you might spend your time looting and using the kit of your enemies because you simply have to. And you might spend more time in town in the shops actually buying bad weapons and having your better equipment fixed because it becomes a necessity. This certainly won't help you make money in the traditional sense, but it will make people and places seem like they have weight to them. My less-that-diversified game portfolio only notes Diablo as having weapons which would wear out due to use.

Those are just some musings. I am no real dev of any sort, but it's still fun to think about. Again, I'd love to hear your thoughts, too.

I'd hate to draw the ugly side of politics into this, so let me say that I do not care who holds what office. Failure to uphold anti-trust goes back a LONG ways, way before any current abuser of public funds and trust. There is a continual argument, mostly from one side - but sides don't matter, because they're all in on it - that anti-trust legislation hampers the right of a business to succeed. These arguments generally fail to acknowledge that monopolistic enterprises are usually far from vulnerable. Also, everything else they ignore when they push that narrative. Anti-trust laws were enacted because the people - at least the People of the United States - at one time very clearly saw what overpowering corporations do when they get too big. A game company is an annoyance in this concern. Every time I hear about telecom mergers, defense mergers, etc., it just freaks me right out.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when I see this stuff, I just wonder where anti-trust has gone...

You know, unless you have the editor disabled, you could always add items with the numeric codes:

http://www.harehunter.info/Avernum2/Maps/items2.html

...Therefore, if you have a good idea of what you lost, you could just give the number of whatever to your characters and go from there. And, if you somehow find the items again, just drop them outside if fairness is important to you.

5 hours ago, "Nothing Left" said:

Yeah, ADoS is right.  "Grinding" has a much more specific meaning in RPGs than simply something being a grind.  The purpose for doing it is a necessary criteria.

 

I guess I'm also a little confused by the premise here:

 

"many, many hours going back and forth between towns and dungeons to sell loot"

 

...

Perhaps you have a point about terminology, but I see grinding as grinding. I am likely not hip enough to see the nuances between game grinding, grain grinding, and daily grinding, aside from the fact that in the end, they're all a grind.

...As per my "hours and hours" comment, understand this is a cumulative thing about... mostly Avernum and Nethergate. Growing up, I didn't have a ton of games, but they were always either challenging enough that outright beating them was generally not something I could do (yes, I am that lame), or they were open-ended enough that you could play them indefinitely and they were never quite the same. Jeff's games - the ones of which I actually owned, and also loved - were huge as advertised. I think I beat Nethergate twice and Avernum 2 once, though I certainly had many, many more games started and ended than just those ones. I might have related this story before, but once when I was a young, irresponsible person, I basically vegetated for a week doing just about nothing but playing Nethergate. It took the entire week to beat that game. So, to draw my narrative to a close:

22 minutes ago, Chopkinsca said:

 

I have one of those ratios too. It changes as the game goes on. Early on, when money is tight, I'm more acceptable of the dungeon-to-town-to-dungeon-repeat loop than later in the game. I'm on my third replay of the original Avernums (in two years) and I find it harder to tolerate that "grind".

...See? This guy gets it. Probably stated much more concisely than I ever could, at that.

In contrast, from a game design perspective - just sticking to Jeff's games only - perhaps Exile did something better here regarding the selling of loot. Not everything drops, and in fact getting more drops is something you have to invest points in. If you leave something, it probably won't be there when you come back for it. On the downside, being able to cart off everything is really hard, and at least Avernum leaves you with the impression that you can walk off with a good bit of loot, but now there's too much of it. Perhaps simulating being able to strip everything off your vanquished foes is too much realism, and too much realism results in the realism of grinding? At least, from the perspective in which I'm framing grindind?

Slarty,

When I made the grinding comment, I was actually referring to Avernum 2 (the first one). I recall so many repeat trips back and fourth between dungeons just to gather loot, because cash, you know. That's the kind of grinding I'm talking about. And yes, that same thing was part of the original Nethergate as well. It's a part of those games, and there's a reason you might have had to do it (lots of casters in a party that need to be trained or special skills you don't want to spend valuable skill points on, mostly). And, it's OK that it's there! But, I did spend many, many hours going back and forth between towns and dungeons to sell loot. Battles are part of adventuring. Being a merchant is a grind. In that respect, games like Elite (the old ones, at least) and its open-source remake, Pioneer, are basically set around that kind of grinding. THAT can suck up a lot of time and not really be all that much fun. This is at least my opinion.

I suppose I can chime in on this, too. I don't think there's anything wrong with the older, often "less friendly" games - they have a charm all their own. The only problem is if they can still be made to run well or not. There will forever be a niche audience for games of those types, and as such, there will be a market, and likewise there will also be a maker of those products.

...Sometimes, even if you like that sort of thing, you need the time to deal with it. For example, I recently bought "Serpent in the Staglands" via GOG.com. If you like being forced to invest a lot of time into figuring out how a CRPG is supposed to be run effectively, that's your game. My first Spiderweb games were WAY easier, simpler, and by virtue of that, kind of more fun as well. The challenge is intriguing, but I have other duties and projects I want to be invested in. Looking back, games were fun as a child, but I think there were better things I could have or should have been doing. That said, I don't anticipate forcing myself into the nooks and crannies of that game sooner than later - there are other things I should be doing, that will actually have results if I attend to them.

So, the trend of "streamlining" things has merit in multiple degrees. The old Spiderweb games were full of grinding - it was kind of a simulation of real life, when I didn't have a real life as a kid. Now I have far less time I should spend on that stuff - it's still great, but life beckons, you know. If the streamlining allows enough time for enjoying the game and the story without throttling other commitments, for better or for worse, that's a marketable feature, and it sells. It sells for a reason.

If I was to throw back to the point of the OP, it would be this: I do agree, part of being an adventurer is an RPG is adventuring. It is fun to explore, and I don't think that should be lost on game designers. My perspective now is that it's grinding you want to stifle. People play games to not need a grind, to have fun, etc. It is fun to figure out a challenging puzzle, or manage a tricky feat, or venture somewhere and do something you've not done before. But when you have to keep carrying on to go... nowhere fast... not too many people have time for that.

Bit of a lame reply on my end, but perhaps this guide is still relevant?

http://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/topic/19339-avernum-3-effects-of-passage-of-timedays-complete-town-list/

Hmm. Well, perhaps the entire idea of the goblin is that it is part-way between a man and a rat (hence my Skaven reference). They are much like vermin, and they get everywhere. I cannot recall, are goblins also down in the Vahnatai lands as well? Exile originally could be accessed from the surface to an extent, so if Exile always had an ecosystem (which it would have to for anything at all to live down there in the first place - and it certainly did /does, as the Slith were there before the "First" Expedition), there is no reason to not think that goblins could have subsisted down there if they ever ventured down there for any reason at all. Going back to animals, that concept also would work for bats and rats, as well as other critters (including the various lizards and dragons), so the idea that they are not native to the caves starts to seem a bit ridiculous, really. At least if this vein of thought is starting to sound reasonable, that is.

As per the goblins in upper Avernum / Exile, you could roll with the "vermin" concept, that they just get into places without really knowing how, or alternately (and more interestingly), perhaps they were always there? Perhaps that particular upper cavern is not as secure as the "more evolved" humanoids believe. After all, the Cult of the Sacred Item set up a major operation up there without really drawing attention to their whereabouts until they absolutely had to be dealt with - this included producing quite a substantial, and likely self-sufficient, settlement and fortification. There are probably cracks and openings to the surface in that part of Exile which aren't known to people, but goblins are well, goblins. Just like rats are rats.

I will ascribe some of these positions from the standpoint that I feel keeping magic in check is very important for a story. If magic is allowed to be excessively powerful, or without limits, then what stopped Garzahd from simply destroying Avernum on a whim, or Erika from snapping her fingers to kill the Emperor? Likewise, I am opposed to the idea that magic alone, from the wielders of that magic, is the sole thing which makes the caves livable. It certainly makes life better, but that life was always there. Even Rentar-Ihrno does not "create" life from scratch - she mutates and adapts it from what already exists. I always liked... at least the concept of magic in Avernum / Exile. The game and story are seemingly equal parts fantasy and science fiction. You have the various equivalents of scientific professionals in their respective duties, and they take those duties very seriously. They run laboratories and perform experiments, etc. In fact, part of the reason those elements of the story stick with me so much is that I ended up pursuing and obtaining a scientific degree (engineering), and the blend of fantasy and function becomes very apparent - I love it! That aspect of Avernum / Exile's storytelling certainly has to be based on Jeff's own experience, which is Applied Mathematics, I believe. The attention to detail around centers of learning and research in the games most definitely did not arise out of a vacuum.

...I hadn't even thought to consider goblins. I wonder what the precise source of inspiration for Jeff's goblins were? Although EE repeats what you probably already think of them, Jeff always takes the time to concoct a story which counters your sentiments. For instance, breeding, taming, and training is no mean feat, yet the goblins are "dim." Anatomically, I suppose you have a humanoid which surpasses any "monkey" at an intellectual level, yet aside from knives and magic, would definitely lose to a chimp in a fight. Then again, a normal person would certainly lose to a chimp in a fight, so perhaps that's a moot point. Maybe there's a tinge of Skaven in there, given the vermin-like qualities?

Nice. There we go, at least I can confirm that part of Av3 was consistent with Ex3, then.

...Concerning animals in Exile is generally quite interesting. Cave ecosystems - and the animals therein -  in reality are dependent on light, and Jeff gets that light there through use of glowing fungus and toasty magma. The magma produces some noxious gasses which the cave fungus might gel with just fine, but from a brief bit of research, it seems real-life fungi do not in fact produce oxygen. Oxygen in Exile might in fact be most ascribable to bacteria, which might be cheerily doing its thing in the vast subterranean seas down there:

https://www.k-online.com/en/News/Bacteria_produce_oxygen_even_without_light

...Indeed, consider that a LOT of Earth's O2 comes from bodies of water and the organisms which live in them. However, given the fantasy / science fiction setting in Exile, it's possible that some flavor of fungus is in fact pushing out air to breathe. That is more than likely the case with "natural cavewood" throughout the underworld of Ermarian as well as the "GMO" stuff spread throughout Exile. There must also be enough nutrients in place for any fungus to grow at all (and its deposition must be regular and consistent), and that suggests a relatively stable and robust lifecycle down there for general survival of all the underworlds inhabitants, well before the First Expedition or the First Avernites...

COUGH, that was a strange rant, where was I? By the way, I have another relevant rant on this matter over here: http://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/topic/24695-an-artificial-sun-in-avernum/?tab=comments#comment-308037

Back to concerning animals. I asked about wolves as one of my theories of the underworld is that, one of the reasons the Empire does the things it does is to increase the suffering of the living, all the while keeping them alive. Wolves are potentially one of those creatures that could help with life as a resource, yet they would also be one of those creatures that would serve to make life more difficult. However, that's clearly only an Avernum 3 concern, unless you consider the addition of things like hellhounds to the re-remakes (which I've only learned about just now). Concerning wolves - did they become a pest in Upper Avernum at any point? I cannot recall...

To wrap up on the "Empire prolongs suffering by prolonging life" idea, I think this notion is exemplified by the cave cow. Why else would you send livestock down to the people you consider undesirable, and generally wish to see dead... if not to extend their period of suffering?

However, to the question / concept offered above, I would then ask this (perhaps a bit strangely): in the re-remakes, was Avernum re-imagined to be a penal colony, where the Exiles would be intended to work the caves, and the Empire would later be able to annex the lands below? I get this impression from some entries on Encyclopedia Ermarina, though as I've not toyed with the most recent games, I just don't know. If this is not the case, it's really just about as chilling as the concept before, and would be a great plot point regardless. /Subrant over.

So, I am just musing about some things, and I was starting to wonder: were there cave wolves and bears in Exile? I know wolves were introduced in Avernum 3, but were they there previously in the original series?

I did consult Encyclopedia Ermarina's bestiary, but I'm not getting conclusive results. I also see that other critters have been added to the re-remakes, and likewise, some have also been removed. Are there any points of interest in this topic besides wolves? This might be a fun opportunity to muse about the potential science-fiction aspects of Jeff's creatures below ground.

Hmm - this may come across as snooping or musing about things which are not of my concern, but my interest has become piqued:

Who was Shirley Vogel? I have no experience with the original release of Exile, so this is the first time I've seen the name. Is there any information about her - I get the impression from earlier in the conversation that her maiden name was Monroe?