Tales of the Wild Coast Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'The Temple of Elemental Evil' started by Gaear, Jul 2, 2009.

Remove all ads!
  1. Cloudsprinter

    Cloudsprinter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's brilliant! you guys rock:dribble:
     
  2. Sitra Achara

    Sitra Achara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    538
    Regarding:

    Can you elaborate on this? Specifically the "If all you want to do is fight the Verbobonc regional guard all day, go ahead and slaughter peasants and such. You won't have time for anything else." part.
     
  3. Gaear

    Gaear Bastard Maestro Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    11,038
    Likes Received:
    42
    Well, the idea atm is to do sort of like in BG (at least as I recall it) and have the authorities confront you pretty steadily after you reach a certain point with killing innocents. These confrontations would theoretically occur in Verbobonc, Hommlet, and Nulb, effectively making it so that muderer parties had no towns to take refuge in. I had my own game in BG basically end that way because I did something foolish and didn't consider the consequences. I think the idea was to suggest that you'll basically be hounded until you die in such cases, and that certainly worked in my case with BG. There was no way that I could continue even semi-normally.

    We could implement this in a couple ways: first, have some uber-powered group that you can't defeat come after you; second have a lesser powered group (these will all be Verbobonc guard personnel btw) come after you time and time again, like in BG. Neither option is all that realistic. An uber group could probably handle the ToEE (and all of Verbo's other problems) by themselves, and sooner or later the lesser groups would run out of troops. But the idea is less to be realistic and more to finally introduce some repercussions for going around killing everybody. Right now we're going with multiple lesser groups.

    This would only come about after a significant number of killings, btw. You wouldn't get it just for killing Armario for Gremag or anything like that.

    I'm certainly interested in alternatives if you have any to suggest.
     
  4. Sitra Achara

    Sitra Achara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    538
    Repercussions are one thing, but I wouldn't want an effective endgame for, say, butchering Hommlet and Nulb, for several reasons:

    1. They are fairly insignificant locations (correct me if I'm wrong).
    2. It was a supported playstyle in the original game (you could get to the Moathouse by killing Burne and taking his map, and then get to the Temple by killing Alira and likewise taking her map to the Temple).
    3. Tim Cain even stated this would be supported (link).
    4. It's just generally a Troikaish/Cain-Boyarski-Anderson design principle to restrict players as little as possible, particularly in this regard. See Fallout and Arcanum.
    An occasional pack of bounty hunters / vigilantes / Paladins / Verbobonc Guards (etc.) encountered on the world map (or in an ambush, or waiting in a Tavern, etc) sounds more reasonable and fun to me.

    In Verbobonc's case, I guess it would make more sense, and it's new, optional content after all. I wouldn't even mind automatically ending the game with a slideshow, say, if you butchered almost everyone in the available sectors and lingered too long / dared to return there.
     
  5. Gaear

    Gaear Bastard Maestro Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    11,038
    Likes Received:
    42
    Yeah, those are fair points (although I'd argue that while Hommlet and Nulb aren't especially significant in the overall Greyhawk sense, they're significant to ToEE, and that the viscounty would generally pursue murderers anywhere).

    Having bounty hunters et al attack the party at random would go counter to the idea in that those encounters would not be insufferable and would ultimately just fatten up the XP in the game for slaughterers, which is something we're trying to get away from. The idea as stated basically is to end the game for wanton slaughter ... which I guess is debatable for the reasons you stated.

    Some additional input would be good.
     
  6. wizgeorge

    wizgeorge Prophet of Wizardy

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,715
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is this intended for evil aligned parties only? I can remember getting the butcher rep and got attacked everywhere and no merchants to deal with. The only "safe" place was the moathouse and temple. I could still clear the temples and get the loot, but couldn't come up with enough money to craft stuff. I never got thru level 4 and had to quit. It was a hassle. I'm not sure if you could complete the game under those conditions. If so, it would be tough. There's a lot of magic armor and weapons in the temple and it may be enough to get by on without any crafting. There's a lot of money in Hedrack's chests but that's not until the end of level 4. Being stuck in the temple is not a good thing, but you can still adventure a good bit. Just how far you can go is the question.
     
  7. Zagig

    Zagig Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would think, that in order to be realistic, the party should be pursued by escalatingly more difficult groups. Maybe the first group is some guards, then the second is the Kron Hills Militia, then the third Gnarley Forest Rangers, and so on. Eventually, the party is going to be faced with a group they simply can't beat, because they are such a huge threat themselves that the most powerful NPCs are coming after them. While I would agree that being evil should not be a block to being able to play the game, mass homicide or wanton slaughter should have negative repercussions in a civilized society (which Hommelt is, considering it is a major stopping point on the trade routes between Verbobonc, Greyhawk, and Celene).
     
  8. Shiningted

    Shiningted I changed this damn title, finally! Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    12,743
    Likes Received:
    374
    Troika certainly made no secret of the fact that they liked supporting various playing styles not railroading the PCs, but I gotta say, some of the stuff they claim in that link is just plain wrong and not how it is in ToEE.

    Not really relevant to this discussion, but I thought it was worth saying :)
     
  9. Scryler

    Scryler Night's Wordsmith

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,248
    Likes Received:
    4
    At first, I was all for the large unbeatable army (or whatever). However, I was talking to someone about this issue and he brought up the point that it isn't logical to have a large unbeatable (good) group as described in the game. If one existed, there would be no need for the party to take on Zuggy...the large unbeatable group would take care of it. Unless some way could be found that is logical to the game.

    I like the idea of increasing the strength of the groups that attack whomever is wantonly killing the populace, but...again...you come up to a point that isn't logical.

    My friend said perhaps St. Cuthbert could send something in to defeat the the slaughterer(s). But why wouldn't he then send that force to defeat Zuggy, et all?

    One solution might be to have some undefeatable evil force take on the killers, eventually. Out of jealousy, perhaps? Or to prevent eventual rivalry? That solution would introduce another end goal to the game, though. For Evil. Might be interesting, if it could even be done.
     
  10. Hugh Manetee

    Hugh Manetee Established Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Makes sense.
    Poaching on the perserves of the Scarlet Brotherhood or local mob would surely evoke
    a violent response.
     
  11. Gaear

    Gaear Bastard Maestro Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    11,038
    Likes Received:
    42
    This is actually why the never-ending wave of lesser groups was thought to be preferable. It's more realistic (if not entirely so). Think of them like the cops in modern day society. They never have ultimate badasses (because there really aren't any of those in RL, unlike D&D), but they never stop coming. If you piss off the authorities bad enough, they will come after you to the point that they either catch you, kill you, or force you to go into exile. That was the idea here.

    The larger question is still whether we should do this at all or not.
     
  12. Emirkol the Chaotic

    Emirkol the Chaotic Proud Polytheist

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,436
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why not?

    If you implement the "consequences" ala BG, with never-ending waves of mid-strength groups, you'll accomplish your goals in a more realistic type setting.

    Gaear, you hit it on the head with your BG experience. I've had the same thing happen and it's not fun. Even with an uber party, you're gonna run out of resources and have zero time to rest, heal and re-learn spells. After a few battles, your spell casters are going to be little more than damage absorbing sponges.


    EDIT: It seems that "evil" parties real only option (that the games programmed for) is to join up with or totally take over the Temple. Slaughtering everyone and then trying to finish the game doesn't appear to work.

    Think about it, from this point of view... an evil party looking to either join or take over the Temple wouldn't necessarily kill everyone in a huge radius. It would attract way too much attention and seriously compromise their plans. They would work quietly, gaining strength and influence, (much in the same way evil does today) until it was time to strike a decisive enough blow so that the forces of good could not, or would be hard pressed, to mount any sort of counter attack.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2009
  13. Necroticpus

    Necroticpus Cthulhu Ftaghn!

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,379
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is when you cast teleport in between waves. :yes:
     
  14. wizgeorge

    wizgeorge Prophet of Wizardy

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,715
    Likes Received:
    2
    In the Witcher there's a bounty hunter and he is one bad dude. If the witcher strays and kills innocents then the bounty hunter shows up. He has 2 options, pay a very large fee and get forgiveness, or die. I like the bounty hunter idea. Wanted dead or alive. A random encounter with a really bad bounty hunter might cause the evil ones to think about changing their tactics.
    After the bounty hunters have killed most of the evil perpetrators, they would be isolated to the moathouse/temple. Not game-ending, but would make things tough. You can heal in the circular stairway but can't scribe or craft. The moathouse tower is safe but a random encounter with the bounty hunter might upset that trip. Teleport is a 5th level spell for a 9th level wizard. If the bad guys are that high in level, then that would complicate things. Lots of interesting possibilities here.
     
  15. Sitra Achara

    Sitra Achara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    538
    Because it's something the original developers explicitly intended for you to be able to do. The CE party alignment practically begs you to do that. And it's fun! I don't want it to be taken away, certainly not as crudely as with BG's endless teleporting mercenaries.

    What makes you say that? You can very well kill everyone and finish the game. Certainly you can slaughter Nulb and Hommlet and finish it (which is what the discussion practically is about).
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2009
Our Host!