Well, the easiest way to play modules alone in SCL is to download the module you want to play, create a game, and set it to private. I can't really solve the fill up the party with AI controlled NPCs problem though.
Also, playing story mode works the same way as the above. You literally have to set it to private if you want it to be "singleplayer".
Wellllll I bought it Because I can refund it with steam refund if I don't enjoy it in the first two hours.
I'm messing with character creation in the "Head Start Access" and I've realized I have no idea what to make. I can deal with playing as a standard Elf as opposed to a Drow.
But for classes. No Necromancer No Bard
What do. I know an NPC gets animate dead but It doesn't look like it's available for players. Maybe I'll play a Cleric of Bhaal or something and just RP the Necromancy.
Well if anyone does every decides to buy the game the module I created is called "Ahazu Trilogy: Murder at the Gate" (and its available for download).
Unfortunately, trying it out now just showed me that its still got a bunch of kinks to work out (maps were not showing when they should be showing, quests weren't updating properly, that kind of thing). So I have actually "unshared" it for the time being. But at least people will now know about it
My eyes fell on this in the Google doc from a few pages back, and my heart sank.
Dealbreaker for me. Sure, I have friends, but only a few are interested in playing RPGs. And let's not speak of problems like matching schedules or "other interests".
I've actually checked the game and the document is incorrect (and in fairness I did say to take everything in it with a grain of salt). You can play modules with just you and 3 controlled AI NPCs (though modules marked "Needs DM" probably won't let you play them this way).
To get them all you need to do is to create a "solo" game then then click on the empty portraits on the left hand of your screen and select the NPC's you want.
Does that mean SCL also allows "classic" solo runs without AI controlled NPC's in community created modules? I ask because I honestly have no interest in creating my own party, or playing with others via multiplayer. If the game let's me experience fully immersive singleplayer playthroughs, I may give SCL a chance after all in the future.
Provided that the modules don't have the "Needs DM" flag then it should work. However, since enemies scale with level you are probably going to die quite a bit if you don't have other party members.
Hrm, dying at every encounter or so now is really not what I would call immersive. Much less something enjoyable in my case. Sounds like module creators need much more modding tools in order to create singleplayer friendly modules then. For now, I will hold off buying the game and wait for its modding community to take on a sufficient developed shape. Perhaps in a year or two SCL will suit my needs more.
I'm going to be trying out the game just now. Decided I'd make a cute halfling cleric girl because no gnomes.
Edit: Also saw the Arcane Trickster line in the rogue talent-things. May also try that.
Edit the second: OH CRAP I CAN PICK KELEMVOR AS A DEITY! I could RP as a Doomguide of Kelemvor. But I could also play a cute halfling arcane trickster. While there might not be as many actual class options or paths as other D&D CRPGs but the RP value is still there and that is my primary concern with an RPG.
Hrm, dying at every encounter or so now is really not what I would call immersive. Much less something enjoyable in my case. Sounds like module creators need much more modding tools in order to create singleplayer friendly modules then. For now, I will hold off buying the game and wait for its modding community to take on a sufficient developed shape. Perhaps in a year or two SCL will suit my needs more.
Besides a general difficulty slider there are tools to make enemies weaker (you can "demote" them so I guess they have less health/worse attributes and other stats). But to be honest its unlikely people are going to go that route. There is an option for creators to allow people to edit their modules so I suppose its possible that you (or someone else interested in playing solo) might be able to edit someone's module that you can reduce the strength of enemies on.
Although it's hard for everybody to agree with this player's thoughts (in the PoE part, for example), this opinion is still useful for us who are trying to decide whether to try SCL or not, because the post has not only views but some actual facts:
"< ... >you decided to make half of the Wizards spells simply "evocation" divided into 3 skill trees? No polymorph, no animate undead (apparently there's an npc that has necromancy?? Even if we unlock it for our character, why don't we have it from the start??), no conjure elementals, < ... > no fire shield, no grease, no mirror image, no hold person < ... >"
Although it's hard for everybody to agree with this player's thoughts (in the PoE part, for example), this opinion is still useful for us who are trying to decide whether to try SCL or not, because the post has not only views but some actual facts:
"< ... >you decided to make half of the Wizards spells simply "evocation" divided into 3 skill trees? No polymorph, no animate undead (apparently there's an npc that has necromancy?? Even if we unlock it for our character, why don't we have it from the start??), no conjure elementals, < ... > no fire shield, no grease, no mirror image, no hold person < ... >"
Is it just me or all the limitations make it feel as a generic system game instead of D&D?
Although it's hard for everybody to agree with this player's thoughts (in the PoE part, for example), this opinion is still useful for us who are trying to decide whether to try SCL or not, because the post has not only views but some actual facts:
"< ... >you decided to make half of the Wizards spells simply "evocation" divided into 3 skill trees? No polymorph, no animate undead (apparently there's an npc that has necromancy?? Even if we unlock it for our character, why don't we have it from the start??), no conjure elementals, < ... > no fire shield, no grease, no mirror image, no hold person < ... >"
Is it just me or all the limitations make it feel as a generic system game instead of D&D?
I can think of generic systems (e.g D:OS, PoE) that have more DnD DNA.
So from my limited playing of the game this is Dragon Age:Origins but in the Faerun setting.
The way the skill trees are set up reminds me very much of Dragon Age. It's not a particularly bad thing it just means this game will be very dependent on my mood if I'm in the mood for a D&D based RPG or not.
Edit: I will say with reluctance that this does displease me in that an official D&D Crpg doesn't give me a D&D experience. I hope there's another CRPG made throughout the life-cycle of 5e that actually uses the rules as opposed to not using the rules.
I remember when I watched the trailer for the very first time, I thought: "This looks like a Dragon Age: Origins game, with D&D spells' and monsters' names".
It seems this very first impression is the right one.
I think the fact that Dan Tudge has been the director of both Dragon Age: Origins and Sword Coast Legends has influenced such an impression a lot.
Although I haven't played this (and therefore take the salty review with a... grain of salt??), I can actually see a lot of this. If I had to guess, I'd think that a lot of what this reviewer sees as "missing" is because of an attempt to make it 'Console friendly'. I kind of suspected that this was going to be Diablo but in Forgotten Realms and this review actually strengthens that feel.
Shame really, but this looks to be something that I won't be spending money on. Least wise this will fall way below the line until the discount rack (which may come sooner than we originally hoped).
This is what Dan O'Leary said about their thoughts on players' expectations:
"Consumer expectations of involvement have changed drastically, even during the last year of SCL's development. Where some folks have cited examples like Camelot Unchained as good models for community facing development, that is an asymmetric comparison. Consumers cannot reasonably expect the same degree of involvement in SCL (announced less than a year ago and releasing in 3 weeks) as they have in a game like CU, which will have been built almost entirely in the open for nearly 3 years (at its eventual release). Neither method is wrong and, as someone that has personally supported over 50 kickstarters, I would love to embrace even more open methods in the future. But for SCL it was not the right approach. Regardless, I am still proud of the efforts we have made to be open and available to the community given our constraints and approach. In less than one product development cycle n-Space has transformed from a work for hire development company that was contractually prohibited from talking about our games during development to where we are now. Knowing that it was unrealistic to shift the company methods, culture and expertise farther or faster we settled on this middle ground approach (not traditional box product development but also not Kickstarter). I understand that some are disappointed and want more. That doesn't mean that we have misled or misinformed. Expectations for this game, like all games, have varied dramatically from the beginning. There is a thread here that I often refer to, in which people share their expectations based on the coverage to date. Answers vary from a Diablo style ARPG to NWN with persistent worlds and servers to Dragon Age Origins in the Forgotten Realms. All of this based on the exact same messaging. I think this has more to do with people projecting their personal preferences than us providing confusing messaging. Even within this thread I read diametrically opposed views on what the game is, what it should be and what people want out of it. This is all fine and expected, but realize it cannot be everything to everyone. I'm happy to see that some of you already understand this and so, to an extent, I'm preaching to the choir."
Was this game marketed as D&D and ended more like action-RPG?
To be fair, there where plenty of clues that it would be a Diabolo clone. It's just that everyone hoped otherwise, because making a Diabalo clone would be a stupid waste of the licence.
Too early to say "called it"? Because I did. We could wait for official reviews though. From the very first moment I saw the trailers, I knew it was mediocre and lazy.
This is a mainstream DnD game to attract people to 5E. Nothing more. The game has no real depth like the Infinity Engine games, scope-wise or the Neverwinter Nights games, module/world making-wise.
The NwN games are thriving. Powered only by fans and zero official support. Modules for both NwNs are still made and Persistent Worlds keep on rolling, full of people and new stuff.
In NwN2's Sigil (Planescape) server, I can make a Half-Celestial, a Vampire, an Erinyes, a Succubus/Incubus or a Kobold, among others etc and create golems or have a permanently bound fiend. In Sword Coast Legends, you can create dungeon-crawls. Not worlds.
I think it's a similar stutation as with the proposed movie. Rather than selling the licence for 5th edition, they are giving it away and begging people to use it, in an attempt to repair the damage done to the D&D brand by the 4th edition debacle.
They should never have made Garrick managing director.
I think it's a similar stutation as with the proposed movie. Rather than selling the licence for 5th edition, they are giving it away and begging people to use it, in an attempt to repair the damage done to the D&D brand by the 4th edition debacle.
Who officially writes D&D rules? Engine-wise they did quite the hard work. It's not easy to make 3d engine but I personally prefer POE 2d look.
I think it's a similar stutation as with the proposed movie. Rather than selling the licence for 5th edition, they are giving it away and begging people to use it, in an attempt to repair the damage done to the D&D brand by the 4th edition debacle.
Who officially writes D&D rules? Engine-wise they did quite the hard work. It's not easy to make 3d engine but I personally prefer POE 2d look.
5th edition was written by committee and public playtest. I don't think it has any specifically credited writers.
Wizards of the Coast is the publisher since 3rd edition, they are owned by Hasbro.
1st and 2nd edition where published by TSR, and written by Gary Gygax, Dave Cook, and Frank Mentzer, amongst others.
I think Monte Cook and Jonathan Tweet where the main writers on 3rd edition.
Comments
Also, playing story mode works the same way as the above. You literally have to set it to private if you want it to be "singleplayer".
I bought it
Because I can refund it with steam refund if I don't enjoy it in the first two hours.
I'm messing with character creation in the "Head Start Access" and I've realized I have no idea what to make.
I can deal with playing as a standard Elf as opposed to a Drow.
But for classes.
No Necromancer
No Bard
What do.
I know an NPC gets animate dead but It doesn't look like it's available for players. Maybe I'll play a Cleric of Bhaal or something and just RP the Necromancy.
Unfortunately, trying it out now just showed me that its still got a bunch of kinks to work out (maps were not showing when they should be showing, quests weren't updating properly, that kind of thing). So I have actually "unshared" it for the time being. But at least people will now know about it
To get them all you need to do is to create a "solo" game then then click on the empty portraits on the left hand of your screen and select the NPC's you want.
Edit: Also saw the Arcane Trickster line in the rogue talent-things. May also try that.
Edit the second: OH CRAP
I CAN PICK KELEMVOR AS A DEITY!
I could RP as a Doomguide of Kelemvor.
But I could also play a cute halfling arcane trickster.
While there might not be as many actual class options or paths as other D&D CRPGs but the RP value is still there and that is my primary concern with an RPG.
Classes: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Rogue, Mage
Although it's hard for everybody to agree with this player's thoughts (in the PoE part, for example), this opinion is still useful for us who are trying to decide whether to try SCL or not, because the post has not only views but some actual facts:
"< ... >you decided to make half of the Wizards spells simply "evocation" divided into 3 skill trees? No polymorph, no animate undead (apparently there's an npc that has necromancy?? Even if we unlock it for our character, why don't we have it from the start??), no conjure elementals, < ... > no fire shield, no grease, no mirror image, no hold person < ... >"
The way the skill trees are set up reminds me very much of Dragon Age. It's not a particularly bad thing it just means this game will be very dependent on my mood if I'm in the mood for a D&D based RPG or not.
Edit: I will say with reluctance that this does displease me in that an official D&D Crpg doesn't give me a D&D experience. I hope there's another CRPG made throughout the life-cycle of 5e that actually uses the rules as opposed to not using the rules.
It seems this very first impression is the right one.
I think the fact that Dan Tudge has been the director of both Dragon Age: Origins and Sword Coast Legends has influenced such an impression a lot.
Shame really, but this looks to be something that I won't be spending money on. Least wise this will fall way below the line until the discount rack (which may come sooner than we originally hoped).
So far, the game has been released today, and there's one review with a 80/100 score: http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/10/20/review-sword-coast-legends/172818/ but it doesn't cover the problems that have been discussed on the last pages of this thread.
Meanwhile, if you look user reviews, the picture will be quite different: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sword-coast-legends/user-reviews and http://store.steampowered.com/app/325600/
This is what Dan O'Leary said about their thoughts on players' expectations:
"Consumer expectations of involvement have changed drastically, even during the last year of SCL's development. Where some folks have cited examples like Camelot Unchained as good models for community facing development, that is an asymmetric comparison. Consumers cannot reasonably expect the same degree of involvement in SCL (announced less than a year ago and releasing in 3 weeks) as they have in a game like CU, which will have been built almost entirely in the open for nearly 3 years (at its eventual release). Neither method is wrong and, as someone that has personally supported over 50 kickstarters, I would love to embrace even more open methods in the future. But for SCL it was not the right approach. Regardless, I am still proud of the efforts we have made to be open and available to the community given our constraints and approach. In less than one product development cycle n-Space has transformed from a work for hire development company that was contractually prohibited from talking about our games during development to where we are now. Knowing that it was unrealistic to shift the company methods, culture and expertise farther or faster we settled on this middle ground approach (not traditional box product development but also not Kickstarter). I understand that some are disappointed and want more. That doesn't mean that we have misled or misinformed.
Expectations for this game, like all games, have varied dramatically from the beginning. There is a thread here that I often refer to, in which people share their expectations based on the coverage to date. Answers vary from a Diablo style ARPG to NWN with persistent worlds and servers to Dragon Age Origins in the Forgotten Realms. All of this based on the exact same messaging. I think this has more to do with people projecting their personal preferences than us providing confusing messaging. Even within this thread I read diametrically opposed views on what the game is, what it should be and what people want out of it. This is all fine and expected, but realize it cannot be everything to everyone. I'm happy to see that some of you already understand this and so, to an extent, I'm preaching to the choir."
https://forums.swordcoast.com/index.php?/topic/5150-development-roadmap-should-be-announced-before-the-release/page-5#entry54099
Edit: I recommend to read this review: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2994976/software-games/sword-coast-legends-review-impressions-dungeons-dragons-dungeon-masters.html
From the very first moment I saw the trailers, I knew it was mediocre and lazy.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/39443/sword-coast-legends-is-this-the-spiritual-successor-to-nwn/p3
This is a mainstream DnD game to attract people to 5E. Nothing more.
The game has no real depth like the Infinity Engine games, scope-wise or the Neverwinter Nights games, module/world making-wise.
The NwN games are thriving. Powered only by fans and zero official support.
Modules for both NwNs are still made and Persistent Worlds keep on rolling, full of people and new stuff.
In NwN2's Sigil (Planescape) server, I can make a Half-Celestial, a Vampire, an Erinyes, a Succubus/Incubus or a Kobold, among others etc and create golems or have a permanently bound fiend.
In Sword Coast Legends, you can create dungeon-crawls. Not worlds.
Yeah, I'll stay with NwN2 for quite a while.
They should never have made Garrick managing director.
Engine-wise they did quite the hard work. It's not easy to make 3d engine but I personally prefer POE 2d look.
Wizards of the Coast is the publisher since 3rd edition, they are owned by Hasbro.
1st and 2nd edition where published by TSR, and written by Gary Gygax, Dave Cook, and Frank Mentzer, amongst others.
I think Monte Cook and Jonathan Tweet where the main writers on 3rd edition.