Exactly how these kinds of possibilities are used in-game is primarily a question of your preferred DMing style. That said, there are a number of common approaches and techniques used by the NWN community. While some methods are basic and near-universal, others are much more selectively employed. As you will see, in some instances choosing to introduce "Outside-the-Engine" features may bring up game balance issues in a module or campaign. That said, choosing and implementing the techniques that work best for your gaming group will undoubtedly enhance your in-game experience.

1. Basic Techniques: Easy to Use, Hugely Effective

The most common example of an "Out-of-Engine" DMing technique is providing players with "extra" description of areas, objects, and NPCs. Even in modules with extensive custom "flavor text" descriptions, nothing can beat the specificity and omnipresence of a DM in providing additional information. DM description can make the NWN environment truly dynamic in a way that scripting and in-game effects cannot match over the course of an adventure.

Encouraging players to think about "Out-of-Engine" possibilities allows them to significantly broaden their range of actions. DMs then adjudicate these actions, for example sending tells in response to player requests for additional description. Player actions can be taken through in-game emotes broadcast to everyone, or via private communication on the DM channel. Sometimes it helps if players do both, to make sure the DM is around and notices the request. Here are some examples of common situations calling for DM description (chat channel in parentheses):

DMs can also set the stage for an area by using tells on their own initiative to give different PCs impressions and information on a scene, based on the PC's background and skills. Walking into a tavern, a rogue might notice the number of well-to-do patrons, a warrior may note the number of possible threats, and the mage might perceive a strange aura around the man in the corner. In the wilderness, a ranger or druid might be expected to automatically notice something odd before the rest of the party, or as the result of a skill check (see below section on skill checks). DM-initiated description is also an effective way to convey "flavor text" style messages for smells, tastes, and other sensations experienced that the visually-based engine can't replicate. A DM can provide "flavor text" for a group as well as an individual PC, if everyone in an area perceives something equally. (DMs are also encouraged to use in-engine FX tools like the DMFI sound wand - but even these tools can't replicate all possibilities.) Examples:

(Note: I tend to use double parentheses in-game for descriptions targeted at groups, but that's a matter of style; using asterisks or slashes is also common. In my opinion, it's useful to employ some sort of special punctuation to differentiate DM description from normal conversation.)

While using DM messages in this manner may seem a basic tool, it adds a surprising amount of depth to a session and also helps make it special for players, effectively playing off of individual PCs' actions and unique skills/abilities. In addition, using DMFI sound and other FX wands in combination with specific DM descriptions, where appropriate, can make a big impact in building a scene or portraying an event.

Another basic technique, which may be connected with skill/ability checks, is having the DM adjudicate emoted actions. Emotes by their nature are out-of-engine actions and many are used purely for descriptive purposes (*scratches head thoughtfully* etc.) that require no DM intervention. Others do require DM intervention to be completed successfully - trying to swim to the other side of the river or climb a sheer hillside, for example. The DM will have to decide how to adjudicate such actions, using skill/ability checks (more on that shortly) or other methods.

Outside-the-engine actions broaden everyone's possibilities, encouraging more in-game thinking about "realistic" possibilities and creative solutions to problems. I view this as a strength, but it does increase the flexibility required from a DM. As a caveat, while the game almost always benefits from enhanced flexibility and realism, DMs should not let unexpected out-of-engine actions completely break a scenario. For example, if a river is supposed to be impassable, then the DM can simply say that any attempts to cross fail due to the strength of the current. Some other useful tips on adjudicating out-of-engine actions can be found at the end of the next section.

2. Approaches to Employing Skill and Ability Checks

The NWN engine does many of those checks automatically - hide/move silently vs. listen/spot, for example - which is a strength of the computer gaming medium. However, over time DMs and players may let this "passive" resolution of events lead to ignoring the roleplay possibilities of "active" skill checks. Even in action-oriented games, this can be a detriment, for example if the party fails to gather as much information as they could about a powerful opponent. DMs can combat this tendency to rely solely on the engine by making clear to players, preferably before the game starts, that they can and should ask for the DM to resolve any out-of-engine actions attempted. DMs and players, even old grizzled roleplayers from days of yore, sometimes need to be reminded that in NWN we tend toward reliance on the engine for facets of the game that previously were always interactive and atmospheric. To see what kind of a difference "active" skill checks can make, compare the two sequences below:

Skill checks based on out-of-engine actions, while common, can be handled in-game in different ways by different DMs. In all cases, the DMFI DM tools and player dicebags are excellent to use for the mechanics. (For those unfamiliar with how skill checks work, see the below "primer" section.) I've personally seen skill checks handled via several methods, all to good effect. I think as long as everyone has a common, clear understanding of the DM's method, it works out well in practice. In deciding what approach to use, I believe it is most important to be: a) logical; b) consistent; and c) take into account the needs of the session. Regarding the last point, if a skill check is relatively easy and failing it would mean drastic consequences for the party, perhaps the DM will decide to fudge an extremely poor result. This falls into the realm of general DM judgment.

The starting point for all methods of handling skill checks is the same: players propose an out-of-engine action (and perhaps suggest a specific skill check to be used) and the DM adjudicates the results. It's the "adjudicates" part that requires some forethought regarding the mechanics to be used and how they affect ultimate result. Here are some possibilities:

As you can see, there are many possible ways to use the mechanics. Exactly how you adjudicate skills and skill checks is going to be more of a matter of taste, experience, and philosophy; I truly don't believe any one approach is necessarily the best for all gaming groups. In all cases, having a DM use out-of-engine skill checks in a consistent and fair manner will very much enhance whatever game is being run.

Turning to how a DM can reflect adjudicated player actions in the game world, the DM client normally allows for reasonable ways of implementing out-of-engine actions. For example, jumping and climbing is often a matter of simply DM-jumping the player to the desired spot, if the action is successful; if a failure, the DM can use the DMFI emote wand to make the PC "fall down" and the DMFI wand of affliction to reflect any injuries sustained. Persuade and other RP-type skills, if used successfully, will simply change how the DM plays a given NPC. Other out-of-engine actions that change the environment can often be reflected in-game by creating or destroying placeable objects (fires are an obvious example) and using the DMFI wand visual FX.

A Primer on Skill and Ability Checks

One does not have to own the pen-and-paper D&D manuals to understand and employ skill and ability checks; you can do well in an NWN session by just understanding what is in the NWN manual. If you have the original NWN manual, the section on Skills starts on page 73 and it's what drives the game engine already in scripted situations. I'll summarize it here:

Situational modifiers should be taken into account. For example, a rogue trying to listen for movement behind a door (assessed by the DM as a DC 10) could have a -2 penalty to the roll if their companions are moving around and talking nearby. (As a NWN DM, I try to just come up with a DC that in a common-sense way takes everything into account, rather than making a big list of modifiers.)

If a task logically falls within an existing NWN skill, or close to it, use that. There are a pretty wide range of skills now, with the expansions. If a skill isn't in-engine, for example someone tries to climb an embankment, but you discover there is no Climb skill in NWN, one way around this is to use ability checks. You can use a d20 check against the selected ability; a roll at or below the ability score indicates success. Multiple ability checks may be used, too. For instance, with climbing, I tend to make PCs do both a Strength and Dexterity check, if it's a relatively long climb. Dexterity represents a PC's ability to place their feet, not lose their balance, etc., while Strength is used to represent their becoming tired, not being able to hang on to handholds, etc. You can have partial successes or failures, as well as situational modifiers on the rolls.

It may sound complicated at first, but it all boils down to rolling a d20 with a skill and checking the result against the DC of the task, or rolling to check an ability. The skill vs. DC system is very easy to implement, all you need to do is estimate how difficult a task is. The ability check is just as straightforward. DMs can use different approaches in fine-tuning skill and ability checks, and some NWN DMs may have house rules on creating and using "new" skills, but the basic framework is tried and tested.

Practical Tips on Using Out-of-Engine Actions and Skill/Ability Checks

Initiate skill checks judiciously, because they do slow down the game. If you know most characters' major skills, take those skills into account without the players having to do anything beyond their normal roleplay. This would mean giving a ranger a more detailed description of an area when outdoors, automatically making NPCs more receptive when faced with a PC with high persuade skill or charisma, etc. DMing this way rewards the player for skill/class/feat/ability selection while also keeping the game moving along.

The amount of time allowed for the roleplaying of skill checks should be proportional to the importance of the information in context with the overall game. A very important situation might get played out to the fullest, while a non-important sideline might simply cause the DM to roll the dice, report a one-line result, and move on.

Sometimes a tongue-tied player may want to run a suave swashbuckler, and sometimes a sharpwitted player runs a low CHA warrior with zero social skills. Rather than have player's in-game actions completely ignored in favor of their stats, or vice versa, a DM can bridge the gap by using the players' in-game roleplay as a modifier to a skill roll.

Use description to help the players realize the possibilities of out-of-the-engine thinking. Describe the city wall as a 9-foot (3-meter) high stockade of oak staves supported by an earthen buttress. Tell them about second story windows and roofs. This brings the environment alive and reduces the feeling that players have seen it all before in NWN.

Use non-functional items to help the players "make real" out-of-the-engine possibilities. Grappling hooks, small mirrors attached to poles, or anything else that makes sense can be created in the toolset and used as equipment. Give a good description of it, but the item doesn't have to do anything (via scripting) other than be a prop. Having PCs be able to use such equipment to good effect, via out-of-engine actions and DM adjudication, gives them a better sense of control over the environment and immersion.

Reward out-of-engine roleplaying by allowing the players success when appropriate. Some people are naturals at this type of roleplaying, while others have to be trained. However, nothing encourages the players more than by seeing success, and nothing will stop players from trying out-of-engine roleplaying like seeing it never works.

DMs may want to "fudge" their adjudications to make the game enjoyable. Games should be challenging, but players need to see success and forward progress, unless they are completely hopeless. As a DM, you can decide when to require rolls and what the targets are. This part of DMing is far more an art than a science. Fudge a bit and go with what works for the story and for the fun of the game. This fudging can go both ways, in favor of and against the players. However it must be both appropriate and subtle.

3. Using "New" Spells as a DM - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

First off, I believe using spells not included in the game engine should be strictly optional. No DM should feel forced into allowing players to be able to cast a particular spell (or use a spell-like effect), simply because it's listed in a Wizards of the Coast sourcebook. It should be noted that some custom spells can be installed into a module via hak or scripting; a number of new in-engine spells can be found on NWVault, for example. Whether installed or handled by a DM, however, DMs/builders should be aware that adding new spells can create balance issues in their modules. If as a DM you do not have access to source material fully describing "new" spells, it's best simply not to use them, unless everyone agrees on all details of its implementation. If a spell can be added to the NWN engine with a reasonable level of functionality, my bias would be to do that, rather than have the DM spend time adjudicating spell results, which can generate arguments or perceptions of bias.

One of the classic pen-and-paper spells often added, with or without scripting support, is Detect Evil/Good. This can be unbalancing in many scenarios, if counterspells are not allowed, since PCs can discover NPC intentions/alignment without further effort. In PC vs. PC scenarios, or even normal intraparty interaction, it can also be very disruptive, as deception is then less of an option. If you have a classic dungeon crawl with an all-good party, there may be no real issues in your adventure, but otherwise the DM should think through which NPCs would have protection from Detect Evil/Good and how it would be notionally implemented (amulet, spell renewed daily, etc.)

Detect Evil/Good is probably the most basic example of the issues generated by using divination spells. More powerful ones should be handled with similar forethought and the details of their operation - how vague the results are and other limitations - thoroughly understood beforehand. The concept of counterspells is always important to keep in mind, since divination spells, even if successfully performed, can be countered by other magic - which may be both logical and necessary in your particular scenario. Bottom line, don't let a single spell wreck a scenario.

If a DM allows new spells, they will also have to keep track of the mechanics in some manner. These spells aren't free and will need to occupy an appropriate spell slot for the PC spellcaster, if not on a scroll. In terms of record-keeping, the easiest way to approach this is to have the PC cast one of their other spells at the same level of the OTE spell, using up the spell slot. (Of course this should be done in a neutral way, so the benefits of the spell used up would be lost.) The DM can also have each PC using out-of-engine spells submit a spell list before the session, specifying which spells are "substitute" ones. If it becomes an issue in-game, a submitted spell list is probably the way to go, so no arguments are possible.

It's worth noting that even if a DM decides to restrict the use of new spells, a DM can significantly enhance the operation of in-engine spells and the treatment of magic in general. Most simply, DMs can give spellcasters feedback (via Tell) on their perception of magic items and areas with magical effects. This can lend a great deal of flavor and depth beyond reading a short item description or examining a placeable object. Going further, in some instances casting a specific spell or type of spell in an area may have special effects, which a DM can then implement. In many cases, these sorts of effects could also be done through scripting, but it's easy to do so as a DM, at the same time giving you more flexibility. Destruction of placeable objects, appearance/disappearance of NPCs, and triggering of portals are a few examples of possible special effects you can do as a DM "on-the-fly." If you have a roleplay focus in your module or campaign, I would also argue strongly for giving Raise Dead/Resurrection spellcasting significant in-game consequences, otherwise coming back from the dead becomes little different from hitting the respawn button in single-player.

As a last observation, DMs should think about the effect on the gameworld setting of allowing specific spells. If the PCs can use "new" spells which are commonly available, then logic dictates appropriate NPCs can and should as well, otherwise it unbalances the world in favor of the PCs. The reverse is also true, however; if NPCs are allowed use of (say) Teleport at the appropriate level and PCs are not, it comes across as an unfair advantage.

There is a truly huge variety of possibilities inherent in using out-of-engine magical effects, the above only covers some basic ones and tries to address conceptually how DMs can approach them.

Conclusion: A Brave New Neverwinter Nights World

With any game that's been around for some time, especially on a computer platform, the newness and excitement wears off after a while. However, if new ideas, approaches, and possibilities are made available to players, the game constantly renews itself and never feels dull. DMs have a large part to play in making Neverwinter Nights such a game, through their creativity and skills. Using just some of the basic techniques described above will add new dimensions to your sessions, giving both players and DMs a more immersive, challenging, and enjoyable environment. For those who want to push the limits, using advanced techniques and adding new DM-run content can both deepen and broaden the gameworld. Whatever your gaming group may be, going beyond the engine will enhance your experience and open up a wide range of new possibilities. The DMFI wishes you good gaming!

Published on: 2005-08-31 (3701 reads)