Mods that change Scar and/or Duke Eltan in C5-C6 BG:EE?

[Endarire]

I mentioned making a separate Scar unit for the sake of compatibility.  I'm unsure how things will work with other mods like Transitions, Endless BG1, and Northern Tales of the Sword Coast.

[jastey]

10 hours ago, Endarire said:

I'm unsure how things will work with other mods like Transitions, Endless BG1, and Northern Tales of the Sword Coast.

None of these touch Scar.

 

10 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

If that's how the BG1RE dialog is written, would the below suggestion be a simple fix?

(1) I stick a top-level state in BK_SCAR.DLG matching your state that kicks off the BG1RE dialog ("At last, some time!"). This state would switch BK_SCAR.CRE's dialog to SCAR.DLG. By itself, my mod would never set the variable that allows this state to be chosen.

(2) Write a tiny mod that installs after both my thingy and BG1RE which:

(a) Sets a variable used in the state trigger for the extra state in BK_SCAR.DLG, allowing it to be chosen; and

(b) Mods the end points of the BG1RE dialog tree so that, instead of circling back to vanilla SCAR.DLG, it resets BK_SCAR.CRE's dialog to BK_SCAR.DLG.

In the end, you need to find a useful soultion for other mods, too. NTotSC, for example, relies on Duke Eltan as quest giver. I am against an additional compatibility mod for two mods alone, in that case it would be best to include compatibility code into the mods, or the mod that gets installed later if the install order is already known.

One dialogue state wouldn't be enough, though, as bg1re adds several reply options to talk and flirt with Scar before the "some time" state is reached. They might not be necessary to visit him in his quarters, but I will not settle for "compatibility" that takes away 20% of the mod content and flair.

Just write your mod. I am sure Scar's dialogue will still exist of several stages (on the bridge, in front of the HQ, after all BG quests are finisged, etc.) where bg1re could interject into like it does in the original dialogue.

[jastey]

10 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

Part of the reason to say "no thanks" is that pretty much the entirety of Scar's dialog is very likely to be out of sequence. It begins with a reference to the Nashkel mines, and then it's peppered with references to the PC's previous involvement with the Iron Throne.

That's what new dialogue states with higher weights are for. I still think it is not necessary and - to be frankly - rather ignorant to wipe the whole dialogue and just write a complete new dlg. You could add new, higher weighted greeting dialogues in case Nashkel mines (etcpp) wheren't dealt with yet - and leave the original one in case the player indeed did the game in the original order. You then could cycle back to original dialogue states of his dialogues where other mods have interjections etc. Of course you need new dialogue states and texts if you write a mod that has to consider completely new game situations, but going for a completely new dlg is just lazy. The next step would be deleting the original Scar and put your own modded one in.

Sorry in case my words offend. Mod compatibility is a pet peeve of mine. EDIT: I also do see that thre are cases where going for a completely new dlg might actually increase compatibility (as in, prevent incompatibilities). I just don't see this here if a key character is taken away like this.

[The_Baffled_King]

It's obviously good to want mods to be compatible, but treating universal compatibility as an essential design goal has very obvious drawbacks. Here are some:

(1) Ensuring that the original content must remain in place is unusually restrictive

Spoiler

Work that is unfinished undergoes a constant editing process, in which elements may be changed or cut entirely. Work that is ongoing undergoes changes such as characters departing, locations being left behind, and even ret-cons of the established continuity.

If the original content of BG1 must always remain in place because other mods might want to add to that content, an entire mechanism for improving BG1 is disabled. In most fields it's accepted that improvements need not be limited to additive changes only.

(2) It places a premium on the value of mods that have already been written.

Spoiler

Nowhere else does the argument "I got there first, so what I've done has more value" have any real currency. Yet, if you say that all new mods must contort themselves to accommodate all existing mods, that is precisely what you are saying.

(3) Design space that is essential for some mods can be restricted by other mods using that design space for non-essential purposes.

Spoiler

The BG1RE adds content of a romantic nature. There are a large number of NPCs - and literally infinite newly-created NPCs - that can be used to add romantic content.

The BG1 NPC Project adds flavor through, among other things, interjections. There are a large number of existing NPCs with dialog in which interjections can be made.

This mod that I'm making allows for flexibility in progressing the game until the end of Chapter 6. Scar is one of very few NPCs that affect the progression of the game.

Accordingly, if I mod Scar’s dialog, I do so not for arbitrary reasons, or reasons relating to personal taste. I do so because it is essential to the concept of my mod.

(4) The bar to entry for modding can be raised so high that less content is created.

Spoiler

Not everyone has the technical ability to make wholesale changes to dialog while retaining full cross-mod compatibility. Not everyone who has the ability might be able to invest the time. The greater the technical requirements, the greater the likelihood that people with skillsets more focused on other areas will be driven away from modding.

The problem with the above is crystal clear. There is a reason why Netflix employs professional writers to make its shows, instead of just getting its IT department to do it.

(5) Changes that are of little value can hinder the making of changes of greater value.

Spoiler

For the most part I'm steering away from judgments on the relative value of different types of content. One can say it's mostly a matter of taste, and leave it at that.

However, if a few NPC interjections that add flavor are lost from Scar's dialog because I've made a new one, then, you know what? I don't care. I just don't care at all.

I believe that allowing BG1 to be completed in any order is more valuable than one of Viconia or Garrick's 110+ interjections. They will have their say elsewhere.

I did take the time to read the readme for BG1RE, install the mod, and look at Scar's BG1RE dialog, so perhaps you went a little far by suggesting my approach is "lazy".

Edited June 17, 2021 by The_Baffled_King

[jastey]

20 minutes ago, The_Baffled_King said:

Yet, if you say that all new mods must contort themselves to accommodate all existing mods

You are using the straw man tactic.

20 minutes ago, The_Baffled_King said:

I don't care. I just don't care at all.

That's what I thought, thanks for saying it clearly.

I have no interest in further discussing this and I think there is no need to under these conditions. Let me know if you want the OT posts to be splitted from your mod idea thread. EDIT: I thought this is the mod idea thread, which it isn't, so splitting is not that important I guess.

[The_Baffled_King]

3 minutes ago, jastey said:

Let me know if you want the OT posts to be splitted from your mod idea thread.

Sheesh. No, thank you.

[jastey]

I edited my post. For some reason I thought this is your mod idea thread.

 

[Endarire]

Jastey, Kingy, take a deep breath.  We still like you.  We've diplomatically worked together on BG mods recently, and let's keep doing it.  Ensuring cross-mod compatibility would make certain people happier, like me!  Since dialog weights exist, this seemingly means various mods can play nicely together to greater player satisfaction.  It's just a matter of details.

[The_Baffled_King]

5 hours ago, Endarire said:

Jastey, Kingy, take a deep breath.  We still like you.

Thank you, Endarire. As it stands, I don't feel the need to add anything further to this thread.

[jastey]

Since my words seem to have offended, I apologize for my phrasings. I am not a native speaker.

If you look at my mods, you'll see that (especially recently) I wrote a few that change the game story quite a bit. So, I am not saying and I never were, that new mods have to take into account the existing ones - that's not possible, if you want to tell a different story, which I did in my mods as well.

It is my strong opinion, though, that one of the main things about IE modding is the possibilities there are to make mods compatible, thanks to WeiDU which made an end to "replace files in the override" that limits modding of other games in this regard. There will still be lots of incompatibilities between mods due to technical or content reasons. But, if you have the chance to script your mod in a compatible way, e.g. by reusing as much original dialogue as possible, not double dialogue states but cycling back to existing onces, using original cutscenes for transitions instead of just scripting a new one etc. - in short, give other mods as much possibilities to show their content in places where it doesn't contradict your mod's story, then please do, because IE modding makes it possible!

It's not about respecting other mod(ders), only: in the end, mods are for players to enjoy them, and every mod is just one in a pool of many. Players want to enjoy as many mods in one go as possible.

In short: please do not script incompatible deliberately. If you are convinced that it is the only way you can tell your mod's story, then do it anyway.