What is the Gibberlings3 community's stance on making or adapting mods for tipun's Icewind Dale in EET?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

tipun's Icewind Dale in EET (IWD in EET) has been available for years now and yet I've barely heard anyone discuss it around here.  (This linked post contains references to Roxanne, but this isn't her mod.  She merely commented on some things.)

While I'm not sure off hand how finished this IWD in EET version is, it's publicly available and this seems like a handy opportunity for anyone into IWD modding to also develop or/and adapt their mods for this platform.

What say you?

Thankee!

[Graion Dilach]

I say you to attempt being not obnoxious and don't dare picking up another drum to annoy everyone with. Your EET compatibility nagging about mods you obviously never looked at in depth is already doing the second worst PR to EET already. I know it is wishful thinking that one day you'd realize this on your own (atleast this time you acknowledge you never looked at IWD1-in-EET/IWD2-in-EET), but a man can dream.

Ahyes, don't call it IWD-in-EET, these are named as IWD1-in-EET and IWD2-in-EET afterall.

Nonetheless, EET can be easily supported is because it has a great documentation to prepare modders for cross support, which includes filename differences, explanations on internal values and covering some of the very important changes (see the fate spirit) while it also connects games which lorewise are supposed to be linked together (yes, it'll come out loosely, but the intention is there atleast). IWD1-in-EET and IWD2-in-EET doesn't even have a topic in any of the English communities to see how's it about. So atm someone needs to go through the Arcanecoast topic with Google Translate (I'd point out that the current instructions doesn't mention if skipping the Russian language related steps would still lead to a working game), try to build a debug folder and then dig through the whole result to try figuring out what changed and how well a mod can be made compatible.

Personally, I am not interested at supporting this one. Even putting the technicalities aside, both the IWD1 and the IWD2 plot predates the BG saga and someone needs to drag in a time travel plot* back and forth to move the people over. If someone would start a project reusing/mixing the IWD areas (so that there's only one iteration of Kuldahar/Vale of Shadows/so forth used) without involving time travel and comes up a reason why the Bhaalspawn would even visit that north (the trip there would take a month atleast from Baldur's Gate, as far as I remember from the books), I'd be standing up better behind that - in such a scenario Kuldahar coulda work as an Ulgoth's Beard-akin quest/dungeon hub. And yes, I think IWD should be integrated as a megaquest mod to an EET run, similarly like how Secrets of Bone Hill is introduced instead of being integrated as a platform other modders should build on.

ToTLM works because ToTLM is like a Watcher's Keep or a Durlag Tower side-dungeon, without being linked to a specific time and a specific plot. This doesn't apply to the rest.

*Yes, in general, I consider NeJ's mindset better, but keep in mind that it also uses a time travel plot to drop the party to Hrothgar's timeline.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Graion Dilach

[Cahir]

Personally, I have been waiting for K4thos IWD-in-EET (as a part of EET project) rather than checking this version on Arcane Coast, but at this point I doubt it will ever be finished (I know I'm doom and gloom about it, but can't help it). From what I remember K4thos started a discussion about setting up IWD (and IWD2) in a way that would not require some silly time travel or other weird ideas, but I'm not sure what was the consensus of this discussion.

Maybe if tipun's version was adverised on English forums, it would have more attention. Without it, it's unreasoble to expect people go to some Russian site and try to decipher how this mod works. 

[Lava]

24 minutes ago, Graion Dilach said:

I say you to attempt being not obnoxious and don't dare picking up another drum to annoy everyone with. Your EET compatibility nagging about mods you obviously never looked at in depth is already doing the second worst PR to EET already.

Sooooo very true. I never was into EET, I like to play my games separately... Now, imagine that it's not this thread, but I also got PM if I would be interested into working with tipun to make my mods work on Arane Coast's IWD-in-EET. Because public threads are clearly not enough. Now, when I see EET (especially when I get a PM from some specific user) I am feeling that I already want to close the tab and just never reply to it.

I said that already in the PM and at the Discord channel: I think tipun has interesting ideas and I am glad he's part of these boards. It has nothing to do with him. However, I always hated the ideas of IWD being part of BG. IWD is set in 1281 DR, soooo many years before BG. Plus, now there is SoD that makes the event order between these games even more important. I do not think any time travel stuff works well, I do not think making it a tale-like "retrospection" works either. Why would I need that while I can have a stable version of IWD?

Furthermore, I believe IWD EE is a really cool game and it has unique feel and if it wasn't as linear and had companions, it would be just as good as BG2. I know some people like the fact you may have a team of your own or that is more like a chain of dungeon crawling, but I wanted something else. Thus I created my IWD EE mod. But it was all to make IWD EE - again, in my opinion - richer and closer to what I would enjoy. I did that because IWD can be cool. I believe that if you want to give a certain game some exposure, you create stuff for that game rather than make it a part of a different game. So my answer is: no. While - again - I appreciate tipun, his mods, translations, the dedication he has to all these thing, but the direction of that project is nowhere near to what I want to offer. Aim of my mods is quite different. So... no, I am not interested in making my IWD mods compatible with this idea, I made them to support IWD, not another mod that turns IWD into... well... a mod.

Let this be my official statement, because I would really want to avoid furthere PMs asking about this or moving my IWD mods to BG(2). No.

[subtledoctor]

5 hours ago, Lava said:

Now, imagine that it's not this thread, but I also got PM if I would be interested into working with tipun to make my mods work on Arane Coast's IWD-in-EET. Because public threads are clearly not enough. Now, when I see EET (especially when I get a PM from some specific user) I am feeling that I already want to close the tab

First, I totally feel you on this. I *hate* getting PMs about mod stuff - I mean, there is some limited utility in PMs and I’ve engaged in PMs with a couple people. But when it’s like “I have a technical issue” or “let’s discuss this!” I try to be very firm, if polite, in expressing that such discussion should be in public forum threads. 

However, I also try (maybe not always succeed, but try) to remember that I don’t know who is behind the screen. They may be much older or younger, they may have cultural differences, they may be neurodivergent. In such cases I must be even firmer in setting boundaries! But I don’t hold it against the person for not realizing they have crossed them. 

I do think it’s worth supporting EET, 1) because k4thos went to some lengths to enable other modders to support it. I respect that effort. And 2) it is trying to be the new BGT, and BGT spurred a wave of good and creative modding. 

6 hours ago, Cahir said:

Personally, I have been waiting for K4thos IWD-in-EET

I think that version is better in design - and, not for nothing, consider how much collaboration went into its design - but I wish it was an incomplete project on Github or something, so other people could contribute to it. Instead of gathering digital dust somewhere on k4thos’ personal hard drive. (I also didn’t like that it was tied to EET, even though there was no technical reason not to enable its use with standalone BGEE or BG2EE, and that it was tied to platform-and-patch-dependent EEex, even though the IWD1 portion does not need it. But those are quibbles with its design)

I think I recall k4thos saying he was abandoning it since tipun’s project is already playable, so this may be moot.

As to tipun’s project: Roxanne’s forum is gone but my recollection is that tipun’s project is very alpha quality. Technically you can go to IWD but only by overland travel, or maybe by console command? There is no real integration, no facility for item or xp balancing, etc. I was maybe going to try it out in my current EET game, but when I looked for it I found the same files hosted on some Google Drive, which had not been touched in like two years. No updates, no support, etc. Put it up on Github, let me see what I’m downloading before I do, let me see the code and see how it works with my game, then maybe I would be interested. 

Brass tacks: tipun’s mod doesn’t seem close enough to truly usable to tempt me. I think a far better model for integrating IWD content is Argent77’s TotLM-in-BG2EE mod. It is, as @Graion Dilach said, like SoBH an independent large quest. Not very different from Balduran’s Island in TotSC or Watcher’s Keep in BG2. Given TotLM has already been adapted this way, it doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to give HoW the same treatment - it also involves being teleported there and back, and limited movement between map areas while you are there. This seems like an obvious next project, and I would help with it if anyone is interested. (Though fair warning, when I looked at TotLM-in-BG2EE’s code, I could not make heads or tails of it.)

IWD1’s campaign could be another big quest mod, but it would be substantially more complex and so less of a priority. One of the best design ideas for k4thos’ IWD-in-EET project was to simply inject the content into the game as separate campaigns, and then allow other mods to do the work of connecting those campaigns as BG quests. That would theoretically save a lot of effort. But we can’t really know since the thing is sequestered on his personal hard drive. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Oloriniel]

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and chip in here.

I can't speak to tipun's IWD2, but his IWD is just fine.  I've played through it twice, once as part of Roxanne's setup and once not.  Aside from a few items with the undroppable flag (such as Orrick the Grey's enchanted Beetle Shield), everything works as intended.  XP *is* nerfed; if you do the whole IWD-How-TotLM, you'll wind up with, I think, about 400k XP.  Which, YMMV about whether or not that's too high as an add-on for BG1, but it's not the millions you'd get playing IWD/IWDEE standalone.

Now, when I played this outside of Roxanne's setup, the mechanism to *get* to Easthaven from Ulgoth's Beard (and back, at the end of the mod) was missing, I had to use the console to travel.  But once there, the locations were part of the worldmap; the only quibble I had is that the travel times were much higher than in IWD (it could take 80 hours or more to get from Kuldahar to the Severed Hand or Dorn's Deep). 

I gather, now, that tipun has that in a separate mod, one that takes away your gear both going to and from IWD

Now, I don't think the time travel thing is necessarily a big deal.  There aren't a lot of in-game references and it's entirely possible to not know the games are set a century apart.  And Belhifet?  At the end of IWD he's banished from the Prime for a century, but he doesn't come to the Prime during SoD.  And a devious devil like him doubtless has many schemes.  But it might be simple enough to change his name in one place or the other.

Of course, while it's been about 20 years since I've played IWD2 and I don't remember it well, I suspect it's a lot more difficult to square the 20 year gap, and changes to Kuldahar/Dragon's Eye etc.  I'm sure it can be done, but it does require being done.

But here's the thing.  While tipun's provided these mods for testing, and they work fine, there's no extra meat on these bones.  None of your party members have a thing to say about where you are or what you're doing.  Tipun has a plan, a story to tell, that integrates these into EET.  Is it good, is it bad?  No idea.  But I think the respectful thing to do is to let him finish it, before anyone else starts adding, changing, tweaking.
 

[Lava]

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

First, I totally feel you on this. I *hate* getting PMs about mod stuff - I mean, there is some limited utility in PMs and I’ve engaged in PMs with a couple people. But when it’s like “I have a technical issue” or “let’s discuss this!” I try to be very firm, if polite, in expressing that such discussion should be in public forum threads. 

However, I also try (maybe not always succeed, but try) to remember that I don’t know who is behind the screen. They may be much older or younger, they may have cultural differences, they may be neurodivergent. In such cases I must be even firmer in setting boundaries! But I don’t hold it against the person for not realizing they have crossed them. 

I do think it’s worth supporting EET, 1) because k4thos went to some lengths to enable other modders to support it. I respect that effort. And 2) it is trying to be the new BGT, and BGT spurred a wave of good and creative modding. 

Well, we know that this time it's not about that, because we have a person that pokes modders using PMs, public boards and Discord and it's something that's been addressed before. When I feel something could be asked on public forum (because it's "is that an EE-only mod?" type of question anyone can answer) I just tell that someone the answer, but also ask to post such questions in a public thread. But when that person keeps repeating this... well, it's hard to remain nice, because it's quite annoying. I released maaaaany mods and when I wake up with yet another question about EE(T) comaptibility or matters addressed in a readme, it starts to be a burden. And the more mods you have, the more often it happens...

But also do not get me wrong: I understand that sometimes it can be hard. I had people ask me about f/f and m/m romances via PMs. Perhaps they were afraid to ask about such matters publicly, as it could be seen as some sort of coming out (but let's be honest, it's not always true, just like a man can play female character... you can role-play all sorts of heroes). But I get it, perhaps it's hard, plus some may feel judged, or they're from a country when it's still some cultural taboo... then I just reply using PMs and it's all fine, but asking about EET compatibilities is not like that. It's something very different.

26 minutes ago, Oloriniel said:

But here's the thing.  While tipun's provided these mods for testing, and they work fine, there's no extra meat on these bones.  None of your party members have a thing to say about where you are or what you're doing.  Tipun has a plan, a story to tell, that integrates these into EET.  Is it good, is it bad?  No idea.  But I think the respectful thing to do is to let him finish it, before anyone else starts adding, changing, tweaking.

The topic says: "(...) making or adapting mods for tipun's Icewind Dale in EET" so I replied to the topic as someone who wrote majority of IWD EE mods (10 NPCs, 6 quest mods, 2 item packs). To me time difference is a huge deal and I believe it's not exactly as simple as you presented it... especially when you include mods and that's what we're discussing here. There are refferences I made in my mods: one of my IWD EE NPCs is hinted dead in my SotSC (BGEE mod). Some items from my quest mods for IWD EE are available in SotSC and are mentioned to have been used by Hero of Icewind Dale. Then, my Night of the Blinking Dead (IWD EE quest mod) is a prequel to AG: Ooze's Lounge (BG2EE mod). Another item from my Tale ouf Our Lady Dreamless (another IWD EE quest mod) is also included in SotSC. So no, with the strategy I took such adaptations do not make sense and (again) I made these mods to make IWD EE more interesting and I believe IWD EE is a great standalone game that could use some more attention. So I'm giving it to it. And that's the version of the game I want to support: a standalone and pretty cool game.

[CamDawg]

I'm 100% onboard with supporting my mods in IWD1-in-EET.

This is 100% unrelated to the fact that my mods are built into IWDEE itself and I have absolutely zero effort to get them included.

COMPLETELY unrelated facts.

Completely.

[Graion Dilach]

3 hours ago, Oloriniel said:

Now, I don't think the time travel thing is necessarily a big deal.  There aren't a lot of in-game references and it's entirely possible to not know the games are set a century apart.  And Belhifet?  At the end of IWD he's banished from the Prime for a century, but he doesn't come to the Prime during SoD.  And a devious devil like him doubtless has many schemes.  But it might be simple enough to change his name in one place or the other.

The lore issues aren't just with Belhifet, but that's easy to overlook if one only knows the games.

IWD1 has Crenshinibon. Crenshinibon was destroyed by/around the time the BG saga happens, as it's written in R.A. Salvatore's Servant of the Shard happening around 1366 DR. (The main reason Crenshinibon was available because in Crystal Shard, Akar Kessell just find it in a ravine somewhere in the Dale, IWD as a game had full creative control to place it into the ravine.) HoW's barbarian tribes? The majority of them were united by Wulfgar of all people during the end of Halfling's Gem to rebuild Settlestone, again before the games are supposed to happen. (Yeah, I'm that plebian who has almost all the Drizzt books - only got everything up until Hero, because the 5e books are bad. Like, really bad.) Yes, most of the tribes went back to the Dale a later point, but I think that mostly correlates to Obould's arrival and the forming of the Kingdom of Many-Arrows (I don't remember where that gets brought up in the books, pretty sure that's around a timeskip).

IWD2 is better in this regard, because it continued the IWD1 story and did not need to pull back to the books for the start. You can stretch that one, but you can't really stretch IWD1 to ensure it ends up irrelevant by the time Bruenor & co. arrives from Mithril Hall around Kelvin's Cairn.

BTW, Salvatore also maxed out the banished-for-a-century rule with Errtu, via him getting banished in both Crystal Shard and The Last Threshold (and the latter is from 2013, so that still predates SoD even).

I could see the point of backporting IWD2 to IWDEE, EET style. I just don't see that mixed up with the BG series.

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, Graion Dilach said:

The lore issues aren't just with Belhifet

But all if that is lore outside the game. If you limit yourself to in-game lore contradictions/anachronisms, there are strikingly few. Of course there is Belhifet, but that’s not so bad; and IIRC there are a couple books in BG2 that discuss the North in ways that might not be fully consistent with a contemporaneous IWD1 campaign. 

But that’s it. It’s really not much. 

EDIT - but for HoW and TotLM there are basically zero issues AFAIK which is another reason why they are great candidates for inclusion in BG and I know I sound like a stuck record so I’ll stop now. I would just really like to see HoW-in-BG2EE. 

From a technical perspective, it seems that campaign.2da can allow different adventures to have different map access - e.g. how the SoD worldmap is different from the BGEE worldmap when the games are combined into one. I think this would be better than putting all the IWD areas on a unified EET worldmap, as both IWD mods seem to do. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Oloriniel]

Okay, but if the lore issues are broader--at least for those who read the Driz'zt books--then I can see how continuity could be a bigger deal for some.  I mean, I didn't read Salvatore's books, but there are enough fandoms where I am--or at least was--a stickler for canon that I get it.

Of course, the simple solution is, if you're a modder, make your mods the way you want; if you're a player, install what you like, don't install what you don't, be grateful to the modders who gift you with their work, and don't pester them with requests to devote their time and attention to other projects (or making changes, aside from resolving bugs, to their own).

[subtledoctor]

2 hours ago, Oloriniel said:

Okay, but if the lore issues are broader--at least for those who read the Driz'zt books--then I can see how continuity could be a bigger deal for some.

Very fair point! My limited background certainly colored my point of view there. (Honestly, I never read an FR novel that I liked. I don’t know if it’s something about the setting, or just bad luck in which ones I gave a chance, or what. But I was quickly put off the lot of them. But that’s another discussion.)

It’s just, there is a real lore problem, so it comes down to choice among several bad options:

1. Don’t put IWD into BG at all

2. Gloss over out-of-game contradictory lore

3. Time travel

4. Dream sequence

Of those, #2 seems the least bad for me. But others may feel differently. 

Honestly though I don't think this choice should be a single choice bound to the act of importing the IWD resources. I would love to see a mod that treats IWD the way EET treats Black Pits 1: just bring the content into the BG2EE app. It’s there in the campaign list, the files are in the game, but that’s all. It isn’t on the map, you can’t go there. Then if a secondary mod wants to add an NPC to teleport you into BP1 from the FAI, it can do that. If a different secondary mod wants to run you through the fights as a dream sequence, it can do that. And people could choose either one.

[DavidW]

A matter of taste. I think (1) is a great option.

[Graion Dilach]

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

It’s just, there is a real lore problem, so it comes down to choice among several bad options:

1. Don’t put IWD into BG at all

2. Gloss over out-of-game contradictory lore

3. Time travel

4. Dream sequence

My vote would still be on 5; reuse and remix the IWD areas for an entire new plot being played in IWD.

[Frenzgyn]

I have not played TotLM in EET yet,  so I don't know what's changed and what's not (I assume almost anything) from IWD, but in that case is easy to "solve"  any issue, lore-wise: just assume no-one has solved the Luremaster curse till the time. It's so disconnected from everything else and "out-of-time" by itself to not be a problem, in this regard.

HoW is a different story, it has way more connection with places, events, characters and such. I am not saying it can't /should not be done, just that it is not exactly on the same book of TotLM.

I admit at first I was very intrigued by the possibility of an IWD in EET, but thinking better it will not add much if anything to the experience.
While it would be very nice to revisit some IWD's location in BG setting with new stories/quests/everything, just playing the campaign in another application is... well... I don't know. Not thrilling. I like IWD (and really appreciated the existing mods for IWDEE) and I am very ecstatic to everything regarding IWD2, since we know an EE will never happen (and any tiny improvement/fix/interest is welcome), merely playing IWD campaing in another application is kinda "meh" in my opinion.

 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Frenzgyn