Updates to SKS1

I leave up the old (NWN-1.69) versions of my downloads on the Vault, so people who only have that can still download and use them.

For the new NWN:EE version - using the toolset makes it EE, as Proleric mentioned - naturally you can add it to the page (and label it as such in the file title to help avoid confusion), or create a new project page. I’ve gone the latter route with new versions of modules and such, including a link back to the 1.69 version in the description. For example, the DMFI 101: Enhanced Edition. This also has the benefit of displaying the new content on the Vault homepage feed.

1 Like

Thanks for the comments.

It’s good to understand about using the EE toolset making it an EE module. That’s helpful to understand.

Is anyone even playing the 1.69 version any more? Seems like that would be a small group and therefore it would be best to just remove the old file and add the new EE one.

I still play on the 1.69 version as I don’t like some of the new changes and bugs Beamdog introduced, plus I don’t play multiplayer much anyway.

After the launch of EE, I believe most new players are on the EE version (unless they bought from gog then they get a copy of the 1.69 version), but as someone who is currently making a module, I do it in the 1.69 toolset for maximum coverage, since 1.69 modules are compatible with both versions.

1 Like

I play 1.69 also for the same reasons as BowShatter.


I did an upgrade to Ori Rural for EE. Its buried in this rather obscenely large compilation pack - Defunct PW Project | The Neverwinter Vault

If you like it, you’re more than welcome to extract it and use it. Its a rework/reskin with new texturing based on photos I found online of various structures used by the Haka people of Taiwan and some pics of rural villages in Vietnam.

Thanks for the feedback @BowShatter and @Greenman6220. Had I understood a bit more about how that works when I started I might have tried to go that path instead. But at this point I’m pretty far down the path on updating things using EE. But it’s helpful to understand where 1.69 players are coming from as I consider how to release this.

Thanks @Pstemarie for the info regarding the Ori tiles. I would probably only try to update that if there were fixes to the stairs tiles (they can be a bit touchy on a few of them at the seams).

After thinking about it a bit more, my plan is to create a new project and mark it as a 2.0 for EE. With that in mind, I’ll probably look to release something as an alpha, sooner rather than later.

Well, not sure which stairs you’re specifically referring to as a lot of the buildings had those and I did rework the meshes on almost all of them, welding seams, redoing smoothing groups, etc. It wasn’t just a retexture, it was a nearly complete rebuild.

After the initial geometry work was done, everything was passed through CM3 with some cleanups to certain tiles in post processing.

The pagodas were rebuilt as well as several of the houses (specifically the Western style ones directly ported from Bioware Rural. I also redid the bamboo meshes as well as made some new doors. Unfortunately, I never got around to fancy mapping it - maybe I’ll do that over the Holidays.

@Pstemarie sorry, I just realized that I had not responded to you. That definitely sounds interesting, but based on where I’m at, I don’t think I can take on trying to fiddle with tile sets just yet. If I get curious, I’ll reach out.

At this point, I’m pretty close to wrapping up horses.

@Proleric (and anyone else who has played with horses), I’m trying to resolve secret door issues, following the great work in https://nwnlexicon.com/index.php?title=Builders_Guide_To_Horses#Fix_for_Transition_Bugs.

The solution seems very elegant, but I’m running into a circular dependency issue.

  1. The updated x0_i0_transport script calls the new _transition_inc library.
  2. The new _transition_inc library includes ls x3_inc_horse.
  3. x3_inc_horse then includes x0_inc_henai
  4. x0_inc_henai includes x0_i0_henchman
  5. x0_i0_henchman includes x0_i0_common
  6. x0_i0_common includes x0_i0_transport, which takes us back tot he top.

Oddly, when I override x0_i0_common to comment out the include to x0_i0_transport, it works fine. I’m wondering if that’s legacy code that just never got cleaned up? I’m trying hard to not override core files, but it seems like that might be the thing to do, here. Does that seem correct?


Well, I spoke too soon, maybe. Compiling the module scripts revealed many errors where the my various secret scripts were including x0_i0_secret. It seems like that library includes x0_i0_common as a way to pull in x0_i0_transport.

I’ve side stepped this by instead updating the call to x0_i0_secret to comment out the include of x0_i0_common and instead include _transition_inc. I then replaced the call in UseSecretTransport() to use DoTransition() instead. I rolled x0_i0_transport back to the default version.

One odd thing is that I then had to override the script on the secret item. Otherwise, it didn’t seem to compile with the module. So after all that… I’m kind of back to customizing the individual secret scripts anyway. Seems like it should have compiled and I’m scratching my head as to why.

At least now I’m only overriding with x0_i0_secret and I have a path forward.

I’m very close to releasing something. I’ve got all my secret doors working (with some nice code to always open the other side also). I’ve also got all of my transitions working with horses.

I have a multiplayer game scheduled with some friends for later in the month. I’ll be the DM. Excited to see how that goes.

One thing I’ve done is to switch all my quest variables to live on the module, instead of PCs. I did this because my prime audience is a multiplayer party. I want to avoid any issues from when players have to drop due to real life conflicts or network issues. They were all running through common get and set functions, so that wasn’t a huge effort. Are there any thing to consider at part of that?

I’ve released an initial (beta) version. Any feedback (on the post or the module itself) is greatly appreciated!

I created it as a zip file, but I’m curious if others prefer a different (more secure) format.

My current roadmap:

  • Update some rumor scripts that I want to rework.
  • Investigate an issue I found with having the party mount with summoned creatures in the party.
  • Post my DM documentation.
  • Another playtest (and take more screenshots).
  • Prep for a session I’m planning on doing with some friends next weekend.


1 Like

FYI - Uploaded a new version (beta2) with a number of fixes and several new features. Hope to have the DM documentation wrapped up in the next few days.

1 Like

Uploaded version beta3 with a number of fixes and tweaks. Still working through the DM documentation.

1 Like

@Carlo you mentioned at the top of this thread that it would be good to see a group go through this. I’ve actually started a run of this just a few days ago with some friends. We’ve got 3 or 4 more sessions scheduled over the next few weeks. I took a few screenshots, but is there anything I should be doing in terms of documenting that or otherwise prepping for a submission to DMFI certification?

Released beta4, which includes two new quests, a few improvements and some fixes. Beyond any fixes or bugs, this is pretty close to the final version. I’ve now got two different groups running this on a weekly basis, so I’m sure we’ll find a few as go. Thanks to everyone for the help!

DM guide finally uploaded! I’m sure it is full of typos, but at 109 pages it’s at least comprehensive.

Released beta5 after feedback from @Proleric and finished two multiplayer runs. Fixes a number of bugs and includes some minor improvements. I’m about to start another weekly group and will probably make the final version after that. Thanks again, all!

1 Like

@vendalus I haven’t been on the forum for a while, so hadn’t seen this. Would be great to add this to the official DMFI list on the vault and promote it for general multiplayer use as well.

The general certification requirements can be found linked below. With full docs included in the package and if we can get folks to attest to the multiplayer run-throughs, that should probably do it. Please ping me if you’re around. Thanks for all your work (again!) on this module.


Hi @Carlo,

Thanks for the note. Definitely would be great to get SKS listed there. I just finished a second run with a group last week and I’m close to releasing a new version.

I’ll probably get some of the players to attest to the play-though on the module page once the new version is up. Let me know what else you think would be good from there.

Thank you!

Wonderful! I’ll look for the new version announcement and take a look at the updated package once it’s posted.

1 Like

Thanks. Planning to go through a final test run this week. Hope to have something soon!