Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

locarno24 wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I played and GMed Deathwatch and the Black Crusade RPGs for a few years, and they were great fun despite being d100 systems, which are usually pretty bad for anything other than simulationist misery porn.

Savage Worlds is a brilliant RPG, and would suit a pulpy 40K perfectly.

The newest game - Wrath & Glory - is a pretty good ruleset, if only GW/Cubicle 7 would actually ****ing publish anything for it.

I found the ruleset a bit lite for me, and the production values (particularly compared to FFG) are pretty awful.

locarno24 wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I played and GMed Deathwatch and the Black Crusade RPGs for a few years, and they were great fun despite being d100 systems, which are usually pretty bad for anything other than simulationist misery porn.

Savage Worlds is a brilliant RPG, and would suit a pulpy 40K perfectly.

The newest game - Wrath & Glory - is a pretty good ruleset, if only GW/Cubicle 7 would actually ****ing publish anything for it.

well given C7 just lost one of their flagship games due to a lisencing dispute I guess they'll have more time for W&G :(

 Jidmah wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Restriction: You are not allowed to implement even a single house rule.

This is your problem. Pull out the stupid bs to have fun with it and don't worry too hard about playing competitive.

Thanks for the personal attack, but please explain how "creating house rules" is "native support" you claimed that GW has? That's the very opposite.

Then I'll just leave you to it then. None of that was intended as an attack, I am saying 'do something stupid to change up your play experience' not some attack directed at you.

I think you have missed the entire point of all my posts in this thread.

I'm not lacking the means to change up my experience. WH40k as a game is.

Yet you claimed it has native support for narrative gaming when it actually has almost none. This thread has more narrative content than CA2019 does, and it has an entire chapter dedicated to that.

And you’ve actively ignored the core concept of Narrative gaming. It doesn’t need support. It’s two, or more - I’m not judging, consenting players that agree to customize their gaming experience to answer a “what if...” question.

Every single mission in the book or in the players’ imaginations can be a narrative play. That’s the beauty of narrative play. It lets your imagination run free. In that sense, it’s like DND. Both players create a backstory for why they’re at this battle. Maybe you have a planned mission, and do that ahead of time, or maybe you roll it up at the table and decide to wing it.

Either way, your army becomes your “character” for the battle. You decide what they *try* to do, and the dice determine if the unit is successful. Just like DND. Both players can be competitive, if they want. Real-life Generals want to win.

Narrative play is something you can just tack on to any game. You don’t need official rules to run a last stand. Or a breakout scenario, or a Space Hulk battle, or a slowly rising lava battle. You can just do it.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Love DnD. It has a flexible ruleset that just enables fun without adding to much baggage on top.

Agreed, our d&d group agreed while playing 3.5 that we would not use save or die spells if the DM didn’t either as it’s just not a fun mechanic, the fights are still plenty lethal but it isn’t all about who gets the initiative and If the other side makes the save or not. We also agreed except for thematic and narrative purposes to not using tons of mass stuns or grapple abilities to just negate any challenge in a combat, from the player side it’s not a lot of fun to spend most of a combat just sitting there making your 1 save attempt per turn and not doing anything else.

In 40k it is pretty fun to run the games with some basic narrative to what’s going on, I have a new group of space marines that is a custom chapter so as characters achieve something cool or epic they get named and then they slowly get a history of deeds. At our FLGS we are trying to setup a loose narrative event so we have some kind of story about what’s happening on the FLGS(haven’t named it yet) planet or system. We are toying and with trying some of the linked battle rules from CA19.

 Jidmah wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:Decide on an interesting context in which these two characters would face off against one another, that fits with your vision of the generals and their armies and what they're about. Flip through your rulebooks and supplements to find a narrative or matched play mission that fits well with what you came up with. Play that mission, and use your imagination to flesh out the events as they occur and imagine ways and reasons that unusual or climactic moments in the game happened. There you go.

ccs wrote:Same as we've always done. We'd generate a mission, set up the table, & play a game. The first game, even if our heroes had heard of one another, would tell the initial battlefield meeting of these two soon-to-be-epic foes....The exact story would develop as we played.

Sorry you two, but that's... just playing a regular game though? I can literally do the same in a game of risk or any other board game.
Plus Dakkan will probably unepically be boltered down after destroying a vehicle as is the fate of every warboss in every game, while Eugen must stand still in the middle of his army to keep everyone in his re-roll bubble.

Well, YOU asked me/us how we'd do it. And said there couldn't be any house rules.

Since I'm not psychic the odds of me typing up whatever answer you wanted to hear is pretty low... Or were you just looking for someone to stroke your ego & agree with you that as is it's unsupported?

 Jidmah wrote:
Yet you claimed it has native support for narrative gaming when it actually has almost none. This thread has more narrative content than CA2019 does, and it has an entire chapter dedicated to that..

Several people told you how to get the narrative out of normal missions in the books. This for some reason is not good enough for you. Sure, you can always enhance your experience by making your own custom rules and missions, but as it has been demonstrated the official missions work just fine for narrative play.

I'm just not into TTRPGs.

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yet you claimed it has native support for narrative gaming when it actually has almost none. This thread has more narrative content than CA2019 does, and it has an entire chapter dedicated to that..

Several people told you how to get the narrative out of normal missions in the books. This for some reason is not good enough for you. Sure, you can always enhance your experience by making your own custom rules and missions, but as it has been demonstrated the official missions work just fine for narrative play.

That's assuming the rules even allow narrative immersion. They don't though whatsoever. At that point you're paying money for GW to say "modify the garbage we sold you".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I love D&D. I've got a regular group of people I play with (all girls aside from me, yes D&D girls do exist) and it's a lot of fun.

I still much prefer 40k, however. I see the two hobbies as being connected in many ways. I for one used the painting skills gained in 40k to create some great looking D&D miniatures.

I think that's a very antiquated stereotype, D&D is pretty main-stream now. There are a lot of RPG players of the feminine persuasion.

That said, I only know 2 other women who play miniatures wargames.

Seconded.

(Deleting everything further I was gonna say cos I don't want to cause anything to go off-topic again)

This seems common maybe? I know my girlfriend loves the pictures I send of the nicely painted minis on Instagram (lots of great folks to follow there), but doesn't like the idea that "your dude" is gonna die most likely, especially after all that work you put into it. In D&D, there isn't that same investment.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That's assuming the rules even allow narrative immersion. They don't though whatsoever.

Yes they do, you're just bad at it. And as this thread was actually about D&D look at its rules, it is super gamey and has a lot of really weird ways of abstracting things. Yet people manage to roleplay using it just fine, and that is an activity which requires much higher immersion than a wargame.

Always hated D&D, enjoy roleplay games, just found D&D far to restricting, decent systems have no issue with say a priest picking up a sword, or a mage wearing armour - they won't be any good with them but its possible

of course a decent GM gets around all that as then the rules are simply a guide anyway.

never got me head around the hit system either, how gaining experience allowed you to survive a hit from a honking great sword better, yeah its an abstraction but it could be done better

ironically Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay was a hell of a lot better as a rules system and a decent background

there are it must be said some very nice expansions for D&D as background materials, but forget the rules

prefer GURPS or Traveller, where there is more to it than combat and the non-combat bits don't feel like an after thought.

oh yes and the whole "linear warriors and quadratic wizards" thing sucks

I've played D&D from basic (red box) through till 5th and it is Pathfinder 1st edition which is the best edition (descendant) of D&D.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:Decide on an interesting context in which these two characters would face off against one another, that fits with your vision of the generals and their armies and what they're about. Flip through your rulebooks and supplements to find a narrative or matched play mission that fits well with what you came up with. Play that mission, and use your imagination to flesh out the events as they occur and imagine ways and reasons that unusual or climactic moments in the game happened. There you go.

ccs wrote:Same as we've always done. We'd generate a mission, set up the table, & play a game. The first game, even if our heroes had heard of one another, would tell the initial battlefield meeting of these two soon-to-be-epic foes....The exact story would develop as we played.

Sorry you two, but that's... just playing a regular game though? I can literally do the same in a game of risk or any other board game.
Plus Dakkan will probably unepically be boltered down after destroying a vehicle as is the fate of every warboss in every game, while Eugen must stand still in the middle of his army to keep everyone in his re-roll bubble.

Well, YOU asked me/us how we'd do it. And said there couldn't be any house rules.

Since I'm not psychic the odds of me typing up whatever answer you wanted to hear is pretty low... Or were you just looking for someone to stroke your ego & agree with you that as is it's unsupported?

Also

a) What is or is not a "regular game" depends on the player, and who they usually play with.

b) It IS narrative gaming. It's just not campaign gaming.

c) It is a hell of a lot different than just throwing two forces on the table, then playing a bare-bones Matched Play mission, with no imagination or story or characterization, and no in-universe context, just for the sake of seeing which of the two players wins, like in tournaments.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
a) What is or is not a "regular game" depends on the player, and who they usually play with.

This is so true. A regular game in Notthingham would not be considered the same thing to an ultra-competitive ITC player.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
[
c) It is a hell of a lot different than just throwing two forces on the table, then playing a bare-bones Matched Play mission, with no imagination or story or characterization, and no in-universe context, just for the sake of seeing which of the two players wins, like in tournaments.

Even during tournaments I've had narrative develop.
Ex;
Ages ago (somewhere during 3rd ed) I was playing my DA in a tourney at GenCon. My jump pack assault squad got the piss shot out of them destroying a pair of L.Russ. As the game progressed the squads Sgt in the casualty section got knocked off the table. The fall sheered his plasma pistol arm off at the elbow. No idea where the bit bounced off to (you know how it goes, you drop a bit & it'll scatter off to the furthest most unlikely place possible. And we're in a HUGE hall with 100's of people.).
Well, I still have 3 more games to go that afternoon.
And I don't have any replacement bitz or extra jump sgts. with me. The best option I had on me was a black sharpie. So I blacked his stump so it wasn't unpainted plastic showing.
I'm also a strict WYSIWYG player as far as my weapons are concerned.....
So the Sgt had to lead his squad into three more battles that day armed only with a power sword.

All day long I kept getting asked things like "Aren't you forgetting to take your extra melee attack? (for weapon + pistol)" by foes.
Me: "No, because he doesn't have a pistol. Look at the model."
Opponents were very confused by this response in a tourney.
So I patiently explained that he'd had his arm blown off assaulting a L.Russ in the 1st battle of the day. The black carapace had done it's job & sealed the wound, but the apothecaries hadn't caught up to him yet to attach a bionic replacement. And, since I'm a strict WYSIWYG player as far as my weapons are concerned, that I would not be using an un-represented weapon.

So afterwards I wrote myself a note to build the sgt a bionic arm & put it in the case with him.

Well, I own several armies. And I rotate playing them. So the next week I pulled out my Tau or something for down at the shop. And after that my SW or such. Then some Guard, then....
Eventually a year passes & it's back to GenCon. The DA were (& still are) my "traveling army" - best painted, most compact, and could take on anything. I pop the case open the night before in the hotel & realize I never did make the poor sgt. his replacement arm.
So once again he fights all day long at a disadvantage.
With me having much the same conversation. Only now it's been a year since he's been maimed & who knows where the techs sent his arm.

This time, one night shortly after I get home (but several months after I've shelved the DA again) I DO craft him his arm. It goes into the magnetic screw dish on my desk & I think I'll pull the DA out tomorrow & attach it.
HAH!
This cycle repeats for another 2.5 years. I pull the DA out of storage, don't think about the arm in the screw dish until I'm playing, get home late & plan to fix it tomorrow....

Narrative: The Sgt lost his arm while destroying a L.Russ. The techs then had a heluva time getting his bionic replacement to him as he kept being transferred to different warzones (or at least that's the official line they give on the matter).
In the end though he did eventually get his bionic arm modeled. Still has it today too.

 greatbigtree wrote:
And you’ve actively ignored the core concept of Narrative gaming. It doesn’t need support. It’s two, or more - I’m not judging, consenting players that agree to customize their gaming experience to answer a “what if...” question.

The claim was that WH40k does have native support for narrative gaming. It doesn't. I wish it had more.

Every single mission in the book or in the players’ imaginations can be a narrative play. That’s the beauty of narrative play. It lets your imagination run free. In that sense, it’s like DND.

Absolutely not. D&D provides you with background that you can actually play in, character progressions, customization options and vast array of things help you tell your story. On top of that, actual stories.
I do understand what narrative gaming is and it's actually my preferred way of playing, you don't need to berate me for doing it "wrong". But if you tell me that GW helps you with narrative gaming even one bit, that is simply not true at all.

Both players create a backstory for why they’re at this battle. Maybe you have a planned mission, and do that ahead of time, or maybe you roll it up at the table and decide to wing it.
Either way, your army becomes your “character” for the battle. You decide what they *try* to do, and the dice determine if the unit is successful.

... and then one army gets deleted be the end of turn 2. Great story!

Narrative play is something you can just tack on to any game. You don’t need official rules to run a last stand. Or a breakout scenario, or a Space Hulk battle, or a slowly rising lava battle. You can just do it.

Thanks for telling me what I have written in four previous posts. Except you have also told that all the work for a narrative game has to be done by the players, which is exactly my point.

Players actually having to put effort into something themselves?
That's unspeakable!

ccs wrote:
Well, YOU asked me/us how we'd do it. And said there couldn't be any house rules.

Since I'm not psychic the odds of me typing up whatever answer you wanted to hear is pretty low... Or were you just looking for someone to stroke your ego & agree with you that as is it's unsupported?

The claim was that Warhammer 40k natively supports narrative gaming. I disagreed with that in my opinion WH40k provides no support for narrative gaming besides some more complex missions, and all the actual narrative work done by the players.

You said that narrative gaming is supported by the rules, so I asked you to describe what support you were thinking of. You then just proceeded to tell me to run a regular game, which has all the problems I outlined in my answer here.

Which brings me back to my statement that narrative gaming in WH40k does not work well at all, and that the only real way to do it is that the players have to do it.

In fact, this is a very similar debate to when players claim that balance is fine, if you add dozens of house rules to fix it. Which basically means it's not fine.

Oh, and great job on the ad hominem attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yet you claimed it has native support for narrative gaming when it actually has almost none. This thread has more narrative content than CA2019 does, and it has an entire chapter dedicated to that..

Several people told you how to get the narrative out of normal missions in the books. This for some reason is not good enough for you. Sure, you can always enhance your experience by making your own custom rules and missions, but as it has been demonstrated the official missions work just fine for narrative play.

Please go read the thread before attacking me personally. If you had done that, you'd known I have no problem creating narrative games.

I have a problem with GW selling(!) "narrative rules" which tell you to create the narrative yourself and in no way help you with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ValentineGames wrote:
Players actually having to put effort into something themselves?
That's unspeakable!

... if it weren't for five people claiming that you don't need to put any effort into creating a narrative, which then go on to list dozens of things they do themselves to create a narrative out of the bland game that 8th edition is. And then they proclaim how much of an awesome job GW has done to create the narrative for them and how it's exactly like D&D.

Jidmah,

Are you arguing that 40K does not have native support for narrative play?

Now, Robin Cruddace in the Jan 19 WD does mention that "on the other side, is narrative gaming, where the players themselves take part in the design process..." So the players having some control over the narrative game is a design feature. The game designers provide us with baseline Attack/Defend scenarios with special rules/Stratagems and let us come up with the terrain, forces and stories. Since we all have different collections that makes some sense. But let's park that.

I will argue that narrative gaming is supported by 40K. The basic rule book has a section on it to include some simple campaigns so there is native support there. For narrative inspiration we have the Black Library and three decades of lore development. We had the Kronus campaign when 8th dropped. We had the Vigulus campaign a year ago that included stories for context and many missions. There was a campaign pack available to clubs/FLGS that my FLGS did indeed use. CA18 had quite a bit for narrative gamers. It had Custom Characters included in the Open Play section but it mentioned that they would be good for campaigns, and indeed the Vigilus Campaign used Custom Characters. So your Ork Warboss could develop his skills as he went through the campaign. The CA18 Narrative Portion had Battle Honours as well as the city fighting portion, not to mention new Narrative Play missions. So while you could certainly say that you do not like the native support that 40K has for narrative gaming, I don't think that you can convincingly argue that it is absent.

Having said all that, effective narrative play requires two willing players who invest some creativity into the design of the scenario/campaign. Enjoying the emergent narrative during competitive matched play also requires some willingness on the part of the player to recognize and celebrate those moments.

Cheers,

T2B

 Jidmah wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yet you claimed it has native support for narrative gaming when it actually has almost none. This thread has more narrative content than CA2019 does, and it has an entire chapter dedicated to that..

Several people told you how to get the narrative out of normal missions in the books. This for some reason is not good enough for you. Sure, you can always enhance your experience by making your own custom rules and missions, but as it has been demonstrated the official missions work just fine for narrative play.

Please go read the thread before attacking me personally. If you had done that, you'd known I have no problem creating narrative games.

I have a problem with GW selling(!) "narrative rules" which tell you to create the narrative yourself and in no way help you with that.

I have read the thread and I am not attacking you. I repeat: Several people told you how the normal missions in the books work for them as narrative content. But no rule can force you to use your imagination.

On the Narrative 40K subject.
It's interesting because there are so many ways to approach it.

My group does it in several ways. My friend plays Word bearers, he fields Erebus in most of his games and plays him in a way that he doesn't usually die. He runs away before that can happen. My other friend is fixated on trying to kill Erebus. they have this running revelry in that way.
My games I tend to write battle reports for creating an over all narrative of WAAAGH! GorGak invading a system and around events from those games win or not it doesn't matter to the story when the game is over. I've use the same load out for my war boss nearly unchanged for 5 editions. (Makes me wish there were rules for building my own special character that were completely usable across ever format of play. I recall wanting the HWKC and the Suppa Shootas, just because .)
Narrative games could be put together with something as simple as themed terrain on a table and objectives placed in what look like key features on the table and not so much as Ideally placed objectives. Usually we just place them but it we always have one or possible two objectives that we never fail to have bloody fights over ever game there's always one.
We don't tend to handy cap our lists, games with that group of friends, unlike my games with my other friend who I really power down to play with but we like exciting games that aren't one sided and overly stressful. These games are fun for me because they are opportunities to bring the kitchen sink full of units that are "less optimal" creating interesting lists that are fun to play.
We've used to open play cards to set up missions and deployments but we figure out the rest as we go to have crazy games. usually keeping tract of units destroyed and objectives taken at the end as well as table quarters and just what ever else is worth remembering. Our last game his Marines were defending the center flanked on the left and right by my Ork deployments with several of his units in reserve as a relief force. If I remember.
In the end we adjust our play and expectation based on who we are playing with and some of us choose to cheer cool moments that happen during the game as much as we like to have won.
There's a quote I will probably get wrong about Pro-Wrestling.
I's something like, "It's not about the finish it's about the ride"
You don't get on a roller-coaster to get off you get on for the ride. That's how I approach most of my games. A near win/loss or a tie is preferable to a one sided win/loss ever time...not counting those Tournament games that I really commit to, like once a year but even still that's not as fun for me as it used to be.

Never played D&D.

Unless Neverwinter Nights on pc counts?

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Unless Neverwinter Nights on pc counts?

Heh, which one? There's like 3-4 generations of it, with some having 2-3 editions each. I played the isometric 3D one that came out after Bioware's Icewind Dale, but none of the others.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Never played D&D.

Unless Neverwinter Nights on pc counts?

|
I got NWN's 1 and all the related comparable expansions over Steam this time last year! I've played it through 4 or 5 times an keep finding things i had missed the times before.
I'm still looking for a way to expose the false Helmites But I don't think there is a path to actually do that before the end of chapter one.
The game is a little buggy as some point before lvl 40 there is a window of a few lvl's where the game passes out just a little too much XP. I really wish there were more expansions available.
This is what got me to actually play D&D.

 Jidmah wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
And you’ve actively ignored the core concept of Narrative gaming. It doesn’t need support. It’s two, or more - I’m not judging, consenting players that agree to customize their gaming experience to answer a “what if...” question.

The claim was that WH40k does have native support for narrative gaming. It doesn't. I wish it had more.

Every single mission in the book or in the players’ imaginations can be a narrative play. That’s the beauty of narrative play. It lets your imagination run free. In that sense, it’s like DND.

Absolutely not. D&D provides you with background that you can actually play in, character progressions, customization options and vast array of things help you tell your story. On top of that, actual stories.
I do understand what narrative gaming is and it's actually my preferred way of playing, you don't need to berate me for doing it "wrong". But if you tell me that GW helps you with narrative gaming even one bit, that is simply not true at all.

Both players create a backstory for why they’re at this battle. Maybe you have a planned mission, and do that ahead of time, or maybe you roll it up at the table and decide to wing it.
Either way, your army becomes your “character” for the battle. You decide what they *try* to do, and the dice determine if the unit is successful.

... and then one army gets deleted be the end of turn 2. Great story!

Narrative play is something you can just tack on to any game. You don’t need official rules to run a last stand. Or a breakout scenario, or a Space Hulk battle, or a slowly rising lava battle. You can just do it.

Thanks for telling me what I have written in four previous posts. Except you have also told that all the work for a narrative game has to be done by the players, which is exactly my point.

Man, I really don't know what you're talking about with no support for narrative gaming.

You realize that we're in our second published campaign, right? That's six books [so far this edition] entirely devoted to a story that involves 24 factions, right?

What about linked games in CA 2019 the evolve from Kill Team through 40k and into Apocalypse? What about the fact that since all Blackstone Characters have both Kill Team and 40k rules,so that you can grow from an explorer to a skirmish tactician to a general to a company commander, gathering forces from dozens of different theatres of war on hundreds of planets, taking part in historical conflicts as part of an ongoing story line, as well as building your own characters and worlds.

Every play a Streets of Death Campaign from Urban Conquest? Ever use the battle honours system from CA 2018?

Warhammer 40k has always given us ample tools to create story-based gaming, but this edition, with the synergies between games of different scales, two of which [BSF and KT] are Explicitly campaign based, and the addition of the campaign books... It actually means something to be a veteran now! I mean, if you fought in Vigilus with an army, and added a few new units at some point after the campaign ended, and then all of the sudden,your army is in it again with Psychic Awakening, you know those Vigilus vets are telling all the green recruits down the trenches that we've been here before, and our faith in the Emprah got us through!

We absolutely have been given the tools and ongoing support for narrative gaming- more this edition than ever before. I' sorry you don't see them, but personally, I don't know how you can miss them because narrative is really the only way I play, and I've never run out of material. Maybe you could tell us specifically what you think is missing in terms of support for narrative play and we can make a recommendation or two for you. It's possible that we're talking about two different things.

As for the other part of the topic, D&D, it is also cool; my favourite was 3.5 edition because I thought the skill/ feat system was awesome, though I agree that the "fantasy trope" does favour combat more than, say World of Darkness. That's not so much about the systems as the genres. I really liked Darksun and Eberron; I also thought the Legend of the Five Rings/ Oriental Adventures tie ins were awesome.

Personally, I find Warhammer far more immersive; building an army list requires more thought than building a character- there are just so many more moving parts. Even once the list is built, you're still not done, because you've got painting choices to make.

 warhead01 wrote:
I really wish there were more expansions available.
This is what got me to actually play D&D.

I'm not sure what comes with the Steam package, but if you've already played Pirates Of The Sword Coast and Darkness Over Daggerford, you could try looking at the highest-rated user-created content here, or check out online persistent worlds (effectively MMORPGs) like Ravenloft and World Of Greyhawk...

Crispy78 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I really wish there were more expansions available.
This is what got me to actually play D&D.

I'm not sure what comes with the Steam package, but if you've already played Pirates Of The Sword Coast and Darkness Over Daggerford, you could try looking at the highest-rated user-created content here, or check out online persistent worlds (effectively MMORPGs) like Ravenloft and World Of Greyhawk...

Thank you!
I remember finding that site but I think the steam version has some compatibility issues. I will have to see if those have been resolved.
Daggerford in the end annoyed me as it is very encapsulated to a story so I felt very much on the clock. There was more I wanted to see but then it was over. I did like the world map feature.
I also have the Pirates of the Sword Coast but haven't finished that I build characters that were not compatible to that adventure and just didn't get back to it.
I bought all the available mods on Steam because they went on sale and en the end spent very little.
One thing that I was trying to do with NWN's was to play every character class but I got stuck on wizard, I found them to be very enjoyable. I dug up my old D&D 3.5 book to kinda help me with the feats and spells.