Maria Caliban

Aram, Let's just say that many of the females I've encountered at LARPs tend to... not be enamored of the traditional feminine values of chastity and modesty. Jorian Drake, Yeah, a real sword would get you banned permanently at every LARP I know of.

I agree that everything can be undone in the majority of games with one click, which robs a cRPG of much of the tension of PnP. However, I'm uncertain as to your meaning within the context of this thread

And of course, when it comes to PnP groups, the players themselves are a factor when it comes to who becomes the leader. Your five points in charisma won't do you any good if other players think you're a jerk. (WOD stats)

I see this as so wrong. In cRPGs, the PC is the leader. In PnP, the 'leader' can be anyone the group chooses to follow. Again, I think you're focusing too much on stats. There's no such thing as a 'gimp character that only comes out during fights.' The character is always there. Maybe half her face was mauled bear, she bathes once a month, and she only speaks in monosylables and snarls (which would give you far less than 8 charisma), but she most assuridly has a presence and can influence the entire party. Leadership is based on personalities within the group and the situation. The idea that can guess before hand who will be leader based on one stat is, I think, rediculous.

But, you're not answering my question. Are you saying that if the Lady of Pain appears in one scene in Planescape: Torment, the developers must create side quests to discover who she is, what her weaknesses are, and an elaberate way of disconnecting her from Sigal so the NO can kill her? Are you saying that all characters in all games should eventually get god like abilities? Because, unless you're willing to give god like abilities to all characters in all games, then if a character interacts with an NPC over a certain power level, you're admitting that the PC should not be able to beat them.

Blodhemn: " Hawt." I agree. Kirottu, I have difficulty understanding how anyone could consider this game challenging. Gameplay wise, it's about as hard as reading a choose your own adventure book. Though there is one choice early on that will cause you to die horribly. Hurlshot, I'd guess she was a D, which isn't that bad. The Longest Journey

I believe kirottu was trying to make a point that you were talking nonsense by using an appeal to ridicule. (An example wiki gives of this type of argument: If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy!) You suggested there would be little difference between a post-apololyptic Europe and America, as both would be focused on reginal conflicts, and a great deal of what makes European culture European would be gone. He ridiculed your statement using this logic: If Jorian Drake's argument is correct, then we might as well disregard the pretence of a post-apocolypic Europe resembling our world at all, and instead portray it as a land filled with Elves and crime lord Huts who take counsel from Jedis, Mages and Druids.

Wait, wait.. So, in the scenario I presented, the NO should be able to kill the Lady of Pain? And while he's whacking away at her, she's not going to instantly maze him or tear him to shreds, even though she has the power to do so?

I've got a bad feeling about this.

No, you don't roll dice in LARPs. To cast a cure spell, you need only touch a person and say the spell. You usually have X number of mana points or spells you can cast per day. Most lightening bolts/magic missles/firedarts require you to toss a small ball of sand at someone for it to hit. While I'm at it, about 1/3rd of LARPers are female, and a great deal in that video would get you tossed out of 80% of LARPs.

SteveThaiBinh: " Instead, the designers should carefully engineer it so that you are losing and losing badly, for believable reasons, before triggering the necessary cut scene and defeat." I don't think cut scenes are necessary. Maybe a cut scene afterwards of a dragon munching on your body or your skinless corpse swarming with maggots, but it's much more effective to have the PC killed in game. " New games don't exist in a vacuum, so exactly how you handle unwinnable battles has to be influenced by gamers' past experiences of RPGs. I don't see this as an excuse to say you can't do different stuff because it's not what people expect, just that you have to take their expectations into account when pushing the envelope." Hmm, I think our focus is slightly different. I agree it's about managing expectations, but there's no way to know what a gamer's past experiences are, save what their experiences have been in your game. A player learns quickly whether they are Superman or not. If the player doesn't think they're Superman, and understands that their character is both moral and vulnerable, they won't approach each encounter with a sure expectation of victory. Take Neverwinter Nights: one of the first things a player learns is that they can easily slaughter hordes of goblins, and then rest for twelve seconds and be fine. In that context, an unbeatable foe is unfair, because it goes against the heuristics of the game. Now, take Call of Cthulhu: one of the first things a player learns is that tossing themselves into combat is a good way to die. Later on, they fight many, many foes in typical FPS style, but that knowledge never leaves them. When they encounter a unique foe that cannot be killed, they don't conceptualize it as the developers 'cheating' them, but as a realistic outgrowth of their world. Even in a game where you can usually kill foes, there can be expectation management. Imagine if you will, an in game scene in Planescape: Torment where the Lady of Pain is floating across the street. You decide to attack her with your axe, and not only does the blow do no damage, but the next thing you see is the Nameless One exploding in bloody, red chunks. Surprising? Yes. But everything you know about the Lady of Pain tells you that she's not 'beatable.'

The other cars won't slow down enough to let me knock them off the road! *sob* Maria <- took her half an hour to get to the first race, cause she kept on driving off the road.

I.. suck at this game. I've played the first race ten times now and I've come in last each time!

*chuckles* Which is better, someone who agrees with you, but doesn't read what you've written, or, someone who reads your posts, but disagrees?

samm: "You were one of the people complaining about roleplaying-possibilites in games. So now, how does this build fit that? Ok, you put 2 points in cha and int, but still all I see is "ENGINE FIGHT, NO TALK" written on that characters forhead " I've managed to role-play characters with 8 in every stat but one. If my role-playing began and ended with stats, then I'd be a crappy role-player. metadigital: "With 8 Charisma the character won't be winning any friends in a hurry." This is incorrect. First off, it's only slightly less charismatic than an average person. Secondly, I've met many an ****, jerk, or social reject that is part of a loyal group of ****, jerks, and social rejects. Thirdly, in a quasi-medieval, fantasy setting, being an uncharismatic bore who can cleave someone in two will get you a good number of 'friends.' Fourthly, not all PCs want friends. And lastly, the last time I checked, this thread was a complaint about the barbarian being underpowered *in combat* so I provided builds that do wonderfully *in combat*. What a concept.

Sand: "Maybe, just maybe, the player wants to make a RP choice and go on a killing spree. GEE, WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT! " An unbeatable NPC in no way means you can't go on a killing spree. It just means that if you run into that NPC, then you'll die. Think of it this way: I have an RPG in which I can walk anywhere. I decide to walk on hot lava, and I die. My role-playing has not been hampered; I've just run into the fact that my PC is not all-powerful. In Silent Hill II, you can attack Pyramid Head. However, you're human and he's a supernatural creature. You don't do damage, but he does lots. If I decide to attack Pyramid Head and die, my role-playing has not been hampered. I've just run into the fact that my PC is not all-powerful. Within many games, especially sci-fi and fantasy, there may be creatures that a human being cannot destroy. Like stepping on lava, they're not within your abilities. Again, it's a thematic decision.

It's a post-apocalyptic role-playing game, and will likely have radiation, the Brotherhood of Steel, and two-headed cows.

Sand: "Anything that can die should be killable. " You've said this already, but *why* should this be? And how does having NPCs that can't die take away from role-playing? I've never seen a definition of role-playing that included the ability to kill everything.

Not at all. You want Fallout, but that game has already been released. It's the same over at the Dragon Age forums. Tons of people who don't seem to realize that Baldur's Gate II came out in 2000.

Role-playing is not a synonym for 'able to kill everything.' By your definition, Cthulhu PnP doesn't have role-playing.

No, it would be Fallout 3. Fallout came out in 1997.

I have created a separate thread for this discussion. I hope I am not being presumptuous. Unwinnable Battles

Unwinnable battles are not a bad ideas. In fact, depending on the nature of the game, it's a great one. Pyramid Head in Silent Hill II, for instance, was a reoccurring horror that could not be beaten. The idea that there are some things you can never shoot, stab, or beat to death, is only threatening to role-play when the PC is defined by their ability to pwnzor all the other creatures in game. This definition applies to the PC in many popular FPS, action games, and RPGs. In fact, I'd say that unbeatable monsters and unwinable battles are not a role-playing consideration but, rather, a thematic one.

*chuckles* They're good at what they do, but what they do is no good. I was trying to not let my idea of what a RPG 'ought to be' influence that last post. Morrowind *was* excellent for what it was, even if what it was isn't what