Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought the setting was on the threshold of new technology and new discoveries though.  So while cures could be found, they would still take an appropriate amount of adventuring and investigation time to solve.  So the characters wouldn't be able to sleep it off right away.  It would gradually worsen (up to a point) until remedied.

 

You gave me an idea though.  Once a cure was found, i.e. adventuring + ingredients + lore + alchemy/herbalism?, and the potion/remedy was consumed, it might not cure everything immediately. Maybe the symptom reversal takes time to fully unfold?  Maybe the same time it took to incubate? Or slightly faster than that, and maybe the character still needs a good night's rest to fully recover?  At least that way, it fits with the setting. It becomes part of the story. It's somewhat manageable with temporary counter spells. It generates its own side-quest. You get to use alchemy or herbalism skills. You learn something about disease lore. And when you recover, you are now semi-resistant to that type of disease. To me, that's a great RPG experience. :)

  • Like 1

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, simply because if it's during combat it's just a debuff that can be done any other way you want. If it lasts beyond that it's "ugh, now I gotta go cure this. Fine."

 

When you're playing you probably, hopefully, have goal. A very cool goal, you want to get to that next thing, you want to continue the story. When obstacles come your way, it's fun because you're overcoming to go towards that goal. But when you get something like a "disease" in an RPG, or a "poisoned" in something like Pokemon, it's not an obstacle, it's a new goal.

 

But that goal is "cure this damned thing." You take away that cool goal with story elements and etc. that the entire game is driving towards just for a momentary diversion, back to stuff you've probably already seen, doing mostly the same stuff, to accomplish "getting over a cold". After which you get no reward but not being sick. Which isn't a very fun reward, and getting over a cold isn't very heroic.

 

Leave disease out, and others that give you a goal that's not interesting. I'm sure someone will say "but it could be an epic quest!" in which case, you're talking about an Epic quest. Not something that your party member can catch any number of times randomly from "Rabid Giant Necro Chipmunk" enemies.

Edited by Frenetic Pony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

diseases in games have a tendency to trigger loss aversion

  • Like 1

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

diseases in games have a tendency to trigger loss aversion

 

That's an interesting read, and suggests that having diseases start minor and gain strength over time, combined with some sort of gain as TRX describes above (extra disease resistance, lore, a chance to use noncombat skills) is the way to go. What other benefits could there be to becoming diseased?

 

Disease resistance should reduce the severity of the symptoms, not provide additional chance not to be infected (that should stay reliant on constitution or whatever)

 

Disease lore could increase with each infection, culminating in some sort of new skill that gives the character a daily chance to cure disease

 

There could be a modest XP bonus applied once (or diminishing each time) for surviving each kind of disease - representing the characters increased knowledge of pain, suffering and weakness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the disease in question is a "natural", non-magical ailment, could druids and possibly clerics concoct a herbal remedy for it? (see link)

 

I'm looking for specific reasons why those two classes could shine when it comes to disease control.

 

Something like a herbal palliative should be easier to concoct and obtain than a true cure. A druid can construct a balm that alleviates the symptoms sufficiently for a character to continue to struggle through until the party decides to return to camp.

 

For magical cures, my feeling is that such a cure should be met by disease magic resistance. A cure disease spell may or may not be completely successful. It might only reduce the effects of the disease to the point where the character can recover on their own.

 

So that would be my put: they can give the players various tools for alleviate the symptoms of poison or disease, but make a complete, rapid cure more difficult to obtain. In extreme cases, characters may have to pay for rest in a hospital for some period of time before they can fully recover.

  • Like 2

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other benefits could there be to becoming diseased?

 

Benefits of Disease

- Cannot contract a second disease while current disease is active.

- Greater chance of intelligent "living" creatures avoiding melee contact with you in battle.

- All living creatures within 5 feet with a definable olfactory system must make a Fort save or experience minor nausea.

 

Disease resistance should reduce the severity of the symptoms, not provide additional chance not to be infected (that should stay reliant on constitution or whatever)

 

That sounds like a better option.

  • Like 1

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

diseases in games have a tendency to trigger loss aversion

Yes! I didn't know what it was called. I just knew it was a basic part of human psychology.

 

You already achieved the normal state of not-being-diseased, so having a disease take away your normal state kinda sucks. But then, having to go out of your way just to get back what you already had (your normal, non-diseased state) is even worse.

 

That's why almost all other loss in the game is short term. It serves another purpose, and that purpose is not to make you miserable. Lose some HP in that fight? Well, it was more exciting, because you COULD'VE died, but you didn't. That makes your awesome combatty efforts that much more exciting and meaningful. But then, you get to recoup your lost HP. Stamina will regen, and Health will replenish when next you rest (which involves natural, forward progression through the game, and simple attention to the efficiency with which you handle combat to preserve your health until then.)

 

Diseases need to generate some sort of positive effect (TRX's list of things is a good start along those lines), and don't need to provide such a long-term loss that you must go completely out of your way in order to get rid of the loss and return to simply a non-loss state.

 

Basically, the "amount" of loss needs to be smaller/lesser the more often the thing being lost applies. For example... if a disease causes you to do less damage, and it's going to last a while (until you can manage to get back to a city and treat it), then you've got to take into account that -5 damage is happening on every single attack between now and the time you get rid of the disease. So, it might be prudent to stick with a -1 damage or something. Or even an intermittent thing. "Every 20 seconds, your character feels a fit of weakness, and deals -3 damage for 5 seconds). Something like that (arbitrary example numbers).

 

Another interesting idea (I think) would be for a disease to kind of shuffle things a bit, rather than simply lessen things. What if, for example, your attack/ability range was reduced by 20%, BUT you gained 2 abilities/spells per rest? Or, your movement speed is reduced by 15%, but your melee attacks have a greater chance of critical hit?

 

Obviously there might just not be a good way to do that, even though it mechanically meets the needs of the system (for the loss to not be ridiculously agonizing). Just a thought.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting idea (I think) would be for a disease to kind of shuffle things a bit, rather than simply lessen things. What if, for example, your attack/ability range was reduced by 20%, BUT you gained 2 abilities/spells per rest? Or, your movement speed is reduced by 15%, but your melee attacks have a greater chance of critical hit?

 

Obviously there might just not be a good way to do that, even though it mechanically meets the needs of the system (for the loss to not be ridiculously agonizing). Just a thought.

 

This is actually a great idea Lephys - if I'm running a fever, maybe I'm physically weak but it boosts the power of my fireball spell at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another interesting idea (I think) would be for a disease to kind of shuffle things a bit, rather than simply lessen things. What if, for example, your attack/ability range was reduced by 20%, BUT you gained 2 abilities/spells per rest? Or, your movement speed is reduced by 15%, but your melee attacks have a greater chance of critical hit?

 

Obviously there might just not be a good way to do that, even though it mechanically meets the needs of the system (for the loss to not be ridiculously agonizing). Just a thought.

 

This is actually a great idea Lephys - if I'm running a fever, maybe I'm physically weak but it boosts the power of my fireball spell at the same time.

 

Or spells that have disease-like effects.

 

- Contagion

- Infestation of Maggots

- Swamp Lung

- Cause Disease? (if there's no Cure Disease spell, then...)


Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That got me thinkin'...

 

What if it boosted your spells/abilities, but made them less controllable? If, hypothetically, there was no friendly-fire (a Wizard, for example, just controls the chain-lightning so that it doesn't jump to friendly targets, and the fireball so that it doesn't explode in certain directions toward friendlies, etc.), then what if your spells could NOW hit friendlies, because the disease is messing up your control?

 

AND/or extra, diseasy effects. That's what made me think of it, TRX. First I just imagined those effects being tacked onto your abilities. Then, I imagined "What if the detriment is that you can inadvertently cause negative effects to your allies now?"

 

*shrug*. I think we're orbiting something.

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now you guys are talking about something that probably shouldn't be called a disease, at least not traditionally. Odd semi permanent buff/debuff affects might be interesting, but do you really want it to be a "disease" you contract randomly from some enemy? Shouldn't you get it in a different way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit like being level-drained, or at least in the NWN sense, where you didn't lose XP, just a semi-permanent level until you cured it with a Restoration spell.  But if you didn't have that spell available to you, you had to go off and find one.  There was no benefit to being level drained though.

 

But with this new disease idea, you can become affected by it, similar to the level drain example, but at least while going off to find a cure, you get some "interesting" side-effects.  I particularly like the idea of gaining "disease lore" and semi-resistance to the symptoms with each contraction.  And if there were a few "Whoa!" moments with spells in combat because they worked differently, then at least there'd be added entertainment value.


Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now you guys are talking about something that probably shouldn't be called a disease, at least not traditionally.

 

Very true. That was precisely why it seemed to me that the idea of P:E-lore-specific "diseases" might be explored, and maybe the only ones you can contract in the game directly affect the soul? Almost... magical/spiritual/fictional diseases? Or... "conditions," if you prefer. Soul Tarnish. Spirit Tear. Soul Malignance?

 

I think that quote about healing lore in P:E talks only about PHYSICAL diseases and conditions not really having any magical means of "curing" or quick healing. Didn't it say something about non-physical things being healable? (And one would think Ciphers could aid in mental illnesses, etc.)

 

Ahh, no, here's the part I was thinking of:

 

 

 Though soul-based magic has helped the great exploring cultures from suffering massive pandemics and has helped some individuals overcome illness over the long-term, there is no quick magical "cure" for disease or illness.

 

It doesn't really say anything about non-medical/physical illnesses and conditions. So, I dunno... at the very least there's plenty of room for "illnesses" of the soul.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of against having much "generic easily-cured disease that you have a 25% chance of contracting due to a trait/item of your adversary" and more for the idea of diseases that take effort to cure and are quests in and of themselves (though some good hinting that there is a risk of disease in upcoming areas wouldn't be bad).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of diseases not appearing till later then starting off minor and getting worse, I disagree that they should be broadcasted and explained, for me a far more immersive experience would be to initially notice that my characters standing animation is coughing, upon ignoring that there are some highlighted minor stat decreases, continue to ignore said disease perhaps initiates some party banter where someone tells me I look like **** and should see a doctor.

Go see the doctor, he diagnoses me and then depending on the rarity of the condition either cures me or advises me further.

 

I also like the idea of unique cures for each illness and a relevant party skill, I  think there should be books and lore within the gameworld that tell of diseases as opposed to a generated message when you contract it, for me it would be quite cool having my druid/priest/ranger class carry about a book of diseases to self diagnose and cure my party when issues arise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wanted a well implemented disease system myself, I'm not sure how easy it would be to do.  But I'd love to see something with a range from 'common' to 'incurable', and a range of effects that can impact your stats directly or how you're perceived in the world.  Maybe you have something that's a bit too visible that can only be contracted through a nefarious deed... that should impact how you're viewed, you know?

 

It can be tricky to really do it right though, I'm not sure how you'd code to account for the variety that would make a disease system truly good.  Still, I'd love to see them try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of diseases not appearing till later then starting off minor and getting worse, I disagree that they should be broadcasted and explained, for me a far more immersive experience would be to initially notice that my characters standing animation is coughing, upon ignoring that there are some highlighted minor stat decreases, continue to ignore said disease perhaps initiates some party banter where someone tells me I look like **** and should see a doctor.

I believe the "broadcasted and explained" part was meant only in regard to the knowledge of the risk of contracting a disease, and the disease's effects, before you ever get it.

 

I don't think there's anything you should have the ability to avoid without knowing that you have the ability to avoid it. Sort of "You could've been careful, if we had actually told you what careful was."


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the "broadcasted and explained" part was meant only in regard to the knowledge of the risk of contracting a disease, and the disease's effects, before you ever get it.

I know what you mean however what i would propose may be a bit more hardcore and probably not to everyone's tastes, i.e. the only way you could find out dangertoad can give you a disease is by perusing the games lore (books on infectious diseases / dangers creatures of the swamp etc..) or perhaps advice from a quest giver, or even the instruction book if it is to presented in an Arcanum fashion!

Not however an arbitrary warning message.

 

I just think having some systems like this in the game would make the lore useful aswel as interesting and would encourage people to gather information before running off to kill everyth

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think information about diseases should be limited. They don't have medical science so misdiagnosis of diseases should be common and people may not always know the causes of diseases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think information about diseases should be limited. They don't have medical science so misdiagnosis of diseases should be common and people may not always know the causes of diseases.

Good point. And you're right, Jobby. The stuff shouldn't literally be broadcasted straight to the player. I wasn't thinking of it like that, but that's kind what the phrasing of the quote suggested.

 

I think, oftentimes, something as simple an NPC who was supplying you with some amount of information simply catching your sleeve before you head out and saying "Watch out for the swamptoads... they do more than bite." is sufficient. I just think the player needs to at least know when there's something to be cautious about, even if he doesn't know all the details (and even if the NPC doesn't really know the details, either). I agree, though, that sometimes you shouldn't know certain things without checking in a book.

 

For example, if you're out at some abandoned ruins, you can bet there won't just be villagers around who live in the ruins, saying "Oh, that's just a gemaflorb... here, I'll explain their physiology and abilities over tea, ^_^". So, you're probably going to have to find out about any dangers from old manuscripts and records strewn about the ruins.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...