On PE difficulty mechanics, objective xp and combat, stealth, sweet-talking

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure how this talk about "extreme" abilities is even applicable to a game that's going to be a low-to-mid level experience.

 

We'll see how Sawyer decides to interpret D&D's high level cheese in Pillars of Eternity 2.

[Sir Chaox]

I'm not sure how this talk about "extreme" abilities is even applicable to a game that's going to be a low-to-mid level experience.

 

We'll see how Sawyer decides to interpret D&D's high level cheese in Pillars of Eternity 2.

 

Pillars of Eternity 2: Interpretations of Cheese

 

Fall 2018 (?)

[teknoman2]

 

But that's the system across the board. It's not any different than a Warrior with a sword. A warrior can chug down all the 'bonus-to-hit' potions he has, then coat his weapon with 10 different kinds of poisons, only to then roll a 1.... miss his opponent, and all his prep is wasted.

 

but the effects of these do not wear off after an attack for the warrior... even if the first roll was 1, the next will not be. and even if they do wear off, the warrior will keep on swinging and will keep on doing damage the same way he always did. in the case of harm however, you get one chance and if the roll fails, you are left with an overbuffed priest that cannot fully benefit from these buffs, cannot buff the fighter so he can take over, and all these buffs took spell slots, meaning that if it fails you lack the spells to use an alternative tactic

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Let me just ask this, of anyone in favor of these "extreme" abilities:

 

If you were designing an RPG like this (like the IE ones and PoE), where would you draw the line on the extent of ability effects, and why would you draw the line there?

 

By patterning of saving throws & defenses. If another PC would have zero, or essentially zero chance of surviving a single ability, then it is too powerful. I also like (in this case) powerful spells to have certain risks involved, like rolling against a consequence table for failing to meet a skill check at time of casting.

[Stun]

 

Let me just ask this, of anyone in favor of these "extreme" abilities:

 

If you were designing an RPG like this (like the IE ones and PoE), where would you draw the line on the extent of ability effects, and why would you draw the line there?

 

By patterning of saving throws & defenses. If another PC would have zero, or essentially zero chance of surviving a single ability, then it is too powerful. I also like (in this case) powerful spells to have certain risks involved, like rolling against a consequence table for failing to meet a skill check at time of casting.

 

Or, less elaborately, they could just ramp up the friendly fire mechanic. <---- they dropped the ball on this with death spells. There were 2 AOE death spells in the IE games. 1) Death Spell and 2) Wail of the Banshee. Both were party friendly when they didn't need to be.

 

BG2 though, did incorporate consequences for Disintegrate and Flesh to Stone. If you killed an enemy with these two, you often lost the loot they were carrying.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

 

Let me just ask this, of anyone in favor of these "extreme" abilities:

 

If you were designing an RPG like this (like the IE ones and PoE), where would you draw the line on the extent of ability effects, and why would you draw the line there?

 

By patterning of saving throws & defenses. If another PC would have zero, or essentially zero chance of surviving a single ability, then it is too powerful. I also like (in this case) powerful spells to have certain risks involved, like rolling against a consequence table for failing to meet a skill check at time of casting.

 

I meant more with regard to these abilities' use as a tool, by the player. In other words, what is it okay to allow the player to accomplish with a single enemy's saving throw, as long as it's really really "hard" (unlikely) to succeed? The argument is basically that the effect of, say, an insta-death spell is unnecessarily extreme and circumvents all the combat factors that make combat actually tactical in nature. The counter-argument seems to be "Meh, it's super-rare, so it's perfectly fine to instantly kill whatever."

 

So, I'm wondering: where do you draw the line, and why? I mean in the design phase of this. Not necessarily in-game mechanic specifics. Just... the idea, from the "I'm developing an RPG" standpoint. When do you say "No, that would be an issue, as an ability"?

 

BG2 though, did incorporate consequences for Disintegrate and Flesh to Stone. If you killed an enemy with these two, you often lost the loot they were carrying.

If getting loot-but-not-XP for something's death isn't ever a valid benefit, then I don't see how getting XP-but-not-loot from something would be a very valid drawback to a spell.

[Stun]

Both are harsh, motivation-killing drawbacks. I never *ever* used flesh to stone or disintegrate in BG2 because of the dire consequences of loot getting destroyed.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I meant more with regard to these abilities' use as a tool, by the player. In other words, what is it okay to allow the player to accomplish with a single enemy's saving throw, as long as it's really really "hard" (unlikely) to succeed? The argument is basically that the effect of, say, an insta-death spell is unnecessarily extreme and circumvents all the combat factors that make combat actually tactical in nature. The counter-argument seems to be "Meh, it's super-rare, so it's perfectly fine to instantly kill whatever."

So, I'm wondering: where do you draw the line, and why? I mean in the design phase of this. Not necessarily in-game mechanic specifics. Just... the idea, from the "I'm developing an RPG" standpoint. When do you say "No, that would be an issue, as an ability"?

 

I'm going to explain this on the basis that we are discussing magic and magical spells used by the PC for the sake of discussion.

 

I have no problems with instant-death spells or their equivalents. In a premise where creatures/entities maniuplate reality with their minds/magic, there is every reason to believe these types of spells are realistic, plausible, and within setting. I guage and ability's power by contrasting how another PC would survive it. This analysis is done by utilizing every ability and equipment accessible to the test PC with respect to its appropriate "level" that it would face such a powerful ability like instant-death spells and their ilk.

 

Where I draw the line, is in deciding the intersection between the Quadratic Wizard & Linear Warrior ultimately rests. I generally don't try to balance them out 1:1, as it makes no sense to do so. Swinging a chunk of metal--no matter how masterfully done, cannot and does not yield the same results as controlling the fabric of reality with your will. I accept that after a certain point, non-magical creatures/characters will have to rely on magical items or companions to survive direct confrontation with a powerful spell.

 

The counter balance, is verisimilitude. A lvl 2 Wizard or a level 30 Wizard will be felled with equal speed by an arrow, and a two-handed sword is likely to cleave them in half with one blow if not protected. Using a wound system like FATE or the original Deadlands rather than HP accomplishes this very elegantly and enjoyably. In addition to it, I generally make magic use difficult/risky to the point where the more powerful a spell becomes, the more likely it will be that the caster themself will face a disasterous result. I have many more contraints, but explaining them is beyond the scope of this discussion. If you're interested, PM me and I can explain in greater detail how I find equitable balance with powerful instant-kill abilities.

[tajerio]

 

I meant more with regard to these abilities' use as a tool, by the player. In other words, what is it okay to allow the player to accomplish with a single enemy's saving throw, as long as it's really really "hard" (unlikely) to succeed? The argument is basically that the effect of, say, an insta-death spell is unnecessarily extreme and circumvents all the combat factors that make combat actually tactical in nature. The counter-argument seems to be "Meh, it's super-rare, so it's perfectly fine to instantly kill whatever."

So, I'm wondering: where do you draw the line, and why? I mean in the design phase of this. Not necessarily in-game mechanic specifics. Just... the idea, from the "I'm developing an RPG" standpoint. When do you say "No, that would be an issue, as an ability"?

 

Where I draw the line, is in deciding the intersection between the Quadratic Wizard & Linear Warrior ultimately rests. I generally don't try to balance them out 1:1, as it makes no sense to do so. Swinging a chunk of metal--no matter how masterfully done, cannot and does not yield the same results as controlling the fabric of reality with your will. I accept that after a certain point, non-magical creatures/characters will have to rely on magical items or companions to survive direct confrontation with a powerful spell.

 

 

This is not necessarily true in all game worlds.  "Controlling the fabric of reality with your will" is basically what goes on in D&D magic, yes.  But D&D magic is not by any means the only possible kind.  Magic can have all kinds of different limitations placed upon it, because it exists solely (insofar as we're aware) as a fictional concept.  Insta-kill spells don't have to exist, and they don't even have to be possible.  There's also no reason why magic can't be immensely tiring, highly time-consuming, etc.  I always find it a little bit annoying when people assume that magic must be supreme in all possible worlds.

 

Now, I agree that for PoE, hearkening as it does to the IE games, magic altering the fabric of reality makes sense.  But consider also that all party members, at least, are harnessing the power of their souls to aid them in combat.  So for that reason also, the Linear Warrior/Quadratic Fighter thing doesn't necessarily need to hold true, because everyone's drawing on something that doesn't fit with our observed scientific laws.

 

I draw the line at insta-death spells.  Massive damage spells are fine, but just ending life without actually doing a physical kind of damage always seemed a bit stupid to me.  It either wasn't intelligently explained in the lore, was an incredible power jump both practically and philosophically from anything else that could be done, or completely wrecked any hope of a plausible world structure.  And often all three.

[Stun]

I draw the line at insta-death spells.  Massive damage spells are fine, but just ending life without actually doing a physical kind of damage always seemed a bit stupid to me.  It either wasn't intelligently explained in the lore, was an incredible power jump both practically and philosophically from anything else that could be done, or completely wrecked any hope of a plausible world structure.  And often all three.

Or none of the above, if you have a marginally intelligent DM running a halfway decent campaign world.

 

Insta-death spells and effects of the various kinds are explained quite well in the lore, actually. Finger of Death, for example, Originally existed exclusively as a 7th level spell for Druids. Its "magic" is strictly divine based, and its function is to stop an enemy's beating heart. Literally. It forces a fatal cardiac arrest. According to the lore, its success or failure is dependent on whether the Druid's patron Deity has judged that the target has done enough harm to nature to warrant an immediate death resulting from a cessation of a major bodily function. In the game world, this is manifested via a saving throw, and of course, the Druid administering the God's will.

 

Some of the others, like Wail of the Banshee, Vorpal Blades, Flesh to Stone, and a Monk's Quivering Palm do not need D&D lore to support them, as they all exist in very common Greek, Roman, Norse, or Chinese Mythology and AD&D just borrows them. They're also not that easy for a character to have in his arsenal, as the spells require rather expensive material components which get consumed upon their casting, the weapons are rare to the extreme and have their own intelligent wills, and of course a Monk in pen and paper cannot even advance to 13th level to get Quivering Palm unless he defeats the guy above him in rank in a duel.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Stun

[alanschu]

 

 

Yeah, that's fine. Great even.... for everyone except those of us who don't appreciate Daddy using ham-fisted tactics to get us to play a certain way..

 

I'm not following this statement.

 

Wouldn't XP for killing be more along these lines, rather than no XP for killing?  I am not seeing how this is an incentive to not fight.

[KaeseEs]

@Labadal Arcanum has combat XP. However it's awarded in a screwy way. You get it for every hit on an enemy, and it's personal rather than divided between the party. This in fact screws things up big-time as a "social" character who relies on minions to do the fighting will get way less XP than others, and a character with high accuracy but low damage will get way more XP than a character who does the same damage with fewer hits. This seriously screws up one of the most attractive features in the game, i.e., that it's possible to do things in a crazily wide variety of ways.

 

(On second thought, let's not discuss the various ways in which Arcanum is unbalanced. That would be a long discussion. I figure MCA has already given Tim Cain a piece of his mind about it anyway.)

In my playthroughs of Arcanum, I've never run into a problem with the way combat XP is rewarded (as others have noted, there are a few more wrinkles to it - Drog or Muro at the Terra Arcanum forums could probably give the somewhat byzantine details), even though I usually play charismatic characters.  Part of this is just because there's a ton of quest XP and character points to go around, so it takes a bit of doing to make a character that hasn't acquired a fair amount of combat talent by level 20 or 25 (the level cap is 50).

 

Honestly I like to switch to the inferior real time combat mode and run around while my companions murder things for me to prevent my party from levelling up prematurely - eg. I know that Virgil will switch levelling schemes and be set to level 25 after you "talk to" (fool, seduce, murder, pickpocket or various combinations of those, hehe) Min Gorad and exit Tsen Ang, so I don't want to be level 35 or whatever at that point in the main quest or I'll have ended up with a gimped Virgil.  You can't dodge main quest XP, and some side quests (eg. those on the Isle of Despair) are only available once, but you can at least dodge combat XP from main quest combat and random encounters this way.

 

Wrt. the various imbalances of Arcanum, it's interesting to note that some of those were patched in rather than out!  Eg. a bunch of the mid-late game Vendigrothian guns got nerfed severely in one of the patches.  Of course, despite all the crying people do about tech characters (especially gunfighters) being weak, you can pick up lots of mid-late game viable guns pretty early - heck, you can pick up a Hand Cannon within about a half hour of the opening cutscene!  The arrangement of the tech disciplines, however, is another matter - it just stinks.  And called shots never worked as well as they did in the Fallouts.

[Stun]

I'm not advocating that killing things be the exclusive source of XP. I'm asking that it be included on the List of ways to gain XP.

[tajerio]

 

I draw the line at insta-death spells.  Massive damage spells are fine, but just ending life without actually doing a physical kind of damage always seemed a bit stupid to me.  It either wasn't intelligently explained in the lore, was an incredible power jump both practically and philosophically from anything else that could be done, or completely wrecked any hope of a plausible world structure.  And often all three.

Or none of the above, if you have a marginally intelligent DM running a halfway decent campaign world.

 

Insta-death spells and effects of the various kinds are explained quite well in the lore, actually. Finger of Death, for example, Originally existed exclusively as a 7th level spell for Druids. Its "magic" is strictly divine based, and its function is to stop an enemy's beating heart. Literally. It forces a fatal cardiac arrest. According to the lore, its success or failure is dependent on whether the Druid's patron Deity has judged that the target has done enough harm to nature to warrant an immediate death resulting from a cessation of a major bodily function. In the game world, this is manifested via a saving throw, and of course, the Druid administering the God's will.

 

Some of the others, like Wail of the Banshee, Vorpal Blades, Flesh to Stone, and a Monk's Quivering Palm do not need D&D lore to support them, as they all exist in very common Greek, Roman, Norse, or Chinese Mythology and AD&D just borrows them. They're also not that easy for a character to have in his arsenal, as the spells require rather expensive material components which get consumed upon their casting, the weapons are rare to the extreme and have their own intelligent wills, and of course a Monk in pen and paper cannot even advance to 13th level to get Quivering Palm unless he defeats the guy above him in rank in a duel.

 

 

By the criterion of internal consistency, "halfway decent campaign world" rules out D&D.  It's fun, it's complex, there's a lot to dig into, but it does not all hang together very well at all, as one would expect from the pattern of its evolution.  Nor does the mythology of the real world really earn a lot of points for internal consistency.  

 

People just don't fully explore the implications of the cool things they design or dream up on sociology, economics, politics, and technology, which for most people is fine because their tastes don't run to that sort of thing.  Mine do, generally, and though I can often suppress my complaints due to the need for acceptable breaks from reality, for something like an insta-death spell I can't.  I want to know how societies police these things--wouldn't these components be controlled substances?  What's the market like for them?  How vicious is the trade?  Who's out there trying to mass-produce this sort of thing?  And wouldn't every single person who can perform one of these spells be regarded as a public menace waiting to break out?  Don't nascent states want a monopoly on that kind of use of force?  Or do they control the world, in which case Thomas Hobbes is bang on?  Not to mention that the treatment of gods in their role as magic dispensaries makes me shudder.

 

Most people don't care about that sort of thing, because it has nothing to do with their having fun and may actually prevent it, which is kind of against the point of a game.  It's just my taste.  

[Stun]

 

Or none of the above, if you have a marginally intelligent DM running a halfway decent campaign world.

 

Insta-death spells and effects of the various kinds are explained quite well in the lore, actually. Finger of Death, for example, Originally existed exclusively as a 7th level spell for Druids. Its "magic" is strictly divine based, and its function is to stop an enemy's beating heart. Literally. It forces a fatal cardiac arrest. According to the lore, its success or failure is dependent on whether the Druid's patron Deity has judged that the target has done enough harm to nature to warrant an immediate death resulting from a cessation of a major bodily function. In the game world, this is manifested via a saving throw, and of course, the Druid administering the God's will.

 

Some of the others, like Wail of the Banshee, Vorpal Blades, Flesh to Stone, and a Monk's Quivering Palm do not need D&D lore to support them, as they all exist in very common Greek, Roman, Norse, or Chinese Mythology and AD&D just borrows them. They're also not that easy for a character to have in his arsenal, as the spells require rather expensive material components which get consumed upon their casting, the weapons are rare to the extreme and have their own intelligent wills, and of course a Monk in pen and paper cannot even advance to 13th level to get Quivering Palm unless he defeats the guy above him in rank in a duel.

 

By the criterion of internal consistency, "halfway decent campaign world" rules out D&D.  It's fun, it's complex, there's a lot to dig into, but it does not all hang together very well at all, as one would expect from the pattern of its evolution.  Nor does the mythology of the real world really earn a lot of points for internal consistency.

 

First of all, There's nothing internally inconsistent about the way D&D applies its rules for Insta-death spells. They function precisely the same as any other binary spell effect in the system (like save or be stunned; save or be held; save or be turned into a squirrel; Save or lose your left arm; Save or go to sleep; and even Save or take full damage) So I have no idea what you're talking about. Second, I cited real world mythology because you claimed such a thing does not exist to explain Insta-death spells in D&D. But it DOES, as I've shown. Deal with it.

 

Third, and finally, Fantasy role playing games are not supposed to emulate Physics, chemistry, 21st century jurisprudence, 16th century medicine or psychology or any other laws of science and society. Go play a first person shooter, or a flight Simulator or something if FANTASY is too unbelievable for your tastes.

 

 

 

People just don't fully explore the implications of the cool things they design or dream up on sociology, economics, politics, and technology, which for most people is fine because their tastes don't run to that sort of thing.  Mine do, generally, and though I can often suppress my complaints due to the need for acceptable breaks from reality, for something like an insta-death spell I can't.  I want to know how societies police these things--wouldn't these components be controlled substances?  What's the market like for them?  How vicious is the trade?  Who's out there trying to mass-produce this sort of thing?  And wouldn't every single person who can perform one of these spells be regarded as a public menace waiting to break out?  Don't nascent states want a monopoly on that kind of use of force?  Or do they control the world, in which case Thomas Hobbes is bang on?  Not to mention that the treatment of gods in their role as magic dispensaries makes me shudder.

LOL wut?

 

 

Most people don't care about that sort of thing, because it has nothing to do with their having fun and may actually prevent it, which is kind of against the point of a game.  It's just my taste.

So...Play a warrior then. No one's forcing you to practice Necromancy in your game.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Thanks for the sincere response, Mr. Magniloquent. And yours and Stun's, Tajerio.

 

What Tajerio said is basically how I feel about all this. And here's why...

 

Sure, magic can "bend reality," okay. But, the reason I'm asking "where do we draw the line" is, if things like Finger of Death are simply the will of a divine being, and the explanation is "*shrug* they can pretty much do anything," then why isn't there an "erase this person from the fabric of time" spell with just a really statistically tough saving throw, that you can cast on the main bad guy (who's surely done enough to wrong some specific deity to warrant his will being for such a thing to work) and cause him to suddenly never have existed in the first place? Thus, altering the whole world in a blink of an eye, a la Back To the Future? Why not that?

 

Even D&D is just a game. It was designed from the ground up to be played, by real-world players, and enjoyed. So, it's not as if they just stumbled upon a bunch of lore, and how magic worked, THEN said "hey, we should try to make a game around this, but have no control over the rules of this world." No, they literally invented them all out of the fabric of their imaginations.

 

So, yeah, what I'm wondering is, why draw the line at heart-stopping? And why is a divine being's will rule-istically regulated/balanced in such a convenient fashion by dice roll ranges? I mean, look at Quivering Palm. That's pretty much pure discipline, right? And yet, even it doesn't become a guaranteed thing. Is it like that in the Chinese mythology from whence it was borrowed? "You have a statistical chance of possibly killing something with one blow, so that if you tried like 5 different times on the same target, your outcomes would vary."? I thought people who mastered things like that in martial arts (mythology or not) had either mastered it and could perform it at-will, or hadn't and couldn't. Yet, in a game, we convert it to chance, and regulate it roughly along the threat levels of foes in relation to our own characters' capabilities.

 

Why do we design game rules like that? Why do we balance anything at all? Why is a Wizard designed to be SO weak in early levels in D&D, but be a friggin' master of the cosmos later on? You already hit a certain level, and your spells become so powerful that you can instantly kill lots of relatively not-tough foes with them, through sheer power/ability (damage, accuracy, etc.) extending beyond their ability to defend/survive (health). Why does anyone need the ability to trade that dynamic for a "this effect is completely unrelated to your power/capability, but is simply divinely powerful, but you just have a really low chance of it happening, typically, because arbitrary balance."?

 

And, again, why is the line drawn at heart-stopping?

[Stun]

Thanks for the sincere response, Mr. Magniloquent. And yours and Stun's, Tajerio.

 

What Tajerio said is basically how I feel about all this. And here's why...

 

Sure, magic can "bend reality," okay. But, the reason I'm asking "where do we draw the line" is, if things like Finger of Death are simply the will of a divine being, and the explanation is "*shrug*

Good god, Lephys, can't you go a single post without utterly misconstruing what others are saying?

 

The explanation of Finger of Death is not "*shrug* anything goes!". It is a nature based invocation that causes a victim to suffer a heart attack. As a spell in a system that has magic, This is no less logical than a wizard being able to shoot giant fireballs from his fingertips; Or waving his hand a causing demons to appear out of thin air to attack his enemies.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

 

 

Or none of the above, if you have a marginally intelligent DM running a halfway decent campaign world.

 

Insta-death spells and effects of the various kinds are explained quite well in the lore, actually. Finger of Death, for example, Originally existed exclusively as a 7th level spell for Druids. Its "magic" is strictly divine based, and its function is to stop an enemy's beating heart. Literally. It forces a fatal cardiac arrest. According to the lore, its success or failure is dependent on whether the Druid's patron Deity has judged that the target has done enough harm to nature to warrant an immediate death resulting from a cessation of a major bodily function. In the game world, this is manifested via a saving throw, and of course, the Druid administering the God's will.

 

Some of the others, like Wail of the Banshee, Vorpal Blades, Flesh to Stone, and a Monk's Quivering Palm do not need D&D lore to support them, as they all exist in very common Greek, Roman, Norse, or Chinese Mythology and AD&D just borrows them. They're also not that easy for a character to have in his arsenal, as the spells require rather expensive material components which get consumed upon their casting, the weapons are rare to the extreme and have their own intelligent wills, and of course a Monk in pen and paper cannot even advance to 13th level to get Quivering Palm unless he defeats the guy above him in rank in a duel.

 

By the criterion of internal consistency, "halfway decent campaign world" rules out D&D.  It's fun, it's complex, there's a lot to dig into, but it does not all hang together very well at all, as one would expect from the pattern of its evolution.  Nor does the mythology of the real world really earn a lot of points for internal consistency.

 

First of all, There's nothing internally inconsistent about the way D&D applies its rules for Insta-death spells. They function precisely the same as any other binary spell effect in the system (like save or be stunned; save or be held; save or be turned into a squirrel; Save or lose your left arm; Save or go to sleep; and even Save or take full damage) So I have no idea what you're talking about. Second, I cited real world mythology because you claimed such a thing does not exist to explain Insta-death spells in D&D. But it DOES, as I've shown. Deal with it.

 

Third, and finally, Fantasy role playing games are not supposed to emulate Physics, chemistry, 21st century jurisprudence, 16th century medicine or psychology or any other laws of science and society. Go play a first person shooter, or a flight Simulator or something if FANTASY is too unbelievable for your tastes.

 

 

 

People just don't fully explore the implications of the cool things they design or dream up on sociology, economics, politics, and technology, which for most people is fine because their tastes don't run to that sort of thing.  Mine do, generally, and though I can often suppress my complaints due to the need for acceptable breaks from reality, for something like an insta-death spell I can't.  I want to know how societies police these things--wouldn't these components be controlled substances?  What's the market like for them?  How vicious is the trade?  Who's out there trying to mass-produce this sort of thing?  And wouldn't every single person who can perform one of these spells be regarded as a public menace waiting to break out?  Don't nascent states want a monopoly on that kind of use of force?  Or do they control the world, in which case Thomas Hobbes is bang on?  Not to mention that the treatment of gods in their role as magic dispensaries makes me shudder.

LOL wut?

 

 

Most people don't care about that sort of thing, because it has nothing to do with their having fun and may actually prevent it, which is kind of against the point of a game.  It's just my taste.

So...Play a warrior then. No one's forcing you to practice Necromancy in your game.

 

 

In order briefly:

 

1. My issue isn't with whether the rules work like anything else.  My issue is "what do those rules mean for the world at large," which is not D&D's strong suit.  Though I don't expect to convince you of the point.  Moreover, there's no rule that says what fantasy RPGs can and can't be.  Some strive for a high degree of consistency and verisimilitude.  Some don't.  In my mind, fantasy isn't created by saying "anything goes, no real world rules can possibly hold," but rather by saying, "some things will behave in ways they couldn't in our world, but otherwise everything should plausibly hang together."  But the central point is that either approach is equally valid in seeking to entertain, and to dismiss my taste by instructing me to play a different genre of game is hardly fair.

 

2. That's my point right there.  Those kinds of questions aren't the kind of thing most people like.  Which is 100% absolutely fine.

 

3. Thankfully, given what Josh has said about trying to ensure verisimilitude, I have high hopes that I won't wince much, if at all, at how magic is implemented.  And I want to reiterate that I have no problem with insta-death spells as such.  It's when the larger game world doesn't take proper account of them that I'm displeased.

[tajerio]

 

Good god, Lephys, can't you go a single post without utterly misconstruing what others are saying?

 

 

 

Just a touch ironic given what a hash you made of my last post.

[Stun]

In order briefly:

 

1. My issue isn't with whether the rules work like anything else.  My issue is "what do those rules mean for the world at large," which is not D&D's strong suit.

By all means, Explain this for me, because you're not making any sense. In D&D, powerful people have the means to instantly kill other people. Similarly, in the real world Powerful people also have the ability to instantly kill people. So unless you're going to argue that Reality is unbelievable, or "isn't the world's strong suit", you don't have an argument.

 

But Like I said, please explain what you're trying to say, because it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

Some strive for a high degree of consistency and verisimilitude.

What's that got to do with instant death spells in a fantasy RPG?

 

 

In my mind, fantasy isn't created by saying "anything goes, no real world rules can possibly hold,"

Straw man. Assumes that "anything goes" is the reason Death spells are put in a world. When it's NOT.

 

 

 

 

2. That's my point right there.  Those kinds of questions aren't the kind of thing most people like.  Which is 100% absolutely fine.

Then you don't have a point. There is an insta-death spell in D&D called Phantasmal Killer. What it does is it conjures a scary event/image/thought/whatever, In the victim's mind. If the victim disbelieves, then he may just dismiss it away as a nightmare. But if he believes, he will suffer a heart attack and die - the spell will literally scare him to death. Now, we don't need to ask ourselves whether this "hangs together in the game campaign". We can simply point to THE REAL WORLD, where this phenomenon can actually happen in the hands of a skilled Psychiatrist.

 

3. Thankfully, given what Josh has said about trying to ensure verisimilitude, I have high hopes that I won't wince much, if at all, at how magic is implemented.  And I want to reiterate that I have no problem with insta-death spells as such.  It's when the larger game world doesn't take proper account of them that I'm displeased.

LOL The reason why Josh said there wasn't going to be Death Spells in PoE is NOT because of verisimilitude. It's because Josh doesn't like "chance" and "luck" and other things that cause players to reload. Make no mistake about this, if you REALLY believe the stuff you're saying, then you're probably going to cringe repeatedly at the magic in POE. Hell, even some of the NON magicial abilities that have been revealed to us are well WELL beyond your stated threshold. You know, like Rogues being able to instantly trade places with their allies on the battlefield... via TELEPORTATIONAL TRANSFERANCE. Edited January 31, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

1. My issue isn't with whether the rules work like anything else.  My issue is "what do those rules mean for the world at large," which is not D&D's strong suit.  Though I don't expect to convince you of the point.  Moreover, there's no rule that says what fantasy RPGs can and can't be.  Some strive for a high degree of consistency and verisimilitude.  Some don't.  In my mind, fantasy isn't created by saying "anything goes, no real world rules can possibly hold," but rather by saying, "some things will behave in ways they couldn't in our world, but otherwise everything should plausibly hang together."  But the central point is that either approach is equally valid in seeking to entertain, and to dismiss my taste by instructing me to play a different genre of game is hardly fair.

 

What may seem like nonsense to you, may make sense to other people. If you have issue with the realism of some systems like D&D, can you show us some magic systems that you are pleased with. I'd like to know what some of these magic systems are that strive for a high degree of consistency and verisimilitude.

[tajerio]

@ Stun: OK, I'll try to respond in a sensible way.

 

Insofar as I'm aware, no one in the real world has the ability magically to kill someone else.  So the analogy doesn't work there.  I'm just of the opinion that D&D doesn't take into account the effect that its rules system might have on societies at large.   What does magic do to political economy?  I don't know, and neither do any of the guys who designed D&D.

 

Also, if you know of a psychiatrist who has been attested to induce death in his/her patients by means of creating phantasmal terrors, I suggest you report that individual to the proper authorities.  But my point is NOT, "could that happen in the rules system?"  My point is, "what does the POSSIBILITY of killing someone instantly without using a tangible weapon do to society?  How does it transform it from what we know?"

 

I was making a larger concluding point by the end of my post, not limited solely to death spells.  I do agree that Josh didn't remove them for reasons of verisimilitude.

 

@Hiro: That's absolutely true.  Everything I post is my opinion.  

 

In my mind, Dragon Age tried to build a world that was verisimilitudinous in how mages were handled, how magic was produced, and that sort of thing.  The devs at BioWare didn't succeed--they buried a lot of the explanation in codex entries, and a lot of it tried to work but just didn't--but they did try.  In my opinion, it's just about never been done successfully.  Because the vast majority of people don't really care about it, and why fix it if only a few people think it's broken?

[Stun]

@ Stun: OK, I'll try to respond in a sensible way.

 

Insofar as I'm aware, no one in the real world has the ability magically to kill someone else.

Then tell it like it is: You have a problem with the concept of magic itself. In ANY system its in. After all, no one in the real world has the ability to magically shoot bolts of electricity, or fireballs, or pretty much ANYTHING.

 

 

I'm just of the opinion that D&D doesn't take into account the effect that its rules system might have on societies at large. What does magic do to political economy? I don't know, and neither do any of the guys who designed D&D.

Sure it does. Even In the forgotten Realms (one of the Worst campaign worlds ever created using D&D's rule system) Whole empires have gotten wiped out because of magic. In Baldur's gate 2, Bioware enforced laws against using magic in the streets of Athkatla. In Mask of the Betrayer, Obsidian developed a magic-based addiction system. D&D has whole classes devoted to anti-magic and hunting down magic practitioners. D&D has an alignment system and Priests who cast spells opposed to their alignment lose their spell casting ability.

 

Not that any of this matters. D&D is a rule system. It's not up to the rules system to design the societies and worlds and police them. It's up to the creator of those worlds.

 

 

   

Also, if you know of a psychiatrist who has been attested to induce death in his/her patients by means of creating phantasmal terrors, I suggest you report that individual to the proper authorities.  But my point is NOT, "could that happen in the rules system?"  My point is, "what does the POSSIBILITY of killing someone instantly without using a tangible weapon do to society?  How does it transform it from what we know?"

Ooh, comedy relief. And I was just about to point out how boring debating you was. But to answer your question, I imagine Society would treat the caster of a finger of death the same as someone who walks into a bar and unleashes a meteor swarm. Edited February 1, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Good god, Lephys, can't you go a single post without utterly misconstruing what others are saying?

 

The explanation of Finger of Death is not "*shrug* anything goes!". It is a nature based invocation that causes a victim to suffer a heart attack. As a spell in a system that has magic, This is no less logical than a wizard being able to shoot giant fireballs from his fingertips; Or waving his hand a causing demons to appear out of thin air to attack his enemies.

I didn't misconstrue anything. You just don't get it. You cast Finger of Death. Why does target have heart attack? Because "divine being." Thus, why is that being able to stop ANYTHING'S heart? Because divinity. Thus, what CAN'T that being do? Whatever isn't in the spell system, as set forth by the creators of D&D.

 

You seem to be incapable of reading people's words, then actually attempting to apply them to the notions at hand before dismissing them as nonsense. I figured you were perfectly capable of connecting "anything goes" to the idea that a spell can do anything as long as its source of power is a divine being. Why? Because it's a friggin' divine being. But, see, I didn't want to type all that, and you're now just going to ignore it all/LOL at it anyway, so I'm not sure why I bother. But, you still haven't answered the simple question:

 

If you were designing your own fantasy RPG ruleset and world/lore, would you draw a line anywhere, in terms of a ceiling for abilities available to a player-character (or really, any character, for that matter)? And, if so, where would you draw it?

 

Also, you act as though the ability to shoot fire is equally as fantastical as the ability to divinely stop any living creature's heart. Even though anyone with a flamethrower can shoot fire, albeit from a few feet in front of their fingertips, and yet not anyone can touch something into heart-stoppage. You generally have to administer an actual substance or drug to the creature, or mechanically damage its heart beyond function.

 

Besides, no other "binary effect" (sleep, daze, blind, etc.) enters into the territory of damage versus HP and builds itself a throne on the top of the mountain, declaring itself king. "Oh, you put the enemy to sleep if you work? I MAKE IT NOT-ALIVE! MUAHAHAHA!"

 

All other effects just help you work toward the goal of making something dead. "Make that thing dead" spells just do the job for you. And, again, if those are acceptable, as an effect extent, then why not "this spell completely wipes dragons off the face of the earth"? It's either convenient that a deity can't do that, or convenient that there's no deity in existence that WOULD do that.

 

The only reason such ridiculous-extent effects were ever put into the game is so that the player could at some point go "Aww man, that was awesome! I was so powerful, I can poke things to death!" It certainly wasn't because they were mechanically in sync with the rest of the system. "Hmm, percentage chance to just give the enemy a status effect and/or deal some finite amount of damage? Or percentage chance to DEAL INFINITE DAMAGE?! You choose, player! This is TOTALLY a flawlessly-designed system! 8D!"

 

It literally serves no objective purpose in the design of the system. Every time I point out the tiny chance of it working on some big scary dragon or something, the ONLY response I get is "it's such a low chance, it's not even feasible to try and use." So, the system's arbitrarily allowing it to happen, even though it's not really intended to be done. But then, why would you use it on not-so-tough enemies when you've got so many other things to use? "Hmmm... I could use this big fireball, that will happen to do enough damage to kill this thing instantly, OR I could use this spell that kills things instantly!" The only reason you or anyone else has given for this is "there are enemies who are really hard to hit/damage via other means, so that it's actually really useful to take them out with that spell."

 

So... an insta-death ability is justified by the existence of foes specifically designed to be countered by an insta-death ability, and those foes' existence is justified by an ability specifically designed to only be significantly useful against specifically designed foes?

 

Seems legit.

[Stun]

If you were designing your own fantasy RPG ruleset and world/lore, would you draw a line anywhere, in terms of a ceiling for abilities available to a player-character (or really, any character, for that matter)? And, if so, where would you draw it?

I'd draw it at mitigation possibilities.

 

My rule would be: there should be a way to protect against anything. Thus, if I was designing a system, and my assistant came up with a spell there was no defense against, I'd either scrap it outright, or I'd design the defense against it.

 

No need to draw arbitrary lines based on personal opinion (what you've been admittedly doing on this thread)

 

 

 

So... an insta-death ability is justified by the existence of foes specifically designed to be countered by an insta-death ability, and those foes' existence is justified by an ability specifically designed to only be significantly useful against specifically designed foes?

 

Seems legit.

Sounds like basic, run of the mill combat to me.

 

Someone takes a swing at you - Duck

Someone is ducking - try to figure out his rhythm and catch him in between ducks

Someone realizes that you figured out his rhythm - Decides to Block instead of duck

Someone Blocks - Goad him into attacking you

Someone attacks you - duck. or block.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Stun