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

[tajerio]

 

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)

 

 

Ultimately, every line in game design's drawn based on personal opinion.  There's no other way to do it without the designer pretending some knowledge of objective truth they don't have.

[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.

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.

 

 

I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of magic itself.  Magic in fantasy games is great!  I wouldn't feel strongly about this if I didn't like it.   What I do have a problem with is when game designers toss magic into a world that otherwise behaves as ours does, and then don't follow through on the implications of doing so.

 

I happily concede that a number of D&D campaign settings have made major efforts in addressing the effects of magic on society.  But those efforts tend to produce something half-baked.  Lots of specific questions get answered, but broad general questions kinda go by the roadside.  And it's a bit disingenuous to dissociate D&D the rules system from D&D worlds, since those two things have been closely tied together as "D&D" in most people's imaginations since the 80s anyway (though not, of course, for the highly self-aware grognards).  In the case of a cRPG, that distinction truly is meaningless.  The world and the rules together ARE the game.  So just pushing the responsibility from the designer to the DM to "make it work" doesn't help, because the designer and the DM are the same.  

[Yonjuro]

 

 

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)

 

 

Ultimately, every line in game design's drawn based on personal opinion.  There's no other way to do it without the designer pretending some knowledge of objective truth they don't have.

 

 

 Not really. The objective truth is either, this spell has a counter or it doesn't have one. The designer knows which of those is true. 

 

 Stun's view of the world seems to be different from mine in a lot of respects but I think that rule is pretty reasonable. I might add something about the counter not being made up of weird stuff that a player is unlikely to have collected. 

[tajerio]

 Not really. The objective truth is either, this spell has a counter or it doesn't have one. The designer knows which of those is true. 

 

 Stun's view of the world seems to be different from mine in a lot of respects but I think that rule is pretty reasonable. I might add something about the counter not being made up of weird stuff that a player is unlikely to have collected. 

 

 

I agree entirely in the case of counters.  My point was more that it's ultimately up to personal opinion in deciding if the line's drawn at "mitigation possibilities" or at "plausibility in the setting" (which could be before or after mitigation) or at "challenging for the average player" or any one of a number of criteria that could inform a designer's choice.

[Stun]

 

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)

 

Ultimately, every line in game design's drawn based on personal opinion.  There's no other way to do it without the designer pretending some knowledge of objective truth they don't have.

 

Computer game design maybe. But in Pen and paper, the rules are laid out quite objectively (in fact, they're straight up black and white) and then the DM is told to take it, leave it, or adjust it to fit his own campaign.

 

 

My point was more that it's ultimately up to personal opinion in deciding if the line's drawn at "mitigation possibilities" or at "plausibility in the setting" (which could be before or after mitigation) or at "challenging for the average player" or any one of a number of criteria that could inform a designer's choice.

Right. But again, you're not discussing the system's rules here, you're discussing campaign worlds or "settings". Two very different things in D&D. Edited February 1, 2014 by Stun

[Yonjuro]

 

 Not really. The objective truth is either, this spell has a counter or it doesn't have one. The designer knows which of those is true. 

 

 Stun's view of the world seems to be different from mine in a lot of respects but I think that rule is pretty reasonable. I might add something about the counter not being made up of weird stuff that a player is unlikely to have collected. 

 

 

I agree entirely in the case of counters.  My point was more that it's ultimately up to personal opinion in deciding if the line's drawn at "mitigation possibilities" or at "plausibility in the setting" (which could be before or after mitigation) or at "challenging for the average player" or any one of a number of criteria that could inform a designer's choice.

 

 

 Oh, I see. I misunderstood your post.

[tajerio]

 My point was more that it's ultimately up to personal opinion in deciding if the line's drawn at "mitigation possibilities" or at "plausibility in the setting" (which could be before or after mitigation) or at "challenging for the average player" or any one of a number of criteria that could inform a designer's choice.

Right. But again, you're not discussing the system's rules here, you're discussing campaign worlds or "settings". Two very different things in D&D.

 

 

As I said above, that's absolutely true for D&D, at least ideally.  But in a cRPG, the setting and the rules have to work together right out of the box.  And in the context of PoE, that's what I care about.  What's the scale of effort that's going to go into making the system and the world feel like a unitary whole?  I obviously don't know the answer to that question, but I'm getting the sense that it's favorable.  

 

That's where I draw my line, by the way--the point at which the effort required to make a bit of magic work in the campaign system just becomes ludicrous relative to the utility/prevalence of the spell.

Edited February 1, 2014 by tajerio

[Stun]

I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of magic itself.  Magic in fantasy games is great!  I wouldn't feel strongly about this if I didn't like it.   What I do have a problem with is when game designers toss magic into a world that otherwise behaves as ours does, and then don't follow through on the implications of doing so.

Can you give me an example of a game that contained MAGIC and also had a world that behaves as ours does?

 

No no, scrap that. You're not getting off that easy. Lets stay on topic. Give me an example of a game that had DEATH SPELLS and also had a world that behaves as ours does.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Everything else doesn't revolve around counters, though. Not "hard" counters, anyway. But then, an effect like Death can ONLY be hard countered. That's an objective truth, as well.

 

You can either:

 

1) Die, or

2) not-die.

 

With a given regular weapon attack, for example, you can:

 

1) Dodge it

2) Have armor mitigate the damage but still not nullify it all

3) Reflect part of the damage (via some buff or something) to offer up a cost for the hit

4) "partially dodge" it (graze in PoE)

5) Affect its likelihood of being a critical hit with active/modal defense-bolstering abilities

6) Actually counter-attack or perform some other action that's relevant to having just been hit but living

 

etc.

 

In comparison, it's just so simple, to be honest. Everything else affects your ability to kill something, and an insta-death spell simply IS your ability to kill something. You're looking at a crowd of factors, all painstakingly designed into the system and balanced and everything, in support of this elaborately tactical stage, then, you just pick the simplest two factors you can find: "accuracy" and "defense" (whatever names they go by).

 

Again, ANY other effect in the game, even after it succeeds on its chance roll -- sleep, stun, burn, just-plain-damage, blind, etc. -- is variable in its result. AND, they all have chance as a factor, because they all use dice rolls. Thus, look at a system in which there are no dice rolls. Would you have all the same choices in there for abilities?

 

"Hmmm... I could put that guy to sleep, or I could firebolt his face, or hit him with my sword, or I could blind him, or poison him, or shield bash him, etc.... OR, I could kill him instantly." Guess what? Even with the removal of chance-based hit rolls, everything else still functions just fine. Things still have cast/usage times, and finite damage/effects/durations, and the system still functions. Only now, there's never any reason not to use as many insta-death spells as often as possible. Without insta-death in, you'd still have to figure out how to kill the enemy, with the tools at your disposal, before they kill you. You'd just be missing the whole chance factor that makes things a little more interesting. But, hitting that guy with more armor still results in less damage than hitting that guy with less armor, etc. Hitting things with a fireball still only does so much damage, etc. Why? Because the combat system is built upon so many other factors that are all still standing. Chance isn't the core of the system. It's simply one, single factor.

 

A single factor upon which insta-death's remote wisp of viability relies. Because, if it didn't, it wouldn't make any sense, at all.

 

 

Also, the only thing special about most magical spells/effects is the means by which they're created/achieved. I can paint myself to be camouflage, or I can cast a magic spell (in a fantasy RPG) that produces the visual camouflage to make me look just like a tree without any painting involved. There's nothing magical about being camouflaged. Hell, there's not even anything magical about death. Finger of Death stops the heart? Awesome. You know what's possible, even without magic? Heart-stopping. And you know what's even able to be PARTIALLY done? That's right. Heart-stopping. You can DAMAGE someone's heart, but still not kill them. In fact, if a big scary dragon or other magic-possessing being is so awesome, then you'd think, in the amount of time it has before it runs out of oxygenated tissue from its heart stopping, it could simply restart its heart. It's not like it's going to save versus its own spell, right? Hell, electricity can restart a heart.

 

So, how about you name one thing that dispenses death, in the real world. Not dispenses damage or some other effect that then LEADS to death. But, something that actually just produces death.

 

Death isn't even a substance or energy or thing. It's just a state of not being alive. Or, in game abstraction terms, having 0 HP.

 

Also, why didn't someone just come up with a spell that detonates a creature's brain? Then there's no way it could possibly come back to life, because it would lack the capacity to do anything about its injury. Why were the D&D gods all like "Hey, no, we should probably draw the line at heart-stopping, which is actually not that hard to undo, especially, one would think, in a world full of magic that doesn't need explanations because it's magic, u_u"?

 

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.

So... if there was a "destroy the entire universe" spell, it would be totally fine, as long as there was a chance to stop it from succeeding?

Edited February 1, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of magic itself.  Magic in fantasy games is great!  I wouldn't feel strongly about this if I didn't like it.   What I do have a problem with is when game designers toss magic into a world that otherwise behaves as ours does, and then don't follow through on the implications of doing so.

 

Some questions:

 

1. So you don't have a problem with magic being tossed in a world that doesn't behave as ours does?

2. What sort of world would that be?

3. And I don't understand these implications your going with? 

 

I'm genuinely curious because for myself and my friends, we want to have something familiar. Using worlds that behave like ours helps players and the DM to understand that world. Medieval type settings with magic helps players to identify what they're playing, Knights, Paladins, Fighters, Druids, Thieves, Magic users, etc. When you take an alien world that doesn't behave like ours, then it's a lot harder to identify with it and the rules that govern it.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

As I said above, that's absolutely true for D&D, at least ideally.  But in a cRPG, the setting and the rules have to work together right out of the box.  And in the context of PoE, that's what I care about.  What's the scale of effort that's going to go into making the system and the world feel like a unitary whole?  I obviously don't know the answer to that question, but I'm getting the sense that it's favorable.  

 

That's where I draw my line, by the way--the point at which the effort required to make a bit of magic work in the campaign system just becomes ludicrous relative to the utility/prevalence of the spell.

Wait a minute. I get what you're saying now. If it's a low fantasy setting, Like the Witcher games, then the magic has to be low key... subdued. Basic. But if It's a High fantasy setting, then magic can be profound, since chances are, the conflict itself is magical.

 

OK, that makes sense. After all, Low Fantasy plots, like interstate Politics, become a pointless sideshow when the common Adventurer can summon Pit Fiends, and wipe out everyone at city hall with a Horrid Wilting spell. Such spells simply can't work in a setting like that. They'd be way too unbelievable. Such spells can only work in High Fantasy, where the player witnesses fantastical things daily.

 

So what are we getting in PoE? My guess is the latter: High fantasy. We are, after all, dealing with Souls, and 15 level Mega dungeons. And Chris Avellone's writing. Therefore, Magic had better be profound. Otherwise it won't fit the setting.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

So... if there was a "destroy the entire universe" spell, it would be totally fine, as long as there was a chance to stop it from succeeding?

Yes. Although if my assistant came up with a spell like that, I'd design an entire story plot around it and only give the Villian the ability to cast it.

 

By the way, D&D already has a built in passive counter to the spell: "Destroy Universe": Plane Travel.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

 

I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of magic itself.  Magic in fantasy games is great!  I wouldn't feel strongly about this if I didn't like it.   What I do have a problem with is when game designers toss magic into a world that otherwise behaves as ours does, and then don't follow through on the implications of doing so.

 

Some questions:

 

1. So you don't have a problem with magic being tossed in a world that doesn't behave as ours does?

2. What sort of world would that be?

3. And I don't understand these implications your going with? 

 

I'm genuinely curious because for myself and my friends, we want to have something familiar. Using worlds that behave like ours helps players and the DM to understand that world. Medieval type settings with magic helps players to identify what they're playing, Knights, Paladins, Fighters, Druids, Thieves, Magic users, etc. When you take an alien world that doesn't behave like ours, then it's a lot of harder to identify with it and the rules that govern it.

 

 

1 and 2 together: I don't think that game designers could ever make that kind of a world.  We only really know one reality--the one in which we live.  And that's the foundation of all fantasy creations.  The world that's made is like ours except the parts where it's not.  I know that's a tautology, but there's some underlying sense to it.  Not everything can be modelled completely de novo, because no one has the imaginative capacity to create an entire consistent world that's simultaneously not ours.  Let's take the example of, say, the Lord of the Rings.  You've got elves, dwarves, magic rings, undead, wizards from across the sea who are really second-tier divine spirits, and all that kind of stuff.  But people are still people. They use spoken language to communicate with each other, they want distinction and honor, they want happiness and wealth, they fall in love with each other, they develop friendships, etc.  And they form systems of government, they make war, they engage in industry, they farm, etc.  The nuts and bolts of how the world works, the basic human meeting of needs and psychology, stays the same.  And that's true of just about all fantasy.  The further away from those fundamental principles of how the only known sentient beings behave one gets, the harder it is to engage with that world and the less sense it makes.  Which I think is your point.

 

BUT: people put magic in their games or their books or what have you and then there's a question of "how does this new thing, that doesn't exist in our reality, act in tandem with these principles of behavior that don't change?"  People are still going to hate, love, covet, fight, rule, work, sell things, and all that.  That's the extent to which the world behaves like ours does, and it's something that no creator can get away from without going really weird.  And a lot of those creators don't ask themselves that question.  They don't say, "how does magic interact with all these activities that happen with or without magic?  How does it change the way people live?"  Sometimes it gets answered, but only superficially.

 

And that's the crux of the issue.  If, as you say, you want the world to behave like ours, then magic has to be integrated into the broader sphere of human activity.  Your garden-variety fantasy tends to half-ass that.

[tajerio]

 

Wait a minute. I get what you're saying now. If it's a low fantasy setting, Like the Witcher games, then the magic has to be low key... subdued. Basic. But if It's a High fantasy setting, then magic can be profound, since chances are, the conflict itself is magical.

 

OK, that makes sense. After all, Low Fantasy plots, like interstate Politics, become a pointless sideshow when the common Adventurer can summon Pit Fiends, and wipe out everyone at city hall with a Horrid Wilting spell. Such spells simply can't work in a setting like that. They'd be way too unbelievable. Such spells can only work in High Fantasy, where the player witnesses fantastical things daily.

 

So what are we getting in PoE? My guess is the latter: High fantasy. We are, after all, dealing with Souls, and 15 level Mega dungeons. And Chris Avellone's writing. Therefore, Magic had better be profound. Otherwise it won't fit the setting.

 

 

That's just about it, yeah.  I'd add only that if there's a lot of people out there who can conjure up fireballs, use telekinesis, and project illusions, then the cRPG designer needs to take that into account when figuring out how the world works.

[Lephys]

Yes. Although if my assistant came up with a spell like that, I'd design an entire story plot around it and only give the Villian the ability to cast it.

 

By the way, D&D already has a built in passive counter to the spell: "Destroy Universe": The Multiverse.

But, why would you restrict that spell to just the villain? Players can cast Finger of Death, so why can't they cast "Destroy Universe"? Or, to make it more applicable (since the goal of combat isn't really to eliminate all matter in the universe), let's go with "kill all (insert creature type here)" as a spell. Would that be okay, as long as there was a possible way to affect its chances of succeeding, and why would it be restricted, if it were restricted (to "just the villain," for example)?

 

Also, that's not a counter, because the spell isn't targeting any other universe. That's like saying D&D has a passive counter to your whole party dying: rolling new characters! 8D!

Edited February 1, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

 

Yes. Although if my assistant came up with a spell like that, I'd design an entire story plot around it and only give the Villian the ability to cast it.

 

By the way, D&D already has a built in passive counter to the spell: "Destroy Universe": The Multiverse.

But, why would you restrict that spell to just the villain? Players can cast Finger of Death, so why can't they cast "Destroy Universe"?

 

Alright. I suppose I could make it an Epic Spell and give it to anyone who gets high enough in level to pick it from the Epic Feats list. But of course, just like finger of death, the target would get a saving throw. Now, would you like to look at the Universe's saves? They're pretty darn good, considering the fact that we're dealing with an Immortal entity that has not failed a Save-or-Die roll in at least 13.6 Billion years.

 

That said, the Multi-verse is malleable in D&D, and some Deities and other powerful beings (like Demon Princes and Arch Devils) have the ability to make and unmake their own planes at will. Thus if You're an epic mage, and went to the 1st plane of Hell and decided to destroy a universe within it, and that universe failed its save and died, your celebration party would not last very long. Bel, and probably Asmodeus would undo your damage first, then come after you. And buddy, they Both have the ability to insta-kill you without a saving throw.

 

Also, that's not a counter, because the spell isn't targeting any other universe. That's like saying D&D has a passive counter to your whole party dying: rolling new characters! 8D!

No, it's more like, since there's a multi-verse, anyone with Plane travel abilities can simply planeshift to somewhere else.... so as to not die from the cataclysm. Planeshift is a 5th level Cleric spell, btw, and Astral Projection is a 9th level Mage spell.

 

Or, to make it more applicable (since the goal of combat isn't really to eliminate all matter in the universe), let's go with "kill all (insert creature type here)" as a spell. Would that be okay, as long as there was a possible way to affect its chances of succeeding,

...and its chances of failing. Yes. D&D already has Weapons designed to slay specific races. And Spells designed to slay specific races that the mage encounters. The question is, would Mystra Allow a Spell that instantly destroys all members of a race everywhere? Tough to say since, again, we're dealing with a multi-verse and when you move from one plane of existence to another, magic warps according to the laws of that plane, so I don't see how a spell designed to wipe out, say, every Sabre-toothed Tiger everywhere, would be successful. It would probably succeed in killing every Sabre-toothed Tiger in the Prime material plane, but if there's a pack of Sabre-toothed Tigers living on Mount Olympus, they'd probably be unaffected, since No evil can enter that plane, including evil magic, which This spell certainly is. In fact, it would probably end up having the opposite effect on Mount Olympus. It'd turn that pack of Sabre-toothed tigers into super-vitality endowed immortal beasts. Edited February 1, 2014 by Stun

[Elerond]

 

Yes. Although if my assistant came up with a spell like that, I'd design an entire story plot around it and only give the Villian the ability to cast it.

 

By the way, D&D already has a built in passive counter to the spell: "Destroy Universe": The Multiverse.

But, why would you restrict that spell to just the villain? Players can cast Finger of Death, so why can't they cast "Destroy Universe"? Or, to make it more applicable (since the goal of combat isn't really to eliminate all matter in the universe), let's go with "kill all (insert creature type here)" as a spell. Would that be okay, as long as there was a possible way to affect its chances of succeeding, and why would it be restricted, if it were restricted (to "just the villain," for example)?

 

Also, that's not a counter, because the spell isn't targeting any other universe. That's like saying D&D has a passive counter to your whole party dying: rolling new characters! 8D!

 

One of funniest spells in ADOM was magic scroll that you can use to kill one species in the world when it was combined with modded scroll that can turn all species to one species