1

General Discussion / Re: Monster PCs as mercenaries

« on: January 17, 2019, 01:00:34 am »

A rule set that was changed a month ago. They've been kill on sight for longer than they haven't been - including circumstances that have affected characters in the past, so you can hardly ignore it. And that's a tangent anyway - you still can't attempt to indict someone when no crime has occurred.


Edited to add: And the 'wreckless endangerment' was killing a lich who had slain an entire Netherese village. That's obviously not wreckless endangerment. If anything, a paladin refusing to aid the cause is betraying their own vows.

2

General Discussion / Re: Monster PCs as mercenaries

« on: January 16, 2019, 10:34:31 am »

I'd have to disagree with that. We have precedence of inhuman ambassadors with peaceful interactions with Hadrian and nearly everyone, from adventurers to Valstiir, seems to have worked with them at some point. Since none humans were allowed to run in the last mayoral race and half dragons, previously kill on sight creatures, are now allowed to wander around, then merely interacting with monsters would be insufficient. Prosecution would need to show cause.

3

General Discussion / Re: Monster PCs as mercenaries

« on: January 14, 2019, 05:08:49 pm »

Given the server's history and the setting, I don't think it'd be illegal to work with monsters. However, you would become party to their actions in legal terms. So if you're hanging around with a minotaur and it eats someone... Yikes. But if you're keeping the beast under control then you're only an idiot.

 

4

General Discussion / Resources for crafting

« on: January 11, 2019, 06:07:00 pm »

Hellooooo...

Hope you're all well. Please could someone provide me with a list of materials used in the crafting system? I'm not so much interested in recipes but I wanted to, in the near future, start paying for a wide variety of resources to be brought to my character to help give lower or intermediate level players more stuff to do.

Any mid-step resources or semi crafted materials would also be very helpful. I could offer more for those to give them more crafting incentives tooooo...

Telling me where you get the resources isn't necessary but it might help with RP.

Fan q

5

Feedback and Bugs / Re: The death penalty destroys fun.

« on: January 11, 2019, 03:08:00 am »

That's untrue. In setting, there are entire disciplines of dungeoneering, necrology, and studies of animals and strategy that mean a character can infer how threatening a creature might be well in advance of running into them face to face. Experienced adventurers, or even certain classes, should know what to face in certain locations. You can't just imply that characters should be clueless, because there isn't sufficient area development, lore presence, or sign posting of encounters for new players.

6

General Discussion / Re: Loot Economy

« on: January 10, 2019, 12:49:16 am »

Alright. But I will point out that you're allowing these properties to be universally available on potions, where they inflict significant challenges in balancing both classes and dungeon content, with no benefit in these areas, in such a way that it isn't allowing matched interactions between spellcasting classes (who can dispel) and martial classes (who cannot). It's an inherently unbalanced approach.

Suggesting that you don't want to do this because it gates content is... Surprising to me. Lower level characters or solo characters are already gated from engaging in content by the design of the quest system. This alternative design would let you avoid absolutely gating characters based on level or group size, and instead gate them based on balance class design by using items to facilitate what they can and cannot do.

Edited to add: I had actually forgot that custom changes to things like GMW are in place. In this case, it's a weird situation where reducing the power of a spell actually contributes to a greater imbalance in the martial/casting class dynamic. Unfortunately it's not always so clear cut as reducing the effectiveness of spells reducing the power of spellcasters. In this situation, a caster can debuff a potion fighter instead of buffing their weapon to +5, but a fighter cannot get their weapon buffed in advance of the fight.

Double edited to add: I think there might be some misunderstanding in the nature of 'passive' items. When it comes to passive abilities or immunities on items, it becomes something the design team can more readily control. They can control what class can use an item with the property. They can control what slot the item sits in to stop individuals stacking multiple immunities. They can control how the item is gained and how common it is. It is this measure of control which is advantageous over putting these immunities or buffs in the hands of potions, of which can be readily swapped between players, used by any class, can be bought or sold, and which are very difficult for a DM or designer to take into account.

7

General Discussion / Re: Loot Economy

« on: January 10, 2019, 12:16:29 am »

Unfortunately it is just a matter of personal taste. I was just explaining that the tools are there for you to use mechanically, and you've told me you don't want to use them. It's a shame... But it is what it is?

8

General Discussion / Re: Loot Economy

« on: January 10, 2019, 12:03:18 am »

Well alright, but I really feel I have to emphasise that the tools to balance levels and classes are there. Not using them because of personal taste is... Unfortunate.

9

General Discussion / Re: Loot Economy

« on: January 09, 2019, 11:03:58 pm »

Thanks. I agree about restricting potions to a much greater degree than they currently are. That would help with immersion and it would allow the design team to do more with the tools that are available to them.

Sure. I'll give a few examples. Please bear in mind that this is a challenge in game design and creativity, and there's as many answers as there are interpretations... It's all down to how you choose to introduce content.

Touching on disallowed or restricted properties that can bring different class types together... These are properties like, picking at random, vorpal weapons. The mechanics of a vorpal weapon allow a martial character to instant kill targets on two conditions - the first that they score a critical hit and the second that the target fails a reflex saving throw.

This, amongst other properties, allows martial classes to check higher level spellcasting classes who can infrequently also win fights with a single spell. There are swings and roundabouts to this though. The martial class is subject to rng in succeeding, which build and items can help mitigate. It's also subject to encounter design -  builders or DMs can create a difference between mob fights where the property comes into play frequently, mob fights where it is more difficult to come into play (high reflex saves) and mob fights where it cannot come into play (crit immunity). Because this is different to your typical spell-caster saves, with reflex instead of fortitude saves, and crit immunity instead of death immunity, there starts to be a parallel line of item progression vs spell progression that can be used to check each character type against the other and allow balancing to be done relative to the other.

That was just an example. By breaking down how the mechanics of item properties actually work, there is no end to the interplay you can have, and it's definitely possible to have multiple defining paths for every single class that allows them to either shine in certain situations or to match each other.

A similar thing can be achieved with immunities or resistances. Bearing in mind that immunities can be vs specific spells, status effects or combat manoeuvres, and resistances can include heightened saving throws for that hard resistance vs soft resistance exchange, you can start to 'level check' dungeons or encounters. By specifically choosing what items or abilities players have access to, you can begin to direct players to certain dungeons or content based upon what they are able to do with what their character has or can cast, rather than just by their level range. It's another way of focusing content and controlling what players access. (This should be signposted in the environment before players enter dangerous areas - not with literal signposts but with lore and area design cues.)

The current availability and culture around potions stop you from being able to take this design route, but if they didn't you could very well design your item and their availability in such a way that either gives some classes advantages in some dungeons, or forces your class performances to equal out in the same environment.

On your question about +5 swords and it meeting spell-casters reductions, well, it builds upon what's above. If you want a balance, you have to make sure there's symmetry in classes ability to check eachother. A cleric can make themselves immune to damage, immune to knockdown and immune to anything a fighter can do to them. If pvp balance is something that interests the design team, they need to understand that they need to provide opportunities for equivalent exchange. A high level cleric can give themselves a +5 sword and bypass a fighter's potion with a spell. The team needs to look at options a fighter (or any other class) might have to meet that check and respond with equivalence, whether that is allowing fighters access to +5 weapons, or more creative ways of denying clerics spell casting or removing their buffs.

The important thing is this. On mechanics, there are mechanical solutions. You can overlook a lot of things for immersion but this and other topics on the forums recently play into one and other. When you start to have imbalance between classes and builds ability to handle situations, then problems with resource availability or with death penalties are magnified and brought to light more frequently. You can and should always say that there are RP and social solutions to class imbalances. But there should always also be mechanical mirrors in place, otherwise the same logic that has everyone guzzling every potion before a fight has everyone rolling clerics.

10

General Discussion / Re: An in game bank.

« on: January 09, 2019, 10:26:40 pm »

Gold encumbrance would be an entirely negative mechanic without a viable alternative imo. Though I like the idea of an in game bank - the current one charges 10% of your gold to do anything with it. That's an insane amount. Players who've worked hard for a year or more could lose 50k+ for no reason. That'd be nuts.

I think at a certain point you have to assume a character isn't carrying all their gold around with them at all times and that it's just a game-play thing. After all, if our characters dress down in casual clothing we don't assume they have their backpack and armour on their backs? It's just mechanics and RP > mechanics.

That said, alternative currency systems can be fun and interesting. Coin weight isn't inherently bad. But it has to be a part of a system that adds features and progression, instead of being only a player-punishing trait. For example, banking and trading systems, where you could earn money with investments, either in a bank with interest or by moving gold to property and selling it at a higher value at a later time or in another place, would make it something that's constructive and fun.

11

General Discussion / Re: Loot Economy

« on: January 09, 2019, 09:29:34 pm »

I have a couple of questions for Dybil as he's a member of staff in this thread and has made his thoughts known.

The first is the state of consumables and potions in Netheril. Given your opinion that immunities and resistances should be controlled, I'm a little confused. You've advocated total buffing as essential in the past. It's very possible for every character to have haste, concealment, total status/mind/death immunity, +5 damage reduction and full elemental resistance in every fight because they drink potions. Given that you admit that this is untenable for a fun environment, can we finally start to cut down on the potion bloat?

I would also push that the narrative that higher levels of loot driving a part lower level players and higher level players is untrue. The greater the proportion of a characters power comes from their item spread, the less influential their level is. This is just how the maths of the game work. There are a few alleged 'disallowed' properties on the server that actually can be used very well from a design perspective to bring fighting classes and spellcasting classes together in power, balancing them out. Without using these properties intelligently, you'll never balance a cleric with stoneskin, freedom of movement, NEP, haste, divine power etc etc... With a fighter or even a wizard.

However, using properties wisely means that this actually becomes a manageable prospect. Unfortunately, for as long as you stick by examples you've used - that +5 weapons should never be allowed because they bypass spells? The server will be inherently unbalanced, will lack options and will never be as fun as it can be. It feels to me like a case where personal taste and personal preference is clouding potential design, and causing people to deny things that can be used to add more content and provide people with more progression and more balanced content.

Would you ever consider a position where item levels are brought up to the level where classes do become balanced and are able to engage in the same level of content?

12

Feedback and Bugs / Re: The death penalty destroys fun.

« on: January 06, 2019, 11:16:55 pm »

Regardless of the penalty being numerically minor, it compounds other problems that exist on the server. Mob spawns on transitions, badly balanced encounters, broken and imbalanced quests, and an over-reliance on 'horde mode' style events that break down RP instead of contributing to it means that it's just a punishing system. It doesn't produce fear. It just makes you roll your eyes, knowing that there's nothing you can do to regain lost progress if you've already run the quests, or if you're level 15+.

Until either the death penalty is looked at, or a whole host of problems with the server are fixed, then this is nothing but unpleasant and detracts from the game play experience.

13

General Discussion / Re: Death penalties

« on: December 02, 2018, 12:47:57 pm »

A double post to add, if you want me to take IC steps to set up a church of Jergal, send me a message my dudes and we can coordinate something.

14

General Discussion / Re: Death penalties

« on: December 02, 2018, 12:45:06 pm »

On the note of DMs asking for how to make death more frightening IC, and commenting that players take all discussion of it to OOC mechanics:

All of the server's death content is OOC mechanics. You have it take you to an OOC place that isn't supported by the lore. You have a church (that should be a court) resurrect the players, when that dogma shouldn't deal with the dead at all. The penalty for dying is to go through more OOC grinding mechanics for many hours to recover what you have lost.

If you want players to begin to associate death with IC reactions and IC fear, you have to take the steps to make it have a tangible IC impact. You need to cut off resurrections from the court of Amaunator. You need to introduce the church of Jergal, an equally large and important entity in Netherese society, and the associated difficulty of getting resurrections from this church. This doesn't mean bumping up gold and XP costs - dungeons and their associated resources are primarily OOC entertainment and as designers you have to treat any game play content linked to them as such, if you want to guide player impressions towards a role play or fantasy/wish fulfilment experience. You have to sever the connection between player's dying and thinking, "Damn, now I need to spend another week walking in circles around those two dungeons." and start making them think, "Oh my (proverbial) God what the flaming flips just happened."



Edited to add: In case I wasn't clear, I mean make it more immersive, and cut out the OOC mistakes or choices that pull you out of immersion and make you think of the OOC.

15

General Discussion / Re: Death penalties

« on: December 01, 2018, 11:52:38 am »

This is another one of those situations where the design doesn't really match the intention. I understand how it can feel that having a death penalty like this will encourage role playing the risks associated with adventure. However, since the primary focus of the game play and all the events is adventure, making partaking them essential, and the personality (IE, the lack of risk aversion) of your character is the wish-fulfilment target of the game, then the end effect of this mechanic will actually be to encourage safe and repetitive grinding in down time at the expense of general social role play or other core immersion experiences. Thus, leading to running more adventuring of stuff you know your character isn't threatened by, which gets repetitive, leading to content burn out and stopping people from role playing any risk aversion around the thirtieth time the dungeon has been run. Characters then bring this general attitude that they develop in quote unquote safe content into higher level content or into DM events, ultimately defeating the entire intention of the death penalty.

Sadness.

It's fixable though. If you want people to act more carefully, relax the death penalty penalties on GP and XP, and ask players to role play the risks associated with going on murder-death sprees for profit.