Goblin Squad Member
|
Hello,
In the roleplaying game of Pathfinder, there is a mechanic to inflict non lethal damage on a target. This is used for very diverse reasons, such as interrogation, kidnapping, etc. I seem not to have seen any sort of non-lethal damage in the blogs or implied.
I was wondering if this mechanic could be used in some form in PFO as well.
For example, I'm not too keen on the fact that my options as a bandit are:
- Stand and Deliver
- Kill
I just want to take their stuff, not kill them. It also seems odd that no bad reputation is to be accrued for killing people that refuse to comply to your requests. This may lend itself to people making outrageous demands to get reputationless kills.
So I thought of a non-lethal damage system might allow for something in between. Assuming killing people has some sort of reputation penalty, this is the trade-off:
- You receive a smaller hit to your reputation.
- Non-Lethal damage is harder to deal, so it is more dangerous for the mugger.
- An unconscious victim, may be mugged out of some items or money, but not their armor and weapons. There are no items randomly destroyed.
- After a short amount of time you wake up.
What do you guys think? Would it complicate matters too much?
Do you see other potential uses for something like this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have tried to stand in support of similar mechanics, for the purpose of driving away thieves or trespassers in a claimed resource hex. I don't remember where that post went. For some reason, whenever people think of nonlethal, they think of duels as they exist in other MMOs like WoW and not as a 'Mode' of fighting that applies penalties to hit/damage and provides less serious repercussions.
The important thing to do with this is to make it a one-way option. Just because I might be trying to knock you out does not mean you are not defending with lethal force.
It is going to be a hard sell though, as they have seemed resistant to the idea of nonlethal combat thus far.
Yea, it sounds good on paper, but the reality is teabagging. Lots, and lots, of teabagging...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At first glance, it seems reasonable. In other games, for example, you might defeat someone, then let them respawn in place and go about their business. If you choose not to kill them, why not just be able to beat them down?
But what happens if a group decides to use non-lethal damage as an effective stun-lock? Beat-down, wake up, beat-down, wake up. Eventually the victim might manage to /suicide to get away, leaving that nice loot. But smaller penalties because the robbers didn't kill him, right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I and several others have brought up the benefits of having a system of non-lethal combat or a system where a defeated opponent "bleeds out" over time, giving the attacker the opportunity to heal their victim, rather than let him/her die.
There are many role playing situations that this would be ideal. There are certain character classes that specifically include non-lethal combat (Monks).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the roleplaying game of Pathfinder, there is a mechanic to inflict non lethal damage on a target. This is used for very diverse reasons, such as interrogation, kidnapping, etc. I seem not to have seen any sort of non-lethal damage in the blogs or implied.
I was wondering if this mechanic could be used in some form in PFO as well.
First, welcome. I know a lot of us have dreamed about the cool RP-type things we could do with non-lethal damage, but it appears it's not in the cards...
I don't have access to the direct quotes, but Ryan has said on multiple occasions that he is against non-lethal damage in PFO, and has outlined why it's a bad idea because it opened the door to a lot of annoying player behaviors without adding anything meaningful in return.
Slacker :)
Pathfinder Online is unlikely to have a standard mechanism for non-lethal duels. There is a place in the River Kingdoms that has a gladiatorial arena and I could see some development of that concept in the future (not promising, just saying I can see the potential).
Here's why dueling won't be in the game:
1: It's immersion breaking. How does a mage cast a non-lethal fireball or lightning bolt? Aren't "barbarian rage" and "non-lethal" mutually incompatible? How does one inflict "non-lethal" sneak attacks? What do crafters, harvesters, transporters or diplomats do in a duel that reflects their characters? In short, it's a system that really only appeals to a narrow selection of character types and that's a bad investment of design time & resources.
2: It sucks to be bothered about it. Sir Awesome is world-renowned. As he travels from place to place he's constantly asked to participate in duels. Since his player's idea of this character is "never runs from a fight", poor Sir Awesome is therefore compelled to accept these constant and disrupting challenges, or break his player's character concept.
3: It is a resource-drain with no reward. Combat depletes resources. Combat in PvE and PvP can produce a net positive resource reward. In a duel, all that happens is stuff gets consumed with no offsetting reward. Therefore only super-rich characters who just don't care anymore about money will do it. Don't talk about "honor". If you want honor, go out into the world and earn it the old fashioned way by slaying monsters, building kingdoms, leading armies or any of the other numerous options available in the game.
4: It devalues "real" combat. If people want to fight, take the risks that entails. Riskless combat means that "real" combat is less interesting. If the only way to test yourself against a live human opponent is to mix it up with death on the line, you'll care a lot more about the encounter than if it's just some theatrical performance without consequence.
5: It's likely to be one of those things that "Sounds Cool", but then "Nobody Does". Obviously mis-matched opponents won't do it. Anyone who is worried that others are tying to figure out how to beat them won't do it (why give your potential enemies a free tutorial on how you fight?). Players with character concepts that would otherwise avoid such confrontations won't do it (why are the two paladins fighting again?) Enemies won't do it (just getting into the same space is likely to lead to a "real" fight - that's the whole point of having enemies!)
6: The only people who are likely to really want do it are the same people who you probably find annoying elsewhere in the game system. Giving those kinds of people fewer things to keep them interested in the game may get them to quit sooner and go to some other venue that better caters to their little miserable hearts full of sociopathy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the roleplaying game of Pathfinder, there is a mechanic to inflict non lethal damage on a target. This is used for very diverse reasons, such as interrogation, kidnapping, etc. I seem not to have seen any sort of non-lethal damage in the blogs or implied.
I was wondering if this mechanic could be used in some form in PFO as well.
First, welcome. I know a lot of us have dreamed about the cool RP-type things we could do with non-lethal damage, but it appears it's not in the cards...
I don't have access to the direct quotes, but Ryan has said on multiple occasions that he is against non-lethal damage in PFO, and has outlined why it's a bad idea because it opened the door to a lot of annoying player behaviors without adding anything meaningful in return.Slacker :)
...Pathfinder Online is unlikely to have a standard mechanism for non-lethal duels. There is a place in the River Kingdoms that has a gladiatorial arena and I could see some development of that concept in the future (not promising, just saying I can see the potential).
Here's why dueling won't be in the game:
1: It's immersion breaking. How does a mage cast a non-lethal fireball or lightning bolt? Aren't "barbarian rage" and "non-lethal" mutually incompatible? How does one inflict "non-lethal" sneak attacks? What do crafters, harvesters, transporters or diplomats do in a duel that reflects their characters? In short, it's a system that really only appeals to a narrow selection of character types and that's a bad investment of design time & resources.
2: It sucks to be bothered about it. Sir Awesome is world-renowned. As he travels from place to place he's constantly asked to participate in duels. Since his player's idea of this character is "never runs from a fight", poor Sir Awesome is therefore compelled to accept these constant and disrupting
Nihimon, there is a HUGE difference between a Duel and a Non-Lethal combat mechanic. The Ryan Dancey post quoted is not very relevant to THIS discussion. Point 1 is the ONLY valid reason against Non-Lethal Combat itself. Everything else is very much about Dueling. And I agree that we do not want a special mechanic for dropping Duel Me flags in everyone's faces.
Non-Lethal Combat is very much real combat. It is entirely possible that you would rather knock out someone who is legitimately trying to kill you. You still face risk if you choose to do so, and the fact that you are pulling your shots and trying to aim them away from vitals means you are fighting at disadvantage. Some abilities, such as Barbarian Rage should not be able to be used in a non-lethal fashion.
I think Ryan may have spoken out against Non-Lethal Combat separately from duels. If you can find that, it would be much more relevant to the discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dueling is not the only form of non lethal combat. Dueling is also, not always non lethal.
It would not devalue "real combat" if the defeated could still be looted. The system could still include the chaotic alignment shift for the attack, and the reputation hit if it was unsanctioned.
The statement that Ryan was attributed to have made, "there is no real value in it", simply means that he perhaps does not see value in it, but others clearly do.
Ryan's opinion might be more important than others, but it is not more correct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dueling is not the only form of non lethal combat. Dueling is also, not always non lethal.
It would not devalue "real combat" if the defeated could still be looted. The system could still include the chaotic alignment shift for the attack, and the reputation hit if it was unsanctioned.
The statement that Ryan was attributed to have made, "there is no real value in it", simply means that he perhaps does not see value in it, but others clearly do.
Ryan's opinion might be more important than others, but it is not more correct.
The question is what is considered valuable or meaningful. A knockout is certainly less evil than a kill. And the fact that someone would choose to fight at a mechanical disadvantage in order to uphold their morality is SIGNIFICANTLY more meaningful to me than someone raiding an outpost.
If being Good aligned represents avoiding the morally questionable but much easier path, then having a mechanically disadvantaged road that can be taken but is more morally sound becomes an extremely meaningful representation of the challenges inherent in being Good in contrast to the efficiency found in Evil. Not that knockouts are good, probably a solid Neutral action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon, there is a HUGE difference between a Duel and a Non-Lethal combat mechanic.
I believe Ryan was trying to give a blanket response to both Duels and generic Non-Lethal Combat.
This was a question asked in several places and I only answered it in the thread about the most recent blog post, and that answer was buried in the middle of several other responses so I'm sure some missed it.
I can't be sure, but I would expect that "several places" comment includes this thread: Idea: Lethal and non-lethal damage, which is not at all limited to duels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rename the "gank" ability in Darkfall "coup de grâce" and go back to the old system where you eventually bleed out unless someone revives you, and you basically have the 3.5 incapacitation system.
Not all game systems work in MMOs. However this one does, and it does so incredibly well. So why not go with it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the major goals of most people in favor of nonlethal damage would be served by having a "defeated" condition which can result in revival or execution.
I think Qallz actually has this right. If "griefers" are able to incapacitate me and put me in a state where there's significant value in my choosing not to release and respawn, then they're going to do so and give me as many reasons as they can think of to make me regret that choice.
I think the major goals of most people in favor of nonlethal damage would be served by having a "defeated" condition which can result in revival or execution.I think Qallz actually has this right. If "griefers" are able to incapacitate me and put me in a state where there's significant value in my choosing not to release and respawn, then they're going to do so and give me as many reasons as they can think of to make me regret that choice.
Surprisingly, Qallz said something constructive. lol I actually say constructive things a lot, just often in a crude and non-politically correct way that people tend to disregard, but yea, it will lead to all sorts of shenanigans. Most of them involving some form of the word which I got in trouble using in the last flame-thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rename the "gank" ability in Darkfall "coup de grâce" and go back to the old system where you eventually bleed out unless someone revives you, and you basically have the 3.5 incapacitation system.
The change would be that you will die if not revived, unlike Darkfall where you will self-revive if not killed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rename the "gank" ability in Darkfall "coup de grâce" and go back to the old system where you eventually bleed out unless someone revives you, and you basically have the 3.5 incapacitation system.The change would be that you will die if not revived, unlike Darkfall where you will self-revive if not killed?
Unlike Unholy Wars. That's how it worked in the original Darkfall, and I liked it much better that way.
Self-revive may be a trainable ability like I know it is in the P&P but it won't come free.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Rename the "gank" ability in Darkfall "coup de grâce" and go back to the old system where you eventually bleed out unless someone revives you, and you basically have the 3.5 incapacitation system.The change would be that you will die if not revived, unlike Darkfall where you will self-revive if not killed?Unlike Unholy Wars. That's how it worked in the original Darkfall, and I liked it much better that way.
Self-revive may be a trainable ability like I know it is in the P&P but it won't come free.
*Drinks*
The incentive structure would have to be carefully constructed; at the very least, if the initial attack was unsanctioned and the target got up -for whatever reason-, further attacks on the target would not become sanctioned, and would be treated like a separate attack.
Repeated abuse would probably be obvious enough to result in a rapid ban.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just want to take their stuff, not kill them.
It sounds like you want a mugger or pickpocket rather than a Bandit as PFO envisages the role. PFO is all about the killing when it comes down to it, so a non-lethal form of combat isn't going to happen.
I'd be happy with a mechanic that allowed an non-lethal attack from concealment to very briefly 'stun' the opponent and open up a similarly brief window of opportunity to pickpocket without chance of failure. It suppose it would have to be governed by the PvP rules, but I personally wouldn't be unhappy for it to be possible in settlements after dark. If you walk the streets alone at night and aren't able to detect the hidden mugger then you'll likely lose some item. Sometimes you have to be sensible about risks. Walk in pairs, stick to guarded and patrolled areas, build a high perception or just avoid walking the lonely streets at night.
That way your mugger can steal items from a victim without having to kill them, but doesn't have the luxury of stripping an unconscious body at his leisure. It is a opportunistic robbery that lasts a few seconds and allows the robber to grab and go. It also has the advantage (for the thief) that he doesn't need to be a spectacular pickpocket to knock someone over the head with a cosh and rob them.
The chances of a pair of muggers simultaneously coshing two victims from concealment are small, and the chances shrink as numbers increase. Once the attack is made, the mugger is no longer concealed and cannot repeat the trick until he scurries off to hide in the dark again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sadurian, I think that kind of gameplay won't be in PFO from what I gather from these posts.
Wouldn't it be cool to be a pickpocket? (*)
Means:
1: You get within 10ft of me, I try to kill you or run away (our world becomes massively distorted due to this effect)
2: Nobody carries anything worth pickpocketing
3: Spending XP on pickpocketing skills is something only clueless newbies do
4: All the time and resources spent implementing this feature is wasted
(*) The rage of being a victim of theft in MMOs is vastly disproportionate to the real loss of value. For a very very large part of the community it crosses an invisible line into "being cheated"
If you engage me in combat, I can try to run, fight, negotiate, call for help, etc. I feel like I have choices and can affect the outcome.
If you successfully pick my pocket, by definition, I had no meaningful choices or interaction with you - I just got screwed. This elicits as I said a response of anger and sense of loss disproportionate to the likely value. It rapidly degenerates into paranoia and breaks socialization in a game designed to be driven by socialization.
This effect is related to why people have such a strong negative reaction to being ganked.
Link to the discussion: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q324?GenCon-2013-Pathfinder-Online-QA#41
Regarding a stun, that brings up the problem of perpetual stunlock if done by a sufficiently large group.