You're facing the old dilemma between realism and game mechanics here, aren't you? The problem is that true realism, or anything like it, is usually not much fun - the fact that a single arrow in the kidneys, or one slice through the femoral artery, will take you out of combat, usually for good.
The dilemma doesn't arise with games of strategy, where you are shifting armies about, and percentage damage simply reduces the number of effective troops; but in single character games, damage of 10% or less can, if there is any attempt at realism, take you out of the fight entirely.
To my mind, the combination of Wound/Vigour (or Health/Energy, Hit Points/Vitality, etc.) as various games have implemented it, is probably the best of the traditional game solutions. But it would be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a better solution.
Onishi, I see where the difference is here. I come from a CRPG and MMO background, and have no experience of D&D other than as reflected in CRPGs; so to me "extradimensional storage" sounds like something really extraordinary and magical, whereas it's obvious that for you D&D folks, things like "Bags of Holding" are routine (if probably quite hard to find!). Live and learn...
But I would agree that anything actually carried on the person becomes fair game after death. Perhaps, though, finding and collecting any form of "extradimensional storage" should require some additional skill or effort on the part of the searcher?
A simpler way to deal with the issue might be to provide for want adds. If a craftsman finds himself in need of fifty kilos of white plaster, or a hunter is looking for a particular kind of arrow, they could circulate a want add, probably offering a specific price, which anyone looking for market information could read and respond to. The adds would increase in price depending on the geographical area covered.
This, at the end of the day, is true. Anything that calls itself a game is going to have to draw a line beyond which simulation and realism become a drag. The algorithm Catch Fish>Cook Fish>Eat Fish may be acceptable to players, but try pulling Dig for Bait>Fish>Catch Fish>Gut Fish>Scale Fish>Light Fire>Broil Fish>Wait for Fish to Cool>Eat Fish>Suffer from Scurvy Because You Forgot About Eating a Balanced Meal almost certainly won't be.
For most players, I strongly suspect Friendly Fire is going too far, particularly when it involves the certainty that you will be flagged as a murderer. Also, and this is an important point, while some or even many of us currently brainstorming may be in favour of FF, never forget that the ultimate consumer is bound to be a lot less hard-core than most of the people contributing to this debate. And after all, we do want this to be a success so that we can go on playing it...
More on the matter of maps. Adventuring, exploration and mapping all go together. Could we not have a skill which will allow players to produce in-game maps, both for their own use and for sale to other players? The Cartography skill could have several ranks, allowing the production of increasingly detailed maps. Apart from anything else, this would provide a useful money-making skill for adventuring types, who normally don't have much in the way of productive crafting skills.
Kind of off topic I just wanted see what you guys/gals thought about an idea. In UO if your killed by a monster that same mob will take items from your bag when you die, after you go back to collect your corpse/husk you can try and kill that monster to get your items back.
If you're talking humanoid mobs, that's a nice idea. Otherwise, I find the idea of a boar picking through your corpse's pockets and walking off with your Wand of Indeterminacy even more mind-boggling than having it drop from the boar in the first place...
I'm jumping into this argument rather late in the day, but here goes.
All combat in a RP game is highly unrealistic for the simple reason that in real life, it would never last that long. If you think about it, a single slash across the throat, a single arrow through the lungs, a single blow to the head with an axe will put your average person out of action, usually for good; but of course in an RPG that doesn't happen, for the simple reason that it wouldn't be any fun at all. So most RPG combat involves taking a large number of hits any one of which should have incapacitated you.
I think the reason that many people dislike Save or Die spells is that they ignore this essential principle - they just seem too... easy. And the fact, repeated several times above, that they are just as likely to fail entirely, does not balance matters. It's true that Rogue/Assassin types can sometimes pull off a clean kill, but that's not exactly instantaneous or easy, involving as it does sneaking, silence, hiding in shadows etc. So on balance, I'd be inclined to favour leaving out Save or Die spells, or else at least restricting them very severely.
While I agree some of the ideas proposed and discussed were unnecessarily complex...there was a lot of resistance from people who just thought no one should be able to challenge their power or position as a guild leader.
As the call-girl Mandy Rice-Davies replied in court to the barrister who said that Lord Astor denied having any dealings with her, "Well, they would, wouldn't they?".
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
However Imagine the nerdrage when the level 1 mage kills a pig and gets the vorpal greatsword of BBEG slaying when it's BOP and he cant even use it.
No, this one's a no-brainer. Your level 1 Mage says to himself "Stuff magery for a game of soldiers", converts to a warrior class and goes on to conquer the known world with his new sword.
Seriously, though, I hope that no items are ever bound in any way at all; the concept doesn't fit the philosophy of the game as it seems to be developing.
Crafting items dropping from the wildlife, including now and again a rare one, is the principle followed in LOTRO and it is, I think, a sensible one. Mage staffs dropping from wolves is just plain ludicrous.
I would take this one step further, and argue that all NPC drops should be consistent with the character: in other words, kill a goblin, and you should find, for instance, breeches, leather hauberk, short-sword, Swiss army knife and used hankie. One in a while, a boss goblin might also drop a +1 wooden club, or the like. That makes more sense than facing off a fully armoured goblin hacking at you with an axe, only to find when you kill him that all he drops is the aforementioned hankie - what happened to the rest of his stuff, did the pixies run off with it?
The corollary should probably be, however, a certain realism in terms of what you can carry. Each of the ten goblins you killed may have dropped a hauberk, but... what makes you think you stagger off with all ten in your arms, unless you have a cart and horse with you? I have to say I'm a bit cheesed off by carrying limitations based on units, where you open your pack and go, "Hmmm.... I think I'll try the steel plate armour +2 next, or should I go for the Enchanted Mail?".
Ryan Dancey wrote:
"At 20th level—the maximum level currently supported by the Pathfinder RPG—characters that haven't multiclassed earn a "capstone ability," a special and really cool power reserved for characters who chose to master a single class throughout their adventuring career."
If the designers are smart (and they certainly seem to be), they will keep the details of the capstone abilities a deep and deadly secret. That will make for an excruciating player dilemma, at least for the first year or so: Go multiclass, which is often more fun, or go for the capstone, when you have no idea what it's going to be?
Nor will you be able to hedge your bets; if it takes as long as Ryan is hinting to reach the level cap, you'll have to take the decision early on in order not to waste all that time and experience.
Any views on how you're likely to jump on this one, assuming you join the game at an early stage?
Diego Rossi wrote:
Perhaps the way to go is to allow for a number of different options when the guild is first formed. If the guild is to be very much a private, personal enterprise whose assets, plant, goodwill etc. are all the property of a player, then the option might be "fold at leader's discretion". On the other hand, if a group of players get together to form a guild, they most likely wouldn't want the leader, whether elected or appointed, to suddenly close it down on a whim or a fit of temper; in which case, the option might be "fold only upon a unanimous/majority vote of the officers/members".
I think the whole thief v. security conflict has to be scaled. Obviously a highly skilled thief has to be given the opportunity to practice his skills, otherwise he wouldn't bother; at the same time, I believe players should be given a margin, however small, of absolute security for certain items. Making everything potentially thievable is the equivalent of having nowhere at all safe from player attacks: the result would be virtual anarchy, with life for most players becoming nasty, brutal and short.
My apologies if this has been the subject of an earlier thread. Whilst I am not necessarily taking a position for or again real time skill progression (a.k.a. I haven't yet made up my mind...), I do wonder whether the EVE 'oldtimer' effect will kick in here - namely, the fact that later arrivals will, in the nature of things, never catch up with older players in terms of skills.
I would be strongly inclined to leave alignment out of it entirely - artificial or rule-generated alignment, that is. The way the game is shaping up, it seems very clear that player actions will determine a more realistic kind of alignment. What might be interesting, on the other hand, is a reputation system based on player input.
I hope they dont allow one person to disband a guild
A definite no-no, in my opinion. Guilds or other groups should never be at the mercy of one member in this way. Perhaps the way to go is to have a guild fail only when it hits a minimum of members, without ever allowing individual members (including the leader) to do anything other than resign. That should take care of just about every foreseeable eventuality,.