Do we want more consequences/realism in game?

[Snarfy]

this happens very rarely. like "maybe a dozen times ever" rarely. i think its pretty realistic that doopsy do wanderer guy get a scowl when approaching a well known BAD guy and gives them ye 'ol friendly nod. its RP. that big orc over there in soubar is probably not the one to ask directions to the nearest pub-n-tug.

beat down... lesson learned... move along. no hard feelings.. just PROPER rp.

Nowadays, perhaps it is more rare(thankfully). 6 months to a year ago, not so much, as I witnessed epic level toons trolling FAI campfire dwellers/travelers with evil summons on almost a bi-weekly basis, and often flagrantly breaking the PvP rules in the process. It was brutal to watch, and the RP/OOC that came along with it was PROPER in the toilet.

Now that I think about it(which I said I wouldn't do... bah), I would almost prefer some sort of script that prevents two characters from hostiling when the level difference between them is too great, perhaps when one character is more than twice the level of the other. But... that in itself would be a bit meta In all seriousness, I honestly don't think there's any way to rectify the lack of consequences from PVP deaths, other than to trust the players involved to RP it responsibly....

[Hoihe]

this happens very rarely. like "maybe a dozen times ever" rarely. i think its pretty realistic that doopsy do wanderer guy get a scowl when approaching a well known BAD guy and gives them ye 'ol friendly nod. its RP. that big orc over there in soubar is probably not the one to ask directions to the nearest pub-n-tug.

beat down... lesson learned... move along. no hard feelings.. just PROPER rp.

Nowadays, perhaps it is more rare(thankfully). 6 months to a year ago, not so much, as I witnessed epic level toons trolling FAI campfire dwellers/travelers with evil summons on almost a bi-weekly basis, and often flagrantly breaking the PvP rules in the process. It was brutal to watch, and the RP/OOC that came along with it was PROPER in the toilet.

Now that I think about it(which I said I wouldn't do... bah), I would almost prefer some sort of script that prevents two characters from hostiling when the level difference between them is too great, perhaps when one character is more than twice the level of the other. But... that in itself would be a bit meta In all seriousness, I honestly don't think there's any way to rectify the lack of consequences from PVP deaths, other than to trust the players involved to RP it responsibly....

Let's implement the CONCORD system.

By the way, in a less salty post.. and speaking of EVE online.


Do you want consequences for dying? Death doesn't really make sense to be permanent in Forgotten Realms the same way it doesn't in EVE Online.

However, item loss I can get behind, even being perpetually broke. Perhaps the ability to flag 3 items as "Essential", but risking everything else. Would go well with the current no level limit thing to bring value back to weaker items.

[Ithilan]

What is it with people here wanting consequences for others? I dont get this mindset at all.

I dont get what makes people think they or for that matter anyone else, is capable of making judgements on others characters and what the appropriate consequences for X interaction should be.

Ill use my latest PvP example for this, I ran across a pair of Malarite druids some months back and though the initiation to the pvp that ensued was really light RP, the aftermath of it was worth every moment of being pummeled as a level 21 against a level 30. Should I have been sentenced to death then since one of the druids did a very vivid explination of what he did to my remains? No because its not his decision, nor yours. Nor should a DM observing it have made that call, there was nothing there but a chance encounter that spawned some interesting RP. I dont care that I lost one bit, I liked the interaction between two deities that are at odds and how it in this particular case took form from the given characters.

If I break down the PvP scenario I know exactly what I did wrong to lose and I know exactly how I could alter the outcome in the future. Should I have this in the back of my head every time a possible PvP enounter ensues? That this punk here wants me permaed and unless I go back to my original powerbuild bard layout, ill be off worse in all these situations?

This topic is spiralling towards a thoughtline where we have to aspire to optimize, min max and just dedicate to becoming a living god or legend that is above these risks, it already factors in with so many players here, they build because they are afraid to lose. The amount of people that ask me about builds, or others, to optimize and then proceed to go OOC pvp taunting and boasting, it makes me facepalm so hard and that is one of the reasons im so opposed to this.

Secondly, we have not ever and not now, had a staff so compentent as to be able to make these decisions. Yes that includes Maecius who I adore and everyone else on staff, you are not able to make the decision on what the appropriate solution for X character is in a situation.. BEYOND the immersion RP factor that you may percieve, in the process we neglect perhaps the most important question in the equation, how will the player feel?

Im not here to polish someone elses ego with my character, im not here to build some lasting legend or put myself on a pedastal, but im here to have fun. If my fun can at any moment be snuffed out by the decision of one person, biased or not. Then its not worth having, some of us do commit heavily to a character or its concept, backgrounds and short stories etc etc. that means we get attached yes and if we are to lose something we put so many hours, days, weeks, months or even years in to. It better be for the right decision and that is beyond anyone to make but the player themselves.

Id encourage realism and not feeling above these very real factors in this world, becuase death very much is. But I would never encourage putting these decisions in the hands of others, because they are simply put, not capable of making the right decision.

[Argumantive]

Voted yes, though would like to point a thing here.

Consequences are a nice thing, when they go both ways, make death in PvE more meaningfull great? But make so killing a dragon does not reward you with the same things killing gnolls does, make rewards match the area's dangers.
If by realism and consequences the meaning is make all things PC's already do harder and more punishing, with no reward, I would be against it.

Regarding PvP, as it is now, if the PvP is RP'd well usually the involved parties will just settle between themselves, if it is a "oh look lets kill that lvl 1 guys with a vamp feast for the lulz" it will just be RP'ly ignored by any sane person. Another fact is, due to the fact the server is not balanced in the least regarding classes, I would say PvP consequences should only be forced if they happened during a DM event.

As of DM events, where I do think the consequences should be much more dire, I would say that it really should go BOTH ways, no more plot armor, no more untouchable NPC's, if a PC is risking permadeath, he should be able do the same amount of damage to the world... A meteor raining mage should not even blink before scorching an uptight noble on the road, a veteran soldier wearing the equivalent to a small kingdom's wealth in magical arms and armor, shouldn't be intimidated by mundane city guards. Nor any of these "regular" people should be dumb enough to be hostile towards a fella who's daily routine Is taking care of all the things they regularly hire his ilk for.

I do remember this is not a single player RPG, but for the basic FR realism, I would love to say that adventurers in the realms are a unique minority by their sole existence, they risk their well being on a daily basis as a profession, and by lore, have the highest level of social mobility within the setting, Cyric is a great example of what an adventurer can achieve.

I would say consent should be a basis for all, if a group of PC's is willing to risk permadeath for a cause they believe is just/profitable/why the hell not, they should be given a chance at it, with failure costing dearly. If the group put no thought into it, and just goes Yolo into it, they will die, otherwise, a well planned thing that involved scouting, planning, bribing etc over some time leading to it, would give the group much higher chances of success.

I have bolded the TL:DR portion that would sum it up ^^ Disclosure: The writer is a fan of Tomb of Horrors and epic god killing campaigns

[Snarfy]

However, item loss I can get behind, even being perpetually broke. Perhaps the ability to flag 3 items as "Essential", but risking everything else. Would go well with the current no level limit thing to bring value back to weaker items.

Given the nature of interwebz connectivity, and the oft-up and down status of the server(even when Captain DDoS isn't being a human turd), I don't think an "item loss" idea will ever fly, be it in PVE or PVP. Too many things can go wrong, nope nope nope.

This topic is spiralling towards a thoughtline where we have to aspire to optimize, min max and just dedicate to becoming a living god or legend that is above these risks, it already factors in with so many players here, they build because they are afraid to lose. The amount of people that ask me about builds, or others, to optimize and then proceed to go OOC pvp taunting and boasting, it makes me facepalm so hard and that is one of the reasons im so opposed to this.

I suspect that the "optimize" mentality is, and has been for a while, already quite prevalent here. Your experience with people asking about optimizing builds seems to support the existence of that mentality at least. Unfortunately, this is just how things have become in BG's transition into medium(with small pockets of heavy) RP terrain, which is why I tend to agree with you in that nothing should be changed in regards to PvP consequences.

PVE/event consequences for death, on the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing some form of stat-loss and/or level drain, as well as a reduction in the drop-rates/restriction to divine casting of raise-dead scrolls, ideas being explored.

[Flasmix]

No for PvE.
No for PvP.
Yes for DM events.

I don't think it's fair for a perm strike because you rolled a 1 on a vamp feast from chaos.

Also because power builds come heavily into play for pvp and it's just going to inspire more and more of that.

As for DM events? Yes. High risk high reward.

[Ariella]

But as far as permadeath is concerned, thids makes decent points. Resurrection magic is, lorewise, extremely rare. It is massively expensive and in some cases even lifedraining to the one performing it. We have a bit of an unfortunate tendency on the server to think that level 30 means lorebased level 30. As if we are all on par with Elminster and Szass Tam in power. And all of these level 30s are just hanging out on the Sword Coast.

A level 30 PC here is lorebased at level 15 or at least that's been the general staff ruling for as long as i have been here, That does however still remain within the resurrection casting requirement and wealth requirement.

[Ithilan]

No for PvE.
No for PvP.
Yes for DM events.

I don't think it's fair for a perm strike because you rolled a 1 on a vamp feast from chaos.

Also because power builds come heavily into play for pvp and it's just going to inspire more and more of that.

As for DM events? Yes. High risk high reward.

And when the DM resolves to just spawn a million monsters on you for half an hour? Or when the DM tries to make the event appropriate to the powerbuild in the bunch?

It wont work if we are talking combat mechanics, because this game has no a hint of balence to it. So its impossible to translate this risk for the entire party without screwing someone over or making it too easy for others. If we are talking sheer RP then im all for it, but beyond yourself Flas.. I havent met a DM since Vindicator that gave the option to resolve situations peacefully through dialouge.

[Flasmix]

If it's announced before hand, then it's up to the player to choose to take part. That's how I think it would be okay.

[chad878262]

If it's announced before hand, then it's up to the player to choose to take part. That's how I think it would be okay.

It also depends on the DM though, and often players do not know what to expect from 1 DM to the next. I've been in events where after the fact the DM said 'sorry guys, I'm not so good at balancing enemies, that was obviously a little tough'... I am all for DM's being able to give repercussions for events up to and including permadeath if it's announced before hand. However, it would be really frustrating to get in an event and end up in a 'no-win' situation. DM's should only use these kinds of repercussions when they have held several events with the specific players in question and understand what types of builds they have. Otherwise you can end up with the issue of events developed to thwart the FS and Bard, but everyone in the event is a R20/SD10... and that just isn't going to end well.

[Hawke]

Had to do some work on this thread due to a report. Please keep in mind the rules and be humane towards one another.

Thank you.

[Hidennka]

On a server I played on in the past, assassinations/ambushes/PvP attempts with consequences could be made through application. One party would submit their request, with reasoning, and their plan for how it would go down, number of participants, etc. If viable and approved (not just 'this person called me a name'), those wishing to make the attempt would be told. The opposite party would also be told, though not given details when, where or how it was to occur. The attempt would be overseen by a DM. The kicker was, though? If you put in an application and you died in the attempt? It was your perma.

It didn't always have to be PvP, either. Roleplay based attempts/rituals/traps did happen.

Not sure if that system would work here, could be downgraded to application-based strikes, but it's food for thought.

Personally, I've been the one to have given my previous character her perma-strikes in the past because the instance of her dying was really well played out for all those involved (kudos, Zhents). She wouldn't have been rezzed if not for the efforts of others. Another event, an exorcism, came with permadeath pre-warning and definitely had me on the edge of my seat (kudos, Maecius). I couldn't look away.

[DM Dagon]

A level 30 PC here is lorebased at level 15 or at least that's been the general staff ruling for as long as i have been here, That does however still remain within the resurrection casting requirement and wealth requirement.

Fast correction. That was never been offical as far as I know. Some people use it as a point of navigation, but it is in no way offical. It is -usually- assumed PCs are about that power, but it has it's problems.

For example, that would make players very strong compared to some NPCs, who are supposed to be quite strong in fact. In lore about level 15, NPCs are heroes, and even under that. You can be easily a renowned thief and a crimelord in PnP at level 8.

So, overall, personally I think it is muddy grounds. I would really not assume PCs are more then level 10, or so at max, but would rather disregard mechanical levels in nwn2, considering they are nowhere near PnP, and without a major rework, it never will be.

Personally, I think it is all relative, but personally I prefer the "PCs are skilled, but there is bigger fish out there too", approach.

And I know that considering some DM events did went more epic then they ever should have in my eyes, but that does not mean we should continue down in the road of what I would call "inflation" of epic events. This does carry with it, that people won't be treated as great heroes, of course, rather more mundane but still respected, given effort and time.

Yes, this does not fit well with use having "epic" (they are really not like epic spells in PnP) spells, a lot of magic, and high numbers, but that wouldn't make sense. At all. Honestly, even if we were to say all PCs are level 10, we would be still quite out of balance, compared to what is supposed to be the case. So, we are not in an ideal situation, but I would rather have mechanical dissonance, then PCs as strong as legends.

At the end, this boils down to personal preferance. Some people want to play the hero of the day, some want to play something else. I doubt there will be ever a consensus on PC power, and ATM it is left in the DM's hands, which might be a good in the middle solution, even if far from ideal imo.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, and is not representative of the team's opinion.

[Empoweredfan]

If consequences and realism is what one wants, there is nothing at all stopping people from applying this to oneself first and foremost. That would be completely your own choice, and no one would argue if you wish to play that way at all.

If this is about imposing consequences and realism on others, then this is just another way to lower our number of players. As for DM's, I agree with Ithilan. There is absolutely no way to tell if the DM in question would be at all competent to handle such a responsibility. You never really know. And if they give the choice as Flashmix says, to a group, then the decision is made by a group. Since one player backing out would break the fun for others, that doesn't really work as a good way to make a decision that you might personally disagree with.

It's just looks like a endless series of potentially bad situations.

[Zanniej]

I've voted yes myself. And though I agree you shouldn't/can't force RP on others, I think that some parts of the game would benefit from a bit more relative realism. I say relative realism, because it should be relative to the setting. One of the most talked about topics is death. My honest opinion is that the game is less fun, because death doesn't mean much here.

Everybody is a hero, because even if you lose, you can't lose. You can fight with everybody, and never die. You can stir up the hornets nest, walk into darkhold on your own as a paladin, PvP everybody and die along the way, only to try again tomorrow.

How you play and RP is up to you. Completely up to you. But when you involve others, especially with PvP, I think others should have a say in it too (a say . . . not complete control, mind you). Should I have a nemesis in this game, I'd want to be able to finish our long running dispute. If that would eventually lead to PvP (which I always try to avoid, because I don't want to "die"), then I'd like it very much if either of us would die at the end. If that turns out to be me, then I'd gladly retire my character. The game is no fun to me if you've got nothing to lose. There's no winning if you can't lose.

Anyway, I started this thread to check what people's opinions are on the case. I've got a pretty clear view of that now, and it's pretty divided, as was to be expected (though I didn't expect a near-tie like this, I must admit). Perhaps, if we'd be willing to change something to cater to both sides, then we could find a way to give possibility to change, without forcing everybody to play the same game. Perhaps food of thought.

This game should be, and should stay fun for as many people as possible. There are no wrong opinions (except perhaps the opinion "my opinion is right, and yours is wrong" ), just different views on fun.

Perhaps in a few days I'll start a new thread, thinking on how to cater to the half of people that want more realism, while still leaving just as much room to the other half that want to keep it as is.