Do we want more consequences/realism in game?

[PaulImposteur]

Having negatives like that would just lead to people immediately tracking down people to cure their ailments however possible. It's kind of 'video-gamey', at least that's how I think a lot of people would end up treating it. It would lose it's 'hardcore' appeal.

I kind of think negatives like that feel like a punishment for dying. Where I see perma-death as an end to a story. Perma-death though, I think shouldn't lead to automatic character deletion. Think they should be knocked prone permanently so they can at least RP their last moments and such. Then delete them upon log off maybe?

Edit: There's lots of players I'm sure will RP those negatives, but I think quite a few would just ignore, after the first couple deaths.

[Steve]

Remember: higher consequences and more realism should come with greater rewards!!!

There is NO POINT to enact higher consequences and more realism—which is the Risk—if there is not equal Reward to balance that out.

This is inherent stuff in games. Think of it as upping the Challenge Rating!!

[Invoker]

I'm curious...in a world were spells and potions make you literally regenerate everything (and up to reincarnating your utterly destroyed body, no less...), how do you actually manage to remain maimed...?

By not having access to a sufficiently strong cleric/druid (level 7 and levle 9 spells respectively).

Cursed weapons or annoying wrong kind of creatures (fiends) may result in permanent injury as well.

Granted, Neg.

But how can you call that permanent?!

In that form, we already have that on the server.

[NegInfinity]

I'm curious...in a world were spells and potions make you literally regenerate everything (and up to reincarnating your utterly destroyed body, no less...), how do you actually manage to remain maimed...?

By not having access to a sufficiently strong cleric/druid (level 7 and levle 9 spells respectively).

Cursed weapons or annoying wrong kind of creatures (fiends) may result in permanent injury as well.

Granted, Neg.

But how can you call that permanent?!

In that form, we already have that on the server.

Hmm. Might not have been the best choice of words. "Semi-permanent". A farmer losing a limb might need to spend the rest of the life without it, unless he/she wins a jackpot and bumps into a high level lathandrite, or something like that. So the injury will be permanent in THAT sence.

Permanent injury that can't be fixed by a regeneration spell would require an unfortunate encounter with something sufficiently powerful - a fiend, a cultist with cursed weapon, etc.

INterestingly, few online source claim that there are no dnd rules for dismemberment/maiming, and I don't recall anything like that myself. So I guess DND is not supposed to be a dwarf fortress kind of game (where a quadruple amputee might learn how to roll on the ground and defeat enemies by biting their limbs off, which is probably a very dwarven thing to do).

Also, there's a catch. It is unclear how regeneration spell works. Does it fix a recent injury or restore previous "stable" state of the body? Its description mention that it can reattach a missing limb, or regrow it at slower speed. But what if the wound is already closed/healed?
For example, if it only heals recent injury and restores body to "previous stable state", then one year after losing a limb the limb would not regrow even if you cast regenerate on the stump. Meaning regenrate may have its limits. Obviously this is not explained in lore books anywhere. However, we have palemasters, and casting a regenerate on palemasters does not make them lose their grafted arms for some reason. This is something to think about.

If the topic interests you, you could request a DM ruling for that.

[Tantive]

You could preserve an arm with gentle repose, and cut the stump again to create a new wound. I'de argue you need the arm without necrosis setting in. Regeneration has more description here.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Not an overwhelming response in one direction or the other. The community is likely to stay the course as is.

[Steve]

Not an overwhelming response in one direction or the other. The community is likely to stay the course as is.

There is a 10% increase in those wanting higher risk vs. reward!!

But then again, we all know that polls on this forum can be manipulated...so:

[Hrafnar]

Realism in a pw just don't work out. The more realism you bring in, the less players you will have. I saw that happen on NWW1 PW more than once.
Only a few players love to walk 8 hours through a forest without seeing at least one monster to fight. Well, but that would be more realistic!

Hi, I only recently joined the server. I'm interested in this topic though and this comment jumped out at me. To players that have been here a while and know the module it might seem pretty straight-forward to implement a higher death penalty because the better you know the world the easier it is to level-safely and the easier it is to get a group together. However harsher penalties tend to punish new players and people in different timezones to the majority or with just downright awkward playtimes.

For instance: Maltz in the east gate district who is probably one of the first merchants you'll speak to as a new player gives you a quest to nip down to Beregost. Simple enough for my level 3 char, right? Stick to the roads and I should at least be able to make it to the next nearest town. Nope! I'll probably make it past the bandits. I might even get around the hill giant standing on the bridge throwing boulders at me, only to run into the goblins who will most certainly kill me. Surely the main road should be somewhat safer?

But maybe not, maybe it's dumb to travel alone and only crazy people would. It's a violent age after all. However that's when the limitations of a PW kick in. I think at least make the main roads a little safer if you're going to up the penalties for dying - maybe a heavier Flaming Fist presence? Where are those guys, anyway? And the frequency of the spawns is just silly sometimes, IMHO, and makes RP while adventuring a hassle and a risk, which is a shame as that's my favorite kind of RP.

This is coming from someone that normally plays single player games hardcore, no-reloads. I love the challenge but when you're in a PW environment and contending with lag, frequent crashes and so dependent on the habits of others it changes things.

[chad878262]

In general I think small changes/baby steps are the better approach. I forget where, but at some point it was suggested that we institute a permanent death, but give players something like 75 lives before it occurs. In most cases, even someone like me who sometimes tests the limits knowing full well I am flirting with myrkul would be hard pressed to die 75 times on one PC before starting a new PC or RCR'ing... Point being the impact would likely not be felt, certainly not for quite some time and if players began approaching that 75th death they would have to consider hard if they want to RCR or risk losing their character (and loot, XP, etc!) Players attached to a characters RP may begin taking a lot less chances, be a lot less aggressive, willing to PvP and the like. You might say, characters might grow with their (MANY) near death experiences... OOC'ly the player is thinking 'crap, I got 65 deaths, I need to learn to be more careful!' but IC'ly we see a PC that has seen a lot and perhaps has learned it's not always good to think of combat as the first and only option/solution to a situation.

In addition, if something like that was implemented, it would give time for the server to get used to the idea and then later on determine how comfortable everyone is with making the limit 50 deaths, or even less. I think starting with 10, while still a high number (we are talking about actually dying here, right???) scares a lot of folks away, but when you approach triple digits it is a much further off concern and allows more room for error and learning curve, especially for newbies.

All this said, it is really probably best to deal with server stability and myriad other concerns before delving too deeply in to ideas such as these, even though I agree they would make for an interesting change in how we all RP, adventure and the like... I know I would spend a lot more time learning how much to trust the PC's my characters adventure with before taking on dungeons at our CR... I would want to understand how good that cleric is at keeping me on my feet, how good the tank is at holding agro and I am sure others would want to ensure I was playing my role well. Would be fun.

[Tantive]

I don't think a mechanicly perma death counter is a safe way to deal with the buggy nature of this online game, and the way Death is also treated as incapacitated/dying but not death with for instance DM events. I still say the problem lies in the nature of 1 and 0. You are alive or you are dead, and there lies nothing in between (mechanicly) while Rp might dictate otherwise.

[chad878262]

I agree, death mechanic counter would need to work correctly and definition of pvp death would need to be addressed. As I said, server stability and other things take precedence, regardless.

[Hoihe]

Not even all DM events go for "you down you dead".

Had an event last weekend that's basically the definition of "upper 10's/early epics" adventure, and people who went down during the boss fight were treated as "unconcious" rather than dead.

[aaron22]

Well I don't see how having an option in/out choice at Character creation is a bad thing. Play HC for 1.5× xp. Or don't for standard. Alter the color of the name to indicate in or out. So that baiting can be avoided. There might be some issues that involve server problems. But that can be warned at the choice. During a DM event they can dictate player deaths how they see fit. I would also like that a body remains prone until reset to allow for a rez. Just my opinion

[Invoker]

However, we have palemasters, and casting a regenerate on palemasters does not make them lose their grafted arms for some reason. This is something to think about.

If the topic interests you, you could request a DM ruling for that.

Very true.

My personal interpretation has always been that the caster fixes the "known" problem, meaning: he sees a wound, he fixes it. Or, he "senses" a source of pain, or a threat to the creature's well being, and knits the organs/tissues back with magic.

In this sense, a missing limb (or eye, for instance) would be easily seen, just like an internal bleeding sensed. On the other hand, a character with intentionally half-mummified organs (for instance), being "fine", would be overlooked unless the healer were to have some time to study the subject before casting.

Thus, a pale master would "look" like he/she has an arm, whereas a cripple would be evidently missing it, therefore the healer would direct the regenerative power of the spell towards the "problem". Healing the pale master should be possible, but only knowing he/she is one.

Admittedly, just my 2 cents: I've never read anything too clear on the subject, either.

[NegInfinity]

However, we have palemasters, and casting a regenerate on palemasters does not make them lose their grafted arms for some reason. This is something to think about.

If the topic interests you, you could request a DM ruling for that.

Very true.

My personal interpretation has always been that the caster fixes the "known" problem, meaning: he sees a wound, he fixes it. Or, he "senses" a source of pain, or a threat to the creature's well being, and knits the organs/tissues back with magic.

In this sense, a missing limb (or eye, for instance) would be easily seen, just like an internal bleeding sensed. On the other hand, a character with intentionally half-mummified organs (for instance), being "fine", would be overlooked unless the healer were to have some time to study the subject before casting.

Thus, a pale master would "look" like he/she has an arm, whereas a cripple would be evidently missing it, therefore the healer would direct the regenerative power of the spell towards the "problem". Healing the pale master should be possible, but only knowing he/she is one.

Admittedly, just my 2 cents: I've never read anything too clear on the subject, either.

This makes sense, however, it is possible to argue that regenerate does not require healing skill, and works on its own, without a healer.

I think the rough idea I outlined earlier could be used to explain missing limbs in a world with regenerate spell. Basically, imagine that body "remembers" its usual condition (i.e. in "I'm fine" state), and regenerate uses THAT to figure out what is missing. Meaning if character recently lost a limb, regenerate will regrow it. However, if the character has been without a limb for a while, the body would "memorize" that it doesn't have a limb, and stump won't regrow into a limb anymore, even if the wound is artifically reopened. This would also explain palemaster grafts not getting destroyed, scars, and many other things.

But in the end, it is just one more possible interpretation.

As I said, you could request a DM ruling on the subject.