2013 February, Adventure Building Challenge

[Legacy_meaglyn]

               Erm... self, RTFM '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

rogueknight333 wrote...

In theory that seems reasonable, but if you make the main challenge for your Level 1 characters fighting rats (a monster who only does 1 damage per hit), you will get complaints about how cliched and boring that is. You can also run into story-logic problems where people wonder why the bandits or goblins or whatever they are fighting are equipped with rusty daggers when there is no apparent reason why they would not have access to better equipment than that.

Bandit
Level 1 Fighter

Stats:
STR: 8
DEX: 16
CON: 8
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 10

4 HP (5 from fighter, -1 from constitution).

Doesn't seem unreasonable (PCs are supposed to have better overall stats, right?).

Wields a standard dagger, so 1-3 damage per hit (1, 1, 2, 3 as possibilities).  AB is 0 (+1 from fighter, -1 from strength).

I mean, basically, if the enemies the PC is fighting have equivalent  levels, equivalent stats, and equivalent gear, the PC should not be winning.  The enemies need to be weaker to make sense story wise.  Which means lower level (not possible in this case), lower stats (possible), worse gear (also possible, but more difficult since everything is mundane), or worse/fewer consumables (which doesn't necessarily make a ton of sense in this case).

Daggers would also seem to be the stereotypical bandit weapon too, no?  Easily concealed for ambushes and such.

rogueknight333 wrote...

In any case, whether it is a good idea or not, most modules for 1st-level characters seem to be designed in the expectation that one will not be able to survive without a bit of luck, and just assume players will respawn/reload if they do not get that luck (and then when one gets out of that low-level "instant death" zone, they mostly go to the other extreme and make things far too easy, but that is a whole other topic). I do not myself like having to reload, or to respawn unless the respawn system has been incorporated into the plot in a reasonable way (which I try to do in my own modules), since I find these immersion-breaking meta-gaming actions, but I think most players (and builders) just accept the occasional necessity as an element of the game, and do not worry about them until the frequency starts to seem excessive.

In other words, you see it as a choice between immersion breaking meta actions or immersion breaking enemies (though I think you overestimate the latter).

rogueknight333 wrote...

I am not sure what you mean by "constantly." I would normally top off the bear's hitpoints through dialgoue after a significant episode of fighting was done (or rest if I had taken HP losses too or used spells), and in the final fight I fed him a couple healing potions while the fight was going on (only time that expedient was actually needed).

Well, at all really, I suppose.  I know many people consider being able to infinitely heal your companion (borderline) exploitative and given that you've mentioned you think strategic resource management is important for you, I figured you'd loathe the option as well (since it nullifies part of the management).

rogueknight333 wrote...

It is not that simple, since the value of a wand goes down as the number of charges does (if you alter the number of charges in the toolset, you will not see the price visibly change there, but it does), and that value of 1501 just applies to a wand with the full 50.

Ah.  Yeah, I knew the value went down with less charges, but I opened his version of the wand specifically to avoid that.  Didn't realize the value was always the same in the toolset.

rogueknight333 wrote...

And you are also not taking into account the ability to increase effective UMD by using a Potion of Eagle's Splendor or something of that nature.

True.  Were those even available?  Didn't check.

meaglyn wrote...

Meaglyn would be fine with a PM with that if you're willing '> I find that I can only really proof read things on paper with a pen in hand. I haven't found a good way to solve that with creature variables, journals entries, conversations and so on...

Just let me know when you have a newer version out and I'll scour it for typos.

meaglyn wrote...

Where is this from?  Looks like useful information, and there's probably more where that came from...

Maybe I'll make the neutral until perception... I'l play around with this part.

NWN wiki.

Even with them neutral, that's still a DC of 20 (which means there's a decent chance the NPC will spot the theft (attempt) and go hostile).
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 18 mars 2013 - 08:09 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <beating a...>

Just a thought on a subject I have argued about for thirty years :-P

If you don't want the PC to die from bad rolls at level 1, and you want believable enemies (IMO, bandits would be armed with clubs & staves at least, and probably bows), then simply don't let them die. :-)

Seriously, while developing the death system for Amethyst one of the first precepts is "there will be *no* accidental death for PCs. They are a cut above and favored by the gods and yada yada (who really seems to be a powerful, or at least popular god himself). So, at first level or during minor "flavor" or "training" encounters, have the worst outcome be unconsciousness and perhaps robbery. They come to in some bushes, hidden from marauders and need to work to recover.

But they don't die.

Save that for when they yell "Bonsai!" and charge the ancient red wyrm :-P

<...horse he doesn't think is quite dead>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_jackkel dragon]

               In addition to Rolo Kipp's idea, there is the option of giving the enemies NPC-only versions of weapons with the "Attack and Damage Penalty" but the same appearance as whatever normal weapons are floating around. Those paying attention to the combat log will see right through to the game mechanics (even if the enemies drop PC-safe versions of the weapons with base stats), but a -1 through -5 range of penalties should be more than enough to keep players alive until level 2.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               Jackkel, that was one of the things mentioned by rogueknight in terms of people wondering why successful bandits are using shoddy equipment.  I think the problem is that people who don't pay attention to the combat log/game mechanics in general won't notice regardless of the method you use to make them weaker, but those who do will see through it regardless of the method you use to make them weaker.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...
I mean, basically, if the enemies the PC is fighting have equivalent  levels, equivalent stats, and equivalent gear, the PC should not be winning.  The enemies need to be weaker to make sense story wise.  Which means lower level (not possible in this case), lower stats (possible), worse gear (also possible, but more difficult since everything is mundane), or worse/fewer consumables (which doesn't necessarily make a ton of sense in this case).

You have put your finger on a bit of a game design dilemma here, since the game will not be very challenging most of the time unless the PC is being sent up against foes who on paper he should not (and would not if they were also controlled by a human player who knew what he was doing) be able to beat. The biggest advantage of a PC is simply not being controlled by an AI. The advantages this provides can sometimes be quite unrealistic, though one can RP it to a certain extent if one has better INT or WIS than the enemies. That of course is not necessarily the case, though perhaps one can suppose the PC to have an instinctive grasp of combat tactics while being foolish in most other respects. In most cases (ambushes aside) the PC is also the attacker (at a tactical if not necessarily strategic level), and can often be presumed to be taking enemies by surprise, which might help explain them doing a few stupid things, and also things like the enemies having fewer consumables (i.e., they might have potions and such lying about somewhere, but not immediately to hand). I think part of the whole problem we are discussing (survival too luck-dependent at low level, while most modules become too easy at later levels) stems from the fact that many module builders just provide enemies who are of an equivalent level to the PC and built similarly. At first level, for exampe, if we have a PC fighter and an NPC fighter with equivalent stats and equipment going at each other, it is basically just a matter of luck who will win. One crit, for either combatant, and the fight is most likely over. If the PC first drinks potions of Bull's Strength, Endurance and Aid (which the NPC typically either will not have and might not have the sense to use even if he does), the odds will be tilted in the PC's favor, but not so overwhelmingly that really bad luck might not still see him die. A 10th level PC however, would probably wipe the floor with a 10th level NPC with equivalent stats and equipment, and the PCs advantage will get bigger as he goes up in levels, mainly because more levels means more resources of one sort or another that the PC will be able to use intelligently and the enemies will not. To challenge a PC of increasing levels one must send him up against enemies who out-level him by increasingly significant margins (well, not necessarily literally out-level, but with more AB, hit points, etc.).

To be sure, while not always realistic, this state of affairs adds to the drama. Players will appreciate being given the chance to outsmart their foes and beat the odds - just the thing to really make one feel like a hero.

MagicalMaster wrote...
In other words, you see it as a choice between immersion breaking meta actions or immersion breaking enemies (though I think you overestimate the latter).

More or less, though another point I was making was simply that it might not be realistic to expect that most module-builders are going to bother to fine-tune combat balance as precisely as you suggest. I myself at least try to, but I do so to achieve at least two effects which can sometimes be at odds with each other:

1) Tactics should matter, i.e., players should be rewarded (with easier fights, fewers reloads, etc.) if they play intelligently, and punished if they play stupidly. One corollary of this is that, as you say, simple luck should not play too enormous a role.

2) Fights should be dramatic and challenging. When the player sees a mass of undead horrors converging on him, I want his reaction to be closer to "Yikes! I'm in trouble" than to "Ah, an opportunity to gain some XP." To achieve this, the fights need to be challenging enought that there is a real chance of the PC getting killed (and some sort of meaningful consequences to getting killed). That means a fight with a strictly limited margin for error, where bad luck can hurt you (and not just bad luck in the form of the computer's simulated dice rolls - the player accidentally hitting the wrong key or clicking on the wrong thing can matter too).

MagicalMaster wrote...
Well, at all really, I suppose.  I know many people consider being able to infinitely heal your companion (borderline) exploitative and given that you've mentioned you think strategic resource management is important for you, I figured you'd loathe the option as well (since it nullifies part of the management).

I do not like it (though it is not as bad as being able to rest after every encounter, since an animal companion's usefulness, even fully healed, is limited by being controlled by the AI), but I still make use of it when permitted to do so. I tend to assume that modules will be balanced on the assumption that things like that will be used (not necessarily the case, but I cannot know that until I have played through the module), and so I use them. To put it another way, I tend to dislike these kinds of borderline exploitative game features in much the same way an alcoholic trying to reform would dislike people constantly offering him drinks. If they are not disabled I often cannot resist taking advantage of them.

"I'm rogueknight333 and I'm a powergamer..."

MagicalMaster wrote...

rogueknight333 wrote...

And you are also not taking into account the ability to increase effective UMD by using a Potion of Eagle's Splendor or something of that nature.

True.  Were those even available?  Didn't check.

I do not recall, but in the context of what resources hypothetically could be provided to rogues, in a revised version, it is a relevant point regardless.

Rolo Kipp wrote...
...So, at first level or during minor "flavor" or "training" encounters, have the worst outcome be unconsciousness and perhaps robbery. They come to in some bushes, hidden from marauders and need to work to recover...

jackkel dragon wrote...
...there is the option of giving the enemies NPC-only versions of weapons with the "Attack and Damage Penalty" but the same appearance as whatever normal weapons are floating around. Those paying attention to the combat log will see right through to the game mechanics (even if the enemies drop PC-safe versions of the weapons with base stats), but a -1 through -5 range of penalties should be more than enough to keep players alive until level 2.

Neither of these are bad ideas, depending on what type of module one is making and what effects are aimed at, but they do not completely resolve the choice between either giving PCs a chance to respawn, or fine-tuning the combat so they most likely will not need to. What Rolo describes is basically a sophisticated respawn system (he does not say whether it literally involves hitting the respawn button, but it amounts to the same thing even if not - you "die" but come back) with a somewhat plausible in-world explanation for it, and what jackkel dragon describes is simply a way of balancing the combat while disguising from less observant players some of the mechanics of how it is being done, thereby aiding immersion for at least some of them.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Rolo Kipp wrote...
...So, at first level or during minor "flavor" or "training" encounters, have the worst outcome be unconsciousness and perhaps robbery. They come to in some bushes, hidden from marauders and need to work to recover...

I made a death system for exactly this situation. When a PC is killed you can customize what happens based on killer or the area in which the PC was killed. I created this because in a single player module that I never released I wanted the PC to have the possibility of meeting the mother spider. The mother spider will mostly likely defeat the PC, and then when that happens, the PC was wrapped up in silk and hung up in the spider's lair. Before they are eaten, and while the spider is gone, the PC is rescued. It was a very fun set of cutscenes. Perhaps I'll release the spider adventure as a stand alone mini-adventure someday. So far I'm the only one that ever played it.

There are many ways to think about what the outcome of a defeat in combat should be, and all you have to do is catch the death event and run special code prior to proceeding with a respawn or any of that.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 19 mars 2013 - 08:08 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

rogueknight333 wrote...

You have put your finger on a bit of a game design dilemma here, since the game will not be very challenging most of the time unless the PC is being sent up against foes who on paper he should not (and would not if they were also controlled by a human player who knew what he was doing) be able to beat. The biggest advantage of a PC is simply not being controlled by an AI.

That's true at times, but even more typical is the PC winning because they have healing potions and their opponent(s) doesn't/don't.

Example: PC fighter goes against enemy fighter who has 2 more AB, 2 more AC, and 30% more HP.  How does the PC usually win?  He has potions and the other guy doesn't.  No difference in tactics or build or anything...just healing.  When you get into more "complex" stuff that the AI can't handle well (like spellcasting) it gets less clear-cut, but usually the PC advantage (assuming equivalent or superior gear, stats, and levels on the enemies) is consumables.

I actually rather liked a module called Gladiatrix because it would put you in fights where you had no resources and you had to play correctly (relatively straightforward for a low level fighter) and have a good character build to win - couldn't simply spam healing potions.

rogueknight333 wrote...

To challenge a PC of increasing levels one must send him up against enemies who out-level him by increasingly significant margins (well, not necessarily literally out-level, but with more AB, hit points, etc.).

Or control the resources the PC has.  In effect, I did that in Siege of the Heavens by providing unlimited healing, weird as that sounds.  It means I, as the builder, can assume you have a certain amount of healing (unlimited in this case) and plan accordingly (make abilities that completely negate unlimited healing if you don't react properly).  I'd actually prefer NOT to provide unlimited healing, but I'd have to do extensive class modifications to make that work (for example, simply saying "no one gets any healing potions" would obviously strongly favor ways to avoid losing any HP at all and clerics who can easily get 20+ full heals by default).

In another project I was working on, I gave every PC exactly ten full heals per day and changed the way Heal/Harm worked (Heal did something like 272 HP max with level 40 cleric and Epic Spell Focus: Conjuration and Domain: Healng), along with practically every other spell (mostly tuning adjustments).  This meant having a cleric let you take extra damage and play more aggressively, but you still had to deal with a finite HP pool (limited by the ten heals and cleric/druid spells).  I like that general concept (needs fine tuning), but again, it requires extensive modifications which I didn't want to do for Siege.

In many modules, however, builders provide effectively unlimited healing but have opponents that don't do anything to not make that an ultimate trump card.  I remember helping beta test the newer version of Aielund (great series, btw) and helped design the final fight - which completely freaked out the builder who thought it was way way way too difficult (primarly too many high level spells on a wizard that really hurt).  From my perspective, I'm thinking "Well, I have hundreds of powerful healing potions, you need lots of high level spells to impose risk of death."  Easy (and boring) to hit a healing potion if you lose 5% of your health per round and that's it - there's no challenge or risk.  Harder when you have to react and be ready to heal quickly at a minimum.

rogueknight333 wrote...

More or less, though another point I was making was simply that it might not be realistic to expect that most module-builders are going to bother to fine-tune combat balance as precisely as you suggest.

Honestly, it's generally only a problem for levels 1 and 2 because you have things like a Greatsword being able to one shot a fighter with 14 constitution on a normal hit simply because weapon dice don't change with level.  Once you get higher level, you have far more margin for error, partially because things in NWN often change by 5-10% minimum (for example, try adding <5% overall damage to a level 1 fighter - you can't, then try to do the same for a level 40 fighter - much easier ).

rogueknight333 wrote...

2) Fights should be dramatic and challenging. When the player sees a mass of undead horrors converging on him, I want his reaction to be closer to "Yikes! I'm in trouble" than to "Ah, an opportunity to gain some XP." To achieve this, the fights need to be challenging enought that there is a real chance of the PC getting killed (and some sort of meaningful consequences to getting killed).

What do you view as meaningful consequences?  As I've mentioned previously, I'm a heroic raider in WoW.  It took us something like 140 attempts to kill one of the final bosses in a raid - and it probably averaged about 10-15 minutes per wipe (kill took just over 17 minutes), especially when you include running back and rebuffing.  So call it 12 minutes, just so we can fit five nicely into an hour.  That means I spent a minimum of 28 hours of my life (over the course of 3-4 weeks in 4 hour chunks) doing nothing but trying to beat that one boss - and that's not counting strategy discussion or other preparation outside of the actual fight (like gathering consumables and getting better gear)

To me, that's meaningful.  That's a huge chunk of time (though the easier bosses usually "only" take 5-10 hours of time) even though I don't lose experience in the game and don't really lose in-game gold (I technically do, but it's so little as to really be inconsequential).  Even in single player games, reloading often comes down to time - "How much time do I need to spend reloading until I figure out what to do and execute it correctly?"  Note that it's also possible you'll never be able to beat a game/boss/whatever under this model, depending on the difficultly.

rogueknight333 wrote...

"I'm rogueknight333 and I'm a powergamer..."

"Hi rogueknight33..."

rogueknight333 wrote....

I do not recall, but in the context of what resources hypothetically could be provided to rogues, in a revised version, it is a relevant point regardless.

True, true.  Though it also brings up the question of whether rogues should be expected to always take UMD, for example.

P.S. And naturally, the wand is...a consumable.  And traps are...a consumable.  And the potions are...a consumable.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

...even more typical is the PC winning because they have healing potions and their opponent(s) doesn't/don't...

...usually the PC advantage (assuming equivalent or superior gear, stats, and levels on the enemies) is consumables.

Healing potions and other consumables are certainly a crucially important factor, but there is more to it than that. I remember playing one module in which some of the enemies had lots of healing potions, and all it did was make fights last much longer, it did not noticeably affect the probability of my winning and surviving. One could give enemies the same amount of consumables as a PC, or properties, scripts, etc., that provided equivalent benefits, and they still would often lose because they would not use them as intelligently as a player normally would. For example, drinking a healing potion in a situation where it would provoke a dozen Attacks of Opportunity might not always be the best idea. Trying to give these things to AI-controlled foes might even hurt sometimes since every additional complexity an AI has to worry about gives it additional opportunities to do something spectacularly idiotic.

MagicalMaster wrote...

In many modules, however, builders provide effectively unlimited healing but have opponents that don't do anything to not make that an ultimate trump card...

Yes, exactly one of the features of typical modules that I tend to dislike. Though having discovered from some of the commentary on my own modules that some players are too stingy (or something) to actually use many of the healing potions and other resources provided, I can see why many authors do things that way.

MagicalMaster wrote...

Honestly, it's generally only a problem for levels 1 and 2 because you have things like a Greatsword being able to one shot a fighter with 14 constitution on a normal hit simply because weapon dice don't change with level.  Once you get higher level, you have far more margin for error, partially because things in NWN often change by 5-10% minimum (for example, try adding <5% overall damage to a level 1 fighter - you can't, then try to do the same for a level 40 fighter - much easier ).

A crit from, for example, a Greataxe or Scythe wielded by a high-strength enemy can instantly kill higher level PCs than that, and the problem becomes worse if we are talking about something like low-HP mages rather than fighters, but, yes, the basic way things work is one spends low levels in danger of instant death while higher levels tend to involve battles of attrition. Depending on one's goals neither state of affairs is necessarily a problem, but one needs to take the change into account when designing combats.

MagicalMaster wrote...
What do you view as meaningful consequences? ...

I do not really have any very specific requirements, but basically there should be some reason why dying is actually feared and players will exercise some real care in attempts to avoid it. By preference this would also involve some in-game consequences for the character rather than solely metagaming consequences for me, such as having to waste more time due to needing to reload or reset somehow, but I understand that depending on the type of game it would not always be practical to provide such.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

rogueknight333 wrote...

I remember playing one module in which some of the enemies had lots of healing potions, and all it did was make fights last much longer, it did not noticeably affect the probability of my winning and surviving...Trying to give these things to AI-controlled foes might even hurt sometimes since every additional complexity an AI has to worry about gives it additional opportunities to do something spectacularly idiotic.

True, true, I more meant that authors usually expect the player to win because they have healing potions.  As in the thought process of "Hmm...I want to make the boss tougher than the PC so they seem like a legitimate threat...but then the PC would lose...unless I give the PC healing potions!  Problem solved!  I AM A GENIUS!"

And yeah, generally have to stick with very basic tactics for AI because it is easily abused and cannot do things players do almost by instinct (like kiting).

rogueknight333 wrote...

Yes, exactly one of the features of typical modules that I tend to dislike. Though having discovered from some of the commentary on my own modules that some players are too stingy (or something) to actually use many of the healing potions and other resources provided, I can see why many authors do things that way.

In an environment with limited resources, people try to conserve them if at all possible because they don't want to get into a situation later where they need said resources but they were already used.  Particularly a problem when you have no idea what is ahead, so you want to avoid using anything that can't be replenished.

One way to avoid it is to do things like provide items that can cast spells X times per day because people will more likely use those - they know it will replenish on rest.  Of course, that goes against the whole "manage limited resources over time" - but you're basically asking people to guess what resources they are expected to use and when to use them.  People hate that.

One benefit of the effectively unlimited healing is that it doesn't penalize weaker builds as much - meaning a player is less likely to find themselves in a situation where they can't proceed without cheating (by increasing their stats or spawning in more resources) because they used up their resources earlier.

rogueknight333 wrote...

A crit from, for example, a Greataxe or Scythe wielded by a high-strength enemy can instantly kill higher level PCs than that, and the problem becomes worse if we are talking about something like low-HP mages rather than fighters

Crits are a lot rarer (15% best case, usually 5-10%) compared to hits (which could be 50-75% of the time).  But yeah, it's still a problem (and it's why I don't like weapons that crit for a higher multiplier, every enemy in Siege, for example, has a x2 multiplier).  I mentioned fighters specifically because at least you can claim the mage shouldn't be in melee (and should potentially have a summon), but the fighter is DESIGNED to be in melee (assuming he isn't trying to be an archer, I guess).

rogueknight333 wrote...

I do not really have any very specific requirements, but basically there should be some reason why dying is actually feared and players will exercise some real care in attempts to avoid it. By preference this would also involve some in-game consequences for the character rather than solely metagaming consequences for me, such as having to waste more time due to needing to reload or reset somehow, but I understand that depending on the type of game it would not always be practical to provide such.

Given that you can't stop players from reloading, do you honestly think it's possible to use a punative respawn system in an environment with finite resources?

Why would anyone take a penalty and respawn versus reload?

The only semi-plausible answer might be if you can weaken an enemy, die, and then respawn to finish him...butI imagine people would reload to try to win *without* dying in that case.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

In an environment with limited resources, people try to conserve them if at all possible because they don't want to get into a situation later where they need said resources but they were already used.  Particularly a problem when you have no idea what is ahead, so you want to avoid using anything that can't be replenished.

One way to avoid it is to do things like provide items that can cast spells X times per day because people will more likely use those - they know it will replenish on rest.  Of course, that goes against the whole "manage limited resources over time" - but you're basically asking people to guess what resources they are expected to use and when to use them.  People hate that.

I would understand this attitude if the resources provided were extremely limited, and occasions calling for their use very frequent, but in most situations it seems somewhat irrational. If one's potions are being restocked on a regular basis, either from loot or from being given opportunities to shop, why would one assume that suddenly running out is likely? Judging from the modules I have played, a far more typical scenario is something like the following:

1) Module provides a gazillion healing potions (among other consumables).
2) A fight difficult enought to actually require use of any consumables occurs rarely or never, and since rest is also not restricted there is no need to use them for healing outside of combat.
3) But of course one has to keep most of those consumables on hand, just in case a situation that actually requires them crops up. Who knows what will happen?
4) Thus one ends the module with an inventory cluttered by a gazillion consumables that served no purpose whatever.

I cannot speak for other players, but personally I find this state of affairs something of a nuisance, and am actually glad when I come across something that gives me an excuse to use up some of this junk, rather than having to lug all of it about. It might be more reasonable to just assume no combat will be all that difficult if none so far has been (usually correct, but every now and then a module author slips in a final boss fight that is radically more challenging than what preceded it) and sell it all off. Then I would have a gazillion useless gold coins (since there is nothing I need to buy, having already looted more stuff than I would ever use), but at least that would be easier to carry around.

This attitude also seems to depend on a certain amount of metagaming (which I try to avoid as a player and discourage as a builder). If someone were attacked by dangerous enemies who would most likely kill him if he failed to use a certain resource, I find it far more realisitc that the emergency of the moment would induce him to use it, rather than dispassionately decide that he might need it later and so will risk death now. For example, if someone were attacked by gun-wielding enemies trying to kill him, and possessed a firearm himself, is it at all likely he would fail to shoot back on the grounds that "I might be attacked again tomorrow, so I need to save my ammunition. Therefore I'll fight these guys only with my fists even though that means I'll most likely die." If he dies now that renders what would happen tomorrow totally irrelevant anyway. Dying in a game imposes much less severe penalties, of course, but that still does not make this sort of thing a reasonable decision for the character, even if it might sometimes be for the player.

MagicalMaster wrote...

One benefit of the effectively unlimited healing is that it doesn't penalize weaker builds as much - meaning a player is less likely to find themselves in a situation where they can't proceed without cheating (by increasing their stats or spawning in more resources) because they used up their resources earlier.

This is equivalent to saying that it does not reward stronger builds (or stronger strategies - it is not all about the build) as much, which to my mind seems to undermine one of the main purposes of a game. The whole point of a game qua game is to be a competition where those who play better (whether through skill or luck or a combination, depending on the type of game) are rewarded somehow. An RPG of course brings in a story and other elements that makes it more than a game, pure and simple, but if that aspect were wholly absent, it would no longer be a game, just some kind of animated movie.

MagicalMaster wrote...

Given that you can't stop players from reloading, do you honestly think it's possible to use a punative respawn system in an environment with finite resources?

Why would anyone take a penalty and respawn versus reload?

Well, again, I cannot speak for other players, but if a respawn system had a plausible in-world explanation (and thus was not just as much a meta-gaming device as reloading), imposed penalties that were not too excessive, and occured in a reasonably well-designed and polished module (so that I could have confidence that some thought was given to the balancing consequences of players accepting whatever penalty was imposed) I would probably use it, and be glad to have the option. And of course a reload is not entirely devoid of a punishment, as it does force one to waste time replaying some portion of the game. It is simply that if the player has been saving regularly, the cost/benefit analysis will usually be tilted in favor of reloading. Ideally, I suppose a respawn system ought to encourage its use by providing some "soft" rewards like advancing the story or giving additional role-playing opportunities, even if it still imposes a penalty in the form of XP or gold or such, though naturally it would be a lot of extra work to set something like that up (and if one goes too far with something like that it might actually make people want to get killed).

Of course players cannot be prevented from reloading if they prefer, but by the same token they cannot be prevented from going into Debug Mode to deal with difficult situations, or even from opening the toolset themselves and modifying my module in whatever way suits their fancy. It does not mean one cannot point out that none of these are the intended methods of playing, and that taking advantage of them can detract from the game experience. The main difference between these and reloading is that most games/modules are designed in the expectation that players will reload if they mess up. Thus typically no good alternatives to regular reloading are provided, and players get into the habit of doing so routinely. It is hard to break entrenched habits, but if it is going to be done, one has to start somewhere, no?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

rogueknight333 wrote...

I would understand this attitude if the resources provided were extremely limited, and occasions calling for their use very frequent, but in most situations it seems somewhat irrational. If one's potions are being restocked on a regular basis, either from loot or from being given opportunities to shop, why would one assume that suddenly running out is likely?

Just to be clear - are you including Swordflight Chapter 1 as an example of this (potions being restocked on a regular basis and being given opportunities to shop)?

rogueknight333 wrote...

4) Thus one ends the module with an inventory cluttered by a gazillion consumables that served no purpose whatever.

This is true for a powergamer.  Many players never have anything beyond 10-20 healing potions in the first place.  They don't have the 200 potions of each stat type with 100 Greater Restoration scrolls and 10 Lesser Spell
Breach wands...you know, because you just might need them.

rogueknight333 wrote...

I cannot speak for other players, but personally I find this state of affairs something of a nuisance, and am actually glad when I come across something that gives me an excuse to use up some of this junk, rather than having to lug all of it about.

I completely agree...but again, normal people (i.e., not us) don't have that stockpile.  It makes perfect sense to us - we have the gold to spare so stock up on consumables - but it's way beyond most people.  This isn't because they're stupid or lazy - it's because they're not trained to think like that in harsh environments where that stuff is needed.

rogueknight333 wrote...

If someone were attacked by dangerous enemies who would most likely kill him if he failed to use a certain resource, I find it far more realisitc that the emergency of the moment would induce him to use it, rather than dispassionately decide that he might need it later and so will risk death now.

But this also assumes the player *has* the resource to use in the first place.  Many players will sit on the gold rather than spend it on consumables beyond maybe a few healing potions.

rogueknight333 wrote...

This is equivalent to saying that it does not reward stronger builds (or stronger strategies - it is not all about the build) as much, which to my mind seems to undermine one of the main purposes of a game.

Not really.  For example, if you made an Int based fighter in Siege, theoretically it's possible you could beat most bosses if you played well.  It might take you like an hour per boss instead of 2-5 minutes, but for most bosses you could eventually win.

The problem is that either the "reward" for stronger builds is making it easier instead of possible *or* you create situations where anyone NOT using a powergamed build literally cannot do anything but cheat or start over.  I am really adverse to the idea that someone has to cheat or start over in a single player game - particularly in NWN where there is such a large variety of builds.  A situation that a fighter handles easily may be impossible for a sorcerer or rogue (and likewise a rogue could do something that a fighter/sorcerer can't, and so on).

I'm perfectly fine with a Int based fighter not being able to beat Siege (Vrock and Spider would probably be impossible, others would be doable but would take like 60 minutes per boss instead of 5), but I can't accept a situation where a fighter with 2 less strength modifier but 2 more constitution modifier would be unable to win *unless* I specify ahead of that every build has to be completely maximized for power.

rogueknight333 wrote...

And of course a reload is not entirely devoid of a punishment, as it
does force one to waste time replaying some portion of the game.

While true, I think nearly everyone would prefer to sacrifice some time replaying something (which is theoretically infinite unless you get tired of the game) than sacrifice resources that feel finite in a game.  For example, if I have tons of gold and can't seem to spend it, I won't care about a gold penalty on respawn.  Or if I know I'll hit level 40 even with losing XP every now and then, I'll be more willing to lose some XP on respawn.  But if gold or XP seem precious and very finite, then I'd prefer to replay part of the game than part with either/both.

rogueknight333 wrote...

Of course players cannot be prevented from reloading if they prefer, but by the same token they cannot be prevented from going into Debug Mode to deal with difficult situations, or even from opening the toolset themselves and modifying my module in whatever way suits their fancy.

Neither of those options pops up when you die '>

rogueknight333 wrote...

The main difference between these and reloading is that most games/modules are designed in the expectation that players will reload if they mess up. Thus typically no good alternatives to regular reloading are provided, and players get into the habit of doing so routinely. It is hard to break entrenched habits, but if it is going to be done, one has to start somewhere, no?

True, and that's not limited to NWN either.  Offhand, I can't think of a respawn system in any game that also features saves (and (re)loading saved games).  There are tons of games I haven't played, of course, but like you say I think it's indicative of a larger trend.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

Just to be clear - are you including Swordflight Chapter 1 as an example of this (potions being restocked on a regular basis and being given opportunities to shop)?

It was not the only example I was thinking of (or the most perfect, since resources are somewhat tighter than usual at certain points in that module), but with a few qualifications I think what I said would apply to it. One does get extra potions and such from loot on a fairly regular basis.

MagicalMaster wrote....

This is true for a powergamer...

...But this also assumes the player *has* the resource to use in the first place.  Many players will sit on the gold rather than spend it on consumables beyond maybe a few healing potions.

I am not sure this applies to the scenario I was describing. I am talking about consumables collected as loot, and only modestly supplemented by additional purchases (well except maybe for Heal potions and Greater Restoration scrolls, of which I would tend to lay in a good supply, and be willing to sacrifice some serious gold to do so), and thus what any player might reasonably be expected to possess. In fact I would think someone who does not follow my powergaming ways would have even more excess loot of this type, since I actively look for opportunities to use consumables (they are not increasing my power just sitting there), which I suspect many players do not. Many modules provide, and apparently many players expect to be provided with, a hundred consumables that seem to serve no purpose, even for non-powergamers, except to act as a security blanket. Is this really necessary?

MagicalMaster wrote...
...This isn't because they're stupid or lazy...

I completely agree, and hope I did not imply otherwise. In most cases playing like a powergamer is completely unnecessary, so most players quite reasonably do not go to the trouble.

MagicalMaster wrote...

Not really...

...The problem is that either the "reward" for stronger builds is making it easier instead of possible...

Yes, that is what I was saying. How do you make things easier for a weaker build without making it easier still for a strong one, perhaps to the point where there is no noticeable advantage in even playing one?

MagicalMaster wrote...

*or* you create situations where anyone NOT using a powergamed build literally cannot do anything but cheat or start over...

Or die and recover from it through a method incorporated into the module's story and thus not a cheat?

MagicalMaster wrote...
...I can't accept a situation where a fighter with 2 less strength modifier but 2 more constitution modifier would be unable to win *unless* I specify ahead of that every build has to be completely maximized for power.

I do not disagree with this, but this is not really the kind of thing I am talking about. I am just saying that ideally playing with stronger builds/strategies should make a noticeable difference in how easy it is to win. If I can win handily with a wizard who never casts spells and acts like a fighter (and there are modules in which I could do that) I think it is fair to say that there is something off with the combat balance. As for what you are describing, it is hardly a common problem. I think it would be hard to fine-tune the balance so precisely that such a slight difference mattered tremendously even if you were specifically trying to make it so. At any rate I would have a hard time coming up with many modules that I would not expect to be able to beat somehow even with a completely broken build (and I think your own Siege of the Heavens would top that short list).

MagicalMaster wrote...

...I think nearly everyone would prefer to sacrifice some time replaying something (which is theoretically infinite unless you get tired of the game) than sacrifice resources that feel finite in a game...

I expect this is a sound enough analysis of the underlying psychology, though since in most modules (at least those that are long and geared towards higher level characters) resources tend to be provided on a rather extravagant scale, it seems a bit unreasonable to be so concerned about their loss.

MagicalMaster wrote...

Neither of those options pops up when you die '>

A good point. Probably a good reason to have a respawn system where on dying the screen just fades to black (or something) and then the player wakes up in the respawn area without being expected to push any buttons.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

rogueknight333 wrote...

It was not the only example I was thinking of (or the most perfect, since resources are somewhat tighter than usual at certain points in that module), but with a few qualifications I think what I said would apply to it. One does get extra potions and such from loot on a fairly regular basis.

Speaking for myself, at least, I tried to avoid buying potions as much as I could in an effort to save money for gear - for example, near the ruins I had about 8000g (mentally I think +1 AC items = 1000g, +1 stat items = 2000g), meaning I was afraid to spend any of it on consumables because I didn't want to miss out on gear later, especially since I'm equipping two people.  Buying two +1 stat items (one for each of us) and four +1 AC items (like two amulets and two rings) would have wiped out my bank account.

Of course, those weren't even available at the time, but I wanted to save the money in case I found a store later (and I sort of did with a rather clueless merchant, that's where I'm currently stopped, roughly, trying to avoid spoilders).  I really wanted to avoid a situation where I said "Damnit, I need 7 more gold for this item...if only I hadn't bought that potion earlier!"

rogueknight333 wrote...

I am talking about consumables collected as loot, and only modestly supplemented by additional purchases (well except maybe for Heal potions and Greater Restoration scrolls, of which I would tend to lay in a good supply, and be willing to sacrifice some serious gold to do so), and thus what any player might reasonably be expected to possess. In fact I would think someone who does not follow my powergaming ways would have even more excess loot of this type, since I actively look for opportunities to use consumables (they are not increasing my power just sitting there), which I suspect many players do not. Many modules provide, and apparently many players expect to be provided with, a hundred consumables that seem to serve no purpose, even for non-powergamers, except to act as a security blanket. Is this really necessary?

Let me reduce this paragraph to the important part.

rogueknight333 wrote...

I am talking about consumables collected as loot,

rogueknight333 wrote...

collected as loot,

rogueknight333 wrote...

loot,

Oh, so we're talking about potions we pick up to sell in order to be able to afford items, right? '>

In a finite resource environment, people will tend to try to sell anything they can to buy permanent items.  Hard to break that habit unless you make the potions unvendorable or something.  If you told a person that the module will take 4 hours to play through and gave them an option of either 5 potions that gave +8 of their best stat for an hour (and persisted through death and such) or a permanent item that gave +4 of their best stat...people will pick the second one.  Because it's permanent (and especially in a module series, they expect to be able to keep using it in the next module).

rogueknight333 wrote...

Yes, that is what I was saying. How do you make things easier for a weaker build without making it easier still for a strong one, perhaps to the point where there is no noticeable advantage in even playing one?

(Effectively) unlimited healing helps - you have to heal far less or fights go by much more quickly with a stronger build while still being doable by a weaker build.  The combat will feel easier for the stronger build even if the outcome is never really in doubt.

There are also some subtle tricks you can do - for example, the spider boss in Siege takes 3000 damage per round on her own.  This means the player's damage on the boss matters less (something like 75 damage per round for a dex monk compared to over 400 for a 2H weapon master), but still gives a slight advantage - the main advantage for the 2H weapon master is being able to break the coccons faster and limiting boss healing.

I tried another method with the succubi - they take 150 damage when damaged, but this cannot happen more often than every 6 seconds.  Which means the monk will do like 225 damage per round compared to 550 for the weapon master.  The ratio is now more like 9:22 (41%ish) instead of 3:16 (19%ish).

Both of these are effectively normalizing mechanics.

rogueknight333 wrote...

Or die and recover from it through a method incorporated into the module's story and thus not a cheat?

True, but that requires the player to view that as valid (I expect most players would see dying multiple times during a tough fight and simply respawning to continue the fight as cheap - they heal, but their enemies don't).

rogueknight333 wrote...

I expect this is a sound enough analysis of the underlying psychology, though since in most modules (at least those that are long and geared towards higher level characters) resources tend to be provided on a rather extravagant scale, it seems a bit unreasonable to be so concerned about their loss.

MY STUFF!  MINE!  MY PRECIOUS RESOURCES!

Yes, it is unreasonable.  Remember the story I told you about WoW and the rested "bonus" versus tired "penalty?"  People are unreasonable and not logical in many things, especially when it comes to using up their (limited) resources.

But that's also assuming people have consumables to use - they'll often vendor the consumables for more gold because they don't view them as needed.  Again, remember the story I mentioned about Aielund - the final boss fight I made was very different when you walked in with 100 potions of Heal versus 10.  Even though Heal potions (which only healed 110 HP in that mod, by the way, but still...) were sometimes thrown at you and you could effectively buy an infinite amount, most people bought what they were "comfortable" with and got rid of any consumables beyond that.

rogueknight333 wrote...

A good point. Probably a good reason to have a respawn system where on dying the screen just fades to black (or something) and then the player wakes up in the respawn area without being expected to push any buttons.

Indeed.  If upon death in Swordflight you were simply teleported to the Air Elemental and never given an option to reload or respawn, I'm confident fewer people would reload.  Having the screen come up feels like you failed - "Haha, loser, you died - do you want to respawn (you wimp) or reload (maybe you won't suck this time)?"  The very fact that it offers reloading as a choice makes people far more likely to do it and sticks out as a very meta-gaming thing.  Makes it feel like death is a failure on the player's part that should have been avoided instead of something that's expected to happen (because again, in most modules/games you do reload on death, there is no "continue" option).
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 31 mars 2013 - 01:54 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

Oh, so we're talking about potions we pick up to sell in order to be able to afford items, right? '>

Not exactly, or at least not entirely given that I am somewhat conflating the experiences derived from multiple modules. I am talking about situations where I have every piece of equipment I would have any use for (every inventory slot occupied by some over-powered item, with more ready to be switched in for specialized situations where some specific immunity is called for), and more consumables than I can find opportunity to use. Yet I still find more and more loot coming at me.

MagicalMaster wrote...

In a finite resource environment, people will tend to try to sell anything they can to buy permanent items...

Again, in a typical case, loot is provided with sufficient extravagance that upgrading permanent gear and restocking consumables are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Assuming they were, though, I find it interesting that the behavior you describe might not alway make as much sense as it would intuitively seem to. Let us take as an example a case where a player has a sum of gold he can spend on buying either an item that enchances his AC or a bunch of Potions of Heal. The advantage of the item is that it will reduce the amount of hits and thus damage he takes over the course of a series of encounters. Yet those potions of Heal might well result in even less effective damage (defined as the difference between damage taken and healing received), depending (among other factors) on how many encounters intervene between the opportunity to again upgrade or restock. Of course, a player would not normally possess sufficient information to make such a calculation reliably, even if he were inclined to think of things in these terms.

I should probably qualify that most of what I say above about excessively extravagant loot applies mainly to modules intended for higher level characters. In low-level modules, consumables and other loot are often provided quite sparingly (in Swordflight 1, despite what I say about rationing resources, I actually provide far more such than seems usual for a module aimed at that level range, though of course this is balanced by the combat being much harder). In other words, low-level characters, who most need consumables, have a hard time getting them, while high-level characters, who as a rule do not need them (a  high level cleric in a module without resting restrictions probably does not actually require any potions at all), are given ridiculously large quantities of them. This is perhaps relevant to our earlier discussion about how many low-level modules tend to be excessively hard or luck-dependent, while many high-level ones are too easy.

MagicalMaster wrote...

(Effectively) unlimited healing helps - you have to heal far less or fights go by much more quickly with a stronger build while still being doable by a weaker build.  The combat will feel easier for the stronger build even if the outcome is never really in doubt.

There are also some subtle tricks you can do...

Not all of those tricks would be applicable to less specialized kinds of combat, and feeling easier is not the same thing as being easier. Though this does make me interested in trying Siege again with a variety of different builds and seeing what happens (not sure when I will find the time for that, alas).

MagicalMaster wrote...
Indeed.  If upon death in Swordflight you were simply teleported to the Air Elemental and never given an option to reload or respawn, I'm confident fewer people would reload...

I have actually found this to be quite a productive discussion in terms of giving me ideas about how a proper respwan system should be structured. If I were designing one from scratch today, incorporating some of the food for thought I have been given here, I expect I would do it differently. Of course the respawn system for Swordflight was desgined 8 or more years ago when I hardly knew how to make the NWN toolset do anything right. And the respawn system (if it actually deserves to be dignified by being called a system) for Snow Hunt was produced by asking something like "What kind of respawn procedure can I dash off a script for in the next five minutes?"

If you want to leave more commentary about Swordflight it might be better to do so here or here (or just start a new thread, or send another PM), since it is kind of off-topic here. We are bordering on hijacking this thread for a private debate on general game design philosophies as it is.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par rogueknight333, 31 mars 2013 - 08:12 .