234 réponses à ce sujet

[Lennard Testarossa]

I know what you are trying to say with all this "lore respect" thing, but this are games and their combats will never be totally in tune with the lore. Combat is for you to have fun. Because that is the real goal of games.

 

In BG for example, people die. Now tell me, how could people die within the lore if during combat I am constantly resurrecting people non stop? Wouldnt that mean that wealthy people who can afford resurrection-scrolls and healers, would be inmortal? Are all rich people in BG inmortal? Because that is what it would happen, if the lore-gameplay were correct.

 

Also, if your character is leveled enough in BG, I am sure you can for example kill a dragon by yourself. The dragon can breath fire onto you directly, and still you can kill it. Why are dragons a problem then? Why are they even feared if a skilled single man can kill them?

 

Also, usually your character will have around 20 years if human. Will start the game being a nobody, and then after 1 year has passed, he is a badass level 20, 21 year old human who can totally kill of type of things without even a scratch. This means that within that lore, a very very skilled and special person can become godly within 1 year of adventures/training. So it is quite obvious than regular people, if they train for 20 years, would become much more badass or at least equal. But no, they are just trash you can kill in 1 blow. How is that possible? Because you are special in a XXX way? Ok, but what about your companions who are just NORMAL and happen to experiment the same improvement?

 

 

Where is your LORE now? Call him. You cannot, for he does not exist.

 

I take it you've never taken a look at DnD lore, right?

The only part of what you mentioned that is questionable in DnD lore is the speed with which the PC and his companions gain power. This is a problem that pretty much shows up in all rpgs. And it is part of why a prefer a much flatter power curve for leveling than almost all rpgs have.

 

Both the death and the dragon thing are absolutely no problem in DnD lore.

 

I've thought about that for five seconds and already come up with a way to break it.  You get someone to stab you every 50 years and pay for your resurrection (and a cure all diseases thing as well).  Even if you return at the same age, as long as you make sure that each time you 'die' you get stabbed, or fireballed, or whatever, you could easily expand your life by vast amounts.  

 

...what? How does that extend your life at all? You obviously return at precisely the same age as you were when you died. With all of what you mentioned, you still die at the age of about 80 of natural causes. How is your life extended by 'vast amounts', exactly?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've thought about that for five seconds and already come up with a way to break it. You get someone to stab you every 50 years and pay for your resurrection (and a cure all diseases thing as well). Even if you return at the same age, as long as you make sure that each time you 'die' you get stabbed, or fireballed, or whatever, you could easily expand your life by vast amounts.

You'd get raised at the same age, and promptly die of it.

You'd gain nothing.

At best, you might be able to extend your life by spending an equivalent amount of time dead. But don't see what that gains you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But you don't control Wynne. Hence why you don't control her dialogue or how she reacts to the situations that the party finds itself in.

We don't get to choose her class either; she has some pre-written aspects.

Personally, I'd like more control over the companions. I'd particularly like to be able to use them as party spokesperson. In real life, I bring other people with me so they can do the talking - but I can no longer design my PC in this way (though I used to).

If it's a party-based game, then I play the whole party.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Correction. Because you make her.

I'm not there. I can't make her do anything.

[Rawgrim]

I know what you are trying to say with all this "lore respect" thing, but this are games and their combats will never be totally in tune with the lore. Combat is for you to have fun. Because that is the real goal of games.

 

In BG for example, people die. Now tell me, how could people die within the lore if during combat I am constantly resurrecting people non stop? Wouldnt that mean that wealthy people who can afford resurrection-scrolls and healers, would be inmortal? Are all rich people in BG inmortal? Because that is what it would happen, if the lore-gameplay were correct.

 

Also, if your character is leveled enough in BG, I am sure you can for example kill a dragon by yourself. The dragon can breath fire onto you directly, and still you can kill it. Why are dragons a problem then? Why are they even feared if a skilled single man can kill them?

 

Also, usually your character will have around 20 years if human. Will start the game being a nobody, and then after 1 year has passed, he is a badass level 20, 21 year old human who can totally kill of type of things without even a scratch. This means that within that lore, a very very skilled and special person can become godly within 1 year of adventures/training. So it is quite obvious than regular people, if they train for 20 years, would become much more badass or at least equal. But no, they are just trash you can kill in 1 blow. How is that possible? Because you are special in a XXX way? Ok, but what about your companions who are just NORMAL and happen to experiment the same improvement?

 

 

Where is your LORE now? Call him. You cannot, for he does not exist.

 

 

You die from old age in the BG lore. Ressurection won't fix that. Also if your body is too damaged, you would need a way more powerful ressurection spell (extremely rare). So that bit is indeed adressed in the lore.

 

You need very very good equipment in order to kill a dragon single handedly, and deffinatly spells and potions. Even if you are level 50, you will not survive a fight vs a dragon if you AC is low and you have a non-magical weapon. Dragon-Fear is also an issue. Automatic panic if you don't have a resist fear spell cast on you.

 

No he can't kill all sorts of things without getting a scratch. Especially not if he doesn't have a very high Armour Class or some high level protective spells. Depends on the class.

 

Regular people fall under the commoner classes. Way different than the adventurer classes. The adventurer classes makes up around 10 percent of the BG gameworld. Given how incredibly slow the XP gain is after level 15 or so, leveling up would take a long long time, after that. Also there is a level cap involved. When a character reaches that, he or she has reached the full potential of his\her career.

 

Your companions lel up the same way you do in the BG games. Some of them can become even more powerful than your own character. Did you even play the game? The only thing special about the player character is that he has the blood of a god in him. It doesn't make you more powerful in-game. Its just a plot-hook.

 

So there it is. The Lore. I called him and he was there. You would have seen that if you had actually looked at the lore. Not wanting something to be there doesn't mean it isn't.

[rymajn3]

Arguing about realism in a fantasy game with magic and dragons.

Classic.

[Rawgrim]

I've thought about that for five seconds and already come up with a way to break it.  You get someone to stab you every 50 years and pay for your resurrection (and a cure all diseases thing as well).  Even if you return at the same age, as long as you make sure that each time you 'die' you get stabbed, or fireballed, or whatever, you could easily expand your life by vast amounts.  

 

Nope because ressurection doesn't "heal" aging. When your time is up, your time is up.

[Rawgrim]

I take it you've never taken a look at DnD lore, right?

The only part of what you mentioned that is questionable in DnD lore is the speed with which the PC and his companions gain power. This is a problem that pretty much shows up in all rpgs. And it is part of why a prefer a much flatter power curve for leveling than almost all rpgs have.

 

Both the death and the dragon thing are absolutely no problem in DnD lore.

 

 

...what? How does that extend your life at all? You obviously return at precisely the same age as you were when you died. With all of what you mentioned, you still die at the age of about 80 of natural causes. How is your life extended by 'vast amounts', exactly?

 

 

Quite right.

 

The leveling up to level 20 in 1 year problem is easily solved by having a good DM, really. Stuff like that doesn't translate well to video games. Including the Dragon Age games, really. DA2 actually made this bit more belivable, due to the time skips, I guess.

[Rawgrim]

Arguing about realism in a fantasy game with magic and dragons.

Classic.

 

 

Within the frames of the gameworld, Magic and Dragons are real. So yes. Its a very valid argument. It is called "Realism within an unrealistic setting".

[Kage]

Oh wow, you are actually serious and trying to argument all that.

Oh.... Ok..... *walks slowly and scared away from this thread*

[Lady Luminous]

Arguing about realism in a fantasy game with magic and dragons.

Classic.

 

The realism argument exists to ensure there is consistency within the rules and lore of the world being built. 

[Beerfish]

Resurrection in early DnD rules was not some easy to use spell. 

 

Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of prepared spells. However, the subject loses one level, or 2 points of Constitution if the subject was 1st level. (If this reduction would bring its Con to 0 or lower, it can’t be resurrected). This level loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means.

Material Component

A sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp.

[LinksOcarina]

The realism argument exists to ensure there is consistency within the rules and lore of the world being built. 

 

Which tends to be thrown out the window when the rules change every few years anyway.

 

I mean..commoner and adventurer class? Really? We are quantifying the positions players can be by that now? Isn't that a bit deterministic towards what the rules say? 

[Lady Luminous]

Which tends to be thrown out the window when the rules change every few years anyway.

 

I mean..commoner and adventurer class? Really? We are quantifying the positions players can be by that now? Isn't that a bit deterministic towards what the rules say? 

 

I don't mind anything to do with class because it my mind it's part of gameplay segregation. But if your world state doesn't consistently follow certain laws of physics, or breaks lore that's when I have an issue. 

[LinksOcarina]

I don't mind anything to do with class because it my mind it's part of gameplay segregation. But if your world state doesn't consistently follow certain laws of physics, or breaks lore that's when I have an issue. 

 

The problem is, most of the worlds do. In tabletop games this is a major annoyance, which ironically the only game that tried to reign that in out of the many high fantasy games I played was 4th Edition DnD, especially in how they cut back on the magical powers characters have, that break storytelling. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arguing about realism in a fantasy game with magic and dragons.

Classic.

It has nothing to do with realism. It's about internal consistency.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Which tends to be thrown out the window when the rules change every few years anyway.

Different rules = different world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The problem is, most of the worlds do. In tabletop games this is a major annoyance, which ironically the only game that tried to reign that in out of the many high fantasy games I played was 4th Edition DnD, especially in how they cut back on the magical powers characters have, that break storytelling.

1. It shouldn't be about storytelling. If the GM is trying to tell a specific story, he's doing it wrong.

2. Given that the vast majority of characters don't live to see level 5, I don't see how the extreme abilities of high level characters even matter in most games. The highest level any of my characters ever reached was 12 (he was killed when a burning tavern collapsed on him).

[Gtdef]

I've played a lot of high powered campaigns in 3.5. Magic is getting absurd after a while. It's either the dm knows by heart most scenarios so he can counter the caster, or it's constant arguing about what is allowed and what isn't. 

 

Still I prefer it to the 3.5 as long as the gm is competent.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

You'd get raised at the same age, and promptly die of it.

You'd gain nothing.

At best, you might be able to extend your life by spending an equivalent amount of time dead. But don't see what that gains you.

But dying of old age isn't due to your 'time running out' or something.  When we say 'died of old age' what we mean is they died of a disease that their body, if younger, could've coped with better.  'Dying in one's sleep' isn't because your body checks an internal clock and goes '****, better pop off'.  So, theoretically, if one was rezzed, cured of diseases, then one would at least survive the next couple of hours.  During which time you can be stabbed and rezzed and cured again.  

 

I mean, you'd be bed bound, and it'd be like living on life support, and eventually a major organ or two would shut down and you'd be fucked.  But you could quite easily push yourself over a hundred this way.  

[Lennard Testarossa]

 I mean, you'd be bed bound, and it'd be like living on life support, and eventually a major organ or two would shut down and you'd be fucked.  But you could quite easily push yourself over a hundred this way.  

 

Given that even with the higher level of resurrection you lose a level every time it's done, that wouldn't really work out for a long time. (Unless you find someone to do True Resurrection for you). And it costs about 10000gp in ingredients (which are indeed left out in DnD video games). And it seems especially silly given that there are other ways to extend your life in DnD. It's not like pushing oneself over the age of hundred is in any way lore breaking or even all that interesting in a world where aging can be and has been overcome by people in a number of ways.

[LinksOcarina]

1. It shouldn't be about storytelling. If the GM is trying to tell a specific story, he's doing it wrong.

2. Given that the vast majority of characters don't live to see level 5, I don't see how the extreme abilities of high level characters even matter in most games. The highest level any of my characters ever reached was 12 (he was killed when a burning tavern collapsed on him).

 

If we are really going to say the pinnacle of gaming was when you achieved level 5 in something so dangerous, i'm sorry but that antithetical to what tabletop is supposed to be about, which is a mix of storytelling, character building and freedom of exploration. 

 

You know, the other squares in the bartle scale. 

[LinksOcarina]

I've played a lot of high powered campaigns in 3.5. Magic is getting absurd after a while. It's either the dm knows by heart most scenarios so he can counter the caster, or it's constant arguing about what is allowed and what isn't. 

 

Still I prefer it to the 3.5 as long as the gm is competent.

 

I would argue 3.0 is one of the more broken systems out there, but what it did well was make us more in control of the content presented. It is why I like Pathfinder a lot more, it actually fixed most of the issues with 3.0 and 3.5, although I think it does need to change a lot of the power creep that keeps coming up. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

If we are really going to say the pinnacle of gaming was when you achieved level 5 in something so dangerous, i'm sorry but that antithetical to what tabletop is supposed to be about, which is a mix of storytelling, character building and freedom of exploration.

You know, the other squares in the bartle scale.

I'm hard-pressed to fit those labels into the Bartle Scale.

Any standard of achievement in a roleplaying game is self-made. All roleplaying, to me, fits in the Explorer square, where you explore what can done with your character within the world you've neen provided.

The danger of the setting didn't have any intrinsic value, but it has tremendous instrumental value by creating balance in the lore.