Layonara - View Single Post - Idea: Increased chance of spell failure and misses when gravely wounded

**Acacea** · 07-13-08, 12:48 PM

I think that is a very valid point and question, but that at the same time, that there is no real "answer" or point where that needs to drop. It depends on whether or not the game is balanced around those things.

I think that it is also important to remember that every game is (at least on paper and in theory, not like everyone does it well

) balanced for its systems. Things you wouldn't have wanted in WoW because it would totally screw up the flow work in another game that is based and balanced around it. Things that just don't work in major US games become the principles the Korean games revolve around.

In many cases I think we shy from aspects that we may at first feel are too realistic and not enough fun, but I think if the rest of your mechanics are connected to it and surround it, then it is just another system to adapt to.

I think one of the biggest obstacles that would come up in a game trying to encourage roleplay is our own tendency to think, "But then, that wouldn't be fun..."

Better to pick the things that encourage roleplaying and realism, and then figure out how to balance them and make it fun. I think in general (purely from my own unasked for opinion!), that we may have better luck getting people to roleplay by making realism and roleplaying "fun" than by tossing out the same thing, opting out of anything adding a level of grit in case your players get dirty, which is the road several other games take.

Not sure I'm making any sense exactly, and I'm not wearing my glasses so I feel like a mole. But I guess I am just of the opinion that we should try to think of ways the game could be realistic and encourage roleplaying, and then think of ways for it to be fun. For example, hunger, thirst, fatigue. I would personally like to see them have a part to play. Others groan because they don't want to play the Sims. But that's the thing - neither do I. The endless click is certainly not something you can include, so you'd need to think of an alternative ... perhaps automated options similar to EQ, whatever... and if you have food crafting, it should do something...

Likewise, inventory weight... some people hate weight limits and space limits, I prefer them in the setting of realistic/roleplay. But on the flip hand*, if you go that route, you have to take it into account when you make your drops, CNR, equipment weight, stackables, etc. Any system can suck. I think any system can also be a good time, too - just depends on how well they connect it to everything else. Being able to carry only 10 gems with 1 simple recipe requiring 20 and being unable to hire anything to carry for you and your only storage 30 miles away, well, that would be a poor implementation.

I know I'm rambling, I just think that any system has a ton of potential so long as it is firmly integrated into the world and offering an enhancement to gameplay. Harlas suggestion, if used, should go for hostiles as well. There could be a combination of skills that negated it, perhaps a barbarian rage like effect where someone got below a certain level and just threw themselves into the fray. A Branderback escape spell that is only available when you're getting hit. An Az'attan aura that makes them feel really guilty for killing you and they bury you and join the clergy. Whatever. I don't think any mechanic, by itself, adds anything to gameplay really, or guarantees "fun" other than the once through of checking stuff out. But I might not be normal, I guess.

So yeah. Not so much for or against any one in particular, just kind of shying away from the "realism cannot be fun" argument... I kind of think it's all in the setup. I also think that when playing a game you can get a feeling for the mentality of the devs - were they thinking "I need more fences to keep my stupid players off the grass," or were they thinking, "Oh man, wouldn't this be cool for them to be able to do!" Good games have both of course, but I've played some that seem to be made by really vindictive devs, everything made to counter any player imagination...others to exploit it and make it necessary.

* Yeah, I mixed my sayings. Wanna make somethin' of it?

Edit: This was not a direct response to the above post - I did not mean to put words in his mouth via implication. Rather, I think his post touches on an important topic that is a very real necessity to consider... but on the other hand, one that can be, if done right, completely in the hands of its creators to transform. I think the suggestion as described could either make people more afraid to travel and have some fun by making it more likely for them to die, or it could just be another integrated mechanic that works well in the context of its setting. How it works though depends on how well it, and other things that would bring up that question (and everyone has different lines!), is implemeted, I think...

07-13-08, 12:48 PM	#4
Acacea World Leader Characters Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,720 Thanks: 206 Thanked 789 Times in 386 Posts	Re: Idea: Increased chance of spell failure and misses when gravely wounded I think that is a very valid point and question, but that at the same time, that there is no real "answer" or point where that needs to drop. It depends on whether or not the game is balanced around those things. I think that it is also important to remember that every game is (at least on paper and in theory, not like everyone does it well ) balanced for its systems. Things you wouldn't have wanted in WoW because it would totally screw up the flow work in another game that is based and balanced around it. Things that just don't work in major US games become the principles the Korean games revolve around. In many cases I think we shy from aspects that we may at first feel are too realistic and not enough fun, but I think if the rest of your mechanics are connected to it and surround it, then it is just another system to adapt to. I think one of the biggest obstacles that would come up in a game trying to encourage roleplay is our own tendency to think, "But then, that wouldn't be fun..." Better to pick the things that encourage roleplaying and realism, and then figure out how to balance them and make it fun. I think in general (purely from my own unasked for opinion!), that we may have better luck getting people to roleplay by making realism and roleplaying "fun" than by tossing out the same thing, opting out of anything adding a level of grit in case your players get dirty, which is the road several other games take. Not sure I'm making any sense exactly, and I'm not wearing my glasses so I feel like a mole. But I guess I am just of the opinion that we should try to think of ways the game could be realistic and encourage roleplaying, and then think of ways for it to be fun. For example, hunger, thirst, fatigue. I would personally like to see them have a part to play. Others groan because they don't want to play the Sims. But that's the thing - neither do I. The endless click is certainly not something you can include, so you'd need to think of an alternative ... perhaps automated options similar to EQ, whatever... and if you have food crafting, it should do something... Likewise, inventory weight... some people hate weight limits and space limits, I prefer them in the setting of realistic/roleplay. But on the flip hand, if you go that route, you have to take it into account when you make your drops, CNR, equipment weight, stackables, etc. Any system can suck. I think any system can also be a good time, too - just depends on how well they connect it to everything else. Being able to carry only 10 gems with 1 simple recipe requiring 20 and being unable to hire anything to carry for you and your only storage 30 miles away, well, that would be a poor implementation. I know I'm rambling, I just think that any system has a ton of potential so long as it is firmly integrated into the world and offering an enhancement to gameplay. Harlas suggestion, if used, should go for hostiles as well. There could be a combination of skills that negated it, perhaps a barbarian rage like effect where someone got below a certain level and just threw themselves into the fray. A Branderback escape spell that is only available when you're getting hit. An Az'attan aura that makes them feel really guilty for killing you and they bury you and join the clergy. Whatever. I don't think any mechanic, by itself, adds anything to gameplay really, or guarantees "fun" other than the once through of checking stuff out. But I might not be normal, I guess. So yeah. Not so much for or against any one in particular, just kind of shying away from the "realism cannot be fun" argument... I kind of think it's all in the setup. I also think that when playing a game you can get a feeling for the mentality of the devs - were they thinking "I need more fences to keep my stupid players off the grass," or were they thinking, "Oh man, wouldn't this be cool for them to be able to do!" Good games have both of course, but I've played some that seem to be made by really vindictive devs, everything made to counter any player imagination...others to exploit it and make it necessary. Yeah, I mixed my sayings. Wanna make somethin' of it? Edit: This was not a direct response to the above post - I did not mean to put words in his mouth via implication. Rather, I think his post touches on an important topic that is a very real necessity to consider... but on the other hand, one that can be, if done right, completely in the hands of its creators to transform. I think the suggestion as described could either make people more afraid to travel and have some fun by making it more likely for them to die, or it could just be another integrated mechanic that works well in the context of its setting. How it works though depends on how well it, and other things that would bring up that question (and everyone has different lines!), is implemeted, I think... Last edited by Acacea : 07-13-08 at 09:44 PM.