DTs

[Drizzlin]

And yet, I've played here for well over two years and the only time anyone has seemed to have serious problems with the DT system has been since the new project and the fact NWN Layo will be ending was announced....

So I ask, has it always been a problem or is it simply a problem now the end is in sight so to speak?

And if it is simply because the end is in sight, why?

I think these are important questions....

I personally don't want the DT system to change, nor do I think it should be relaxed because the end is in sight for NWN Layo, I personally think that changes such as that just because it will be ending will cheapen all it has been before.

I have been on this server since 2003. This is not the first time DT issues have come up, nor have they only come up because of the announcement of the end of layo.

In fact some of the discussions helped bring changes to the system IMO. At least we don't loose a ton of xps along with a DT when we die now.

[Crunch]

I think a lot of what has driven the rise in Perma Death or folks at 9 DT's was when the team lifted the requirement for WL status to advance beyond level 20.  Before that, if you were high teens or 20 and didn't expect to be approved for WL, xp was relatively meaningless.

There have also been a lot of very challenging new areas added since that time.  If you want to explore those areas, especially if you want to be amongst the first to explore them, you are taking an unknown risk with each spawn you trigger that you may have gone a bit too far for your parties abilities.  I suspect total party wipes are more common now than they were 2 or 3 years ago.  A total party wipe of 20th level characters is quite likely to result in at least one dt.

[jrizz]

@crunch Yes indeed! what you are saying is that there has been some significant changes to the world and other parts of the layo system (opening of epic levels to non-WLs). But there has not been a change in the death system to balance out those other changes.

[Gulnyr]

I disagree with that interpretation.  I don't doubt that more characters at higher levels leads to more chances at strand loss and permadeath across the board, but I don't believe any areas were built or changes were made as if no one took any consideration of the various systems potentially affected in the rest of the world.  The difficulty of an area has nothing directly to do with the functioning or intent of the death system, anyway.  Strand loss is directly related to level, though, so a higher level character will, on average, lose more strands than a lower level character given an equal number of deaths each.  The more epics and near-epics there are, the more characters will start perming.  It's not so much that the world has changed but that the average levels and ages of the characters has.

Also, as a personal opinion, I think unknown risk is part of the fun.  That's what adventuring is all about.  Aren't the mining trips that much more fun when a DM drops in to spice things up?  Aren't trips to places we've never seen on Belinara exciting?  Of course!  That's because there's something new happening, something different and potentially deadly, rather than the same old spawns in the same old places that we've all memorized.  Newness of an area, whether new to everyone or new only to the players currently visiting, is not a flaw.  Sure, there may be something odd in some spawn that was unintended, but some places are just plain tough.  And if it does happen to be too much, intended or not, well... *shrug* Live by the sword, die by the sword.  Welcome to the world of adventuring.

[lonnarin]

It does seem strange to me that the more powerful somebody is, the more likely they are to suffer damage to their soul. Then you can wind up with strange conundrums like the 40 year old 30th level fighter being 3x more likely to lose a strand than the 80 year old 10th level mage.  Logically, the untrained geezer should stand a greater chance to die for good than the elite youngster.  Currently, the better trained one becomes, the less powerful their grip on their soul grows.

I like the previous suggestions where one could earn some of their strands as they level, as it would both reinforce cautious play and would let souls potentially grow in power.  Foolhardy young adventurers should be more likely to stay down after killed than an epic.  How the system is now, it almost seems to be increasingly punitive to those who succeed.  When you hit 30th and you lose a strand around a third of the time, it sort of indicates that your soul is weaker than the wee 5th level newcomer who only loses a strand 1/20th of the time.

Of course how much of this raise in soultax is purely game mechanics, vs how much of it is the fine print of the Soul Mother's bindstone contract is unknown to me.  It could very well be that Soul Mother has put some kind of interest on the appreciating value of her services as the risk variables increase according to the higher level adventurer's activities.  She could be very well like one of those angry collections agents that add extra fees due to nonpayment of soul in her deathly insurance schemes.  She could view those higher level characters as more high-risk investments in much the same way car insurance rates go up if you get tickets for drag racing.  The more you risk, the higher her rates become.

[Acacea]

As far as I know, it is not the strength or weakness of the soul, but how likely it is that it will be taken. If anything, it is actually the more powerful of souls that have been written as the most attractive. Whether or not that has changed, I don't know, but at least in the past (and present?) it is the weakest that are least likely to have strands cut and taken at death, and the most powerful that draw attention. In the end, what good does power do you when you are dead? You can't resist the Soul Mother, really...

(Edit to add proper amount of uncertainty.)

[/SIZE]

[lonnarin]

Ah true!  Reading that Lore about how the soul has to travel to the afterlife, I could imagine that the power of the soul would make all nefarious beings trying to consume it look on it as more tastey.  Every time somebody loses a strand, they could have been essentially drafted in alternating rounds the way the NFL and NBA drafts player.  The Baatezu Confederation chooses Rufus, The Celestial Hierchy picks Athus, the Slaadi want Farros, etc.

Also there is the factor of the gods, who certainly want to devour your soul power or use yous as a divine eternal servant as well.  Vorax needs new warriors around his Keep!  Corath needs to eat souls to stay in power, etc.  So there might be some arrangement between they and the Soul Mother, the latter being mostly a neutral administrator agreed on by all to be fair in distribution.

[Acacea]

Though, that argument also brings up the answer of, "Besides, maybe the strain is greater after you have died so many times, adding to the higher chances for high levels," which would have been a flawed argument since high level != high death count. So shooting down my own argument made me wonder if perhaps a sort of compromise between "power" and "deaths" would work.

Like... yeah, a level 30 who has never died will have a higher chance of losing a strand on death compared to a level 10 who has never died. However, a level 10 who has died over three hundred times might very well be getting himself up there on those chances. It might offer a compromise between "power is attractive" and "the more deaths, the higher chance" in order to not have staggering odds at high levels by virtue of being high level...and to at the same time add a little bit of weight in favor of the cautious, regardless of level. Just a random thought...

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Maybe an additional percent for each ten deaths? Or any X number of deaths that seems reasonable.

Though, wow. Pyyran would be toast. xD

[jrizz]

Ah true!  Reading that Lore about how the soul has to travel to the afterlife, I could imagine that the power of the soul would make all nefarious beings trying to consume it look on it as more tastey.  

If this where the case we would have more perms happening to epics then un-epics.

And that is not the case.

The real story is that souls seem to be perfectly ripe and the most yummy  when a PC is between 18 and 20 levels

[Acacea]

Who have lower DCs than the higher levels...and it was the DC being referred to. I don't think anyone was quoting how many people of any level range permed... just their chances of losing a strand.

[jrizz]

Yeah Lonn you would think that since we already have the precedent of gaining  greater resistance (SMD) to the soul mother that it would make sense that as a PC grows in power it learns to resist the SM better and not just some weird one shot thing but a continuous strengthening.

[Gulnyr]

All feats are, technically, "weird one shot things."  Most of them can be seen as something learned over time, though some could be things that just happen, if you look at them just right.  Also, besides the fluff text saying so, there really isn't any difference between an epic character and a 'normal' one.  Plus, there is not always any particular reason that some feats are only obtainable in epic levels.

Think of Armor Skin.  Does an epic character just wake up one day with rock-hard skin?  Maybe, but it's also possible (and perhaps preferred from an RP perspective in most cases) that the character has simply gotten tougher over time, either through intentional training or just as the result of getting beaten up so often.  There doesn't seem to be any particular reason it's an epic feat, since it doesn't seem all that powerful and could have more requirements added to make it available at lower levels; that's the trade-off, though.  It's epic by design choice, allowing anyone to take it just by having a high enough level without need for a high Constitution or whatever.

SMD is the same way.  When you look at the stats, the extra five soul strands do indeed just pop in from nowhere.  Looking at the RP, though, it could be seen as a conscious, continual strengthening of the soul (or the soul's affinity for the body, more correctly) over time that only bears fruit when the feat becomes available and is selected, just like with Armor Skin.  SMD has no prerequisites except epic level, so it would need some prerequisites to be a normal feat, adding a proper cost for the value.  Making it epic is similar to making Armor Skin epic, in that anyone can take it regardless of stats or previous feats just by virtue of making 21st level.  That's the current cost, which I understand seems too much to some, but balance has to be considered.

[jrizz]

ah I see. Well then what do you think of the current proposals? or do you have one that should be looked at?

[Gulnyr]

I don't think there is any particular flaw with the current system.  It's unfortunate that things like lag can lead to soul strand loss, but that isn't a problem with the death system as much as a problem with NWN and Internet technology in general.  The dispute process is not perfect, but no system will be.  

I think it is not in accordance with established lore to say that souls should be getting stronger or weaker in any way because of anything involving soul strands.  Soul strands are not part of the soul itself, the way I understand it, but some sort of means of holding the soul and body together.  When a character loses a soul strand, the soul hasn't lost any pieces and hasn't gotten weaker; there are simply fewer strands available to hold the soul to the body.  SMD is not a strengthening of the soul but strengthening of the bind between soul and body.  Systems based on strengthening of the soul over time don't fit the world.

I think the use of the bindstones at all is a boon and there isn't any particular reason to try to milk more positives from it.  Ten strands minimum is a pretty hefty amount.  For years, there were only one or two characters to perm.  It is only because there are more characters at levels with a higher chance of losing strands that there are more characters permanently dying now.  The system didn't change or break.

I think random rolls for loss are as fair as it gets.  It isn't unfair that some characters rack up the loses early on while others go death after death without losing any; that's just the luck of the draw.  Trying to base the system on number of deaths, for example, could bias it for or against certain classes, roles, or alignments.  That would be unfair.  There are already enough complaints about class balance as it is.

I don't have a suggestion for a new system as I think the current system is satisfactory.  Imperfect, but satisfactory.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

If there were a corpse-movement system in place, I think, perhaps, that having SS loss only trigger on respawn would be a fair change, that wouldn't really cheapen death. It would make Raise Dead and Resurrect all the more important, though, and give added reason to bring along a Cleric, or buy some scrolls.

More partying, more RP, more fun.

[Gulnyr]

Aren't there enough reasons to bring a Cleric?  That's just the impression I get, especially considering player events that specifically say the trip is off if no Cleric shows.

I can't help imagining players with characters near perming leaving the character dead until they can find another player with a Cleric to log in and go raise the rotting corpse.  You can take that as an insult if you like, but it's obvious there are a lot of strong emotions regarding our characters and their permanent demise so it doesn't seem a stretch to imagine people falling to the temptation.  I don't think introducing such a temptation to the system is a good idea.  Death should be the strain that breaks the strands, not bindstone resurrection.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

There are loads of reasons to bring a cleric, at every level, but... Can't they have the player wait around, "Wait For Help"ing until a Cleric shows up, even now?

Introducing a system that eats an SS (or simply kills you outright) after three in-game days would also help to quell this - and it would fit with the lore.

I am more of the opinion that the creation/teleportation of the body and gear, then the drawing down of the soul (and slamming it into that body) is more what causes the strain, rather than simply the death itself.

[Lalaith Va'lash]

On one hand while I agree with you, the system is another means for "group" play.  A raise dead scroll, in these cases, is just as good as a cleric. Anybody can use the scroll, so as long as your not alone....  

And a timer on forced respawn (if not raised in XYZ amount of time, you respawn) is a good way to deter the "leaving of corpses until rotten"  Additionally, maybe a system that causes you to respawn if you log out while dead?  That way the player cannot just go wait until they meta game a cleric of their whereabouts.

While the obvious Con to this system is that there can be some metagaming of clerics, it is limited if there is a timer on the respawn.

Other pro's of the system are the roleplay aspect (yes, bringing a dead body through town can create some nice RP, creating a system where group play is encouraged, and eliminating *most* of the grievances based on lag deaths ect, since with a well equipped party if a member survives you can be raised.)

Total party deaths, Soloing, and the unprepared would still be pretty much forced to respawn., but it puts a little more control into the players hands.

The other major con is that it does not -quite- fit with the lore of the world as Dorg explained a few posts back... (The strain is on death, not respawn) but perhaps the ideas have some merit nonetheless.

I don't think there is a system that is perfect.  But thats why we are all chatting about it in the first place :p

EDIT: SZ beat me to it.

[Hellblazer]

I do believe that if the ss was rolled only on respawn, then the risk of getting a ss due to lag would be greatly diminished. We have seen in the past a few retcon go into the lore and general history of the world. This one could also be one. It would help alleviate the dispute process, promote rp and parties, and also help with the general sentiment that a bad death can bring due to technical difficulties.