Level Locks

[Chongo]

This is something of a wild shot...

Definitely shooting from the hip, and in a strange direction... probably my foot.  I was initially going to post this in Dorg's forum on reimbursements but it's getting pretty far into the weeds and I don't think it would help maintain the theme.

What about offering level locks?  Deals with the soul mother to not take your soul from the world in exchange for the obvious:  You will never advance in your discipline/ study/ art of war/ etc. again.

In other words, that level 16 character that has 9 DT's that you've played for 3 years and love to death, you can lock their XP at that level, never advance again, but stay on the world.

Heck, I'm not even sure if I like the idea, but I thought I'd post it up.  Potential problems would be lack of personal vigor and subsequent apathy towards the game, lack of respect for life and consequent 'death trips' without concern (i.e. let's solo for emeralds for the heck of it, or, I'm going to go wander the planes... who cares), and generally a possible degradation of atmosphere whereby you don't have that aura of life or death situations... and that there's a way out.  Advancement in other areas such as crafting would still exist, and in general would cause problems of balance.

I personally feel that the majority of players that would actually make use of this instead of 'going for it' would probably treat this pretty fairly.  Problem children would most likely bore of perceived stagnation and start a new character.  Most people would probably go for it and take the risk.

The reason for mentioning this is that I wholeheartedly agree with not raising the bar.  It's been raised a couple of times already from 5, to 7, and now 10.  And there is obviously a theme wanting to be maintained with life and death.

But folks discussing in Dorg's forum do bring up some fair points.  That the level spread from 20 to 21, where SMD will be available, is just incredibly vast.  The detriment here is that many, if not most players will choose the safe path at that 9th DT and 3 million XP to go.  And it creates a rhythm of XP grinding in known environments.  And I feel that this, which I now see often, is more a detriment then the possibilities with locked characters.

It's good to maintain the atmosphere of non-permanance in all things, but it's also good to maintain an atmosphere that maintains the spirit of adventure and does not steer a person towards the safe and calculated grind.

Then again, and the main reason I'm not completely sure I like this idea... in the latter case it's ultimately the player's decision, or mistake.

[LynnJuniper]

This is exactly what I've spoken about and mentioned in IRC and in tells a few times. Im all for this idea but also realise that people may not be. That is why a Choice should be offered. So that people, if they choose could never again level but still be allowed to go on quests and keep their friends while staying active in the world besides sitting around Hlint without fear of death.

Of course if someone opts at level 20 to try to get SMD at level 21 with 9 DTS and dies and perms, well that's on them then for not making the desision to lock XP. I like this idea, while still regonizing the good and the bad that goes along with it.

It IS a wild and long shot, but Kudos to Chongo for requesting it. I mean if nothing else its now open for all to see and discuss/flame/whatever; Get the opinion out there. That type thing

[Varka]

I will do this short.
I hope this would never ever happen.... No offence you two

If you will ask me why? Then I will of course try to explain it but I think it is most clearly...
Further with the v3 and the new "possibilities" I do not see how it would work......

[Pibemanden]

I would rather not have this option, however tempting it might seem to lock Storold at level 20 I would rahter loose him than have a eternal level 20 who can't die on my hands.
That is a rather baised view, but on the other hand I would rather not have a server with two different "worlds" one where every death matters and one where you couldn't care less. In theory and possibly time we would have a number of level 20 characters who could roam the world without thought for dying or anything which is something I wouldn't want to see

[Rayenoir]

I think characters need to eventually die, and that some characters just don't have the same rolling luck that others do.  Makes the game seem more realistic to me.  I have no problem with the way things are.  All I really have to say on the matter.

[Weeblie]

There is already a solution to lock one's character at 9 SS losses.

Hlinting!

[Nehetsrev]

Personally, I think a better idea would be to make the Soul Strand count invisible to all players.  That way, each character would have to treat each death as though it could be their last.  Instead of Player Character Joe thinking to himself at a crucial moment of a quest, "Well, I've still got X number Soul Strands left, I can afford to lose one if this goes badly, so I'll charge in and fight,"  he now has to think that there might be another way to overcome the enemy that's less risky.  Or if he's the brave-beyond-common-sense type, he will at least have to think more like, "Well, if this goes badly, at least I'll go out with a blaze of glory, so I'll charge in and fight!"  Not only would this add to the RP of the game, in my opinion, but it would totally remove the need for Soul Strand Reimbursement disputes.

[pejsaboy]

I started reading this thread, and was like, well, that's not too bad an idea. lock your advancement so you don't die off. Then I decided I don't like that idea. Now I get to the bottom, and I love Nehetsrev's idea. keep the soul strands, just don't let people see how many they have/lost. halfway a threadjack, halfway an on-topic comment

[Chnmmr]

How about we make people so paranoid that no one adventures? ^_^

[Chongo]

Or just make it so that there are no SS's... just that if you roll a 1... YER DED!


On a d6 of course..


And Varka, no offense taken.  I think I kinda decided I didn't care either way about halfway through writing that... but it still seemed like a suggestion worthy of a post.  I dunno.

[Jilseponie Wyndon]

Chongo, putting up a level lock actually is not a good idea.  Sure, you can never die, but then people would start taking advantage of that to go after the high end CNR and stuff.  No big deal if I fall, I can come back and try it again, and again, and again.  I can see it getting abused already.  And the economy would become flooded with coin looted, and those high end items made.

Also, what if you had one of those level locked in your questing party?  They may have the attitude of "Oh well, its no matter if I die by charging in . . . I won't perm."  It could put the rest of the party in deep trouble or in a compromised position.

As for the unknown SS thing . . that would be pretty close to RL.  Interesting idea.

[LynnJuniper]

Uhm...I don't know about anyone else, but as for the invisible SS thing...

I play games to get AWAY from real life, therefore Invisible soul strands, not knowing when you're going to bite it, tax, rent...I'm trying to escape those things

EDIT: Realising Im an almost 18 year old with no worries >_> Sorry If I offended anyone with the last statement

[Acacea]

No on the Level Locks for all of the reasons stated in the thread so far, no on the invisible soul strands. I considered the second as I like the risk and unknown factor, however while a character may not think "okay, I only have 3 strands left but I can take SMD in a few levels," they are aware of the loss. In a big way. The traumatizing kind of way. If you weren't able to know your count, in several battles you'd never know if you lost one at all--sometimes things are just too busy to tell. It isn't just an OOC mechanic to keep consequences, which would make more sense to hide; it's the state of your soul.

I like the vagueness, just don't think it'd be really IC to be completely uncheckable.

[Faldred]

Acacea - 12/8/2006  1:35 PM

No on the Level Locks for all of the reasons stated in the thread so far, no on the invisible soul strands. I considered the second as I like the risk and unknown factor, however while a character may not think "okay, I only have 3 strands left but I can take SMD in a few levels," they are aware of the loss. In a big way. The traumatizing kind of way. If you weren't able to know your count, in several battles you'd never know if you lost one at all--sometimes things are just too busy to tell. It isn't just an OOC mechanic to keep consequences, which would make more sense to hide; it's the state of your soul.

I like the vagueness, just don't think it'd be really IC to be completely uncheckable.

Not that I'm advocating one way or another... but consider the possible as a compromise between vagueness and the IC knowledge of your own diminishment:

* Increase the number of soul strands to 25 (pro-rate for existing characters).
* Upon the character failing the Soul Mother save, the player is informed of that fact
* The character loses 1d4 soul strands (average of 2.5, which explains the increase to 25)
* The player is NOT informed how many strands the character has lost

This way... players have some kind of idea how close to permanent death they are, but no actual way to know for sure.  An unlucky player could perm after only 7 failed Soul Mother saves, but that would be very improbable.  (As would the player lasting 25 times)

[Weeblie]

I don't like the idea of a hidden SS system at all.

As now, when one only has 1 SS left, one can at least have some time for preparations. Like, creating a new character, wrapping up loose ends and so on. Making a suitable and meaningful finish for one's character, if one wishes to. A painless (or much less painful, at least) transistion to your new character.

A sudden "Game Over" would mean, at least for me only having one character, certainily a "Break from Layo". To suddenly realise "Oh... My only character just poofed. Now... I have... Umm... Nothing, really!" wouldn't be a nice feeling at all. I don't mind a perming character (at least, not too much) as long as I have another one to continue with.

Oh, you can surely bring forth the argument that I could create a new character right now. Kind of a "just in case of perming unexpectingily"-character. But I would disagree. For the moment, I only wish to focus all the effort on a single character (Good side effect: Removes the risk of having to remember who knows what. ). Having a "spare"-character wouldn't really work, as a character one never plays with doesn't really "exist" in the game. Kind of equal to a character not submitted.

I believe the system works as it does right now. Some random in it (i.e. rolls for Soul Strands) which is fine, so every death has a potentional danger of bringing one closer to death. Some control in it, as one only truly dies when one reaches 10 (or 15) SS losses. A tradeoff between both sides.

And, as usual, just a few of my own thoughts.

[Chongo]

Heh, some of you guys are funny.

Again, as stated clearly, there are pros and cons to this, that, or the other thing.  I honestly think there are more cons then pros with level locking, as stated, which is where I chuckle at a lot of responses.  

That said, the point here was to present an idea as an advocate for concerned individuals that were already taking Dorg's post in a singular track.  And it's good for discussion.  I personally don't care to much about the entire issue.  I'm not perm'ing anytime soon, and I honestly don't think I'd ever lock a character if the option was available.  I'm not sweating DT's that were 'unwarranted', and I'm not big on disputes.  So take it as the implied impact on gameplay, and a discussion thereof.

I don't think hidden systems are any healthier then what we have (the d6 was a joke).  And again, raising the bar only causes potential depreciation in self-preserving gameplay.

But... there are a lot of individuals out there that are very attached to their character, and the server is attached to them as well.  And I think the respectful thing to do is entertain options and maybe weigh the negatives/ positives on allowing for some leniency given a system that is unsolvable due to the fact that the hard working staff isn't omniscient and has to work with what they have and try to hit that tricky 'fair to all' balance line.

I have a feeling that with the *suggested* SS retrieval going into v3, that this is all just one big moot point, and that this may be why Dorg is with a slight head tilt on the direction we keep steering his post.

So no worries here.  

[Cp_Winddancer]

There is a way to ensure that your character does not die... request your character to become a NPC, or retire them from adventuring and use them for RP.  Personally I agree with Pibemanden I would hate to have a character that does not advance.  But that is my opinion.  But remember a dead character can recieve a permanent tomb if you do the work required to get it.  I know of a few tomb markers out there.

[ThrainSil]

After a trip back home I found my copy of The Proper (smiles) and Real D&D rules.  Yes Im old and its my old copy (bought in 1976 or close to that) of the white box paperback D&D rules.  If you have a chance read these and be alarmed how far the PnP game has degenerated in an effort to make everybody happy.  I digress but death was a different affair.

Death was a permanent condition.  A cleric could raise you and "if" you survived the ressurection you would be alive but lose a CON point permenantly.  DMs had fun watching you try to spread load the gear of the dead person and carry them back to a temple. We should go back to that and no lag whining.  If the weather is bad dont go out.

With that rant over I think the DTs system works fine and gives me a bit of a feel for the old game.  Unfair to front line fighters but so be it, we can always hang back and claim our backs hurt or multiclass. If Thrain gets to his 9th he will (lvl lock himself) retire to Shoufal and open and inn, drink ale and tells lies to young adventurers who stop buy.

[LightlyFrosted]

On the subject of PnP death and related issues, bear in mind that for those games, death was also a significantly less common experience, because the system is better adjusted for party-based gameplay. Even in the modern version of pnp Dungeons and Dragons, most adventures assume that you are travelling within a party of four.  Thus, with death being less frequent, more stringent penalties could justifiably be applied to dying and being returned to life, as well as a significant cost in material components for doing so.

In Layonara and Neverwinter Nights in specific, the higher death toll is accounted for, and even taken into account.  While the mechanism for partying in NWN exists, it is far from the focus of the game, and certainly not the core mechanic.  The Death Thread system, as it stands now, seems to be a good balance between making sure that players don't take ridiculous risks and allowing them some play; the chance of having your character killed decreases if he or she is powerful enough to thwart those that would attempt to do him/her in.  Bear in mind as well that while neither a full level nor point of constitution is lost when a character dies in Layonara, there is a pecentage-based fee in gold, and dying repeatedly without going to retrieve your grave or waiting to 'revitalize' will penalize experience.  Further, the stat-reductions resulting from death are far from pleasant to labour under.