|
| ||||
Announcements
| Welcome to Sigil: City of Doors. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Thoughts on Level Caps?; Just wondering | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 5 2012, 03:10 PM (1,652 Views) | |
| Mr_Otyugh | Jul 10 2012, 08:49 PM Post #76 |
![]()
|
Actually the thing is that if conversation skills would be strictly allowed they'd probably be the most powerful skills in the very game, especially in dialog determined DM/EM events. The times you see the skills being allowed to govern, you'll quickly find out that the story revolves around the guys with highest conversation talents and rest are just tagging along, that's not fair for anyone nor is it to make it mandatory "train this to get DM love". If anything the ranks in the skills should govern what you can say, not that you always say the same thing and just the number on the side changes, it'd even be best to never actually see the numbers... I just feel like that's the flaw of the system they try too hard to make it numeric when dialog should never really be numeric, it should be about improving the odds by getting clues of what impacts the people tried to be persuaded, in essence what sense motive does. Then if bluff, intimidate and diplomacy should be absolutely mandatory skills (which I honestly feel they aren't) for the system they should be more about telling you how diplomatic/intimidating/liar-y you are... so less: 1d20 + 15 and more like: (i.e. Bluff) Unranked: "You have no poker face what so ever, you rub back of your neck when you're nervous, you avert eye contact and at extreme pressure sweat" Low rank: "For brief while you can keep up a convincing lie, but the further you have to explain the more obvious the lie becomes. In extreme pressure still avert eye contact and fail to keep your cool." High rank: "You have a knack for refraining of giving out any clues outside and also quite capable of keeping going on a lie without any delay and still refrain from appearing like you're bullshitting the others." As in real roleplay application, and obviously could have more to it, I just made that up on the spot For further emphasis to quote Einstein "Insanity is doing same thing over and over and expecting different results" <- that's in essence how the numeric conversation system works, insanity
|
|
Time Zones - Alignments - Name Generator NWN 2 Mechanics - PnP Mechanics - Dice Roller Character Builder - 2nd edition Monster Database - Monster Finder In-case of problems: Click Here | |
![]() |
|
| Tomekk | Jul 10 2012, 09:25 PM Post #77 |
|
Dark Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
NWN2 isn't PnP... how about we remember that and try focusing on things you can't exactly replicate well on paper, like... err... Big, bad, Blood War fights! |
|
"From the realms below we ride, And in terror they run and hide, From the shadows of old we rise, Awakened, from the dark! Over the ancient ruins we fly, Where the old kings go to die, And the new kingdoms rising high, Awakened, from the dark, dark slumber!" | |
![]() |
|
| Abby | Jul 11 2012, 01:19 AM Post #78 |
![]()
Blood
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The most common thing I see diplomacy used for is getting a bit extra loot, extra information or better treatment from an NPC. Thats how it should be. Diplomacy isn't there to override content of speech, nor should it be. Mr. Otyugh's example on bluff is perfect. DMs who want to make use of the skills could call for rolls, or make note of the scores and use those to alter the perception of how an NPC sees the PC they are talking too. I have a PC named Galt with an 8 Charisma and -1 diplomacy. In the past, NPCs have just decided they hated his face. If he makes a sound logical argument then of course it is valid, but he's not going to inspire an NPC to "like" him, or give him a "tip." Conversly, Abby who is very pleasant on the eyes and understands exactly how to use tone, body language and social ques is able to get NPCs to offer up a bit more info (between friends), be more friendly toward her in negotiations, etc. That is the fundamental purpose of diplomacy. Its not something that should be a hard fast rule for determining PC to PC interaction, though I "choose" to consider people's roles so long as they are framed properly and not just spammed without proper RP. As for the poor fighter with the 6 charisma and -2 diplomacy who has to sit back and watch Abby take care of careful negotiations with the town guard; I don't feel super sorry. Afterall, I spend most of my time standing there watching him do a kabillion damage in a round, and being center stage in all the combat we get into. If he wants to suddenly adopt the master diplomat hat and push Abby aside and start handling the touchy situation with the guard (and expecting that his lousy charisma and diplomacy shouldn't make any differance), its just bad RP. I would hope the DM would differentiate between the beer-swilling dwarf who smells like a landfill and is constantly rude, and the clever diplomat who is highly trained in psycology, edequitte and the subtle art of persuastion. Sure they may say the exact same thing in two dimentional text but I would "hope" that any DM would aknoweldge that the two are going to get a pretty differant response based on how NPCs would percieve them by their ability to deliver a message in a manner said NPC finds acceptable. The numbers on our sheets represent the things that you can't see by looking at the PC. You can't tell a PC has a 30 str. His muscles won't look any bigger than the guy with the 12 str standing next to him. Nor can you hear tone in the "text" that is typed. You can't tell that a PC is attractive or knows how to speak in a way that makes people like them. All these things that influence the impression we get when we talk to people in RL. Thats what Charisma and Diplomacy represent. Character sheets keep things real, otherwise everyone would just optimise for combat and still get all the benifits of sacrificing for social abilities. I mean if a horrible crack-head bum comes up and requests something of you, showering you in spittle that smells like dead things and rum, your response is probably going to be differant than if its some gorgeous person asking, who makes you feel like the center of the world while framing the request, even if they used the exact same words. Charisma and diplomacy. Anyway, if you're not swayed to consider diplomacy when PCs interact with NPCs, you're not going to be. . Back on topic: Yay for level caps! :ph43r:
|
![]() |
|
| cryptc | Jul 11 2012, 05:54 AM Post #79 |
|
Advisor
![]()
|
Oh I've had players that were missing just a little bit of xp and wanting to just go out and kill something at the end of sessions (I've also had said player being swallowed whole by a cloudray from random encounter table, so it didn't happen too often after that) And most builds can be justified even in pnp, but usually you have to make some decisions to reinforce the sanity of the decision... like if you make a mystic theurge you'd want Mystra or Azuth as deity, not Gruumsh or something ... but my point is that even in pnp players do powerbuild, although it depends alot on how the DM is... a "playerkiller" DM is more likely to get powerbuilds than a laid back one...
|
| "One of the most curious statements I've seen on this list is that PlaneScape is a logical world. I must have erred. I was trying to create a world that defied logic." - David 'Zeb' Cook | |
![]() |
|
| Kadim | Jul 12 2012, 06:49 PM Post #80 |
Prime
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is a subject that always interests me as a DM in pnp and a player sorta everywhere, and I know I'm not technically on the server at the mo so if you wanna tell me to sod off that's fair enough ![]() I've never been a fan of level caps, for the simple reason that players can never separate a cap from a punishment or a response to players being too demanding. Even the most laid back easy going player will still have a momentary grumble when presented with the idea that their character's advancement will hit a ceiling, particularly when they're at the ceiling in question (wherever it is). The advantage of nwn2 or any other computer game is the parameters are set by a computer and not a person. When a person says to you "no characters over lvl 10 in my game, ever" then it's seen as an affectation. When a computer game caps at lvl 10, then nobody's in a position to argue because the system is what it is. Back in the day when I'd DM 2nd ed, nobody ever argued about the lvl 20 cap on all players but the demihuman caps presented in the DMG were hotly resented even by the least optimization oriented players I had and we eventually ignored them because they were so universally disliked. We still kept the overall cap at lvl 20 though and nobody seemed to mind. Had those caps in 2nd ed been presented as part of the racial descriptions in the PHB, I'd be willing to bet that most folks would have simply accepted them as read and a few dissenters would have argued but the universal hatred for them is probably something I wouldn't have encountered. Coming back to computer games, level caps are a convention of the genre but I think any level cap beyond the engine's imposed limits (60 in d3, 30 in nwn2, 40 in nwn1, 85 in WoW, etc) is perceived by the players as an affectation rather than any sensible decision made for good reason. I dunno, the trust evaporates when you see it coming directly from a person. Somehow a computer's imposed limit is something that's tolerated and even worked toward. My gaming circle's gone largely unchanged for near on 20 years but that still happens. I can only call it a human reaction to authority. Or maybe we're just weird ![]() Anyway, I'm against level caps beyond what's imposed by the game engine because I think that any way you choose to get into D&D you're playing a number game. I like it when the numbers are backed by good roleplay and I think that should be rewarded. I also think that purely optimized builds created through google fu have their place but I prefer that to take a back seat. I'm aware that the wider the level range the more difficult it is to have events and I also know all too well the difficulties in challenging an epic party, but I also sorta think that the challenges are present at all level ranges and are only exaserbated by the variable nature of events in an online game. In pnp, you know who your players are and you know how many you've got. You also know exactly what they can and can't do because you've got their character sheets to hand and you know that it's unlikely that anyone will crash your session. If they do they'll probably just hang around for the banter and beer rather than play and maybe jump in next time when you can plan for them. The point is unless you're pretty strict about sign ups well in advance and the people who sign up are good about showing up, it's more or less impossible to plan. A level cap of 1 is pretty attractive at that point; you can assure that you know what you're getting. Saying all that, as a player I would not consider rolling a toon on a server that had a level cap that's lower than the max. I like my roleplay but I like my number crunching too, and cutting it short seems to me like a lazy move. It says that the people in charge can't come up with a solution so they've decided not to bother. One really nice compromise I saw on a nwn1 server many moons ago was the last 10 levels (30+) were only gained through participating in events and roleplaying rewards. So your grind xp capped at clvl 30 and you'd still cap out eventually but only by playing an active role in making the server awesome (roleplaying spontaneously, taking part in events). As far as social skills of the character vs the conversational skills of the player go, it's always tough. I always reward for roleplay, personally, so if someone's being the consumate diplomat with a cha of 8 they might move the story forward but they're not gonna get any DM love. Someone who's trying to be the consumate diplomat and deliberately failing with their cha of 8 will get a lot of love AND move the story along. Bonus. From where I'm sat, the social skills are the same as the knowledge skills in that they provide people who don't necessarily have the knack to improvise a chance at playing a social character the same way a new player with knowledge skills have a shot at getting some info from the DM that helps them act appropriately. A skilled player will be able to roleplay their social ineptitude, stupidity, colossal clumsiness, or total lack of good sense in such a way that moves the story along. An unskilled one will likely keep their mouths shut. When they don't keep their mouths shut they'll worsen situations without social skills (fair enough) and with social skills you can have an excuse to turn a blind eye to someone's bad conversation skills a bit and let 'em move things forward. Sorta win/win. Anyway I'm just babbling now so I'll shut up. Bored at work
|
![]() |
|
| cryptc | Jul 13 2012, 04:40 AM Post #81 |
|
Advisor
![]()
|
I should hire you for when I need to explain server design decisions hehe... you stated very well the reasoning behind SCoD having a full 30 level setup... now if only you could type up why we have limited LA races to "30 minus LA" cap, and why xp drops off drasticly after 25th and we could almost use the post as a levelling in a nutshell post for SCoD hehe |
| "One of the most curious statements I've seen on this list is that PlaneScape is a logical world. I must have erred. I was trying to create a world that defied logic." - David 'Zeb' Cook | |
![]() |
|
| Kadim | Jul 13 2012, 09:37 AM Post #82 |
Prime
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hah well I'm glad it's helpful. I'm stuck in a cover lesson right now with nothing better to do, so what the hell, let's have a stab at why. I should point out to any who read this that what I'm about to write is a guess based on the troubles with the mechanics of D&D in general and the conventions of crpgs in particular and NOT the result of any correspondence with this particular DM team or any individual within that team. This is my opinion and is purely speculation. So lesee. The basic logic behind a level adjustment is that a race in question is so much more powerful than a race without a level adjustment that it takes the characters with +0 LA so many levels to catch up. The number of levels roughly translates into the LA of a given race. In pen and paper D&D, these adjustments are calculated from clvl 1, so a hobgoblin (+1 LA) has a few nice mods (good vision options, no minuses to stats and two +2 mods) that open up avenues for them that an elf (+0 LA, +2/-2 to stats, some passive mods of situational use) would struggle to level with. It's all very subjective but on paper the hobgoblin is a stronger race than the elf, so the hobgoblin is given the +1 LA. In pen and paper D&D, there is no level cap. Theoretically a player can level indefinitely (leading to some really goofy stories), but it means that having an ECL is really not that big a deal 'cause you'll level to it eventually and the people that don't will always stay that little bit ahead of you. ECL and +LA has other problems but largely the balance is preserved by that lead the other characters have on the guy with the +LA. Occasionally, a gaming group will agree to allow people to “buy off” a level adjustment at a later stage in the game. Nwn2's decision to allow races with a +LA to cap out at 30 with the rest of the races is basically the equivalent of the design team's gaming group allowing players to buy off the level adjustment. Strictly speaking, that is a variant rule and if you're gonna get pedantic about it then you could throw the book into the fray and show that the only published ruling on buying off level adjustments is in Unearthed Arcana, which is totally optional content and therefore totally at the discretion of the DM team. Basically it's that way because they said so and the published official rules don't allow it in the first place. But that argument doesn't work massively well for nwn2 which is full of small discrepancies anyway, so here's a better one. In a game with a level cap, allowing a +1 LA race to cap out at the same cap as a +0 LA race means that the effective level cap is 31, but only for some races. If the race set in a module has a range of level adjustments, that means that max level is anywhere from ECL 30-36 or more and characters with a +LA race will inevitably pull ahead of a race without a level adjustment. The knock on effect is that when you host an event for max level characters, your range is pretty broad. It means that you can cater to the +LA guys with ECL 33+ or you can cater to the guys who are ECL 30. Challenging the higher ECL guys might mean excluding the the lower ones the same way a a lvl 15 mod excludes a lvl 12 character, but the lvl 12 character has the consolation of knowing they'll get there in time. At max level you're at max level so there is no recourse and you will never reach the place where you can play with the ECL 34 half celestial. You're ECL 30 and that's the end of the story. So really it's all about inclusion. By making the game cap at ECL 30 rather than clvl 30, you assure that everyone can be included in events and you're never in a place where a player is left out because their ECL is too low for the content. Players are then free to pick a race that's good for their roleplaying as well as for their character builds and the mechanic remains subservient to the roleplay, which is as it should be on a roleplaying server. I should say that I actually disagree with this particular solution, but this post is getting gigantic so I'll save that bit. |
![]() |
|
| ManyFaced | Jul 13 2012, 01:44 PM Post #83 |
|
Choosy testers choose Jif.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Beautiful. |
| "Can everyone try just, reading what the DM writes? I think that'd be a good first step." | |
![]() |
|
| Kadim | Jul 13 2012, 10:28 PM Post #84 |
Prime
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Citizen Kane had the coolest lighting in it. The Coen Brothers really went for it with The Man Who Wasn't There but nobody did it like Orson Wells |
![]() |
|
| cryptc | Jul 14 2012, 09:02 AM Post #85 |
|
Advisor
![]()
|
Orson Welles always gets me thinking about his last role, as the voice of Unicron: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNsOGt3bHk |
| "One of the most curious statements I've seen on this list is that PlaneScape is a logical world. I must have erred. I was trying to create a world that defied logic." - David 'Zeb' Cook | |
![]() |
|
| Kadim | Jul 14 2012, 11:37 AM Post #86 |
Prime
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One of the primary differences between me and my wife is when I hear that song, You Got The Touch, I think of Optimus Prime's last battle with Megatron and she thinks of Boogie Nights. |
![]() |
|
| FiveWhats | Jul 18 2012, 11:41 AM Post #87 |
|
I came here to splash at you.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Remove levels, decide all conflicts with competitive underwater basket-weaving. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |




For further emphasis to quote Einstein "Insanity is doing same thing over and over and expecting different results" <- that's in essence how the numeric conversation system works, insanity





![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/10754/109/0/f7002139/pipend.png)

. Back on topic: Yay for level caps! :ph43r:




8:49 AM Jul 11