The REAL overlooked sin in RPGs: disconnect between narrative and mechanics

[samuraigaiden]

If it doesn't Wizardry, it doesn't matter.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

In D&D, the raise dead and resurrection spells kind of make sense. Huge cost in gold, considering your average peasant makes a few coppers for a day's labor, and an XP penalty that would make only the most powerful of heroes worth raising from the dead. Unless they changed that in the new, more accessible D&D with genderfluid elves. (I never liked that term. I still hear it and think it refers to semen.)

So D&D handled it pretty well if you ask me. Meanwhile, I have no idea what is going on in Final Fantasy. Any idiot can be raised from the dead with 100 gil spent on phoenix down. So why is there any death at all in Final Fantasy? Unless reaching zero hit points represents something that isn't death, and phoenix down is some kind of revival more akin to smelling salts, then no one should ever die in Final Fantasy. But that's an issue that's never discussed.

 

[Roguey]

So D&D handled it pretty well if you ask me. Meanwhile, I have no idea what is going on in Final Fantasy. Any idiot can be raised from the dead with 100 gil spent on phoenix down. So why is there any death at all in Final Fantasy? Unless reaching zero hit points represents something that isn't death, and phoenix down is some kind of revival more akin to smelling salts, then no one should ever die in Final Fantasy. But that's an issue that's never discussed.

Phoenix Downs don't raise the dead, they wake up an unconscious character. The killing doesn't happen until everyone's knocked out.

 

[Cryomancer]

ALL RPGs suffer from this. The moment you gain the ability to raise the fucking dead, any plot point revolving around people DYING is immediately null and void, but the writers don't ever think through the implications of this system.

Depends the COSTS & Limitations on reviving the dead.

IMO D&D offers little drawbacks on reviving the dead. If was up to me, revive the dead will not be a spell, would be a RITUAL. Instead of one minute, i would require 3 hours at least, and will not be a grantee that will succeed if the soul is free and willing to come back. In fact, i would require a WIS check proportional to how much the body is damaged(maybe a skill check too, not sure) and the target who is revived should age some years, for humans, one year per day spend as dead(elves would age more), make 5 fortitude saves(proportional to how hard the body was damaged beyond death, eg - if you at -9 hp is unconscious and -10 is dead, at -20, would require a DC = 10, each day spend without your body will increase the DC by 1 since the corpse is decomposing) and for each failed save, take a permanent CON damage, this spell offers little drawbacks and limitations on 3.5e. ( https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm ) But NWN2, they could for example vaporized her body or something to explain why you can't revive her.

sanderson's laws of magic( https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/what-are-sandersons-laws-of-magic/ ) established on the second law that the limitations are more interesting than the magic itself when you are writing fiction. Eg, the power to control flames is less interesting than the risk of losing control over flames and damaging yourself and how much flame can you control. In TTRPG and CRPG's, the best magical systems that i played has interesting drawbacks.

Divine intervention on M&M ages you a DECADE. It really hurts your attributes if you abuse this spell in every situation where you are at risk.Sacrifice destroys your reputation and requires a hired follower to be scarified.

Other example is the "lure of flames" Botch is the worst possible result. http://wodpedia.wikidot.com/lure-of-flames

Botch: A fireball erupts in the vampire's palm, causing one point of aggravated damage. All blood points spent are lost.

Failure: The vampire fails to conjure any flame, and must wait until her next turn to try again. All blood points spent are lost.

Success: The vampire successfully creates the flame.

I have many critiques towards Pathfinder 2e, but the fact that spells can critical fail like other RPG systems is a huge "incline" IMO.

 

[Harthwain]

Reviving the dead is a moot point in a video game where you have access to save/load function.

One could make an argument that an easy access to the spell makes it less annoying when you win the fight but somebody dies, because you can revive them after, meaning there is less reloading involved. Death can only be meaningful if the game offers an ironman mode (optional, of course) or it's one-save kind of game by design and the reviving is in itself a difficult task.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

Harthwain true, but you're looking at it from a different angle. You're considering how raising the dead affects the game from the perspective of gameplay mechanics. One might argue that the gameplay is more important than the narrative. But a really good game should consider how raising the dead would affect the world from the perspective of narrative/world-building/story.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

sanderson's laws of magic( https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/what-are-sandersons-laws-of-magic/ ) established on the second law that the limitations are more interesting than the magic itself when you are writing fiction. Eg, the power to control flames is less interesting than the risk of losing control over flames and damaging yourself and how much flame can you control. In TTRPG and CRPG's, the best magical systems that i played has interesting drawbacks.

I'm not at all familiar with Brandon Sanderson's books. Are wizardy-types the only ones who use magic in his books? I can see how magic could give great power with dangerous side-effects in a book, and you could have a great plot without worrying about game balance. But in a game, it would really suck for wizards if fighters, paladins, rangers, barbarians, and rogues all get superpowers, but because those powers are not "magic," there's no drawback to using them.

 

[Harthwain]

Harthwain true, but you're looking at it from a different angle. You're considering how raising the dead affects the game from the perspective of gameplay mechanics. One might argue that the gameplay is more important than the narrative. But a really good game should consider how raising the dead would affect the world from the perspective of narrative/world-building/story.

Indeed. Still - and I agree with Victor here - the costs of doing something like that should be extremely prohibitive, and by that I don't mean simply money-wise. Otherwise you should explain why rich people don't stay dead.

Even if we accept the "it's super expensive" argument, there is the matter of what impact it has on the overall economy (the money doesn't disappear) and how it empowers the priests/churches (who gain tremendous amount of wealth by allowing everyone with enough money to revive their dead). And there is always more, which flows naturally from the first two points; how people react to rich and powerful churches/priests (for example)?

These kinds of questions can keep going on and on.

But in a game, it would really suck for wizards if fighters, paladins, rangers, barbarians, and rogues all get superpowers, but because those powers are not "magic," there's no drawback to using them.

The way Warhammer does it is that non-wizzards aren't using superpowers but normal abilities. In the exchange it's really risky to use actual magic, but these effect carry a lot more weight (provided you won't screw up casting).

I think DnD did something similar by implementing Wild Magic (a Wild Mage subclass of a Mage). It's funny and makes you think twice before casting anything, but gamers are usually allergic to anything that isn't "true & proven" or reliable ("the result is 100% guaranteed or we return your money").

 

[Roguey]

Otherwise you should explain why rich people don't stay dead.

No D&D spell can bring back anyone who dies from old age.

 

[Harthwain]

Otherwise you should explain why rich people don't stay dead.

No D&D spell can bring back anyone who dies from old age.

We're not talking about that though. Or at least I thought it was obvious enough to not mention people dying of old age.

 

[Pink Eye]

Otherwise you should explain why rich people don't stay dead.

No D&D spell can bring back anyone who dies from old age.

Nor those who have been desecrated.

 

[Roguey]

Nor those who have been desecrated.

Doesn''t apply to Resurrection which can bring back anyone.

The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

Making sure a rich person stays dead requires disposing of the body in a way no one will be able to find it.

 

[Pink Eye]

>Doesn''t apply to Resurrection which can bring back anyone.
Funny. Jaheira explicitly says that Khalid can't be brought back because his body was desecrated.

 

[Roguey]

>Doesn''t apply to Resurrection which can bring back anyone.
Funny. Jaheira explicitly says that Khalid can't be brought back because his body was desecrated.

As per AD&D rules:

This miracle restores life and strength to any living creature (including elves), as long as they died within 10 years per caster level and some portion of the dead creature remains (the DM may impose a penalty to success if there is little left). If the character succeeds on the resurrection survival check, they are at full health and ready to perform strenuous activity instantly. The spell cannot bring back a creature who has died of old age or natural causes, and ages the caster 3 years. After casting this spell, the caster requires one day of bed rest for each experience level or Hit Dice of the resurrected creature.

Nothing about desecration there. But, being such a chump, I doubt he even wanted to come back. In the romance path Jaheira even mentions having a dream where she sees Khalid who approves of her moving on to a new bf.

 

[Pink Eye]

God dammit! Even in death he approves of being cucked. Better part of Valor my ass.

 

[Harthwain]

>Doesn''t apply to Resurrection which can bring back anyone.
Funny. Jaheira explicitly says that Khalid can't be brought back because his body was desecrated.

Perhaps my memory fails me here, but wasn't that just Jaheira grasping for an easy explanation why Khalid wasn't responding to being resurrected, rather than willing to face the fact that Khalid was not willing to be ressurected?

 

[Pink Eye]

>Doesn''t apply to Resurrection which can bring back anyone.
Funny. Jaheira explicitly says that Khalid can't be brought back because his body was desecrated.

Perhaps my memory fails me here, but wasn't that just Jaheira grasping for an easy explanation why Khalid wasn't responding to being resurrected, rather than willing to face the fact that Khalid was not willing to be ressurected?

Nah, it was just a plot device for forcing a romance onto the player.

 

[DraQ]

Perhaps my memory fails me here, but wasn't that just Jaheira grasping for an easy explanation why Khalid wasn't responding to being resurrected, rather than willing to face the fact that Khalid was not willing to be ressurected?

Nah, it was just a plot device for forcing a romance onto the player .

Inclined.

NWN2 also suffers from "you can kill revived party members with Raise Dead except if they died in a cutscene BS" that i particularly hate. NWN2 is a amazing game but has this huge flaw...

ALL RPGs suffer from this.

Not all RPGs have rez.

Technically you can also put strong enough limitations/disincentives into rez to prevent common use, but it indeed is the kind of mechanics that tends to ripple settings into oblivion.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

I remember when people kept saying that everything has to be easy, because people can't handle a challenge, and then Dark Souls happens. Not long after that we have the whole souls-esque bonanza. ... But in order to see that someone has to make a game that takes risks and doesn't treat people like imbeciles.

Dark Souls is an arcade game, not a cRPG. Arcade games are traditionally easy to learn and hard to master, while with cRPGs is the other way around. Your point is moot.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

I remember when people kept saying that everything has to be easy, because people can't handle a challenge, and then Dark Souls happens.

In the meantime, there are 600M chess players.

Chess is not a cRPG either. Moreover, chess is in decline all over the world.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

Amazing video



He mentions why magic on most video games makes no sense. And mentiosn Brandon Sanderson around 14min.
He mentions the "transmute ore" around 16 min. Imagine being able to create gold in a gold base economy.
Around 23 min, he mentions how a single spell (bound sword) would change a lot skyrim economic.

Note that on Morrowind, the dark elves made their slaves wear special arm bands that sapped all their magic power, so they couldn't use it to escape or fight back, on Skyrim, people take ZERO measures vs magic users in prisons.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,675.0.html

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

It's quite appalling to realize how precious little has been achieved with games, despite the industry being filthy rich and a couple decades old by now.

Deluded. It achieved little only in comparison with your armchair dream gaems that go against the medium limitations.

These limitations will never be surpassed because they define the medium.

Stop demanding dream cRPGs and comparing the medium with other genres.

 

[Harthwain]

I remember when people kept saying that everything has to be easy, because people can't handle a challenge, and then Dark Souls happens. Not long after that we have the whole souls-esque bonanza. ... But in order to see that someone has to make a game that takes risks and doesn't treat people like imbeciles.

Dark Souls is an arcade game, not a cRPG. Arcade games are traditionally easy to learn and hard to master, while with cRPGs is the other way around. Your point is moot.

You rated my post as retarded, because you completely missed the point I was making in the first place? Talk about being retarded...

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

You rated my post as retarded, because you completely missed the point I was making in the first place? Talk about being retarded...

Your argument is that Dark Souls success shows that developers don't need to dumb down their games. But Dark Souls is an arcade game and it has a different target audience from cRPGs so your point was moot.

 

[Cryomancer]

I'm not at all familiar with Brandon Sanderson's books. Are wizardy-types the only ones who use magic in his books? I can see how magic could give great power with dangerous side-effects in a book, and you could have a great plot without worrying about game balance. But in a game, it would really suck for wizards if fighters, paladins, rangers, barbarians, and rogues all get superpowers, but because those powers are not "magic," there's no drawback to using them.

We are talking about SP games. The game balance is not important as the fun, replayability and immersion.

Anyway, look to M&M divine intervention. It ages the caster 10 years. I used this spell like 4 times and each time, thinked a lot before using. Same with other spells like sacrifice.

Mount & Blade Phantasy Calradia MOD has one of the best necromancies. I still remember when i was defending a new conquered city with hordes of undead as a necromancer. And was winning, then, i lost control over SOME unities of undead, had a really hard time controlling the walls while attack the guys invading and started to lose. The result was that i almost lose my city.

Your argument is that Dark Souls success shows that developers don't need to dumb down their games. But Dark Souls is an arcade game and it has a different target audience from cRPGs so your point was moot.

While AAA games hate attributes or dumb down attributes and make it 100% tied to the boot that you are wearing, dark souls has a good attribute system, with diminishing returns and stats that measure what your char can and cannot do.
While AAA games has carnavalesque bikini armor, dark souls has good armor design
While AAA games has the mechanics and lore contradicting itself, a random ring says that a boss is blind and you can use this information in your favor.

Dark Souls can be a ARPG, but is one of the best ARPG's over there. Probably the best.