AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Wound and Healing System

I think just a way to turn it off on yourself will solve this problem, and encourage less of a hostile OOC mechanic.

Hudson wrote:

Absolutely not manditory.

Not to mention lagdeaths/ crashes etc etc should not be penalized with consequences.

Yeah the Mind flayer base destruction comes to mind... DMs crashed the server 4 time in the span of less then one hour, and to top it off they did so much damage it borked the scripts before each of the crashes. so even if DMs had a tool to remove all harmful effects for people who died in their events and such, people who might have had no part of said event would have died as well so yeah DM would have to waste so much time fixing that.

Question for Pony, your time scale is that IRL time because you say stuff like 1 week,2weeks...ect or that 7-14 IG days so like 4-8 resets so 32-64 hours?

Quote:

Healing System, Removing Wounds:
Every 24 hours it can be attempted to remove one wound. Light wounds are cured first, followed by Serious Wounds and then Critical Wounds. Light wounds have a 50% chance of being cured, serious wounds a -20% chance, and critical wounds a -40% chance.

Also you state every 24 hours it can be attempted.... how does it know when its being attempted? because it would be kind of lame for you to be using a low healing spell just to restore HP to have it waste your 24 hour timer when you were going to go to high end cleric/druid to attempt it with a high end spell.

As cool as this sounds, it seems like a lot of extra scripting that has a lot of potential for glitches and errors, but of course such things could be fixed in time.

However I absolutely am against this being mandatory, mostly because of the massive potential for exploitation by griefers.

That said, really cool idea with a lot of thought in it. If this were to be put in, I would be strongly for putting in a way to manual inflict injuries on yourself, for the sorts of "combat" that is largely RP but still would have physical consequences. The only other objection I would have is that certain spells, like greater restoration, shouldn't have a failure rate just because of the way they are supposed to work. Also, how would you intend for this to work with the NPC healers that exist in the game? They should be available to remove wounds for a fee or something still.

I really like the idea you can only switch the option in the first 30min of your session, until a reset hits. Simply because it prevents players from activating it only before combat when they have the advantage. The option is activated at the begining of your session, and all encounters, be they in your favor or not have the option applied to it. The effect it has on the gameplay and the atmosphere is very important for me, and I find it far more abusable that you can pick and choose each time before combat if you want it or not. And otherwise I feel we can quickly run into problems of people saying "you just activate it when you come across us with ten of your pals, but quickly deactivate it when the odds are against you."

A single griefer that can be screenshotted and banished is far more preferable to (perceived) misuse of the system. One can be easily remedied and dealt with in a fair manner, and the other may actually become a real problem.

@ Cory

1.) Real life time. Game time would be way too short, especially with how capable healer characters would now be with removing wounds.

2.) That is a good question. What comes to my mind is that you activate something via the rest menu under wound system, and the next healing spell that hits you counts.

@ DR

Did not think about the NPC healers. But I rather keep it in PC hands, and at the most have the NPCs be as useful as the scroll / potion counterparts.

And you are likely right that the Blacklist solution and the like are work that are not really worth the effort. While griefing may be an issue that is raised quite a few times, it is pretty rare and the best solution to it will always be a DM.

The self-inflict option would be available, yeah.

You'll also need to make it so area's like houses and the monastery do not cause wounds in duels.

There still sits the problem of accidental and numerous deaths, though. OOC raises and getting mauled by the summon AI. You've then suffered twice the consequences. But in the same breath, making it so that, "To avoid this, you only suffer consequences after deaths that are spaced apart" defeats the neat aspect of that 3-4 Raise dead DM scenario.

It's just tough. Lots of accidents happen that are easily recovered from now, but with this system, these accidents could have quite a few punitive effects.

Being able to turn it off or on whenever you want would fix this, even if it doesn't quite have the "Accepting of consequences" feel that you're after. The fundamental idea behind this initiative is what would protect it, though-- the idea that people want consequences. There will be those people who don't shut it off when they're against huge odds.
~~~

Another potential problem I picked up was group fighting dynamics. Let's say that we have the option: "Selecting option 2 means that only those who have accepted the wound system can make you wounded." What happens if you've got a group of players who have differing opinions, but are on the same team? Out of the five Knights, only two have the wound system on. Their opponents, the three cultists, each have the wound system on. I imagine there would be problems, because the three people without the system turned out can weaken the opponent, while the two that do have it can finish the cultists, and create consequences. The problem being that people who did not have the wound system on, or the option for consequences themselves, are still able to push consequences on others as long as they don't perform the killing blow-- all while being invulnerable to consequences themselves.

And what would be the acceptable amount of killing? For example, if we capture someone, we subdue them. We've beaten them in PvP, and we've taken them to our base. Now we start torturing the character-- are we able to subdue them again, to rack up more mechanical consequences? Our 'outs' could be that we ask for information, they don't give it, so we beat them again, and again. It would be very hard to make a griefing case against that, because the rules were followed, the scenario was plausible. But now the opposing player has racked up some 4-5 death penalties, because every time we strike the blow and 'kill' them in PvP, it remains up to the killer PC to determine whether or not the victim is dead or alive.

Ever heard the saying "Shit happens", Mr.H?

I mean no disrespect, but what are you so afraid of? People whinning? Everytime there's something new someone will whine about it. Everytime. I guarantee you that if you make the entry hall filled with epic stuff and level everyone who join right away to level 30 there will be someone to whine that there's no DCs as well. You will never please everyone, so stop trying to do so - it limits your point of view in the worst way possible.

And don't give me the griefers crap, by the way - tell me the last time a DM had to deal with a "REAL" griefer. In all my time here I have never met one. In six years. And what happens if a griefer shows up? He gets his account banned and all his victims can be eventually healed OOCly, if they find their wounds unbearable to play the game.

This is the change many asked for. It's fresh new, it brings new aspects to the game and new possibilities. And you keep it down because of what may or may not happen.

Edit: As to the "another potentional conflict" - we are back to mandatory / not mandatory. Dead's poll proposition is the closest thing to what I would suggest as well. But putting this up as non-mandatory would totally kill the idea of consequences, on which the whole wound and healing system is based on.

It is not a bad thing to try to break this system in a constructive manner, so we can try to tweak it to work as well as it can. I do not have the feeling Hackums is trying to sink the boat, but to poke his finger into every rusty bit to see where we need to patch it up so it does not go under in a storm. I will go over this topic tommorow, and perhaps write up something like a QA portion to edit into my second post. It lets us see what we have on our list to see to, so we can figure out how to best address everything.

You want to know the last time I was dealing with PvP griefers? You want to know why I approach this from a PR perspective, why I'm looking into the minority dissenting opinion? It's because I see every complaint. Because mediating player issues is what I dedicate the largest portion of my staff time to. I'm glad you've never met a griefer. But mate, I deal with PvP griefing situations on a regular weekly basis. I'm approaching this angle because I know without a doubt it exists. I'm glad that you don't see these problems, because it means we're doing our job. But these problems are real, they happen, and I would much, much prefer to address these issues now in the way that Pony described, rather than have to mediate a victim player-- and especially rather than having to punish an offending player. If I can save a victim player from leaving the server enraged (Which happens, as it were, in many cases due to harassment), and if I can save an offending player from getting banned--- just by taking an extra step and considering these implications, you can bet this is what I'm going to do.

PvP harassment, metagaming, hostiling issues, griefing on hunting grounds. You act like they don't exist, but we deal with these issues 1-3 times a week.

I would love to tell the next victim player who comes to the staff with a legitimate complaint, "Shit happens." Let's see how far that mentality goes.

Pony's got the right of it. I'm not trying to shoot this idea down. I'm supportive of this idea. But the reason we're discussing it here is because we need to address concerns and to brainstorm solutions. You can't brainstorm solutions if you don't understand the problems.

Since a lot of players don't browse or post in these forums a poll serves little purpose.

Also, you cant force consequences on another character beyond a certain limit and saddling someone with a wound for three weeks (not everyone has a cleric buddy that can attempt cures daily) it is way beyond that limit.
You can ask for consequences for yourself, which are fine, but I think you have no business demanding them for others who may well be on Amia for entirely differant reasons then you are.

If you say making it non manditory has no effect then I wonder why you are so eager to saddle other with consequences when they are trying to get some xp hunting. It's not like it will affect your toons in the slightest if a lv 6 toon gets crippled by a goblin or not.
I don't think its anyone's business to demand consequences for others for that reason. In pvp it would be slightly more warranted but still not nearly enough in my mind. It should be the participants responsibility to determine if they want to use it.

There also is another issue though and that is who is going to script this? If there is no scripter willing to pick this up then no amount of discussion and polls will get this in the mod.

That was covered in the first page of this thread. If no one will be up to it in a timeframe that this would warrent (if we agree to implement it), I will set asside my custom content projects, cut down on my area design and other projects like that to tackle it myself. It would take a considerable longer amount than if Glim or Terra saw to it, but if we get a great concept working that a lot want to see, I do not want it to be on the back burner for ages.

True enough.

Can't force anyone to script something when they prioritize other things.

I think getting it implemented isn't a problem decisionwise as long as it isn't forced on anyone. It has a lot of potential and I am quite curious to see how it would affect the server.
As Nivo said it could add a lot of spice to long DM events where taking risks would suddenly be a lot more dangerous as you might well end up crippled the rest of the trip. If we had this for Shatterspine.... now that would have been interesting.

:twisted:

There's also other factors to consider, like that some PvP may have more consequence than others. PvP, I'm finding is assumed here, is going to be extremely lethal where one side is interested in outright killing the other, and leaving marks.

But there are other cases: For example, what of a bar brawl? Should we have PCs who get knocked over the head with a beer bottle be crippled for 3 weeks? I'd honestly find that rather disproportionate to a life and death situation where someone is tossing hellballs, for example.

There are other such cases, sparring matches, mage 'training' (though admittedly maybe that one should have harsh consequences with how dangerous magic is), nonlethal arena dueling, martial training, a fight where one combatant is trying to nonlethally subdue the other, two bards curse songing one another until the other falls over from joy or sorrow, the list goes on.

There's a lot to consider when cases of this come up. Personally I'd prefer to be able to hand down my own custom consequences on DM events rather than mechanical penalties. Of which, yes, I know that less mechanically sound PCs have had a rough time in some of my events.

Looks good, I like the concept and the option to utilize it. As long as it doesn't become mandatory. I swear to Zarus, if this server turns "well, healing magic doesn't explicitly say it fixes broken bones or concussions" then I'm going to hack the server to remove any mention of it being a Forgotten Realms game.

I'm not getting your numbers. Druids are capping out at +48% by your figures, as far as I can tell:

30 druid, 33 heal:
Heal spell: 8 * (30 / 10) = 24
Heal skill: (33 / 3) * 1 = 11
SF: +3
ESF: +6
Greater Medical Facility: +4
Total: 48%

Clerics cap at 60:
GR: (30 / 10) * 3 = 30
Heal skill: (33 / 3) * 1 = 11
SF: +3
ESF: +6
Heal domain: 2 * (30 / 10) = 6
Greater Medical Facility: +4
Total: 60%

Is this split intentional? It's fine if it is (just because druids and clerics are better at it doesn't mean they have to be equally better at it after all).

Yeah, that was intended. Druids being the 2nd best heal class, Clerics being the premiere, and Clerics with the heal domain just being the best because of their focus.

Have to say I disagree Druids becoming second healer class. I am as well biased, having a pure druid lvl 30 with almost all feats that influence healing. Plus lore-wise something more in background. I don't see any reason as to why Cleric would be superior to Druid in healing. Methods might be different, sure if cleric has heal domain as well, but the disparity between them should not be that huge.

Secondly, after finally trudging through the topic:

1. If you want people to use it you need to couple it with some sort of tangible benefit, like it informs DMs when it's on when players set each other to hostile so they might have an additional chance of getting their RP noticed, or even gives a per centage chance at doubling a DC hit from a DM (like 5%?). Otherwise you're going to find that munchkinry trumps immersion and get very few people using this- either you appeal to the inner munchkin with a reward or you lose interest. For the PvM widget I'd suggest a small increase in either XP or loot chance (why take the extra risk if you get no extra reward? I for one would not.).

2. No polls. No community knows what it wants. Polling is a way for a loud and vocal group to seem more influential than they are.

3. Don't make the penalties cumulative past a certain point, prevents the more extreme cases of any griefing. I'd say cap it at two injuries, repeated deaths simply increase severity. Possibly add a 'critical' category with greater penalties that can only be hit by dying with an already-existing injury and having it get worse.

4. Could also add a lovely gold sink in the form of a Salandran NPC that can attempt to heal a PC once per day with, say, a 30% success rate. Make the rate charged scale with ECL, and add a huge jump at 30.

Keep in mind the success of an optional system is contingent on its adoption: It must be widely used in order to be worth the investment. It will not be widely used without, I feel, some sort of reward component to justify players taking on the additional risk. Those looking at it from an RP perspective are deluding themselves; in the end, numbers will win out for a lot of players. Provide some form of tangible benefit with the system and you'll get a lot of those players on board if it's a decent benefit.

Druids lack a lot of healing spells, which was my primary reason for it. They do not have the restoration spells, nor raise dead or ressurect dead. Non-druids/clerics cap at 34, druids at 48 and clerics at 54 / 60 with heal domain.

But the exact numbers were just gut feeling, as I mentioned before. They simply represent the idea and direction of the system.

Last edited by Eurgiga on Fri, Jul 18 2014, 19:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Magiros wrote:

Have to say I disagree Druids becoming second healer class. I am as well biased, having a pure druid lvl 30 with almost all feats that influence healing. Plus lore-wise something more in background. I don't see any reason as to why Cleric would be superior to Druid in healing. Methods might be different, sure if cleric has heal domain as well, but the disparity between them should not be that huge.

Druids don't automatically get to 'me-too' just because another class does something similar significantly better. Your argument boils down to "I think druids should be better than that under your system because I think so".

Thing is, I think the same thing, I just didn't post it because my argument would've been exactly the same.

So, given we have two people thinking that, what about:

The script can check for active spells on a player, no? Add a bonus for Monstrous Regeneration and Regenerate if they're on the player at the time. Those are both spells particular to druids, which would narrow that gap that I'm sure is going to draw some more flak before the day's out. Say +3 for MR, +6 for Regenerate, the same amount that those spells heal each turn, bringing Droods up to 57.

Nevermind, Clerics get those spells too. I'm out of ideas.

Druids have regeneration spells though. Raise dead and ressurection arent healing spells in my book so I wouldn't count them to determine who is the best healer, druids lack those because they belief in reincarnation, not because they arent dedicated to healing. I think a druid should be the equal of a non-healing focussed cleric or thereabouts.

Bards can heal a little as well as they can cast up to cure critical unless I am really wrong so you may want to give them some ability to undo light wouns as well.

I like Eurgiga's idea of a gold sink.

Which would make them better than standard clerics.

But the exact numbers are something that can be fiddled around easily even when everything is scripted. It is how the basic system works that is important. The special interrest groups for classes, and the fine tuning of balance are not a priority at this state.

I do like the money sink idea.

How will this work with Shifters or other classes with natural polymorphs?

Wounds will carry over?

However, druid as class can be used to represent another class. I simply disagree that a cleric which uses deity powers should be automatically better healer than let's say natural healer with herbs and shamanistic spells. I am not stating they should be equal, I am stating that the gap between two should not be so drastic as they could not even compete with one another. And to me this seems more like adding to the cleric class powers they can have. This system, if implemented, would not support roleplay which should define as to who is the best healer, instead it supports mechanics and choosing and building correctly to be the best. And that kind of system I do not want to support, no offense to Pony as I do like the initial idea, but not simply the fact that mechanics will be deciding who is best healer.

And that being said, druids do have raise dead spell, or should say reincarnation spell in PnP spells, it simply haven't been added to NWN.

Eurgiga wrote:

Secondly, after finally trudging through the topic:

1. If you want people to use it you need to couple it with some sort of tangible benefit, like it informs DMs when it's on when players set each other to hostile so they might have an additional chance of getting their RP noticed, or even gives a per centage chance at doubling a DC hit from a DM (like 5%?). Otherwise you're going to find that munchkinry trumps immersion and get very few people using this- either you appeal to the inner munchkin with a reward or you lose interest. For the PvM widget I'd suggest a small increase in either XP or loot chance (why take the extra risk if you get no extra reward? I for one would not.).

[...]

3. Don't make the penalties cumulative past a certain point, prevents the more extreme cases of any griefing. I'd say cap it at two injuries, repeated deaths simply increase severity. Possibly add a 'critical' category with greater penalties that can only be hit by dying with an already-existing injury and having it get worse.

4. Could also add a lovely gold sink in the form of a Salandran NPC that can attempt to heal a PC once per day with, say, a 30% success rate. Make the rate charged scale with ECL, and add a huge jump at 30.

Agreed on all of these points. A small benefit to adopting the system would, I think, go a LONG way in terms of making folks want to use it, and I don't think that it is necessarily not immersive- it could be explained that a character is really putting their all into a fight, increasing their risk but also their chances of success.

I believe these should be kept mechanical in nature, though. The RP wand already serves the purpose of drawing DM attention to RP. My suggestions:

PvM: A chance for a 5% increase in loot drop probability, gold, and XP
PvP: 10% chance of a random bonus (+1 universal saves, reroll of a nat 1, higher chance of nat 20, etc.)

Pony wrote:

Wounds will carry over?

I ask because it's a little odd that people who can alter their body at will would be bothered by an injury for longer than six seconds.

Eurgiga wrote:

Pony wrote:

Wounds will carry over?

I ask because it's a little odd that people who can alter their body at will would be bothered by an injury for longer than six seconds.

Yeah they would logically be immune to it as you could cut off both arms and they could just change form and flip you the bird because.... they are a shifter, they can alter their form how ever they like....Hell Cory literally uses his body as a weapon, he fires his bones at people or makes them into storms, or uses his life force to zap people with negative energy if they touch him (and I hope more soon).

also I recall shape changing being meant to restore all hitpoints.

I guess that could be theoretical justification for the idea that wounds affect the will? And that the will (Being a shapechanger's tool for altering his body), can stop a wound from healing because it doesn't perceive it as being healed. A kind of quick-paced phantom limb syndrome.

Well, either that or it's simply a 'perk' of natural polymorph classes that they themselves can 'self-heal' in this manner. It's not out of the question that some classes get perks in areas others don't, no reason not to extend it to this concept as well.
Never gonna give you up
To head off the followup question:
Never gonna let you down
Spell polymorphs (I see you there, umber hulks (see what I did there?)) aren't included in the group because they're spells and not innate abilities, a distinction that's always been pretty well-drawn here if memory serves. Spells morph you, innate polymorphs are the caster morphing themselves.
Never gonna run around and desert you
I really do like the system though, great job coming up with it.
Never gonna make you cry
As to PvP and PvM benefits, those are such expansive topics that they should probably get their own thread. This one's going to bloat enough with even discussing whether or not the entire topic is viable.
Never gonna say goodbye
Anyway, kudos for coming up with it, I hope this goes in.

Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

First of all, I love the concept of this. It's a very intriguing idea, though might need a bit more careful thinking. For one there's the regeneration issue. As for potential grieving, I overall think our community is mature enough that this wouldn't be that big of an issue *.

One thing I would add for consideration is to have multiple variants for different causes of death. For example, if you were fatally injured by fire damage, it wouldn't make all that much sense to suffer a broken arm. I'm pretty sure suffering serious burns would yield a charisma penalty though.

* omgthegriefers! seems to fairly baseless counter argument to a lot of really innovative gameplay ideas.

Magiros wrote:

...druids do have raise dead spell, or should say reincarnation spell in PnP spells, it simply haven't been added to NWN.

Raise Dead and Reincarnation are nothing at all alike, not even close.

@Magiros / @Kudark

- Raise dead brings a [being / creature] back to life if the [being / creature] wants to. Reincarnation returns a [being / creature] back to life as a completely new person I believe.

- Nym

The only part I don't like about this system is that it hasn't been scripted and added yet. On first reading I was like, rrrgh, why didn't I come up with this?

Anyway, best of luck with it. I think it will have the effect you're looking for, and players that have been playing a while now will be interested.

As for players that don't visit the forums, I think they'll hear about it through word of mouth soon enough, yes? They don't need to register to read GD and follow the discussion.

Selmak wrote:

The only part I don't like about this system is that it hasn't been scripted and added yet.

Let's not be too hasty.

*casts slow on Selmak*

I really like the idea of this. It adds flavor, yes we can RP this if we want, but having it mechanically done makes me somehow more willing to go along with it. If i break a leg ever other day and RP it myself, i feel (and would be perceived as) attention whoring. With this system? Damn, broke my leg ~again~ off to so and so the healer who shakes their head at my constant visits.

The best way to resolve the issue of accidental or 'non legit' deaths is likely going to be something along the lines of say, allow people to remove a wound. Sadly this makes the whole idea less heavy, but its the best way to do it without having players pester the DMs to remove wounds for whatever. That would resolve the issue of being griefed or that pvp death i might be really butt hurt about and want to put behind me. Though i don't think players abusing ability to abuse each other with this system should be a mark against, thats kind of a whole other subject on how to deal with griefing, rather then lets not do thing x because someone might be a dick.

The question about Regen, well.. in theory a Greater Resto would restore all this anyway, or a Resurrection would too for that matter i believe. So you would just have to roll with it if you choose to, and not try to make sense of the why. With the magic we have nobody should ever be sick, people make sick and flawed characters because it adds depth, or something. Now what you could do is say, either scripted or just as a guideline for people with regen gear, is make it a 1%(+/-) chance to recover per point of regen. So if Crow has 20 points of regen, you could say roll a d100 and on a 1-20 you are good to go, thus going into the options and removing one of the wounds with the system i suggested above. How often do you make the roll be it scripted or otherwise? I dont know.. maybe once per reset? How do you prevent people from being lame, putting on a load of regen gear only for the roll? I dunno, does it matter? If they want to be lame they don't need to use the system anyway!

Now something else i've considered before is my disappointment in just how easy it is to die. I mean the -10 to 0 hp system is good and all, tell about lvl 5. At which point maybe 5% of your total times downed will you not be utterly dead. Attributed to fighting stronger things that don't maim but murder? Sure i suppose. But i would sure like to see a system that allowed you to have more downed hp, perhaps based upon your base con or something? Say 50% of your natural HP counting feats ideally. So if you had 100 hp and got downed, you would have 50 downed hp to work with tell you really are dead. As it is currently its just so easy to die, i mean i don't mind a character getting wounded, or losing, but dead.. every time dead and needing to be raised. If we had more wiggle room we could avoid real death more, yet still ideally collect wounds from Pony's proposed system. It would mean we could more easily play up being shaken by death, rather than thinking.. Damn it, rolled a 1 or something. It could mean its more easily for players to beat each other unconscious, rather to death. I mean its one thing to knock a guy out, its another to continue to stab him as he lay down and bleeding. Yeah, we could play that out ourselves i know, but i still like the idea of it. Alas perhaps another topic, though pipe dreams are often not worth so much effort!

If this is to be optional, IMO, there should be some OOC way to tell that a person has penalty-mode active. I don't think I need to explain what happens if you don't do that.

What would happen if you do not do that?

Nodody would use it, or they would say they're using it, and you might as well spend that time to script something else.

I have a lot more faith in the playerbase then this system only working if you can show off an activated status. As this thread has shown, there are quite a good amount of players who are interrested in it and hence would keep it activated.

I don't follow - if it's going to be optional, then why should it matter if you know OOCly that the other person is using it or not? Are we going to start bitching and ostracising players who don't use it? Avoiding PvPing them for that particular OOC reason?

I'm not ashamed or afraid to say that yes; it does matter to me, if I know ahead of time if people accept consequences from dying in a D&D setting.

No, we are not. We are not going to start bitching at or ostracising players who do not use it. If people begin getting stigmatized, harrased or feel unwelcome because they do not want to activate the optional wound system, then it has absolutely no place on this server. It is as simple as that.

If you prefer to engage other people who have a likeminded wish for this type of conflict rp / pvp that is fully understandable. I doubt anyone can say that they do not have preferences of who to rp with, in an acceptable fashion. Which for clairity's sake is not the same as being exclusivly-cliquey, not being welcoming to newer players or not accepting consequences when it comes from players you might not enjoy to engage with as much.

But as soon as that turns into a problem of players being treated in a less than appropriate manner, I myself will be incredibly dissapointed. It would also be fully upon those few who want stronger consequences, but do not have the maturity of not needing to be an self-important ass, that I would either not try to make this system or ask for it to be changed that it can only be used by DMs.

I guess I just had a different idea in mind.

That was not aimed at you, Mimiron. I know it will matter to me to a degree as well. But the line that can not be crossed is me saying "Hey, you git are a wuss and I will rant about you being such a wuss for not using the wound system." There is just a certain amount of respect everyone should treating other players here with, and that would clearly cross it. We are all here to enjoy ourselves, and that also means we should let others do the same.

Mimiron wrote:

I'm not ashamed or afraid to say that yes; it does matter to me, if I know ahead of time if people accept consequences from dying in a D&D setting.

I feel it the same way.

Pony wrote:

I have a lot more faith in the playerbase then this system only working if you can show off an activated status. As this thread has shown, there are quite a good amount of players who are interrested in it and hence would keep it activated.

As much as I support this idea and hate to burst the bubble, "quite a good amount" is not what I saw. I saw a few players nodding. The rest were much more interested if the idea is optional or mandatory. Which needs no more commentary as it speaks for itself.

Honestly, if this is to be optional, it's a waste of your time and potentional, Pony. As much as I hate to say it, because the idea is great.

I guess I will just have to proove you wrong, and then rub your nose into it. :wink:

But it will be a while off. I guess-timate I will begin looking into how to make this around October or November.

If it's optional, it will only be used by DMs really. Still worth it? Maybe.

If it's mandatory, it will make the game harder, and I think I'm for that. New players may not like it, but old ones will. *shrugs*

These "Griefers" everybody talks about, Where are they? I've been here since 2004 and never seen any.

Very_Svensk wrote:

These "Griefers" everybody talks about, Where are they? I've been here since 2004 and never seen any.

I have seen some. There are less now of course then there used to be, or maybe none at the moment. There is too much work involved in starting on this server to make those types of players want to commit.

Wound and Healing System - Topic Split

Who is online