How many medical papers on the subject would I need to provide for you to change your mind on this one?
I think if it were significant you wouldn’t need medical papers because we would already have a plethora of folk remedies for how to preemptively reduce the time a person is bed-ridden by x number of days.
But, I’m pretty sure resistance and duration are already both a part of Disable Defense.
How many medical papers on the subject would I need to provide for you to change your mind on this one?
I think if it were significant you wouldn’t need medical papers because we would already have a plethora of folk remedies for how to preemptively reduce the time a person is bed-ridden by x number of days.
But, I’m pretty sure resistance and duration are already both a part of Disable Defense.
Aw man, I missed somehow...
Now I can't tell if you understand protein and antibody production differences by genetic predisposition.
Also I thought you wouldn't accept folk remedies in that situation...
I'm so confused now. Do vaccines count? Cause that's what some of them do.
Does amino acid uptake boosting via vitamins that boost the lymphatic system function through the stimulation of more B-Cell production, count?
So many new questions...
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2021
How does protein and anti-body production by genetic predisposition work on duration separate from resistance? More importantly what do we do to proactively reduce the duration instead of increasing the resistance?
How do vaccines reduce duration separately from resistance? Vaccines don’t reduce duration without also increasing resistance.
Polio vaccine does not reduce the time I am negatively effected by Polio.
Nor does a Chicken Pox vaccine reduce the time I have Chicken Pox.
What do I take in advance to make sure that if I get Chicken Pox and my borther gets Chicken Pox, the duration of
my symptoms is less than my brother’s?
How does protein and anti-body production by genetic predisposition work on duration separate from resistance? More importantly what do we do to proactively reduce the duration instead of increasing the resistance?
How do vaccine reduce duration separately from resistance?
That's why I asked how many medical papers I need to bring/cite. I can't tell if you're resistant to the idea, open to learning, or what. Your tone is not readable over the internet, and I don't want to assume. I also don't want to derail this in a huge discussion of how the human immune system works because you personally don't know.
If I could just 'find 2-3 papers at the appropriate level to cite' for you to read and expect that to change anything, that'd be completely worth it. So... how many?
EDIT: And will you accept YouTube Videos as primers for eventual understanding?
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think you can share whatever you want.
So far, what it sounds like is there is a vaccine for COVID 19 that means you will get just as sick as a person without the vaccine but it will reduce the time you are on a ventilator.
I think you can share whatever you want.
So far, what it sounds like is there is a vaccine for COVID 19 that means you will get just as sick as a person without the vaccine but it will reduce the time you are on a ventilator.
Ok you have gone in a direction I want nothing to do with. I'm out.
I just want to make sure before we go down this path that this is Dygz's claim:
When a person gets sick, the duration and intensity of their sickness is totally independent of anything about that person, genetic or otherwise.
When a person gets punched, the amount of time that their head swims is totally independent of anything about that person, genetic or otherwise.
When a person gets poisoned, the amount of time that the poison plagues their system (once it does) is totally independent of anything about that person (like their metabolism), genetic or otherwise.
When a person breaks their arm in exactly the same way as someone else, the amount of time it takes for their bone to mend is totally independent of anything about that person, genetic or otherwise.
I can't believe I'm even having this conversation. Of course all of this stuff varies from person to person. And! It doesn't even matter! Even if there was no real life precedent, we can put it into a game anyway!
Also, if I don’t like Stuns, why would I only focus on building up a reduction to duration and not at least also build up resistance?
Here's where I think this is going, and correct me if I'm wrong. You're attempting to argue that in real life it makes sense that resistance and duration are linked somehow, and so you want the game to include both. You would like the option to build a character that can resist stuns and also reduce their duration.
I keep trying to mention, and you haven't recognized a single time yet that this is a game, and the point of a game isn't to simulate reality, but to be a game that is fun to play. Maybe for you, fun-to-play means simulates reality, and that's perfectly fine!
But in game land, we're totally capable of making it so that characters can't resist stuns, but can reduce their durations, for purely fun reasons. Even though it doesn't simulate reality or whatever, it makes the game better, whatever that means.
This conversation seems to be going in quite an unpredictable direction, maybe i should say the thread is in an RNG Setting?
Jokes aside, maybe i'm missing the point? In all the IRL examples used "building resistance against something" the resistance works in escale for duration and in binary for being affected or not, if the duration is low enough you can consider as "not being affected".
The boxer can "build resistance" to reduce his stagger duration, if he builds enough resistance the stagger duration becomes so low you can even consider he is unphased by the hit.
A person can build resistance against the flu by being affected by it once or twice, if they build enough resistance, even tho the virus still can find their way into the person's body, it's immune system will get rid of the virus so fast, the duration becomes negligible and you can even consider the person became immune to it.
Bringing it back to our CC discussion, %chance of applying and %duration can co-exist, because as long as the duration doesn't becomes negligible or the %chance reaches absolute numbers 0% or 100%, those mechanics will not completely cancel each other, so there is no need to completely segragate them or disregard one in favor of the other in an RNG setting. unless in a non-RNG setting were %chance of application is completely removed. We can argue in favor of one of the other but, in the end it will always be a matter of what setting is being applied.
Anyway, i must say the conversation is being quite entertaining.
Bringing it back to our CC discussion, %chance of applying and %duration can co-exist, because as long as the duration doesn't becomes negligible or the %chance reaches absolute numbers 0% or 100%, those mechanics will not completely cancel each other, so there is no need to completely segragate them or disregard one in favor of the other in an RNG setting.
Yeah, exactly. You can have both! I like leaning more heavily on duration than resistance for high-impact ccs, and tend to like leaning on resistance for highly frequent, low impact stuff.
Well, that's an interesting direction for the discussion. To veer back to the road, I think the fun factor is what I considered on the impact of non-zero RNG on movement. But I'm firm on the presence of some uncertainty when it comes to combat / abilities.
Here's an example, I just started playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance (interesting overall, definitely more medieval simulator than an RPG). The melee combat system is awful. It's what happens when you try to make an abstract function (combat in a game) to be 'realistic' (e.g. attempting to take angle, line of attack, distance, etc.) but because it's an abstraction it is just a hot mess, because RPG swordplay is nothing like real swordplay. Moreover it's not fun. It's a perfect bad example of trying to build a combination of twitch-skill, certainty, and 'realism' into a game.
I''d take a tab target / action combat system with abstracted uncertainty via RNG to account for dimensions of combat that don't comport into a game world over that mess.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Because you said, "If you turned 5% stun resistance into 5% reduced stun duration, you turned a rng stat into a deterministic stat."
Again, if I don't like Stuns... the natural thing to do is to try to increase a resistance to getting stunned in the first place. Why would I focus on allowing myself to get Stunned, but instead try to build myself up to only reduce the duration of the Stun?
I would think that a Snake Handler first tries to build up a tolerance to snake venom such that they don't feel suffer the effects of the venom at all, rather than just trying to lesson the duration of the venom's effects.
A vaccine is intended to prevent people from suffering the effects of the disease at all. The primary purpose of a vaccine is not to lessen the duration instead rather than increasing the resistance.
Yeah, exactly. You can have both! I like leaning more heavily on duration than resistance for high-impact ccs, and tend to like leaning on resistance for highly frequent, low impact stuff.
I agree and believe this is the correct approach:
Long CD/duration High-Impact CC being only affected by %Duration and always applying.
Short CD/duration Medium/Low-Impact-CC being affected by both %Duration and %chance to apply.
(or maybe only the chance to apply, it would require solid numbers to speculate)
A vaccine is intended to prevent people from suffering the effects of the disease at all. The primary purpose of a vaccine is not to lessen the duration instead rather than increasing the resistance.
Let's not talk epidemiology. It's the weekend.
I don't think this needs hefty analogies. Since the math is pretty straightforward. Mitigation to CC traditionally is a % chance to avoid a CC entirely, not just reduce the impact (or duration). When I've been talking about mitigating RNG, I'm talking about mitigating the probability of occurrence, not the reduction of impact amplitude or duration.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
[
EDIT: And will you accept YouTube Videos as primers for eventual understanding?
I watched the video, but I missed the portion that explains anything about reducing duration of illness instead of increasing resistance.
Something that supports an idea like, "If you take this daily supplement, it won't prevent the Flu from making you bed-ridden, but it will reduce the amount of time you are bed-ridden."
Could you please share the time stamp that covers that info?
Because you said, "If you turned 5% stun resistance into 5% reduced stun duration, you turned a rng stat into a deterministic stat."
Again, if I don't like Stuns... the natural thing to do is to try to increase a resistance to getting stunned in the first place. Why would I focus on allowing myself to get Stunned, but instead try to build myself up to only reduce the duration of the Stun?
I would think that a Snake Handler first tries to build up a tolerance to snake venom such that they don't feel suffer the effects of the venom at all, rather than just trying to lesson the duration of the venom's effects.
A vaccine is intended to prevent people from suffering the effects of the disease at all. The primary purpose of a vaccine is not to lessen the duration instead rather than increasing the resistance.
I don't think anyone is contesting that it would make sense to try to prevent bad-event from happening in the first place (resist%). Rather, you tried to contest for whatever reason that there was any real-life precedent that people could affect the duration of bad-event. Is that resolved? Are you sold there?
Even if you still don't believe that people, either through genetics, training, medicine, etc can influence how long they have the flu once they have the flu, does it matter for the game? It's trivial to add a -% duration stat and code it in.
I don't think this needs hefty analogies. Since the math is pretty straightforward. Mitigation to CC traditionally is a % chance to avoid a CC entirely, not just reduce the impact (or duration). When I've been talking about mitigating RNG, I'm talking about mitigating the probability of occurrence, not the reduction of impact amplitude or duration.
I've played a bunch of games that let you mitigate CC via impact / duration. Games that make it so that when you get slowed, you get less slowed. Games that make it so that when you get rooted, it's for half as long. Games that give CC's diminishing returns on multiple applications. Builds that make it so that you never suffer the full effects of a CC (like roots become slows or stuns become roots).
I've seen all of this in both MMO's and tabletops, but I've also played a lot of systems.
To veer back to the road, I think the fun factor is what I considered on the impact of non-zero RNG on movement. But I'm firm on the presence of some uncertainty when it comes to combat / abilities.
Here's an example, I just started playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance (interesting overall, definitely more medieval simulator than an RPG). The melee combat system is awful. It's what happens when you try to make an abstract function (combat in a game) to be 'realistic' (e.g. attempting to take angle, line of attack, distance, etc.) but because it's an abstraction it is just a hot mess, because RPG swordplay is nothing like real swordplay. Moreover it's not fun. It's a perfect bad example of trying to build a combination of twitch-skill, certainty, and 'realism' into a game.
I''d take a tab target / action combat system with abstracted uncertainty via RNG to account for dimensions of combat that don't comport into a game world over that mess.
Yeah, sacrificing fun at the altar of realism is definitely not the way to go, so I think we're totally on the same page and just enjoy slightly different things, which is to be expected. I think that if high-impact high-cooldown CC's didn't have a chance to miss, it would make the game more fun for me, but I know that's not everyone's bag.
I think that I have also convinced @JamesSunderland that it would probably, depending on tuning make the game more competitive, but more competitive doesn't always mean "better" or "more fun".
There's this really funny thing that competitive smash bros melee players do where the community of tournament organizers decided that only ~6 stages out of ~30 are tournament legal and that all of the wacky items should be turned off. It completely changes the game. It absolutely makes it more "competitive", in the sense that the better player wins more often. Does it make it "better" or "more fun"? Depends who you ask!
I've played a bunch of games that let you mitigate CC via impact / duration. Games that make it so that when you get slowed, you get less slowed. Games that make it so that when you get stunned, you get rooted, it's for half as long. Games that give CC's diminishing returns on multiple applications. Builds that make it so that you never suffer the full effects of a CC (like roots become slows or stuns become roots).
I've seen all of this in both MMO's and tabletops, but I've also played a lot of systems.
Great. Then why are you approaching the presence of mitigatable non-zero uncertainty as if it's some foreign concept?
"That sounds potentially worse! Imagine that you're in grand finals of IntrepidCon 2028's 3v3 arena tournament with $100k on the line. Your opponent's healer is hanging on by a thread and they're throwing out a last ditch heal. You try to stun them to interrupt it. If it works, you'll go on to win the tournament. That 1-of-1000 chance rears it's ugly head and the healer resists the stun, goes on to live, and your team loses the match."
Which part of that makes it sound like it's a foreign concept to me? Keeping in mind that people can be familiar with concepts while simultaneously disliking them.
I think CROW3 is trying to say that that example you gave sounds completely fine to him.
So he questions why you think it's not ok.
I think that if high-impact high-cooldown CC's didn't have a chance to miss, it would make the game more fun for me, but I know that's not everyone's bag. You trade some spectacle and potential excitement around tiny chances that hugely impactful abilities can straight up whiff for competitive integrity, and that's a trade I'll make in a heartbeat.
Which part of that makes it sound like it's a foreign concept to me?
You're framing a normalized mechanic as if it's novel with dire, dramatic consequences.
Beau: "How could you do this to water!? The travesty! The humanity!" Crowe: "Dude, it's ice." Beau: "It's so unfair!!" Crowe: "What's your favorite food?" Beau: "Ice cream." Crowe:
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think anyone is contesting that it would make sense to try to prevent bad-event from happening in the first place (resist%). Rather, you tried to contest for whatever reason that there was any real-life precedent that people could affect the duration of bad-event. Is that resolved? Are you sold there?
Even if you still don't believe that people, either through genetics, training, medicine, etc can influence how long they have the flu once they have the flu, does it matter for the game? It's trivial to add a -% duration stat and code it in.
I don't know if it's resolved. I'm still asking for examples of things people do through gains in experience/knowledge to reduce duration without also increasing resistance.
And I don't know that I said one example would be sufficient.
What people most commonly do, preemptively, when they don't want to suffer the effects of something is try to resist it first and if they can't resist, lessen the duration.
I've provided three examples.
I've played a bunch of games that let you mitigate CC via impact / duration. Games that make it so that when you get slowed, you get less slowed. Games that make it so that when you get rooted, it's for half as long. Games that give CC's diminishing returns on multiple applications. Builds that make it so that you never suffer the full effects of a CC (like roots become slows or stuns become roots).
I've seen all of this in both MMO's and tabletops, but I've also played a lot of systems.
Yeah, sacrificing fun at the altar of realism is definitely not the way to go, so I think we're totally on the same page and just enjoy slightly different things, which is to be expected. I think that if high-impact high-cooldown CC's didn't have a chance to miss, it would make the game more fun for me, but I know that's not everyone's bag.
Fun is subjective.
In an RPG, RNG is part of the fun. Because sometimes catastrophic accidents happen. That is a key aspect of RPG narrative.
I think that I have also convinced @JamesSunderland that it would probably, depending on tuning make the game more competitive, but more competitive doesn't always mean "better" or "more fun".
More competitive, the way you suggest, is tipping away from RPG and towards other genres, like FPS and Fighters.
There's this really funny thing that competitive smash bros melee players do where the community of tournament organizers decided that only ~6 stages out of ~30 are tournament legal and that all of the wacky items should be turned off. It completely changes the game. It absolutely makes it more "competitive", in the sense that the better player wins more often. Does it make it "better" or "more fun"? Depends who you ask!
RPGs should not be designed for tournaments.
RPGs have narratives in a way that tournaments do not.
Which part of that makes it sound like it's a foreign concept to me?
You're framing a normalized mechanic as if it's novel with dire, dramatic consequences.
Beau: "How could you do this to water!? The travesty! The humanity!" Crowe: "Dude, it's ice." Beau: "It's so unfair!!" Crowe: "What's your favorite food?" Beau: "Ice cream." Crowe:
I think that's creating a pretty ugly strawman.
You're advocating for creating a situation in which a stun has a 1/1000 chance to fail. I'm saying that such a mechanic has pros and cons. On the plus side, you get to be immersed, and players like crowe get to have more fun. On the con side, players like beau have less fun, and in competitive situations, sometimes that 1/1000 chance crops up at an important moment and makes things really unfun for some folks. You say it's normalized, but that's relative. It isn't in all MMO's. It isn't in WoW. Even if it were in all MMOs, is that tradition that we have to carry forward?
If by RPG you are including MMORPGs, Archeage has modifiers for CC %duration but no modifiers for %chance to resist/apply other than specific buffs that grants complete immunity for a type of CC for a short duration and CC breakers [also after taking the same type of CCs 3 time in a short period(about 10-12 sec) you gain something like a 10 sec(i don't remember the exact number) immunity against that type of CC to prevent CC locks.]
Comments
But, I’m pretty sure resistance and duration are already both a part of Disable Defense.
Aw man, I missed somehow...
Now I can't tell if you understand protein and antibody production differences by genetic predisposition.
Also I thought you wouldn't accept folk remedies in that situation...
I'm so confused now. Do vaccines count? Cause that's what some of them do.
Does amino acid uptake boosting via vitamins that boost the lymphatic system function through the stimulation of more B-Cell production, count?
So many new questions...
How do vaccines reduce duration separately from resistance? Vaccines don’t reduce duration without also increasing resistance.
Polio vaccine does not reduce the time I am negatively effected by Polio.
Nor does a Chicken Pox vaccine reduce the time I have Chicken Pox.
What do I take in advance to make sure that if I get Chicken Pox and my borther gets Chicken Pox, the duration of
my symptoms is less than my brother’s?
That's why I asked how many medical papers I need to bring/cite. I can't tell if you're resistant to the idea, open to learning, or what. Your tone is not readable over the internet, and I don't want to assume. I also don't want to derail this in a huge discussion of how the human immune system works because you personally don't know.
If I could just 'find 2-3 papers at the appropriate level to cite' for you to read and expect that to change anything, that'd be completely worth it. So... how many?
EDIT: And will you accept YouTube Videos as primers for eventual understanding?
So far, what it sounds like is there is a vaccine for COVID 19 that means you will get just as sick as a person without the vaccine but it will reduce the time you are on a ventilator.
Ok you have gone in a direction I want nothing to do with. I'm out.
When a person gets sick, the duration and intensity of their sickness is totally independent of anything about that person, genetic or otherwise.
When a person gets punched, the amount of time that their head swims is totally independent of anything about that person, genetic or otherwise.
When a person gets poisoned, the amount of time that the poison plagues their system (once it does) is totally independent of anything about that person (like their metabolism), genetic or otherwise.
When a person breaks their arm in exactly the same way as someone else, the amount of time it takes for their bone to mend is totally independent of anything about that person, genetic or otherwise.
I can't believe I'm even having this conversation. Of course all of this stuff varies from person to person. And! It doesn't even matter! Even if there was no real life precedent, we can put it into a game anyway!
Also, if I don’t like Stuns, why would I only focus on building up a reduction to duration and not at least also build up resistance?
*reaches into popcorn bucket*
Here's where I think this is going, and correct me if I'm wrong. You're attempting to argue that in real life it makes sense that resistance and duration are linked somehow, and so you want the game to include both. You would like the option to build a character that can resist stuns and also reduce their duration.
I keep trying to mention, and you haven't recognized a single time yet that this is a game, and the point of a game isn't to simulate reality, but to be a game that is fun to play. Maybe for you, fun-to-play means simulates reality, and that's perfectly fine!
But in game land, we're totally capable of making it so that characters can't resist stuns, but can reduce their durations, for purely fun reasons. Even though it doesn't simulate reality or whatever, it makes the game better, whatever that means.
Jokes aside, maybe i'm missing the point? In all the IRL examples used "building resistance against something" the resistance works in escale for duration and in binary for being affected or not, if the duration is low enough you can consider as "not being affected".
The boxer can "build resistance" to reduce his stagger duration, if he builds enough resistance the stagger duration becomes so low you can even consider he is unphased by the hit.
A person can build resistance against the flu by being affected by it once or twice, if they build enough resistance, even tho the virus still can find their way into the person's body, it's immune system will get rid of the virus so fast, the duration becomes negligible and you can even consider the person became immune to it.
Bringing it back to our CC discussion, %chance of applying and %duration can co-exist, because as long as the duration doesn't becomes negligible or the %chance reaches absolute numbers 0% or 100%, those mechanics will not completely cancel each other, so there is no need to completely segragate them or disregard one in favor of the other in an RNG setting. unless in a non-RNG setting were %chance of application is completely removed. We can argue in favor of one of the other but, in the end it will always be a matter of what setting is being applied.
Anyway, i must say the conversation is being quite entertaining.
Aren't we all sinners?
Yeah, exactly. You can have both! I like leaning more heavily on duration than resistance for high-impact ccs, and tend to like leaning on resistance for highly frequent, low impact stuff.
Here's an example, I just started playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance (interesting overall, definitely more medieval simulator than an RPG). The melee combat system is awful. It's what happens when you try to make an abstract function (combat in a game) to be 'realistic' (e.g. attempting to take angle, line of attack, distance, etc.) but because it's an abstraction it is just a hot mess, because RPG swordplay is nothing like real swordplay. Moreover it's not fun. It's a perfect bad example of trying to build a combination of twitch-skill, certainty, and 'realism' into a game.
I''d take a tab target / action combat system with abstracted uncertainty via RNG to account for dimensions of combat that don't comport into a game world over that mess.
Again, if I don't like Stuns... the natural thing to do is to try to increase a resistance to getting stunned in the first place. Why would I focus on allowing myself to get Stunned, but instead try to build myself up to only reduce the duration of the Stun?
I would think that a Snake Handler first tries to build up a tolerance to snake venom such that they don't feel suffer the effects of the venom at all, rather than just trying to lesson the duration of the venom's effects.
A vaccine is intended to prevent people from suffering the effects of the disease at all. The primary purpose of a vaccine is not to lessen the duration instead rather than increasing the resistance.
I agree and believe this is the correct approach:
Long CD/duration High-Impact CC being only affected by %Duration and always applying.
Short CD/duration Medium/Low-Impact-CC being affected by both %Duration and %chance to apply.
(or maybe only the chance to apply, it would require solid numbers to speculate)
Aren't we all sinners?
Let's not talk epidemiology. It's the weekend.
I don't think this needs hefty analogies. Since the math is pretty straightforward. Mitigation to CC traditionally is a % chance to avoid a CC entirely, not just reduce the impact (or duration). When I've been talking about mitigating RNG, I'm talking about mitigating the probability of occurrence, not the reduction of impact amplitude or duration.
Something that supports an idea like, "If you take this daily supplement, it won't prevent the Flu from making you bed-ridden, but it will reduce the amount of time you are bed-ridden."
Could you please share the time stamp that covers that info?
I don't think anyone is contesting that it would make sense to try to prevent bad-event from happening in the first place (resist%). Rather, you tried to contest for whatever reason that there was any real-life precedent that people could affect the duration of bad-event. Is that resolved? Are you sold there?
Even if you still don't believe that people, either through genetics, training, medicine, etc can influence how long they have the flu once they have the flu, does it matter for the game? It's trivial to add a -% duration stat and code it in.
I've seen all of this in both MMO's and tabletops, but I've also played a lot of systems.
Yeah, sacrificing fun at the altar of realism is definitely not the way to go, so I think we're totally on the same page and just enjoy slightly different things, which is to be expected. I think that if high-impact high-cooldown CC's didn't have a chance to miss, it would make the game more fun for me, but I know that's not everyone's bag.
I think that I have also convinced @JamesSunderland that it would probably, depending on tuning make the game more competitive, but more competitive doesn't always mean "better" or "more fun".
There's this really funny thing that competitive smash bros melee players do where the community of tournament organizers decided that only ~6 stages out of ~30 are tournament legal and that all of the wacky items should be turned off. It completely changes the game. It absolutely makes it more "competitive", in the sense that the better player wins more often. Does it make it "better" or "more fun"? Depends who you ask!
Great. Then why are you approaching the presence of mitigatable non-zero uncertainty as if it's some foreign concept?
Sure.
Wait, before this derails into splitting hairs -
I think CROW3 is trying to say that that example you gave sounds completely fine to him.
So he questions why you think it's not ok.
(I poysenely think it's something that's difficult to understand until you experience it. Then it's devastating.)
I think that if high-impact high-cooldown CC's didn't have a chance to miss, it would make the game more fun for me, but I know that's not everyone's bag. You trade some spectacle and potential excitement around tiny chances that hugely impactful abilities can straight up whiff for competitive integrity, and that's a trade I'll make in a heartbeat.
You're framing a normalized mechanic as if it's novel with dire, dramatic consequences.
Beau: "How could you do this to water!? The travesty! The humanity!"
Crowe: "Dude, it's ice."
Beau: "It's so unfair!!"
Crowe: "What's your favorite food?"
Beau: "Ice cream."
Crowe:
And I don't know that I said one example would be sufficient.
What people most commonly do, preemptively, when they don't want to suffer the effects of something is try to resist it first and if they can't resist, lessen the duration.
I've provided three examples.
Which RPGs have Duration but not Resistance?
Fun is subjective.
In an RPG, RNG is part of the fun. Because sometimes catastrophic accidents happen. That is a key aspect of RPG narrative.
More competitive, the way you suggest, is tipping away from RPG and towards other genres, like FPS and Fighters.
RPGs should not be designed for tournaments.
RPGs have narratives in a way that tournaments do not.
I think that's creating a pretty ugly strawman.
You're advocating for creating a situation in which a stun has a 1/1000 chance to fail. I'm saying that such a mechanic has pros and cons. On the plus side, you get to be immersed, and players like crowe get to have more fun. On the con side, players like beau have less fun, and in competitive situations, sometimes that 1/1000 chance crops up at an important moment and makes things really unfun for some folks. You say it's normalized, but that's relative. It isn't in all MMO's. It isn't in WoW. Even if it were in all MMOs, is that tradition that we have to carry forward?
Aren't we all sinners?