Being able to use Raise Dead and Reincarnate on NPCs left and right is pretty lame for storyline, since it's incredibly difficult to keep a dead NPC dead without having to use lame excuses like "he can't afford it" or "his soul doesn't want to come back." Bad guys with a resource network just get a Raise, and NPCs the PCs care about get a Raise.
Sam's right. Don't revise the assassin when the entire set of mechanics regarding raising the dead doesn't work. It's hogwash to suggest that one has to be Evil in order to have a chance at permanently defeating a villain.
-Matt
|
Also, if the PCs want to keep a badguy dead by capturing the soul, that's an Evil act. So at this point, being Good prevents a PC from being able to actually defeat their enemies.-Matt
I don't see how it is an evil act at all.
If killing the bad guy in the first place was not considered evil then how would preventing his resurrection be evil? Even capturing his soul.
What I can see that prevents you from capturing the soul is an active god of the dead. If s/he does not want you having her/his property then you may have some trouble when a God is set against you.
I would just like to see the raise spells eliminated except for one at 9th level. This is another example of how spells were created and thrown in at lower levels without regard to their power. And even a 9th level spell would require the God of the Dead's consent *please sign here, and here and here, initial here please*
I don't see how it is an evil act at all.
Removed that point from the post, as it's unnecessary for my point, and because the good/evil nature is entirely up to interpretation.
-Matt
|
Being able to use Raise Dead and Reincarnate on NPCs left and right is pretty lame for storyline, since it's incredibly difficult to keep a dead NPC dead without having to use lame excuses like "he can't afford it" or "his soul doesn't want to come back." Bad guys with a resource network just get a Raise, and NPCs the PCs care about get a Raise.
Also, if the PCs want to keep a badguy dead by capturing the soul, that's an Evil act. So at this point, being Good prevents a PC from being able to actually defeat their enemies.
Sam's right. Don't revise the assassin when the entire set of mechanics regarding raising the dead doesn't work. It's hogwash to suggest that one has to be Evil in order to have a chance at permanently defeating a villain.
-Matt
I may faint.
Someone actually understands why I posted that in the assassin thread!However, since Charles separated this to focus on the higher level concept I mentioned:
"Let the dice fall where they may!" has been a clarion call of certain people since the early days of the game. From low ability scores mandating character class to 5 hit point 5th level fighters to Roderick XLIII or the *igbys to a pair of vorpal swords in random treasure, and all of the expressions between and beyond.
I call "sacred cow" AND "Shenanigans".
Random tables are all well and good to get the creative juices flowing, and there has to be some sort of variable effect to avoid casual "laydown" victories. That does not mean the entire flow of the story should be enslaved to unthinking random number generators with no awareness of any aspect of the hobby, be it the genre, the story, the individuals, or the social interaction.
I do not care what the table and dice read, they in no way excuse throwing a huge ancient red dragon at a 1st level party, or trashing out an entire campaign just because the players unleash a string of 1s or the DM unleashes a string of 20s.
People are willing to scream endlessly about how they are in charge of their game, not the rule books. Yet nobody seems willing to raise their voices to question the tyranny of those Multicolored Polyhedrons of Doom.
I am.
PC death should never be the default consequence of poor random number generation.
It should not be the default consequence of weak tactics or tactical adaptability.
It should not even be the default consequence for major stupidity, like putting the moves on the princess, then groining the king when he gets "uppity" about it.
PC death, like main character death in pulps and action flicks, should be reserved for moments of ultimate dramatic effect. It should be something that defines the quest over and above simply having hit points hacked off and replaced by chugged potions of healing and wands of cure light wounds (aka, "happy sticks", for all you LG refugees out there).
Or should I say elixirs of revivification and staves of resurrection? When death is that easy to come by, the "cures" will inevitably be as easy. I know people do not want to accept that, or want to rail against it, but the simple reality is that the history of the game has shown a constant evolution towards making low level play more survivable, and death less "accessible" overall. Just look at spells like Close Wounds and Delay Death, or recall that Living Arcanis just punted the whole thing to starting the campaign at 3rd level. Rant all you like at how far 4E went in supercharging 1st level characters, but the overwhelming body of evidence is that everyone from players to DMs to designers have been fighting the mortality rate from the day after the first AD&D book was published.
I think it is long past time we got over all the cinnabar cusp inspired angst for the lousy old days, admitted this was a significant issue, and addressed it. And that means above and beyond the raw game mechanics, dealing with it at the adventure structure and running level.
The alternative is another dozen rules kludges, and endless discussions about how to tag another few pages of rules on to deal with the loopholes and synergies they create. That may work for some, it does not work for me.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sam, I waned to thank you for introducing this topic. And I wanted to thank Charles for bringing it to the attention it deserves.
I tried to find some game system on my shelves that agreed with your thesis, that neither bad luck nor bad play should be able to kill a PC. And there might be, but I didn't find one.
For one thing, most games have hit points or wound levels. When you run out, you roll up a new character.
Part of my wants to reply that you're looking at a difference between reactions inside the genre, where characters are very much afraid they're in mortal danger, versus reactions outside the genre, where you know that the protagonist of an endless series of pulp novels or comics is not going to die.
Games, I think, try to simulate the "Inside the Genre" attitude, and that means that the PC has to be afraid for his life, and the player needs to be afraid for his character's life, and so PC death needs to be a possibility.
(If not, you could get rid of the entirely of the combat chapter. If heroes can't ever die, except when the plot demands it, then they can just kill all the NPCs. Bang. Simple.)
Remember in "Galaxy Quest", when one character is certain that he's the expendable security detail? Another character asks, "What if you're the plucky comic relief?" That's what the game is like: we don't know if we're the heroes, who never die, or the prelude characters whose deaths pave the way for those who take up the mantle.
In fiction, not only do heroes never die, they never fail, either. Sherlock Holmes solves every mystery set before him. Indiana Jones never misses any of his "skill checks". That doesn't sound like it'd be much fun to role-play.
|
|
Sam, I waned to thank you for introducing this topic. And I wanted to thank Charles for bringing it to the attention it deserves.
I tried to find some game system on my shelves that agreed with your thesis, that neither bad luck nor bad play should be able to kill a PC. And there might be, but I didn't find one.
For one thing, most games have hit points or wound levels. When you run out, you roll up a new character.
You are right, there are none.
I submit that is because the entire hobby has accepted it as an absolute default that cannot be changed no matter what.I further submit this has contributed to the decline of the hobby, both to variants where death just means "respawning", and to other hobbies altogether.
Part of my wants to reply that you're looking at a difference between reactions inside the genre, where characters are very much afraid they're in mortal danger, versus reactions outside the genre, where you know that the protagonist of an endless series of pulp novels or comics is not going to die.
Games, I think, try to simulate the "Inside the Genre" attitude, and that means that the PC has to be afraid for his life, and the player needs to be afraid for his character's life, and so PC death needs to be a possibility.
(If not, you could get rid of the entirely of the combat chapter. If heroes can't ever die, except when the plot demands it, then they can just kill all the NPCs. Bang. Simple.)
Remember in "Galaxy Quest", when one character is certain that he's the expendable security detail? Another character asks, "What if you're the plucky comic relief?" That's what the game is like: we don't know if we're the heroes, who never die, or the prelude characters whose deaths pave the way for those who take up the mantle.
In fiction, not only do heroes never die, they never fail, either. Sherlock Holmes solves every mystery set before him. Indiana Jones never misses any of his "skill checks". That doesn't sound like it'd be much fun to role-play.
I understand that.
The thing is, why are those so much fun to read and watch?And then add reread and rewatch on top of that!
As I said before, you know, absolutely, utterly, completely, and several dozen other words ending in -ly KNOW, there is no way Indiana is going to get crushed by that boulder. Yet you still shift to the edge of your seat, dance on the tips of your toes, feel your heart race, and go BOO-YAH! out loud, every time he outraces it.
How can any of those scenes possibly hold that much excitement in books and movies and yet it be completely impossible to get the same feeling in a tabletop game?
I do not buy that.
And indeed, look at Galaxy Quest. With all the lengths they go to in making the use of genre tropes clear, the movie is still full of dramatic tension.
Oh, and you are wrong. Indiana Jones fails tons of skill checks. From Sense Motive to Perception to Stealth to Fort saves to avoid being knocked out. The same with Conan, and other characters. They key is their failures lead to "plot complications" and not death.
I will not deny that the author of a novel or a screenplay has a significantly easier time of dealing with such as they are not the product of random occurrence but deliberate planning. That is where the real skill in being a DM comes into play. It requires a combination of skills, including improvising side treks, fudging without making the PCs believe nothing they do matters, and more.
Finally, let me ask you. You say it is no fun if you cannot fail.
How much fun is it when you do fail?
Not a temporary setback, or "just roll up another character", or what not. I mean lose. Game over. The world is enslaved. Everything you fought for and cared about is wiped away, and all you have left is misery and suffering.
People freaked so much when Sherlock Holmes was killed, Arthur Conan Doyle eventually brought him back. Can you even imagine what would happen if WotC killed Drizzt? Of course Salvatore did get to kill Chewbacca . . . Or what about the events in Vecna Lives? I know I called for the head of Zeb Cook when I first read it, before I finally understood why getting rid of all those OtherPeople'sPCs was actually better for the development of the setting. (Of course I am a tad biased there, as my hands are even more thoroughly covered in GH NPC blood.)
And how much interest would you have in reading such a book? Shakespeare managed some decent tragedies, and there is Lovecraftian horror where we read over and over of the inevitable death of the world. Would Conan or Tarzan bleeding out on the floor really be that appealing to read? And then to play?
I do not dismiss casual death casually. (Yes, that is bad. I apologize for that one. :-P) I think it really is that much worse than going on endlessly about PC plot immunity.
|
|
I think this is why I play all D&D like it's 1e, and prefer games like Shadowrun and Paranoia when not playing D&D. I don't want to play a novel or a movie, I want to know I can die and try and use my wits and resources to avoid it. If I know the GM is holding back because of some "story" consideration, I don't care about my character any more. I may as well be partaking in passive entertainment (the above mentioned novel or movie).
Also, I kinda like rolling new characters...
The lower levels are useful in instilling player fear into the game. Once a character reaches 5th level, it's tougher to kill him. But until then, my players roll a new character up when the low level peon takes a dirt nap.
|
|
Not so.
'Games' such as ARIA, and NOBILIS, etc. are entirely about the Myth of the Hero.However, we are talking about D&D/Pathfinder.
Samuel, may I suggest that you would perhaps find more satisfaction in writing than in gaming those sorts of issues, because as an author, you most certainly are in control of characters' fates, whereas in a game, there are rules which seem diametrically opposed to the 'heroes don't die' premise.
I am talking about D&D, and thus Pathfinder as well.
As a DM, I am well in control of the fate of the characters, and of the general structure of the story. What the game adds is the interplay of multiple people with the story.Further, D&D is very much about the Myth of the Hero, or at least the protagonist. What do you think those stories were about?
|
|
I think this is why I play all D&D like it's 1e, and prefer games like Shadowrun and Paranoia when not playing D&D. I don't want to play a novel or a movie, I want to know I can die and try and use my wits and resources to avoid it. If I know the GM is holding back because of some "story" consideration, I don't care about my character any more. I may as well be partaking in passive entertainment (the above mentioned novel or movie).
Also, I kinda like rolling new characters...
I hate to break it to you, but the DM is always holding back because of some "story" consideration.
The DM always knows what your characters can do, what equipment you have, what spells you have memorized, and so forth. The DM can always make a very deliberate choice at any time to ensure the next encounter is beyond your capabilities, no matter how you use your wits and resources to avoid it.There is absolutely no challenge in killing PCs as a DM. The challenge is in being able to create encounters that do not kill them.
As for Paranoia, it was never about completing the mission, but how spectacularly you could die, or what other thoroughly bizarre thing you could manage in the mission. Like Call of Cthulu, it was grounded in a different genre.
Edit:
One extra thought.
If I want a bunch of random die rolls and a few tactical choices to decide if I win or lose, I play backgammon, not D&D.
|
I wanted to jump in on this really quick to comment on one thing. There has been a lot of "it's no fun if the hero dies" talk, and that entertainment is highest when we know the hero can survive.
I'd like to throw George RR Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series on the table. Currently, it has surpassed all others in my love for Fantasy fiction.
Why?
Because. People. Die.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I loved Indiana Jones. I loved Star Wars. I was heartbroken when Chewbacca died. But I was also so happy it happened. The tension was there when I first watched those movies because I didn't know what was going to happen. Watching them and other movies like them recently induces so much less of a happy and excited state that it is hard to cheer.
I still get excited with those movies, I do. But they no longer hold me on the edge of my seat. I don't tense up when I watch them because I know that there's no way they could kill off the main character. He has to be around for sequels, books, what have you.
Martin hooked me. His series was the first to put me on the edge in a long time, to *cheer* when my favorite characters survived, to worry when they were in harm's way. I have to respect a story when in the FIRST book he
I can't put the books down now, I eagerly await the next one. That my favorites are at risk with every novel is what draws me back, and I feel the same way towards D&D.
I've had players of all kind, of course. I used to be a much more lenient DM than I am today, I tried to help avoid TPKs when they neared and went easy on death. One of my players spoke to me and the rest of the group after one such event. He said that the reason he played Paizo adventures (we were in Age of Worms at the time) was because he enjoyed the challenge. It was because he needed the chance of death, the possible end to his hero's career. Otherwise, why not just goof around? Why bother trying to be serious when hunting down a mind flayer if death wasn't permanent, if the story expected the heroes to win? There was no motivation.
Every player, including the ones who were *deeply* attached to their characters, agreed. We changed how death worked (going back to the standard rules). Some characters died and their players were sad, but they moved on and enjoyed the new characters. Their was joy in surviving a challenge unlike any we had seen in previous games. It was a visible and definite change.
When the heroes always win, that's fine for some books. For some movies. Me. My players. We like it when there is a chance for failure. A chance for the bad guy to win. To see real evil, not 'don't worry I'll wait for you to get back up' evil.
Paizo hasn't let me down yet. The challenges are there. Evil is real. The world feels amazing.
Sometimes, heroes need to die.
|
|
If possible, please try to refrain from condescension, sir.
You might want to consider that yourself the next time you try and tell me what game I am talking about.
The -=game=- is an amusing pastime which may engender stories of daring-do, or other such, but need not be conceived of as high-art at each turn. Much of gaming is purely social, with a good portion being tactical and/or resource management.
Which says much for casual death not being a particularly useful element.
Of course that completely overlooks the rather different content of D&D to most other forms of social interaction out there.If your pure brand of gaming is sullied by silly rules then I would think you should have written a better set to suit your own tastes. It would be better than trying to tear-down an existing set, considering how many of its players seem to 'get it' the way it is currently written -- or hadn't you heard, it is the world's most popular roleplaying game.
I am trying to build it up, not tear it down, despite your continued presumptions as to my motives.
As for considering its popularity, I note yet again that over the lifetime of the game a considerable effort has been made to reduce the rate of character death.Likewise given the continued decline of TRPGs as a hobby, whether or not D&D is the most popular one is not enough to sustain any system in it on reputation alone, particularly when that reputation may not be deserved.
|
|
I wanted to jump in on this really quick to comment on one thing. There has been a lot of "it's no fun if the hero dies" talk, and that entertainment is highest when we know the hero can survive.
I'd like to throw George RR Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series on the table. Currently, it has surpassed all others in my love for Fantasy fiction.
Why?
Because. People. Die.
Except most of Martin's POV characters are not the heroes of the story, or even actually the main characters. At this time, it looks like there are two main characters and a few supporting ones, and they seem to be doing quite well with their plot immunity.
As for the roster of the dead, yes Martin has done quite well presenting tragic characters of one flavor or another.I've had players of all kind, of course. I used to be a much more lenient DM than I am today, I tried to help avoid TPKs when they neared and went easy on death. One of my players spoke to me and the rest of the group after one such event. He said that the reason he played Paizo adventures (we were in Age of Worms at the time) was because he enjoyed the challenge. It was because he needed the chance of death, the possible end to his hero's career. Otherwise, why not just goof around? Why bother trying to be serious when hunting down a mind flayer if death wasn't permanent, if the story expected the heroes to win? There was no motivation.
Just because you can win does not mandate how you win. That is why I was very clear that it remains dependent on the DM to create that belief that the actions are relevant no matter what.
Likewise there is easily more to a hero than just the hero. Living long enough to defeat the BBEG does not also mean automatically saving the town, your true love, your family, or your favorite pet. It does not mean coming through with a reputation for being the best, or even a vaguely relevant individual. It does not mean getting the cool sword, making the awesome kill, or telling the great story. All it means is the DM not letting a couple of random die rolls decide the story.It also does not mean the player can not actively choose to make a dramatic gesture. It does not mean you can never boldly leap in front of the dragon, making it clear you intend to sacrifice your character's life right then and there for everyone. It just means that choice is not taken from player and DM by a piece of high impact plastic rolling around and landing with a particular face up. Why bother trying to be serious when doing anything if the dice can mandate the hero be withdrawn from play by a random goblin with no relevance to the greater story?
So for myself, I have increasingly gone the opposite direction.
There is more dramatic tension when a PC is down and bleeding at -8 than there is when the player is just writing up a new PC.
There is more heroic sacrifice when I allow any player to volunteer to have irritated the monster that just rolled the crit that would kill another PC and so it attacks his PC instead.
The consequences of failure are still felt if it just means a bad guys gets away with his loot, or the PCs need to undertake a side quest to deal with a plot complication.
I have more control over story development and flow without worrying if a key PC will suddenly die and need to be replaced.
I can allow backgrounds with greater significance to the story without worrying if a key PC will suddenly die and cannot be replaced.
If a player really wants to switch PCs they can confidently go out in a blaze of big time glory, not just wait for some wandering monster to give them an excuse to introduce their new PC.
|
|
So, to sum up:
Some DMs will keep PCs alive as much as possible (bleeding to death or having other PCs take arrows meant for them) and some won't. This depends on whether their game is Hero based or gritty simulationism.
Some DM's will allow resurrection magics in their games and some won't, house-rule-ing them out of the spell lists because of the flavor of the world that they wish to create.
And it's ok for people to choose how they want to play the game. Cool.
Sam, you are my hero! And to your credit there actually is a game system that advises you do exactly what you're talking about. It's called 7th Sea, and the damage system is something quite extraordinary. You get wounds, and as those wounds stack up it gets harder and harder to do anything. That's it. When do you die? You die when the GM says you do.
It's wonderful.
Now I would make one change to your perfect system, that I think would get a lot of other folks on board with you. I'd say it's not that a PC should never die--but that it's entirely in the DM's hands when and if you do.
For example. That dork who thought it was okay to grope the queen and attack the king. I'd kill him out of hand as DM. That room would fill up with guards SO FAST. On the other hand, there's times where you really want the characters to be able to go the distance--or at least keep crawling forward, blood oozing from a thousand wounds, just long enough to kill the badguy, and immediately drop over dead.
You can play it grim and gritty with some natives hosing off the Indy gore from that big rolling stone, or you can play it very pulp and have the characters just get more and more beat up until they finally prevail.
And in the end, assassins still get to kill people.
Sam, I waned to thank you for introducing this topic. And I wanted to thank Charles for bringing it to the attention it deserves.
I tried to find some game system on my shelves that agreed with your thesis, that neither bad luck nor bad play should be able to kill a PC. And there might be, but I didn't find one.
7th Sea.
The characters do not die unless specificly killed by the GM or you have a TPK. In one game I played, I let the GM kill my character for story effect. I realized there was no danger of dying and was becoming bored with the character I had created. I changed out for something with more roleplaying potental.
I want my characters mortal. If nothing can happen to the characters, things get boring.
It doesn't mean that every minute of a character's life is spent in mortal danger, but if the game has "the heroes never die" on the cover, I'll put it back on the shelf without wasting money on it.
Song of Ice and Fire is indeed very good in this regard: You can never know when someone might die. It doesn't matter whether he's a Redshirt or had chapter after chapter in the books. No one in that story has Plot Armour. And not all deaths are Heroic Last Stands, either
It does keep you on your toes.
I like my D&D when it has a generous helping of that attitude: Don't depend on your PC status, if you screw up, you might very well die.
The "roleplay vs roll play" thing is something that has gone on for ages, and I don't think it will be ever settled.
Go for "story to the exclusion of all else" and you risk falling for the railroader vice. On the other hand, go for "let the dice fall where they may to the exclusion of all else" and you risk your game becoming instead a videogame. The best thing you can do is find your own balance between the two.
Me?
I ABHOR games that won't give players a choice in what they want to be, be it their physical appearance, character class, etc. To me, Point-buy is the single best thing after sliced bread and stuffed-crust pizza.
I ABHOR GMs that make you roll dice to press the "talk" button on a walkie-talkie. If everything was as subject to luck and happenstance as rules lawyers think we'd never get anything done in real life.
I ABHOR games with obvious glass ceilings. I like my players eventually growing into becoming a Conan, a Merlin, a Batman, etc. If there's something I'll never do in a campaign is having an NPC do some miracle only to tell my players "See that? Neat, right? Oh too bad you'll never be able to do it, because he's an NPC." (Ok Call of Cthulhu and similar games are another story, but then those have as -premise- that you're a mere mortal, not an adventurer nor a hero).
I ABHOR game systems that stiff creativity in order to give the GM a sense of control. As a GM I like to be thrilled as well, and there's nothing I reward better than a player turning the tables on me and leaving me dumbfounded.
And then, here's the dilemma:
On one hand, as GMs, deep inside what we want is for the players to WIN, we want them to solve the mystery, to get the girl, to beat the villain, and not out of some sense of benelovence, but out of egotism... I mean, what the hell did we burn the midnight oil planning a campaing for if the PCs die in session three? Whatsmore, when a PC dies, all his ongoing story dies with him, which according to the character in question can become from a waste of a story to an outright catastrophe.
On the other hand, from the very definition, for a game to be a game, a "player" must have chances of both "winning" and "losing". Players without fear of death stop behaving plausibly in what should be life-threatening situations.
Whatsmore, in every game enough dice should roll, as it's all too easy for "story driven" to degenerate in railroading... after all, if a GM doesn't want something to happen, it won't happen, not unless the players have a means to defend their PCs' right to have a say in the matter. Players should be the ones deciding the course of events, not the GM.
And then, as much as I dislike PCs dying, sometimes they just die. Sure, I'll never "kill" you arbitrarily, and sometimes I may even drop a hint on how you can save yourself for fun's sake, but I'll never "save you" directly either, lest I kill my credibility as a GM in the process. Still, when a PC dies in my games it's usually for a good reason ("foolishness" is a perfectly good reason). Few things I find more insulting than a PC dying just because the GM said "Now you die".
|
I agree with most of what Dogbert had to say. Bad rolls can ruin fun, derail a storyline, etc. Sometimes a single bad roll can ruin an entire evening for everyone. "Oops, you failed to disarm the trap. Everybody is crushed as the walls close in... Oops, the Barbarian blew his Will save vs. the evil cursed greataxes Ego score conflict thingie, and killed everyone else!"
In the case of 'death is cheap' issues creeping up, I find that Action points pretty much solve it. Death can still happen, but the random crappy die-roll deaths are easier to just 'buy off.' The player ends up with a measure of control over his character's fate and is no longer utterly at the mercy of the dice.
We tend to use Action points less like Eberron and more like Mutants & Masterminds hero points, as a kind of 'get out of jail free card.' Everybody gets one Action point per game session. They don't stack up, use it or lose it. You can use it to re-roll a die, decided *after* the die roll (and yes, after it's declared whether or not it succeeded), and, in the case of a d20 roll, if you roll less than 10 on your second roll, add +10 to that second roll.
So I roll a 4, roll again and get an 8, I can add +10 to that second roll and call it an 18. My Action point is never wasted (unless I needed a 19 to hit or save or whatever...).
As for the original issue, of ressurection / raise dead magic, I prefer for low to mid level spells of that sort to have time requirements of *rounds*, not days or months or years. If a PC dies, and one of the party members can raise dead, he does so immediately. If the king is assassinated in the night and not discovered until morning, he's dead, long live the new king.
(Barring some Incantation that requires the stars to be right, lots of sacrifices, scantily clad maidens throwing tiny pickles, etc. but that sort of thing will be an epic hero's quest of it's own, not, 'Call down to the temple and tell Friar Tuck to prep a Raise Dead for tomorrow, King Harold got whacked again...')
Anyways, back to the original topic, shall we?
The role of the risk of PCs dying aside, what about NPC deaths? I submit that the relative ease of raising NPCs is pretty lame. Villains with resources can come back with little effort, and it's impossible for an NPC to leave the storyline through death, as you're basically asking your players "So, do you think he's worth 5,000gp?"
Sam: Actually, my point of view originated from Living Greyhawk, where I ran into the issue of the Geoff giant villains and the Gran March Commandant getting resurrected after dying in major battles like it was nothing special. And it sucked to play a heroic character who was constantly forced to place a monetary value on other people's lives. So this dead Geoff warlord is worth a 25,000gp True Resurrection, but we can't justify 5,000gp to Raise this semi-important NPC who just died in boxed text? (And even if I did Raise the guy, he'd still be dead overall due to every other premiere table not spending the money, so it'd be a waste of 5,000gp, but that's another issue entirely.)
Pretty lame if you ask me.
-Matt
In the case of 'death is cheap' issues creeping up, I find that Action points pretty much solve it.
What action dice accomplish is giving the players the ability to decide which rolls are important to them. Suddenly, the player can decide which attack rolls, saves, skill checks, etc. that are relevant to him, and spend action dice to ensure that he succeeds. An excellent invention.
And I'm talking about classic Spycraft-style "Add 1dX to your roll" action dice, not the really-lame 4E "take an extra action" crap.
-Matt
|
|
Anyways, back to the original topic, shall we?
The role of the risk of PCs dying aside, what about NPC deaths? I submit that the relative ease of raising NPCs is pretty lame. Villains with resources can come back with little effort, and it's impossible for an NPC to leave the storyline through death, as you're basically asking your players "So, do you think he's worth 5,000gp?"
Sam: Actually, my point of view originated from Living Greyhawk, where I ran into the issue of the Geoff giant villains and the Gran March Commandant getting resurrected after dying in major battles like it was nothing special. And it sucked to play a heroic character who was constantly forced to place a monetary value on other people's lives. So this dead Geoff warlord is worth a 25,000gp True Resurrection, but we can't justify 5,000gp to Raise this semi-important NPC who just died in boxed text? (And even if I did Raise the guy, he'd still be dead overall due to every other premiere table not spending the money, so it'd be a waste of 5,000gp, but that's another issue entirely.)
Pretty lame if you ask me.
-Matt
Yes, LG made a number of stress points in the rules really leap out. Almost everything related to death was a big one, from the difficulty in keeping NPCs dead, to the issues with death being "beneficial" at higher levels. I used an NPC with a callous attitude towards the PCs killing him because he had prepaid for a true resurrection as well as having a "wasted" line of text to explain why nobody would raise another NPC. Add in players not wanting to "get with the progam", and the degree to which it destroyed the story was quite obvious.
Also from LG is the fact that we got rather direct requests to tone down the lethality of APL 2 for adventures at the big conventions. Nothing says "fail to grow the organization" like a 50% death for first time players at Gen Con and Origins.|
|
Sam, you are my hero! And to your credit there actually is a game system that advises you do exactly what you're talking about. It's called 7th Sea, and the damage system is something quite extraordinary. You get wounds, and as those wounds stack up it gets harder and harder to do anything. That's it. When do you die? You die when the GM says you do.
It's wonderful.
I never played it. I guess I missed a really good one there.
Now I would make one change to your perfect system, that I think would get a lot of other folks on board with you. I'd say it's not that a PC should never die--but that it's entirely in the DM's hands when and if you do.
Yep. And I do note that. I use the absolute to get everyone's attention, and to contrast with the "the dice say when you die" attitude that design has fought against but has not been able to defeat yet.
For example. That dork who thought it was okay to grope the queen and attack the king. I'd kill him out of hand as DM. That room would fill up with guards SO FAST. On the other hand, there's times where you really want the characters to be able to go the distance--or at least keep crawling forward, blood oozing from a thousand wounds, just long enough to kill the badguy, and immediately drop over dead.
Heh. Well, yeah. Again, I was deliberately pushing the limits there. That is a hardcore "You really just want to play a new character, don't you?" moment. (With the king.)
And yes, equally there are times you want the PCs to just keep going. That is another related issue, fear of resources running out. Seriously, can you imagine John McClane or Jack Bauer stopping to check their hit points, or stopping because they checked their gun and only had one first level spell, errr . . . .22 round left? Come on! To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in Predator, heroes don't have time to bleed.You can play it grim and gritty with some natives hosing off the Indy gore from that big rolling stone, or you can play it very pulp and have the characters just get more and more beat up until they finally prevail.
And in the end, assassins still get to kill people.
Exactly.
Even more though, you can get down and dirty in the grit, with gloom and doom as supporting NPCs get shredded left and right, and everything looks grim. There is some rule that heroes can only avenge other heroes, they cannot care that much about the gratuitously placed helpless villager?|
|
And then, here's the dilemma:
Yes. Again, that is the issue.
I am simply adding that having continued to analyze the factors, I see that the key is not in the mechanics, but in the DM "instructions" as part of the rules to keep this perspective so that death is not just a result of random number generation, but of the overall structure and development of the actual story being told.
The starting point should be total plot immunity, then heroic sacrifice once the mechanics are understood, and finally that minimum of random doubt for experienced DMs AND players. And yes, that may very well mean the newbie gets plot immunity while your buddy of 20 years faces disaster from the giant rat.
|
|
So, your opinion is absolute, and irreproachable?
Absolute?
Yes.Irreproachable?
As irreproachable as yours.
And?
And very few bridge games end in character death.
While that may be a side-effect of the video game syndrome which has affected RPGs, I rather doubt that it could be conclusively proven as being a primary cause. Folks tastes for more power and greater exploits have increased in proportion to what home console games have been providing, and game designers (when not part of that demographic as well) have realised that catering to those tastes provides additional sales.
It could be blamed on that. Except the power level and survivability was ramping up with Unearthed Arcana and 2nd ed before console games started seizing the market.
And yes, designers have been catering to those tastes. That is the whole point. Past a certain point, producing an entertainment product that people do not find entertaining is self-destructive.Pray, tell us which is the superior RPG which appeals to more folk around the world, if not D&D?
World of Warcraft.
Moreover, which is the panacea that solves your 'all about the heroes' issue without die rolls or perils -- driven only by plot.
Reading 50 books on the suggested reading list in the 1st ed DMG.
I wonder how you think that your radical suggestions, so late in PF's design process, are going to effect the change you seem so desirous of. Also, what, specifically ought Jason do about your suggestions?
What he ought to do, if he accepts my points in support of my position, is what I keep saying should be done:
Leave the mechanics as they are, except perhaps for deleting the raise dead type spells, and revise the DM guidelines.I have said repeatedly, then reiterated it redundantly, that this is not a mechanics issue, which would require redesign of various systems, but an attitude issue, understanding the genre, and looking to grow the hobby, which requires rewriting of the section on how to run the game.
My thought regarding your lengthy refutations and caustic remarks is that you simply enjoy the limelight you are afforded. Am I wrong?
Completely.
As regards Action Points, I use them in my game, but have noticed that players seem to forget that they exist, and don't use them -- often to their chagrin. How are you others implementing them in such a way as to make their use compelling? Do you remind the players, or are yours on the ball enough to control them?
I absolutely love hero points/action points, for exactly the reasons Set has described... they let a player avoid death though sheer dumb luck (I agree with Sam 100% that that kind of occurrance is just no good), but if that player is determined to overextend himself and wilfully commit suicide, he'll run out of points and eventually die (as Derek prefers). I've found that, in the past, calling them "Hero Points" gets a better reaction from players than the name "action points." Don't give out too many of them, and make sure that they can do cool things, not just add a bit to dice rolls (e.g., when fighting a lycanthrope without a silver weapon, I'd let a PC spend a hero point to retroactively purchase silversheen that he "just remembered buying last time he was in town").
|
|
I absolutely love hero points/action points, for exactly the reasons Set has described... they let a player avoid death though sheer dumb luck (I agree with Sam 100% that that kind of occurrance is just no good), but if that player is determined to overextend himself and wilfully commit suicide, he'll run out of points and eventually die (as Derek prefers). I've found that, in the past, calling them "Hero Points" gets a better reaction from players than the name "action points." Don't give out too many of them, and make sure that they can do cool things, not just add a bit to dice rolls (e.g., when fighting a lycanthrope without a silver weapon, I'd let a PC spend a hero point to retroactively purchase silversheen that he "just remembered buying last time he was in town").
Hmmm . . .
I have resisted going to a full action/hero point system because I was not too thrilled with how integrated they were to certain feats in D20 Modern and Eberron.I have considered some sort of structure to allow things like a forgotten purchase, though it seems close to the RPGA rewards cards system, and that had its own issues.
I also considered the Luck feats of Complete Scoundrel, as well as the Destiny feats in Races of Destiny. I have used the Destiny feats in game, first for NPCs (which gave me a really nasty idea for an adventure), and now a PC is using them in my current game. They look good, but both require a feat "tax" though.
That all contributes to my resistance to a mechanical fix. Still, recommendations like this make me seriously reconsider.
Hrmm, my understanding of what Sam was saying orginally is that the game doesn't need more rules to clarify the death aspect of the game, not that players should never die. A DM should be able to handle any of the eventualities mentioned above without new rules to cover them lest you get the "but that NPC shouldn't be back yet since pg. x of the rules states that x amount of time must pass before an NPC can re-appear in a campaign" syndrome.
As a DM, I personally enjoy watching the players fidget and squirm during certain encounters, fearing the shadow of death rising beside them. But that whole idea is (or should be) entrenched in the ability of the DM, not decided by some set of rules. Campaigns are based around the participation of the PCs, and losing one mid-stream can be relatively devastating to the plot overall. Does this mean that a character can do whatever he likes, knowing his destiny precludes his death? NO! Teach that character humility with a sound thrashing! Stupid play should not be rewarded or encouraged! Again, it is up to the DM to read the situation and make the judgement calls. There are ways to save a character always, and missing a couple of encounters (and thereby the experience from those encounters) will encourage a player to be more careful and not think there is a lack of clear and present danger to his person. The random rolls of the dice should never dictate the death of a PC, but death should certainly hover in the vicinity of anything PCs do in your world!
It is a game, and yes games have rules, but the rules are just a tool to the enjoyment that the game brings, not the end-all-be-all of a roleplaying game. I have this argument with a friend of mine all the time, who insists that 3rd Edition is NOT AD&D, it is a miniatures game that lacks in imagination. I have patiently tried to explain to him that the rules do not preclude the use of the imagination or roleplaying, and that in fact they are now clearer and better organized than they have ever been, but still fundamentally the same system. He will not listen, and as a result, he no longer games with us or anyone, just sits in his imaginary Ivory Tower and preches to us about how foolish we are for our choices that are "killing the true intent" of Dungeons and Dragons. I only bring up this example to show that a fixation on rules (from either side of the spectrum) can lead a person to a mindset that prevents them from garnering the enjoyment that ANY game system offers. Imagination, Friendship, Social Interaction, Munchies, these are what is best in life, regardless of the rules. Now play nice!
Godsdog, your position has merit, but I personally as a DM like to consider myself a referee more than a god. I want events, including mortality, to be primarily driven by the players' actions, rather than simply dictated by me -- even if I do so in a "nice" way.
|
|
I've found that, in the past, calling them "Hero Points" gets a better reaction from players than the name "action points." Don't give out too many of them, and make sure that they can do cool things, not just add a bit to dice rolls (e.g., when fighting a lycanthrope without a silver weapon, I'd let a PC spend a hero point to retroactively purchase silversheen that he "just remembered buying last time he was in town").
Absolutely my preference as well. I love, love, love the way Mutants & Masterminds uses them, and this sort of 'stunt' use or 'dramatic editing' use is totally cool, within reason.
I've seen stuff like 'plot cards' used similarly, with each player have a plot card or two that they can play during the game to represent an old friend showing up or a lucky break occuring or whatever.
Godsdog, your position has merit, but I personally as a DM like to consider myself a referee more than a god. I want events, including mortality, to be primarily driven by the players' actions, rather than simply dictated by me -- even if I do so in a "nice" way.
I think that is what I was trying to say. Confounded flu must be wreaking havoc on my normally lucid and focused logic! lol The players actions should dictate their success or demise to a LARGE degree, and certainly moreso than the roll of a die. I consider the DM to be one of the players at the table, not the god of the table (as the friend I mentioned above assumes). Thanks for helping to clarify this position sir!
|
|
Godsdog, your position has merit, but I personally as a DM like to consider myself a referee more than a god. I want events, including mortality, to be primarily driven by the players' actions, rather than simply dictated by me -- even if I do so in a "nice" way.
This is really the core of it, and why I would *hate* having a DM be the ultimate decider in whether I lived or died. It takes a very unique group to make characters that want to succeed and feel like they're challenged while knowing that it's really the DM's decision, in the end, of whether they live or die. I know it's come up at our table before and it was generally agreed that the players' fates should be in their hands.
The DM, as I've always seen him, is just the referee. He helps weave the story, to be certain, but the best DM is one that reacts and judges. I'm a big advocate of the 'let the dice fall where they may' crowd, and have been in games in the past where the DM took the stance that it was up to him when and how a person died. It felt unfulfilling. Boring. As in, it didn't really matter how well I did something or if I did something poorly, I always had a 'save point'. There was a lack of motivation, a lack of desire to try to come up with a cool plan or a creative way to get around some obstacle.
I'd really be interested to know how those DMs handle a TPK. Or do they just never let one happen? If it does, do the players always wake up in a dungeon somewhere? The villain never permanently tries to get rid of them?
The games I've run and been in have been interesting because it felt like the bad guy was trying his hardest to win. Like we were actually fighting against something. Being granted the 'don't worry, you'll win' card just makes it boring. It's like going into a movie knowing they won't kill the main character. The suspense and tension just vanish.
I'd really be interested to know how those DMs handle a TPK. Or do they just never let one happen? If it does, do the players always wake up in a dungeon somewhere? The villain never permanently tries to get rid of them?Karui, I have an example of that very thing! Years ago my group was investigating rumors of a haunting or bandits and stumbled upon the lair of said bandits. They were in a cavern that was trapped with gas that debilitated the party after a certain number of rounds, or failed saving throw, I forget which. There were numerous masks on the pillars of the cavern with various effects, but ALL of them protected a player from the effects of the gas. It was demoralizing as a DM to watch as my players sank into the gas one by one, but they all refused to try on the masks, afraid of what might happen if they did. I am of an opinion that if you are "dying" anyway, what have you got to lose, but apparently my players felt differently. They were relatively low (2nd or 3rd) level, but it would have ultimately resulted in a party wipe as the bandits wait for the gas to clear and then have their way with the PCs. So, I decided that the bandits main motivations were profit and securing the image they had cultivated with the nearby town. The PCs had not figured out if there were indeed normal bandits, or something supernatural at this point, so the bandits "cover" was not blown. I had the PCs wake up halway between the road from the lair to the town. ALL their equipment was gone, and replaced with ill-fitted garb (the bandits old clothes). They had lost everything but their lives. I had them take jobs in the town for a month or so, and then let them re-roll starting money to re-equip their characters. This satisfied my need for continuity, and the players were actually quite pleased with how things turned out from the roleplaying/story perspective. They were also much more thoughtful about things from then on. There are more ways than killing a PC outright to encourage problem-solving after all. I do not think of this as "god-mode" by any means. It is just interactive storytelling and good olde-fashioned fun.
Players HAVE died in my campiagns over the years. Some by choice (to save others) and some just through bad play, poor teamwork, or whatever. But NEVER because of how the dice fell.
|
|
...but if that player is determined to overextend himself and wilfully commit suicide, he'll run out of points and eventually die (as Derek prefers)...
While it is true that I think the "15 minute workday" that 3x encourages is a bunch of crappy-pappy, and I think players should learn not to blow their wad in the first encounter, I ain't exactly "suicidal". I just think there should be a random "s**t happens" possibility when I play or I get bored. I can't help it, I prefer gritty low fantasy, non-heroic games to epic fantasy stuff. Leave the running on the bamboo treetops to the kids, I want to feel the rain in my face, the dirt on my boots and know that my character lives in a world that doesn't ensure that every encounter is "level appropriate"...
As regards Action Points, I use them in my game, but have noticed that players seem to forget that they exist, and don't use them -- often to their chagrin.
How are you others implementing them in such a way as to make their use compelling? Do you remind the players, or are yours on the ball enough to control them?
While it is a nice mechanic, it doesn't do them much good if they don't avail themselves of it.
Easily solved. Make sure to let them know when the NPCs (The main bad guy only!) use theirs. Also, reward your players for good roleplaying with an extra action point or two. When they're not so rigidly dispensed, players don't have a tendency to hoard them.
I just think there should be a random "s**t happens" possibility when I play or I get bored.
Like the odd mountain lion pet... ;) I see where you're coming from. Having one or two hero points won't protect a PC from all harm; they just add a bit of player input to the ongoing storyline at key points.