True. And I don't think that the Dragonlance saga would have been more interesting if Raistlin was killed by a random hobgoblin in the first 100 pages of the story, for instance.
But I would posit that it might be hilarious to see Drizzt ganked by a kobold at this point.
|
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..True. And I don't think that the Dragonlance saga would have been more interesting if Raistlin was killed by a random hobgoblin in the first 100 pages of the story, for instance.
The overly angst Tanis may have been more interesting by being randomly killed in the first hundred pages.... :)
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..True. And I don't think that the Dragonlance saga would have been more interesting if Raistlin was killed by a random hobgoblin in the first 100 pages of the story, for instance.
This is an interesting statement.
I think that death is one of the main points where RPGs and Fiction differ narratively. In fiction, you can give a character a rich treatment knowing that you are going to kill him to make the accomplishments of of other characters appear more grand. You can only kind of do this in an RPG, but you need a very mature player or you have to do it with an NPC.
We can all understand why a contrived NPC death just doesn't resonate the same way as a built-up fictional character's death does in a novel.
I've been fortunate enough to have mature players who can handle the unexpected death of well-liked characters. It really does enhance the game for both those players (in the roles as new PCs) and the other players, because death is a reality and that enhances the game.
How it interacts with the plot, as hogarth makes clear in his post, is... complex.
(also, I *DO* feel that Dragonlance would have been more interesting under those circumstances... but that is strictly a matter of opinion)
You know, it is interesting that Dragonlance comes into this, because while its not "random," you can argue that Riverwind died and was raised by the Crystal Staff, Sturm died, but again, not randomly, and then Flint keels over from a heart attack.
I'm pretty sure that if I told a PC that he just died because I determined that his bloodline was prone to heart defects, they might be a bit miffed at me . . . ;)
You know, it is interesting that Dragonlance comes into this, because while its not "random," you can argue that Riverwind died and was raised by the Crystal Staff, Sturm died, but again, not randomly, and then Flint keels over from a heart attack.
I'm pretty sure that if I told a PC that he just died because I determined that his bloodline was prone to heart defects, they might be a bit miffed at me . . . ;)
You would think adventurers would be prone to such things. I mean, all those half-templates gotta bring out SOME recessive genes. Plus, all the red meat, booze, and fear effects, failed fort saves against ridiculously dangerous diseases, poisons and such, any given adventurer ought to be a walking time bomb.
But then, how much damage does a heart attack do?
You know, it is interesting that Dragonlance comes into this, because while its not "random," you can argue that Riverwind died and was raised by the Crystal Staff, Sturm died, but again, not randomly, and then Flint keels over from a heart attack.
Exactly -- those deaths are interesting (Sturm's, for instance, is a classic memorable PC death) because they aren't random.
I'm pretty sure that if I told a PC that he just died because I determined that his bloodline was prone to heart defects, they might be a bit miffed at me . . . ;)
Flint's player wanted to roll up a new character. Isn't it obvious? ;-)
Spoiler for Rise of the Runelords:
Spoiler for Council of Thieves:
Then I had the same player loose his character to crawling down the chimney shaft into Massacre House and taking the full brunt of the fire elementals fury when he shimmied down by himself (he was counting on his energy resistance 5 to save him from a mundane fire).
While that second death wasn't quite as cinematic or heroic . . . I couldn't help but let it stand since it was such an obvious consequence for his actions.
Fort save vs death.
But then, how much damage does a heart attack do?
Ahh. I might have to do that to the next geriatric PC I have... oh damn... I'm the only one willing to make old fogeys.
*watches my Dwarf cleric keel over* Oh Abadar... I think this is it! The big one! Oh wait... sorry, made my save. See you tomorrow!
But more seriously, I can see where a random character death might not feel good, I have had them happen to me and been disappointed, but my first character bravely sacrificed himself to let the party get away from the big bad Umbral dragon and I felt good about that one.
Actually, I just thought of something. Having a character die can be anticlimactic sometimes, but that's not my least favourite part about character death. What does bother me sometimes is when several PCs either die or leave in fairly rapid succession and you have to figure out how to keep introducing new replacement PCs. It can be tough to explain why the party keeps asking random strangers to join.
That and having it happen at the start of a session and trying to figure out what the dead characters players will do for the next four hours besides rolling new characters.
Whip out another bard?
In my case, I advise my players to make backup characters, and in the current adventure it's rather easy, they are just different members of the pirate crew. And I always make three or four characters, mainly because I want to cover a hole in party resources and in case I die.
Actually, I just thought of something. Having a character die can be anticlimactic sometimes, but that's not my least favourite part about character death. What does bother me sometimes is when several PCs either die or leave in fairly rapid succession and you have to figure out how to keep introducing new replacement PCs. It can be tough to explain why the party keeps asking random strangers to join.
Yes, I completely agree with this. In fact, lots of deaths in rapid succession to me is almost more annoying than a TPK.
People dying once in a while . . . no problem, kind of expected, especially if they can die heroically.
People getting killed in a TPK . . . can be a problem, but as a GM it lets you figure out if you want to introduce all new PCs that have a reason to be together and pick up where the others left off, or if you want to find a way for the PCs that all died together to keep going.
Lots of people dying within a short time of one another = why are we working together again? What are we doing again? Wait, the reason I was working with you was for the other guy that just died . . . etc.
I don't necessarily disagree with the OP's point, but I think there is a caveat. Namely, when a PC dies, what happens afterwards? And more specifically, what do you do with the player who is now sitting out of the game?
In our games, the player with the dead PC takes on whatever NPC might happen to be accompanying us at the time.
I definitely agree that the game is way more fun when the danger is real. Nobody wants a cakewalk, right?
|
But I would posit that it might be hilarious to see Drizzt ganked by a kobold at this point.
True. And I don't think that the Dragonlance saga would have been more interesting if Raistlin was killed by a random hobgoblin in the first 100 pages of the story, for instance.Actually, Drizzt's the guy we could have afforded to lose 100 [or even ten] pages into his first story. I freakin' loathe that character.
Sorry. I'll stop now.
Oh no you didnt?
|
|
I don't necessarily disagree with the OP's point, but I think there is a caveat. Namely, when a PC dies, what happens afterwards? And more specifically, what do you do with the player who is now sitting out of the game?
Either the players have ready access to resurrection magic, or they don't; there's not really a lot of middle ground. If they can cast it themselves, or return to a temple with some rapidity, than the death can be quickly fixed and the player can return to his character. Of course, then the problem of whether they're really risking anything comes back into play. If they don't have the levels, wealth, or access to town to access such spells, then the player has little choice but to create a new character. Much as the DM might like to attach an epic quest to gaining access to resurrection, in the meanwhile, the dead character's player is out of the game.
And then what to do in those situations where resurrection is unavailable, and there's no feasible way to introduce a new PC with any rapidity?
I dont think anyone plans to kill a PC right out of the gate. However if a level 1 pc goes down its reroll time. I am not going to make that character sit there while I make up some resurrection quest. Our group tends to always roll two characters during our first game session of a new game/campaign.
|
Spoiler for Rise of the Runelords:
** spoiler omitted **
I had a player draw an AoO going meh I can take a hit and then get critted on the AoO with that scythe to get one shot killed. He bring a new character in and does the exact same thing against the lamia. And if he got into a good useful position that is one thing, but he just did it because he was being impatient. Stupidity should meet with death.
|
|
If you take it that he's speaking to every GM as "How to Play, and if you deviate you're wrong" I think you're missing his actual goal. To Veteran GMs it's, "This is the goal, do you agree." Which I do, for the most part, with no major issue with any one part, and to Novice GMs "How to play and help you develop and avoid the normal GM pitfalls." which is what I think his true intended audience is.+1.
If you feel the need to tell other people how to play....well, I think you are doing it wrong.
Cheers
Mark
Yup
|
|
They do roleplay but not as much as they should,...so you are going to tell them how to play the game? Perhaps d20 is a bit too loose of a system for you?
I want to put the ROLE PLAY back in ROLEPLAYING GAMES. That's why I along with most people in the group choose Pathfinder over 4EMy 4E game has 5x more roleplaying than either 3.5 game I'm in.
If anything, that shows that the PCs decide how a game is played, not tyrannical DMs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It's always like the old Hambley Farm whenever you show up, sir...
Hi Welcome!
|
|
Ciretose, the whole point of your post seems to boil down to you telling people to play the game the way you like to play it - and that if DMs do things differently than you, they are failures.
Am I wrong, or is that a little bigoted?
Maybe. Strong stances make better discussion, I think. Anyone can play any way they want to play that makes them happy.
However (and I am not speaking of you Mr. Bacon) I am very amused by some of the "offended" parties, who are bothered someone may say that they think there is a right and wrong way to do something, yet do the same things on thread after thread...
But to go there would ninja my own thread.
The post was a response to others (some on this thread) who attacked other DM's in other threads for acting in the way I described above. I do believe in what I said, and feel it is the best way to play, in much the same way I believe Butter Pecan is better than Chocolate.
That is, I have no doubt that Butter Pecan is better than Chocolate, but I understand others opinions will vary based on taste.
|
|
It's hard to take it in any other context when he says things like...Fortunately, the context is provided in the first two sentences:
So no, he's not telling you that you're doing it wrong or telling other people how to play the game.There has been a lot of discussion about DMing styles and what is balanced and fair, who is underpowered, etc...so I thought I would put my two cents worth in and try and start a discussion about what people look for in a DM and a game.
And for me, it starts off with this.
Yup
|
|
Because he wasn't talking to you specifically. Or, in the case of my reply, to Chris P. Bacon. So there's no reason to take his general opinion of how the game should be played personally. :-)So he's telling all the DMs that play like I do they are doing it wrong, but I shouldn't take it personally because he didn't call me out by name?
I have mutiple games. ;)
I'm confused, because HD basically told me just about a week ago that he wants the thrill of deadly challenges when he plays. Isn't that how you guys play?
Sometimes you like it rough, sometimes you just want to cuddle :)
|
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..True. And I don't think that the Dragonlance saga would have been more interesting if Raistlin was killed by a random hobgoblin in the first 100 pages of the story, for instance.
I would argue that DL was interesting because the characters came close to death on multiple occasions. Furthermore, a character like Raistlin was portrayed as vastly intelligent and cautious. The probability of a PC modeled after him succumbing to a random hobgoblin is low.
Well, I don't quite agree with the OP - at least it is not my preference. It's not that I disagree with everything he says, but a play style where encounters are designed to place the characters on the verge of death every session or multiple times per session is not something I favor, as a good deal of those 'high risks' of death will result in actual character deaths.
Yes, it can be fun to play in such a game. I recall playing a campaign where we had on average a death a session (some death free sessions, but also multiple death sessions), which is the natural result of every character being on the verge of death every sessions. Yes, it was a fun game - I did enjoy it. That said, it was also a game concentrated on hacking and slashing. There was a bit of a background plot, but obviously it took a back seat to the 'action', considering the fact that pretty soon none of the original characters were in the game any more. Although I had fun, most of the time, I do prefer both playing and running games that are much more plot-driven and that requires some sort of character continuity.
Of course, there still needs to be a perception of risk for most people to find a plot-based game fun, but it needn't be anywhere as serious as every character being on the verge of death every session. That's not to say that characters are immune to death in my world - beyond perceptual risks, there are indeed real risks they face. For example, in one of my campaigns that currently is on hiatus (I am not near the group at the moment) there were 3 deaths by the time the party reached 10th level. It is a large group of 7 players (6 of whom usually show up) plus me as the DM, so it amounts to about 50% death rate over 10 levels. One of these characters (the second to die) was resurrected in what was an quite epic race against time to do so. The other two couldn't be resurrected on account of resurrection being possibl erather difficult to accomplish in my world. There are various conditions on resurrection, one of which includes the fact that it must be done in a MAJOR holy place of the deity that is being petitioned for the resurrection in order for it to have any chance of working.
To answer a question of one poster: the player of the dead character can create a new character. He may also temporarily be allowed to play an existing NPC.
When I GM I want to get the pcs to low health when they finsih the adventure.
Heck I keep fumbles in because my brother likes them a lot.
I do believe in what I said, and feel it is the best way to play, in much the same way I believe Butter Pecan is better than Chocolate.
That is, I have no doubt that Butter Pecan is better than Chocolate, but I understand others opinions will vary based on taste.
Here's the rub: Butter pecan is not "better" than chocolate. Flavour is objective. You can't really tell people that one flavour is better than another - what I think you mean to say is that you like butter pecan more than chocolate.
But that isn't how you phrased your opening post. Instead of saying "I outright prefer butter pecan to chocolate, and can't understand why anyone would want chocolate," you said something closer to "if you like chocolate better than butter pecan you are wrong and you fail at eating."
It's convenient of you to say now that "anyone can play any way they want to play that makes them happy", but that isn't your original message. You said one thing and now claim to have meant another.
Strong stances are great, but there is a difference between a strong stance and bigotry. Free tip: you should be able to make a case for your opinions without judging all contrary opinions to be patently wrong. Facts may be right and wrong; opinions aren't so simple.
Damn, now I want pecan pie. With chocolate ice cream.
Translation: Sometimes anyone can die is right and sometimes characters having plot armor is right?
Sometimes you like it rough, sometimes you just want to cuddle :)
What's the armor check penalty on that?
|
|
I do believe in what I said, and feel it is the best way to play, in much the same way I believe Butter Pecan is better than Chocolate.
That is, I have no doubt that Butter Pecan is better than Chocolate, but I understand others opinions will vary based on taste.
Here's the rub: Butter pecan is not "better" than chocolate. Flavour is objective. You can't really tell people that one flavour is better than another - what I think you mean to say is that you like butter pecan more than chocolate.
But that isn't how you phrased your opening post. Instead of saying "I outright prefer butter pecan to chocolate, and can't understand why anyone would want chocolate," you said something closer to "if you like chocolate better than butter pecan you are wrong and you fail at eating."
It's convenient of you to say now that "anyone can play any way they want to play that makes them happy", but that isn't your original message. You said one thing and now claim to have meant another.
Strong stances are great, but there is a difference between a strong stance and bigotry. Free tip: you should be able to make a case for your opinions without judging all contrary opinions to be patently wrong. Facts may be right and wrong; opinions aren't so simple.
Damn, now I want pecan pie. With chocolate ice cream.
To quote me
"And for me, it starts off with this. If you aren't worried every time you sit down at the game table that your character will die, your DM is doing it wrong."
Which means "for me" Butter Pecan is better and your DM should scare you.
Results may vary, consult your pharmacist.
Results may vary, consult your pharmacist.
She prefers Rainbow Sorbet.
|
|
What's the armor check penalty on that?Translation: Sometimes anyone can die is right and sometimes characters having plot armor is right?
Sometimes you like it rough, sometimes you just want to cuddle :)
Answering both, yes to TriOmegaZero, and ZappoHisbane, obviously you cuddle unarmored. This is why casters and monks are the teddy bears of the world of illusion.
Otherwise, you are doing it wrong. So I decree by fiat!
*facepalm*
Okay, but you can't go from "for me" to "if you don't do it my way you are wrong." As soon as you start telling other people that THEY are right or wrong, it stops being an expression of your preference and starts being judgmental and intolerant.
Not bigotry: "Chocolate is wrong for me."
Bigotry: "Chocolate is wrong for me AND YOU TOO."
Anyway, I have tried to explain the difference. If you don't see it now, you probably never will. Seriously, let's just all go eat pecan pie.
Whoo hoo! I love pecan pie. Pralines are better than pie though :P
|
|
and your DM should scare you.Why? And why did you change your opinion of what is right and wrong?
I didn't change anything. I think the correct (right) way to play is the way I described playing, which involved among other things being afraid your character could die in every encounter.
Others think the correct (right) way to play is another way. Some of us may (gasp) disagree.
I would not want to play in a game where I could not conceivably lose, a.k.a. die. I personally don't think that is the proper way to play this, or any "game".
But I respect peoples rights to disagree, hence leading off with "...so I thought I would put my two cents worth in and try and start a discussion about what people look for in a DM and a game." and following the next sentence with the words "for me".
I would prefer people debate the merits of the idea over the interpretation of the intent behind them, but hey, free message board.
I wonder why the tone in threads like this often seem to act like there's no resurrection magic available. In general the deadliest games I've played in also had the most Raise Dead and True Res. The gold piece (and sometimes quest/RP) costs of resurrection magic, lost XP while dead, and general embarrassment of getting slaughtered were always enough to keep us afraid of death despite the fact we could come back. Each PC who went down also brought us a little closer to the dreaded TPK, so we worked as a team to stay alive, and the combats had real menace to them.
As a player I'm usually kind of risk averse, but once in a while a tough fight can be fun. My 12th level, 8 Str gnome Cleric recently teamed up with the party Rogue to face down a CR 14 blue dragon in melee. Neither one of us got dropped, but it was probably just a few die rolls from a TPK. You can even come back from a TPK if you really wanted to via new PCs or some white hat NPC with Raise Dead. It all depends on what the group wants, not any "right" or "wrong" style of play. In this case I suspect we might have just moved on to the next Adventure Path, but I trust that the players and DM would talk it over and figure out what would work best.
I try to make resurrection and raise dead as difficult as I can by RAW. That means that the spells exist, and work as advertised, but the assumption is that the max level for NPCs who are willing to help you without a side-quest is 9th (character level).
I actually think that with this addendum, it is just about balanced. Characters can raise the dead if they are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to do so, but otherwise they don't regard it as an option. Reincarnation throws a little wrench into my scheme, but I'm okay with that, as long as it stays fun (and for me it has).
|
Just to add in...
I've been gaming for 30 years and seen it all.
Honestly, my preferred style of play is that I do not want to feel challenged. I've really got to stress that... I do not want to feel challenged.
I vastly prefer games where I feel manifest destiny unrolling with my character. Kind of the hero's journey without any of the doubt or learning. Kind of starting the story where Neo is on the phone with the machines (and ignoring the next two movies). He's going to win, it's just an issue of seeing how it unfolds.
After all of these years, I'm more interested in wish fullfillment in my RPGs, and not competitive tension. I look to the games as an "I Dream of Genie" scenario, where I've got this Genie who's ready to just make my wishes come true.
I still play the competitive games, more of fellowship and friendship than any real desire to be challenged. They're ok... but eh... I've had my fill.
While it hasn't happened yet, I think my ideal game would be playing in a competitive game, but where my character isn't at any real risk. Instead I'm more of a Gandalf figure, or perhaps more like Fizban from Dragonlance. The drama for me wouldn't be my own character's fate... that's already foretold. It's seeing that I keep the rest of the party and the quest going. My character would be constancy and could from time to time go nova, but for the most part had to keep things under wraps. When other player's characters would die then I'd feel the loss. I think that way I'd get the narrative anchoring that I want to see in a game, rather than the normal "them's the breaks!" old school attitude of tournament play.
I've gamed nearly as long as you, but had pretty much the exact opposite journey. I've grown into enjoying the challenge rather than away from it. I suppose as long as your group is on the same page, that's what counts.