| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I believe every monster should be threat--from the lamest goblin to the mightiest kobold--I question your question, Net. There's a heavy difference between realism as in "could happen in real life" and realism as in "doesn't interfere with suspension of disbelief".
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I believe every monster should be threat--from the lamest goblin to the mightiest kobold--I question your question, Net. There's a heavy difference between realism as in "could happen in real life" and realism as in "doesn't interfere with suspension of disbelief".
Well, do you want to play a game that mirrors real life? I guess you could play Office Gnomes. The thing is, while there is supposed to be some willing suspension of disbelief...these games are also designed because we prefer to step away from reality on occasion. Nasty things happen in real life - murders, rapes, child abuse...plenty of injustice to go all around. I don't really play games to have that experience recreated and thrown back in my face.
Well, do you want to play a game that mirrors real life? I guess you could play Office Gnomes. The thing is, while there is supposed to be some willing suspension of disbelief...these games are also designed because we prefer to step away from reality on occasion. Nasty things happen in real life - murders, rapes, child abuse...plenty of injustice to go all around. I don't really play games to have that experience recreated and thrown back in my face.
And on the flip side of the coin, I don't play games to go to happy fun land where nothing ever goes wrong and there is no challenge.
So, magical gnomes fighting alongside tiefling ninjas are realistic, but not letting a rather weak, yet lucky monster kill off somebody is unrealistic?
Insofar as a fantasy game grants access to such creatures and they can reasonably decide to work together? Yes, that sounds absolutely fine.
In regards to a character that gets, to put it bluntly, killed, by some creature, but then, oh wait, no, you're not actually dead, it was just a glancing blow that ripped out that spine, and the creature is leaving now, it didn't mean to severely maim you, and don't worry, your plot immunity kicked in, and you're only at -9 hp and stabilized. Yes, that is a bit unrealistic.
I'm exaggerating again, I know, but we have an acceptable framework for the setting of the game. Are you really saying that somebody getting killed by a monster, even if by luck, is less realistic than magical gnomes fighting alongside tiefling ninjas?
Well, do you want to play a game that mirrors real life? I guess you could play Office Gnomes. The thing is, while there is supposed to be some willing suspension of disbelief...these games are also designed because we prefer to step away from reality on occasion. Nasty things happen in real life - murders, rapes, child abuse...plenty of injustice to go all around. I don't really play games to have that experience recreated and thrown back in my face.
You are correct. I don't want to play a game that mirrors real life. That's why I choose one that has many fantastical races, along with monsters, and magic, and adventurers who perform epic deeds, etc., etc.
And while I personally don't consider the injustices of the real world to be quite on par with those presented in a game... okay. It's perfectly acceptable to dislike that kind of stuff in your game. But Pathfinder does tend to center on adventurers who are going to be in perilous situations, and it makes for scenarios where people should, if we are going by any semblance of realism, have the possibility of dying.
Beyond that, it's up to the players and their DM's whether or not that does happen. I'm not sure there is really any way to discuss it past that point, as there's just too many variables between gaming groups.
I figured. Though your use of the term did cause me to reconsider my original wording of murder-hobos in place of adventurers :P
Okay, so... what exactly are people arguing about? Everyone seems to think that
a) Some people like to play by the dice, and some people like to fudge a little
b) Both styles are fine
c) Everyone at a table needs to be on board with one of the twoAm I wrong, or is everyone just agreeing at each other?
We're arguing because:
One side believes character death is bad and wrong. One side does not.
One side believes character death equates with realism and ruins escapism. One side does not.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Okay, so... what exactly are people arguing about? Everyone seems to think that
a) Some people like to play by the dice, and some people like to fudge a little
b) Both styles are fine
c) Everyone at a table needs to be on board with one of the twoAm I wrong, or is everyone just agreeing at each other?
We're arguing because:
One side believes character death is bad and wrong. One side does not.
One side believes character death equates with realism and ruins escapism. One side does not.
Well, to clarify my position, I feel that permanent character death isn't necessarily bad, but it is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. It should be reserved for PCs who do stupid things or epic moments. At a recent table I GMmed, I was perfectly prepared to very permanently kill off a character because of a very, very stupid move they had made. Luckily, their party saved him, 'cause he only had one more turn.
Well, do you want to play a game that mirrors real life?
What? No. Who said that? When was that stated or implied? Is there a thread I'm missing? "Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys, perhaps?"
Well, do you want to play a game that mirrors real life? I guess you could play Office Gnomes. The thing is, while there is supposed to be some willing suspension of disbelief...these games are also designed because we prefer to step away from reality on occasion. Nasty things happen in real life - murders, rapes, child abuse...plenty of injustice to go all around. I don't really play games to have that experience recreated and thrown back in my face.And on the flip side of the coin, I don't play games to go to happy fun land where nothing ever goes wrong and there is no challenge.
GOLDEN MIDDLE WAY!!!
People in both extremeties of that argument infuriate me.
Grimdark is not better, superhappy isn't better either, that's that.
Though they can both be fun. :P
I find grimdark overdone and boring, while superhappy is rare but still boring. It's why I prefer neither one of them if at all possible.
However, the prevalence of the former makes me hate it far more, just like how the "true art is angsty" crowd makes me wanna chainsaw people.
I find grimdark overdone and boring, while superhappy is rare but still boring. It's why I prefer neither one of them if at all possible.
However, the prevalence of the former makes me hate it far more, just like how the "true art is angsty" crowd makes me wanna chainsaw people.
I don't think occasional character death and the attitude of that being an expected part of the game is precisely grimdark Icy.
I find grimdark overdone and boring, while superhappy is rare but still boring. It's why I prefer neither one of them if at all possible.
If we're using "grimdark" to mean "frequent deaths" (as opposed to the general meaning of "really really dark sh*t), I disagree. I've had a lot of fun in Swords and Wizardry games where it's a miracle to survive an adventure without decent portions of both luck and cowardice. My cleric lasted a while by being a wuss, before insisting that a certain area wasn't trapped and that the rest of the party was totally about to die. He was wrong.
It's definitely a matter of taste. I can see a sort-of-superhappy game working as well. Something along the lines of Toon, or one of the brony-made MLP RPGs out there. No (or very few) character deaths. Still an element of risk, and still fun to roleplay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to interpret all the grousing about how much time was spent on the backstory as an indication that the player thinks the character should not die.
But that interpretation probably says much more about the GM's brain than it does the player's.
I would imagine anybody who put a lot of work into something is going to grumble and complain when that work is for naught. It's a simpler explanation that this is the real issue behind the player's grousing, rather than a desire to be treated differently.
I am thoroughly convinced that the majority of threads such as this are begun on the vindictiveness of the player or GM who starts them, who unsatisfied with simply shoving it to his fellow players, must also ask us to stroke his ego by telling him how cool he was for doing so.
Surely, we have something better to talk about.
AND THE CYCLE BEGINS AGAIN!
Explain, precisely, how someone doing something of their own volition, that was unnecessary, and then dying (dying is a part of the game) is the GM sticking it to him?
S+$! happens. Characters die. Next time, don't write 5 pages of backstory, or if you do, be prepared for a built in mechanic of the game.
I find grimdark overdone and boring, while superhappy is rare but still boring. It's why I prefer neither one of them if at all possible.If we're using "grimdark" to mean "frequent deaths" (as opposed to the general meaning of "really really dark sh*t), I disagree. I've had a lot of fun in Swords and Wizardry games where it's a miracle to survive an adventure without decent portions of both luck and cowardice. My cleric lasted a while by being a wuss, before insisting that a certain area wasn't trapped and that the rest of the party was totally about to die. He was wrong.
It's definitely a matter of taste. I can see a sort-of-superhappy game working as well. Something along the lines of Toon, or one of the brony-made MLP RPGs out there. No (or very few) character deaths. Still an element of risk, and still fun to roleplay.
Bolded part is what I speak of.
Oh, you spent four hours writing your character? Well, I'm the GM, and I spend four hours preparing for every session, so all of my characters are going to be immortal and everything has to go exactly as planned.
AND THE CYCLE BEGINS AGAIN!
Explain, precisely, how someone doing something of their own volition, that was unnecessary, and then dying (dying is a part of the game) is the GM sticking it to him?
S+~~ happens. Characters die. Next time, don't write 5 pages of backstory, or if you do, be prepared for a built in mechanic of the game.
Really, it's a matter of both sides arriving at the game table with different expectations.
Both styles of gaming are valid, minus rants and fits. It's the GMs job to try and calibrate expectations prior to the first session starting.
Oh, you spent four hours writing your character? Well, I'm the GM, and I spend four hours preparing for every session, so all of my characters are going to be immortal and everything has to go exactly as planned.
You know, I'd need both hands to count how many times I've see this happen with a GM, while I haven't seen the OP scenario happen myself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fudge dice. I fudge dice both ways (insert appropriate euphemism here). I've kept players alive because the pugwumpi managed a 1 shot, critical hit death seems harsh. Yeah, a pugwumpi. On the other hand, I've fudged bosses, made them harder, nastier and tougher because the party was taking them apart like wet tissue paper as written, and to completely obliterate this supposedly awesome and terrifying creature in about two rounds more than a mid level mook would be an unsatisfying conclusion to that part of the campaign.
When I GM, I want to tell a story. I want it to be memorable for my players, and I want it to be something they enjoy. I want them to be OK with character deaths because they're satisfied with that as the end of there character's story. I want them to want to tell there characters story, and I like the challenge of weaving those threads into my own plot, whether that's switching out a henchman for a Hag to bring in the Changeling character or adding a ruined estate for the noble Cavalier whose enemies killed his family. If a character dies I don't automatically remove those elements - we've had subquests to complete dead character's goals, including one dead PC appearing as a ghost to aid them, so he could rest. Character's goals, and stories, don't always end because they're dead. If you let your player know that then, sometimes, it can make it OK that the sorcerous storm giant lich just punched there face through the back of there skull.
At the end of the day, I'm well aware that I run a game because my players agree to let me. And that they can play because I agree to let them. There is a partnership to running a game, and both sides have to be flexible to some point. That doesn't mean a long back story will give you any more benefit than a single paragraph. It does mean I'll likely try and include more plot elements from said backstory, though, if they can be made to fit.
I admit, I'd be very hesitant about playing with a GM who made it clear that this is there story, and we're just here to roll dice and see how many player mooks get murdered along the way. Equally, I'd be very hesitant about playing in a game where character death can't happen or doesn't matter. There is a place between the two, and they are not mutually exclusive...
...although I now have a nightmare image of a game where the players aren't able to affect the story as written, but aren't able to die either. Isn't that some kind of hell for most roleplayers, where we go if we take the name of Gygax in vein and abuse our dice?
You mean the dreaded Magical Tea Party?
I had to look that up - but yes. That pretty much seems to cover it. Who in there right mind would play that game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely feels as though the OP isnt asking for validation. The underlying feeling I get is that he likes the song in his own head better than being a GM, because if a player loved his character enough to desire it to be brought back, the tools are available to make that happen without ruining your game with a perceived 'backstory armor'...
In fact it creates plot to build on 'the efforts of the characters or the efforts of those from his backstory to bring him back" or even "how the experience changed him so that he can truly fulfill his destiny... Not grabbing on to that kind of zeal is lazy novice game mastery. Or the notorious killer GM.
This doesnt sound like a scenario that happens every single time with the same player. Does this player behave the same way with every character he creates?
If not then little lord fauntleroy ought to try finding ways to reintroduce a character or turn the death and return of the character that the player totally feels strongly about into a plus for the campaign and the story instead of a minus or else its time to take off the big boy suspenders and go back to being a player. Hell the effort doesnt even have to be successful. Just the epic try of it all is sometimes enough to smooth over such tragedies.
I dont get the feeling from these posts that he's rethinking his strategy or interested in any contrary opinions, but if he truly came here for advice I'd say GM having power over the entire world means you have every tool in your toolbox to make a rich rewarding story and outcome that makes every player appreciate your skill and storytelling and they go wow...
The tone makes me feel like the fact that this turned into any kind of an issue at all reflects more poorly on a GM's inability to make brownies out of BS than it does about a player diving headlong into certain death and whining about it later.
|
I definitely feels as though the OP isnt asking for validation. The underlying feeling I get is that he likes the song in his own head better than being a GM, because if a player loved his character enough to desire it to be brought back, the tools are available to make that happen without ruining your game with a perceived 'backstory armor'...
In fact it creates plot to build on 'the efforts of the characters or the efforts of those from his backstory to bring him back" or even "how the experience changed him so that he can truly fulfill his destiny... Not grabbing on to that kind of zeal is lazy novice game mastery. Or the notorious killer GM.
This doesnt sound like a scenario that happens every single time with the same player. Does this player behave the same way with every character he creates?
If not then little lord fauntleroy ought to try finding ways to reintroduce a character or turn the death and return of the character that the player totally feels strongly about into a plus for the campaign and the story instead of a minus or else its time to take off the big boy suspenders and go back to being a player. Hell the effort doesnt even have to be successful. Just the epic try of it all is sometimes enough to smooth over such tragedies.
I dont get the feeling from these posts that he's rethinking his strategy or interested in any contrary opinions, but if he truly came here for advice I'd say GM having power over the entire world means you have every tool in your toolbox to make a rich rewarding story and outcome that makes every player appreciate your skill and storytelling and they go wow...
The tone makes me feel like the fact that this turned into any kind of an issue at all reflects more poorly on a GM's inability to make brownies out of BS than it does about a player diving headlong into certain death and whining about it later.
I hate to break it to you but that's not always the case. If you actually read the post you would know that.
I know my strategy and I know how I run my games so let me save you the trouble of actually reading. The PC was taken down by a Wraith, the other PC's were almost dead so they had to run. A few moments later the downed PC becomes a wraith and leaves before dawn. Character was gone. I am not going to sit there and make it like nothing ever happened and I think you are mistaking ability to do it from not wanting to do it. Also, the PC in question essentially put himself into a bind by creating his backstory based on Star Wars meets the Last Airbender. He was essentially a D&D Jedi who happen to be the last of his kind.
Now how about you enlighten us all on the correct ways to DM since you apparently have all the answers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Op imo definietly wants validation. If it's not this thread this week. At the beginning of next week we will get a "player had his spell book destroyed and says character is useless" type of thread. With a player in shallowsoul game having lost his spellbook and making a big fuss about it and/or rage quitting. The week after that it will be "Cleric loses abilit to dovone magic player gets angry and leaves" type of thread. Rinse and repeat. Once twice a few times yet when we get a similiar thread like this every week it's for the OP to get validation from the rest of the community. With the added bonus of being told that if you don't agree with the first post your wrong on all levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does writing a bad backstory put him into a bind? I feel a lot of hostility from you towards this player, which I can't help but imagine contributed to the fact that his PC was unrecoverable.
So if you write your backstory as being the last of your kind and you expect to bring in another if you die then that doesn't fly.
You have put yourself into a bind because you stated that you were the last of your kind. Do we understand what "the last of your kind" means or are you just trying to be argumentative?
|
|
The Op imo definietly wants validation. If it's not this thread this week. At the beginning of next week we will get a "player had his spell book destroyed and says character is useless" type of thread. With a player in shallowsoul game having lost his spellbook and making a big fuss about it and/or rage quitting. The week after that it will be "Cleric loses abilit to dovone magic player gets angry and leaves" type of thread. Rinse and repeat. Once twice a few times yet when we get a similiar thread like this every week it's for the OP to get validation from the rest of the community. With the added bonus of being told that if you don't agree with the first post your wrong on all levels.
I don't want validation for anything because I run my games the way I want to run them. When you sit down at my table you know what's there and it's consistent.
I remember GMing for a noble elf fighter character. He was level 2, had a pretty nifty sword (+1 or something, could only be wielded by him or his line), and came from a magically hidden, paranoid elf village somewhere, off all maps. He boldly ventured forth, and then equally boldly took 51 points of ogre greataxe crit damage to the face, ending up at -35 hp or so.
The rest of the party really liked him, so they felt they wanted to do something for him. They scooped up his very elven sword, and set off toward his home... until they remembered that he had told them the village was magically hidden and completely unknown. They buried what was left of him where he fell instead.
|
There are thousands of possible game configurations I might be willing to run, but because I have certain ones I won't, it's my way or the highway?
Well I'm actually in the same boat with you, so no, that wasn't what I said or tried to imply. What I said was that those thousands of possible game configurations normally allow to find a middleground acceptable for all participants. So if my my players come to me with a suggestion I don't find acceptable my first answer wouldn't be for them to look for another GM. Instead we'll discuss the issue and try to find a solution.
And yes, compromising can mean that I do something I don't find enjoyable too much but am willing to tolerate it for the bigger enjoyment of my players (which is a reward in itself). Like you, there are types of games I won't run or play but on the other hand I wouldn't abuse my position as a GM to force a style of game onto my players they don't like.
"Last of his kind", from a magically hidden village, from some unknown area - all versions of the player painting himself into a corner with his backstory. So if he likes the character he just lost, he now has to invalidate his own original backstory by having another, fairly easily accessible member "of his kind". That rather undermines the whole "last of his kind" mystique and a little piece of the group's suspension of disbelief dies.
Better to for the player to not paint himself in a corner.
|
|
And yes, compromising can mean that I do something I don't find enjoyable too much but am willing to tolerate it for the bigger enjoyment of my players (which is a reward in itself). Like you, there are types of games I won't run or play but on the other hand I wouldn't abuse my position as a GM to force a style of game onto my players they don't like.
My style of play is known before the game ever starts. If you say yes and roll up a character then you have decided to go with my style of play whatever that may be.
There is no sense in arguing about forcing a style of play on someone because if you didn't like it then you wouldn't be playing in the game to start with.
Well I'm actually in the same boat with you, so no, that wasn't what I said or tried to imply. What I said was that those thousands of possible game configurations normally allow to find a middleground acceptable for all participants. So if my my players come to me with a suggestion I don't find acceptable my first answer wouldn't be for them to look for another GM. Instead we'll discuss the issue and try to find a solution.And yes, compromising can mean that I do something I don't find enjoyable too much but am willing to tolerate it for the bigger enjoyment of my players (which is a reward in itself). Like you, there are types of games I won't run or play but on the other hand I wouldn't abuse my position as a GM to force a style of game onto my players they don't like.
How is being willing to run a game in one style but not another forcing a style onto your players that they don't like? Because that's what shallowsoul is saying. And while there may be many configurations for a game, there are some style differences that are pretty much incompatible - fudge-friendly and dice-on-the-table styles being two generally non-compatible examples.
Now, in the case of a backstory painting a player in a corner, I might well enforce that on the player. Or I might use it as a teachable moment/cautionary tale. "See, players, don't make your PC so special and unique that you can't reasonably play him again if he dies and you want to make a very similar character. No 'last of his kind' special snowflakery, please."
|
|
My style of play is known before the game ever starts. If you say yes and roll up a character then you have decided to go with my style of play whatever that may be.
There is no sense in arguing about forcing a style of play on someone because if you didn't like it then you wouldn't be playing in the game to start with.
You just made my point better than I could have.
How is being willing to run a game in one style but not another forcing a style onto your players that they don't like? Because that's what shallowsoul is saying.
No, that's not what he's saying. What he keeps saying throughout the whole thread is that the only opinion that counts is his. It's his game, it's his rules and there is no way he would even think about his players wishes as they already accepted to play exactly the game he offers when they rolled their characters.
|
|
And yes, compromising can mean that I do something I don't find enjoyable too much but am willing to tolerate it for the bigger enjoyment of my players (which is a reward in itself). Like you, there are types of games I won't run or play but on the other hand I wouldn't abuse my position as a GM to force a style of game onto my players they don't like.
My style of play is known before the game ever starts. If you say yes and roll up a character then you have decided to go with my style of play whatever that may be.
There is no sense in arguing about forcing a style of play on someone because if you didn't like it then you wouldn't be playing in the game to start with.
So do you have a "style of play" document you hand out? Or a detailed description you usually use? Or do you, like most GMs just mention the ways you differ from the default and assume that the player is working from the same default you are?
I run by default unless there is an obvious RAW rule that needs fixing but that's all talked about before hand.
Essentially when I don't tell you any different then you assume default, by the rules, etc....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is being willing to run a game in one style but not another forcing a style onto your players that they don't like? Because that's what shallowsoul is saying.No, that's not what he's saying. What he keeps saying throughout the whole thread is that the only opinion that counts is his. It's his game, it's his rules and there is no way he would even think about his players wishes as they already accepted to play exactly the game he offers when they rolled their characters.
But this is the same thing. You're just putting a negative spin on him. I won't be forced to run a style I'm not willing to run, you say basically the same. And so is he, but he's the autocrat and you (and I) aren't?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think players who spend that much time with back story and role playing should be protected from boring death.
If a character puts that much thought into his character I think the GM should put equal thought into his death. It would have to be something worked out with the player from the beginning. The GM promises that the character won't die as a result from random chance but the player agrees that his character will die in a dramatic and epic fashion.
In contrast, players who simply roll up characters to min/max everything and just treat it as a video game or wargame shouldn't be upset when they die by random chance.