Glad to see I'm appreciated there T(OZ)-Payne.
And I'd love to see us all abandon our soapboxes for shineboxes if we're gonna conversate.
Seriously; there was ALMOST a civilized moment amid this whole thread when talking about the GM fiat over the diamond. If I'm understanding - the Sire of Toseland doesn't like GM fiat, though he's willing to concede it already exists in the game. Many folks on the other side have said GM fiat can be used and the IT crowd said the fiat to restrict diamonds is one combo in all this mess that both adheres to the rules AND fits the cultural norms of the game. Do I have all this right?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.
So if you're GMing and want to do X, you'd prefer if the rules were already telling you to do X, as opposed to the rules calling for something softer than X?
At this point we have a spell, and spells are primarily player controlled.
When or if you cast/memorize/etc is the domain of the player.
There seems to be consensus that raise dead with no cost or consequence isn't the goal.
Currently the cost is literally cost. 5000 gold up front, 7000 total with the restore for the two negative level. This is, IMHO "O.K.".
To quote the farmer to the pig "It'll do pig, it'll do."
SKR voice the opinion that he believes in removing the cost, as along with other concerns, it is a source of "Player vs GM" conflict and he feels it in anacronistic with people playing in a "Press A to continue" culture.
I say removing the financial cost from death is fine, so long as it has a significant enough long term consequence that it still remains something to be feared.
Irontruth seems to be say (seems, so correct me if I am wrong) that the material cost is under GM purview to make available or not available, and this can be used to facilitate quests or whatever consequence is deemed appropriate by he GM.
My concern with this is it doesn't address any of the concerns raised by SKR, and in fact creates a dynamic with greater potential Player vs PC conflict.
I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.
Does that sum up?
OOHHHH SNAP! C-bomb just went and dropped the RATIONAL "O.K" on this Y'all! It just got REAL up in here SON!
...
Yes I'd say that's a fair summation of the past 400-some posts.
|
I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.So if you're GMing and want to do X, you'd prefer if the rules were already telling you to do X, as opposed to the rules calling for something softer than X?
As I said before, it is easier for a GM to relax a rule than to tighten it.
But keep trying to put words in my mouth if it floats your boat.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.So if you're GMing and want to do X, you'd prefer if the rules were already telling you to do X, as opposed to the rules calling for something softer than X?As I said before, it is easier for a GM to relax a rule than to tighten it.
But keep trying to put words in my mouth if it floats your boat.
Which words did I put in your mouth? My post was literally two sentences: one was a direct quote from you, the other was me asking if I understood you correctly. If I didn't understand your quoted statement correctly, you can just say so instead of claiming that the act of asking you is me trying to put words in your mouth.
At this point we have a spell, and spells are primarily player controlled.
When or if you cast/memorize/etc is the domain of the player.
And I think most GMs (although sometimes it seems like not many on these boards) trust their players enough to have that decision in their hands, while still feeling like they can intercede (with rules or fiat behind them if required.
There seems to be consensus that raise dead with no cost or consequence isn't the goal.
Currently the cost is literally cost. 5000 gold up front, 7000 total with the restore for the two negative level. This is, IMHO "O.K.".
Like I said, a decent compromise.
SKR voice the opinion that he believes in removing the cost, as along with other concerns, it is a source of "Player vs GM" conflict and he feels it in anacronistic with people playing in a "Press A to continue" culture.
I think SKR is advocating for removing all cost from the system. Because dying has its own cost above and beyond the system. Which it does. I wouldn't have a problem if the systemic cost was removed, because there's still a cost, both to the player (embarrassment and missed game time) and the character (possible failure of quest, loss of self-determinacy, possible perma-death).
I say removing the financial cost from death is fine, so long as it has a significant enough long term consequence that it still remains something to be feared.
Doesn't require a mechanic in the system - even though personally, I'm happy with the current one myself, but really, who cares what I think?
Irontruth seems to be say (seems, so correct me if I am wrong) that the material cost is under GM purview to make available or not available, and this can be used to facilitate quests or whatever consequence is deemed appropriate by he GM.
My concern with this is it doesn't address any of the concerns raised by SKR, and in fact creates a dynamic with greater potential Player vs PC conflict.
Really, the GM interpreting the rules and finding ways to present challenges to the party is an integral part of th game. I don't think this is a verystrong part of SKR's argument, but to invalidate everything he's suggesting by focusing on the GM/player conflict angle is pretty transparent. You don't need to keep harping on this line.
Edit: Line, not lie!
I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.
Does that sum up?
I don't need a system to give me complete control, but if I did, fortunately PF gives me that. Again, I think the modern games is, as often as not, played by people that understand narrative maturity, already know that death is a big deal, and play the game accordingly.
What these people don't want is to be faced with the choice of a) continuing to play with a resurrected PC that has been mechanically punished (and is thus now weaker and even more likely to die) but is important to the group storyline, or b), bust everyone's immersion by introducing Joe sorcerer with some flimsy tale because he's a stronger/wealthier/higher level character than newly-dead Johnny wizard.
That's a crappy choice to have to make, and it affects everyone, not just Joe/Jimmy's player. It doesn't work that well in modern gaming.
|
|
Though it's missing an awful lot of "There will be no consequences to anything if death isn't serious. Players can just hit the "Continue" button again and again until they succeed!!!" and the response of "No, there really are consequences in any vaguely consistent responsive world. Failures are still possible and often more interesting than simple mechanical penalties."
Which I do think is important to remember.
And included in what I wrote. Minus the exclaimation points you've decided to add...
In fact, I believe the continue button is the analogy I used.
If the GM has to make up consequences because the system has none, how is that a good thing?
|
|
Which words did I put in your mouth? My post was literally two sentences: one was a direct quote from you, the other was me asking if I understood you correctly. If I didn't understand your quoted statement correctly, you can just say so instead of claiming that the act of asking you is me trying to put words in your mouth.I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.So if you're GMing and want to do X, you'd prefer if the rules were already telling you to do X, as opposed to the rules calling for something softer than X?As I said before, it is easier for a GM to relax a rule than to tighten it.
But keep trying to put words in my mouth if it floats your boat.
Two sentances that try to take what I've said and twist it into something I didn't say, then ask me to defend it.
Again.
The rules have always had a penalty for death. The rules currently have a penalty for death. There is debate as to if this penalty actually has permanent effect or not, depending on how the WBL rules are implemented and if the cost is borne by the player or the party.
It already exists.
If you remove the penalty, many if not most people in the discussion seem to agree that would be a "bad" change. Having death have no effect, there seems to be a consensus, is not a "good" thing.
So for the most part at this stage, it is an argument of degrees and types. Most agree there should be "a" penalty. Some are arguing it should come from the GM through story, some are saying it comes from embarrassment, and right now it comes in the form of the cost for a material component and two additional costs for more spell components.
That is part of my argument...but wait there is more!
Can the GM add more? Yes. Can they remove more. Yes. Is it easier to add than remove.
I am arguing that it is, others disagree. If I am correct, then it is better to start from a position of some mechanical penalities and allow GMs to remove them to flavor, rather than making GMs add penalites arbitriarily by fiat to create a realistic game world.
But wait there is more! I know, multi-part arguments with details are scary...but don't worry, we'll get through...use note cards if you have to...
One of the game developers is calling for the removal of costs, which I agree with. However he is not calling to replace those costs with something else. This I disagree with.
And so, it seems, do most of the people posting.
Unfortunately, since this long complicated post with details and stuff gets turned into "If a GM doesn't allow raise dead..." the fact that there is actually consensus gets lost in the "He wants to kill my character and poop on his grave, BURN HIM!!!"
Or, in this case "So if you're GMing and want to do X, you'd prefer if the rules were already telling you to do X" which makes it sound like I'm whining because the rules don't do exactly what I want, because that makes a narrative that I am calling for, nay DEMANDING something unreasonable.
Which I'm not.
I would compare our positions, but do you even have a position, or are you just here to poison the discussion because you think I killed your puppy or something? I'm flattered by the attention, but it certainly isn't adding much to the discussion beyond something to chew popcorn to. You started off saying I should play PFS which has more penalties for death than anything anyone had advocated so far, so aside from the "Ciretose puts sand in mah britches, so I'mma gonna post against him." position....are you arguing for anything or just against me.
I'm cool either way.
Teter has spoken. Now zis is ze time on Sprockets ven ve DANCE! Touch the monkey...love HIM!
Sorry; couldn't resist... :)
|
|
It being a role playing game doesn't mean you don't have AC and hit points, right. The GM doesn't decide by fiat how much damage you take based on how well they think the monster hit you.
The mechanics mean it isn't GM vs Player. It is table vs dice. The GM is hopefully rooting for the party to win, while playing it fair and square...well, as fair and square as you can when you are designing encounters that the players should be able to win.
The mechanics mean GM didn't hit your player, the dice did.
Or in this case, the GM didn't tell you that you need a 5k diamond to use raise dead, the rules did, just like the rules told the GM there is a spell you can get access to if you are a cleric of a certain level that allows the player to raise a dead player.
It isn't "a very contrived circumstance" where you can keep raising someone until they win. It is what actually happens in the game, by the mechanics. Currently you can keep raising someone until they "win", assuming you have enough gold.
And no one is arguing against that being something that happens. And for the most part, that gold is enough of a limiting factor that it doesn't go down like that, hence it being "O.K." IMHO. Not good, not what I would want, but "O.K."
But there is a line somewhere between being raised once and going on to continue the fight and being raised, say 40 times (yes that was a group of people raised not a person, but I think it is a good upper threshold illustration point number we all agree is too much) where it goes from being something interesting that happened in the story to something silly and absurd.
Bring Gandalf back once, it's cool. Twice...cool, fine, sure we love Gandalf. Bring him back 40 times...oh my god, they killed Gandalf, you bastards...
In 1e, the cap was your Con. IMHO a very reasonable average of a max of 10 deaths per life for a 10 con character. The fort save vs con is kind of hardcore and not for everyone, but it does create a tense moment...
In 3.5 no hard cap existed, but if you died more often than everyone else in your party, you were going to likely be hanging them up before you got into the teens. On the other hand, if everyone was dying that often, I guess it could work...
So again, we seem to be at a question of degrees.
So where does it go from "Welcome back Friend, you gave us quite a scare" to "Kenny from South Park"
I don't know. 9 maybe. After 9 deaths, the cat jokes start getting lame maybe...everyone here may have a different threshold of what is too many and too much.
But I think we all have a threshold. Even if it isn't 40, there is a threshold.
I do think if there are no penalties, it is getting pretty close to "press continue". I'm not backing away from that. As a GM I shouldn't have to make up some fiat to prevent "Kenny" from being a viable character build any more than I should have to pick an arbitrary number that equals "death".
It was 10. Now it is minus Con. If they made it minus Con + 2X your level I would be fine with that. But whatever it is, when it happens, having it not just be "press continue" is something I think is a reasonable goal and expectation.
Irontruth seems to be say (seems, so correct me if I am wrong) that the material cost is under GM purview to make available or not available, and this can be used to facilitate quests or whatever consequence is deemed appropriate by he GM.
My concern with this is it doesn't address any of the concerns raised by SKR, and in fact creates a dynamic with greater potential Player vs PC conflict.
I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.
Does that sum up?
That isn't what I'm advocating at all. I was merely pointing out that your objection to my method already exists without my method, so therefore your objection is pointless. Even if you moved to your method, your objection would still exist in the game for many other aspects, including any spell with a specific material component.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what are you advocating, because there seems to be a good number of "Pointing out how you are wrong" and a sad few "This is what I think is right"
@thejeff - You of course, being an exception.
I agree "win" is also something that needs to be defined to discuss the terms, but that at the same time can't easily be defined.
Win is of course, going to come in pieces. Do I beat this BBEG, do I solve the mystery, do I live to fight another day is one I would include and one you may not. Do I become a legend is one that could be a "winner" even if it included death.
Perhaps one can define "win" in relation to "lose". Failing to reach an objection on a timer is a variation of "losing" Dying is a variation as well, although both perhaps would be better put in terms of success and failure.
You are correct that the game has failure, or losing, aside from death. I am asking however, why would we decide to limit failure to the story element and removing it from the mechanics.
You seem to be arguing (asking not telling) that the failure that comes from story elements is all that is needed. I am arguing that if you kill the setting and make the heroes immortal...meh.
There are Batman people and there are Superman people. I think Superman is kind of boring, as the only way he can lose is Deus Machina Kryptonite.
If the heroes are indestructible Supermen, why have death? What separates it from unconsciousness?
If the heroes can not die, they will eventually kill the BBEG. Sure he may do lots of horrible things along the way, but that hero will kill that BBEG. He won't die and need to be avenged by his friends, or his son, etc...barring GM fiat this hero will "win".
That eventuality mitigates how much I care about the other bad stuff that happens along the way. I may be sad he killed my parents because I didn't get there in time, or that the orphans were massacred... but... well...it is a made up world. And I'm less immersed in it because I am less a part of it.
Unlike my parents, and the orphans, I need not worry about death. I am separate from the world, and either the rules that are true for them don't apply...or they do apply and I can just bring back mom and Dad and the orphans.
So if death has no effect either I not of the world, or the world is not as described. Yes, the players are "Big Damn Heroes", but there is a line and expectation that they are also people of the world, following the same rules, just better.
Unless they aren't, in which case...immersion is lessened.
IMHO.
Teter has spoken. Now zis is ze time on Sprockets ven ve DANCE! Touch the monkey...love HIM!
Sorry; couldn't resist... :)
No variation of Gary or Teter. No G-Money or T-Bone?
I am disappoint :)
Gotta mix it up once in a while there Drinky McSteinmaster ;)
|
|
Meh. Barring a TPK and end of game, the BBEG's going to lose eventually. Maybe you die a few times along the way, maybe you don't. Maybe you die and come back, maybe one character dies and another takes his place. Maybe you die and come back weaker. The BBEG's still going to lose. Unless you TPK or give up on the game. Either of which can happen whatever the Raise Dead rules are.
I'm pretty much done with this part.
So, I've lost track in all the kerfluffle: What is your actual proposal for making death count?
%5 xp penalty, with a negative level if it takes you below current level until you get back to the level you are at.
It's enough that if you die a bunch it will push you to retire, but not so much that you are lagging. Plus early death isn't going to really matter much later in the game.
I'm also ok with a cap of max death = con.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what are you advocating, because there seems to be a good number of "Pointing out how you are wrong" and a sad few "This is what I think is right"
From my perspective, a lot of times you respond to your assumptions of my points, instead of my actual points. So then I have to spend a lot of time whittling it down. I'm also trying a new method of keeping the posts shorter with fewer concepts in each one, because you tend to only pick one anyways and ignore supporting concepts.
TL/DR: your responses have taught me to post like this.
Y'know a thought just occured to me and I'm such a moron I didn't think of it til just now: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Now just bear with me here. If the mechanics exist for PC + rez = perpetual win, why not for the bad guys too?
Mega C - would THAT qualify as too much fiat or gm vs players? I mean, if the expectation is that the GM is creating encounters AND there is a reasonable precedent that the GM can modify encounters with class-leveled villains. Why couldn't there be a BBEG on a dais studded with diamonds that, as he collapses in death his henchmen leap out and use to cast raise dead and BAM - he's back in the fight (or better, the PCs just face the same villain who simply rez's w/no consequence after every battle)?
So what are you advocating, because there seems to be a good number of "Pointing out how you are wrong" and a sad few "This is what I think is right"From my perspective, a lot of times you respond to your assumptions of my points, instead of my actual points. So then I have to spend a lot of time whittling it down. I'm also trying a new method of keeping the posts shorter with fewer concepts in each one, because you tend to only pick one anyways and ignore supporting concepts.
TL/DR: your responses have taught me to post like this.
Truth in Iron Advertising: what IS your actual proposal? I thought it was you that said something cryptic about "becoming what you hate" if you rez too often. If that's the case that sounds awesome and I want to hear it. Please expound (and if I've gotten this wrong I apologize).
Short of True Resurrection, after a couple of experiences with the Rez after every battle version, the PCs would start destroying every corpse just to make sure. Not really the direction I want the game to go.
Wait, your guys don't do this? Most of my party's WBL is spent on flasks of alchemist's fire and cord wood for pyres...
Seriously though, the mechanics ARE there on both sides; a henchman that survives the initial round and has a handy BoL spell, the epilogue rez, the clones and contingencies...they should all keep a villain alive just as well as the heroes.
And for anyone who says "the villain eventually loses" I would cite my own campaign-ending experience (sorry for the broken record). Yes, my villain "died" and "lost", but then 1 save + failure = I die, rez and dystopian future that's all my fault, so the villain actually won...a little.
Man, I gotta get over that campaign. Anyone know if there's a therapist out there for fried gamers?
Truth in Iron Advertising: what IS your actual proposal? I thought it was you that said something cryptic about "becoming what you hate" if you rez too often. If that's the case that sounds awesome and I want to hear it. Please expound (and if I've gotten this wrong I apologize).So what are you advocating, because there seems to be a good number of "Pointing out how you are wrong" and a sad few "This is what I think is right"From my perspective, a lot of times you respond to your assumptions of my points, instead of my actual points. So then I have to spend a lot of time whittling it down. I'm also trying a new method of keeping the posts shorter with fewer concepts in each one, because you tend to only pick one anyways and ignore supporting concepts.
TL/DR: your responses have taught me to post like this.
That's for a different game system Mark, called Mythender. (more down below)
I'm for Raise Dead being something thats useful for a story purpose. Coming back from the dead should be an ordeal, not a walk in the park and I think it should have significant consequences to the story of that PC. Bringing the PC back should be because their story isn't over yet and we want to keep going with it. Not a mathematical analysis of resources, costs and penalties.
Death should not be a primary consequence in itself, unless it's a horror game. The threat of death should be real, but the consequences for failure should be broader than that, like failing to save the king, or someone else gets the macguffin.
Where I said some of this before.
* Mythender is a game about killing gods. The PC's are mythenders, they end myths. They've tapped into the power of myth and are using it to destroy myths in brutal and violent ways. If you take too much power, you might succumb to it and become a god/myth yourself.
I usually run the game as a demo, so people don't know all the rules. When someone runs out of their equivalent of HP, they look at me and usually ask "So, do I die?" and I respond, "I don't know, do you?". I then get to lay out the choice for them. They can pass on, or they can grab more power and use that power to stay alive. I have no control over it, it's entirely in the player's hands.
If you're in the Minneapolis area, I love running demo's of the game, it's pretty much my most favorite thing to do ever. It plays well with 2-4 people and takes about 4 hours to play a session, including character creation. It's the game that comes closest (IMO) to emulating the action feel of the final battle in The Avengers in a lot of ways.
@ El Jeffe - noted and seconded; I see your point. Off camera rez = chance for villain to recover and come at them again whereas rez-in-scene = one more round of beating for both henchman and weakened villain.
@ Magneto's favorite truth - why yes, I AM in the MSP. I usually run my games out at the FFG Events Center in Roseville and I live out in the western burbs.
PM me with the deets on your next demo or whatev. I'm about to potentially lose a player anyway, plus one of my PCs runs a couple of his own games. I'm all about networking baby!
I still have never been to the event center. It's so close to the Source and I just always end up going there out of habit.
@thejeff - there's a game that kind of deals with that concept in a sci-fi setting, FreeMarket. You can just upload/copy your consciousness, so physical deaths are immaterial as you can just have a new body made. The game becomes about influence and social cachet. I haven't read/played it yet, but I've heard interesting things, won some awards in 2010.
I don't think I've ever played at the source, maybe once a couple years ago. Occasionally I play at Monster's Den, but usually it's someone's house, or my weekly game at Atlas Games offices. Yay Minnesota gaming locations thread derailment.
Anyways, PM sent to you Mark.
I could not find gamers to save my life the old fashioned way for years after moving to Minnesota a while ago. Painstakingly I knitted together a couple of guys but they were massively tactical and I'm more 50/50 RP to tactics, so our games have been hit or miss. Then like a year ago I finally stuck my toe in the water of this forum and said "anyone out there in MN looking for a game?" I think it took about 2 days to generate my current group and since then I've met another 4 folks besides (so many gamers I couldn't keep up!)
Yay MN gaming and yay Paizo forums!
Ok everyone can officially have their thread back now, sorry.
|
|
I could not find gamers to save my life the old fashioned way for years after moving to Minnesota a while ago. Painstakingly I knitted together a couple of guys but they were massively tactical and I'm more 50/50 RP to tactics, so our games have been hit or miss. Then like a year ago I finally stuck my toe in the water of this forum and said "anyone out there in MN looking for a game?" I think it took about 2 days to generate my current group and since then I've met another 4 folks besides (so many gamers I couldn't keep up!)
Yay MN gaming and yay Paizo forums!
Ok everyone can officially have their thread back now, sorry.
On the side topic, I think in the internet age if you live within 100 miles of a city of any size and can't find a game, you probably annoyed everyone in the gaming community :)
On topic, I love BoL specifically because it is such a high risk spell to the caster. You are taking a round, generally in combat, to run to a spot where someone was just killed and cast a spell...did I mention generally in combat.
That is the stuff I want more of.
Which is kind of why I like the fort save idea...but yeah I never see that flying.
If I did it, it would be something like a 15 fort save that stayed at 15 forever and maybe instead of perma-dead on a fail a permanent Con penalty.
If I did it, it would be something like a 15 fort save that stayed at 15 forever and maybe instead of perma-dead on a fail a permanent Con penalty.
I could actually get behind this, too ... except not Con. That leads to a downward spiral where PCs with low Con are more likely to die and less likely to make the Fort save which makes them more likely to die again and so forth and so on.
Why not roll 1d6 and give a -1 to a random ability score on a failed Fort save? That way, sometimes the wizard lucks out and loses a point of Str that he doesn't really need anyway and sometimes he loses that point of Int he really, really wants. Keeps that nervous feeling you're looking for in a game when the die is cast and hasn't settled yet; prevents metagaming along the lines of "Well, even if I fail the Fort save, I have an odd Con score so it won't affect me"; and makes the penalty for returning from death equally effective to melee and non-melee classes.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What about a limit that's tied to CON but without affecting the stat? For instance, what if when you try to get raised, you roll (for example) 1d4 and note the result. If you've been raised before, add it to your running total. If you try to get raised and your 1d4 roll takes your "raise points" total past your CON score, the raise fails.
How would that be?
|
|
What about a limit that's tied to CON but without affecting the stat? For instance, what if when you try to get raised, you roll (for example) 1d4 and note the result. If you've been raised before, add it to your running total. If you try to get raised and your 1d4 roll takes your "raise points" total past your CON score, the raise fails.
How would that be?
That would work for me. Meets all my concerns.
|
|
Lets dig in on the mechanics of this, because I like it.
Do we roll the dice on a failed fort or just on a death?
If it is only on a failed Fort, I might go with a d6 or even a d8, since it would be a double fail.
If it is on every death, might be a bit much as that is about 3 to 4 deaths with a 10 con. Then again, at higher levels you con is higher...
Just playing with the math to flesh it out. I like the concept.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was picturing a roll on every raise attempt.
Also, I was picturing only keeping the number if the raise succeeded. So if you were at 7 with a 10 CON, rolling a 4 on the d4 would make the raise fail. But if you had the resources, you could try again (still on a 7) and hope to roll lower and succeed that time.