| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of compelling reasons not to have punishing consequences in this game and none of them have to do with how short my damn attention span is, thanks.
If everything has a chance to permanently and irreversibly weaken your character, the GM has to make an ugly choice: He can either let bad luck screw up or kill the party whenever it rears its ugly head, or or he can put on the kid gloves and try to entertain the players without truly challenging them.
Some people like dying or getting crippled a lot, but you know what? That cheapens death too. I don't give a damn if my character with one arm and three drained levels dies. I was probably about to retire him anyway. If I've replaced him three times over the course of the game I'll care even less.
Obviously I'm speaking in extremes here, but you see my point.
I prefer games in which keeping a character is never a significant disadvantage if it's possible, it's worth forming attachments to characters and putting in the effort to build and write them, the GM can challenge you as much or as little as he likes and you don't die if you make all the right decisions (except at really special moments).
I also think that "fantasy hero with superhuman prowess" ought to be a desirable role. If the PCs feel like victims all the time, something is probably wrong.
Having said all that, I think it's perfectly possible to maintain a gritty feel without punishing consequences every few fights. "Gritty" is mostly aesthetic and there are lots of ways for PCs to get hurt and killed in a lasting manner without making the system deliberately extra deadly.
I absolutely horrified my players the first time I ran pathfinder. They thought my traps were dickish, they wanted magic gear where there was none to be found, they got deeply frustrated with poisons and diseases, my goblins caught them be surprise just by being a credible threat, the wizard couldn't buy the stuff he expected to and the overall encounter difficulty was higher than they were used to.
What's frustrating is that all bogged the game down. There was nothing cool about any of it, in practice.
The wizard missed opportunities to rest and couldn't participate without slowing everything down. The gradual return of lost ability scores meant players wanted to stop adventuring to recover as soon as they could. They felt like they were at the mercy of the dice whatever tactics they tried.
The supposed grittiness of those rules actually limited my ability to include gritty content, because characters (and players) can take so much mechanical punishment.
In the end they were TPKed because they made a terrible decision and misunderstood my (admittedly poor) map handout. I planned for the possibility and meant them to be rescued, but the game had become so bogged down by the gritty consequences of things that we decided to leave it there.
That's not the kind of plot I like to see in my fantasy stories.
Consequences can be awesome and there always need to be some, but character loss and significant and lasting penalties should only come up when its important or when somebody deliberately chooses to inflict or accept the risk of them. They should not be a normal result of running the game by the book.
Some people like gritty games, some people don't just like some people like chocolate icecream and some others like strawberry icecream. None of them should look over the shoulder to the other ones, and saying that those who like low penalties have short attention span isn't exactly friendly. Elitism is always stupid, but elitism about how you pretend to be an elf is freakishly so.
There are gritty games and non-gritty games over there. I'm pretty sure there will be even more. Those who like more gritty games can take any of the retroclones. Those who like less gritty games can go to 4e, superheroes games, or whatever. Others can stay with Pathfinder, or go back to 3.5 or 3.0 edition. With the new 13th age, or D&D 5e, you'll have even more options. It's consumer choice. If your style of play happen to be less supported, then you'll find yourself playing a game with less supplements, adventures and material. You don't "have" to play like the majority does, but you can't force the majority to play like you do.
I, myself, like systems with few "gotcha" deaths (ie: save or die spells), and a low lethality (ie: high "buffer" of hit points between "ko" and "completelly death"). That's because we play without Raise Dead.
I like being able to concentrate on playing my character organically rather than constantly fretting over the mechanics to ensure they'll survive so that I can play them.
This is how I like things, too.
I have been in some games where my thoughts have gone: "I want to take this path because it's cool and fits my character, but it's totally suicide mechanically."
|
Who is to say that specific hero is "the" hero? It is presumably a 4 player game. Who is to say you are Malcolm and not Wash?When you die a stupid pointless death out of nowhere because Joss Whedon likes being a dick sometimes you'll know exactly which character you are.
It wasn't pointless. It had a very important purpose in the story.
At that moment, you believed that if he could die, ANYONE could.
You were legitimately afraid things may not have a happy ending. You were brought to the edge of your seat wondering who would be next.
That was done for a purpose. There was a point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who is to say that specific hero is "the" hero? It is presumably a 4 player game. Who is to say you are Malcolm and not Wash?When you die a stupid pointless death out of nowhere because Joss Whedon likes being a dick sometimes you'll know exactly which character you are.It wasn't pointless. It had a very important purpose in the story.
At that moment, you believed that if he could die, ANYONE could.
You were legitimately afraid things may not have a happy ending. You were brought to the edge of your seat wondering who would be next.
That was done for a purpose. There was a point.
I think the big beef is that with Whedon, it feels like he's adhering to a rule or self-imposed quota for that sort of thing. It gets to the point where it loses its impact, feels trite, and burns people out of getting attatched.
It's not that he did it in that instance so much as the why and how often.
FreeholdDM has quite a bit to say on that specific subject, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
No one is arguing the game isn't collaborative. I'm specifically arguing it is unfair and wrong to say that if something has a legitimate penalty it is "Player vs GM" when it is actually what the game always is, "Table vs Dice".
The game is already rigged for the players to win. As it should be. You should be able, as a party, to keep going. The TPK is almost always a major failure of both sides of the table. That isn't what anyone wants.
At the same time, if there is no chance of any real penalty, what story are you telling or experiencing? If you know that no matter what you are going to win, who cares?
Stories have arcs. Characters have arcs. Sometimes they die, so the party can go on. Bringing in new characters can be as much an opportunity as it is a setback, when approached well by the player and the DM.
But I don't come to the table to have the story play out like a novel. I come to be part of writing the story with the rest of the party and the GM. What happens, happens.
|
|
Who is to say that specific hero is "the" hero? It is presumably a 4 player game. Who is to say you are Malcolm and not Wash?When you die a stupid pointless death out of nowhere because Joss Whedon likes being a dick sometimes you'll know exactly which character you are.It wasn't pointless. It had a very important purpose in the story.
At that moment, you believed that if he could die, ANYONE could.
You were legitimately afraid things may not have a happy ending. You were brought to the edge of your seat wondering who would be next.
That was done for a purpose. There was a point.
I think the big beef is that with Whedon, it feels like he's adhering to a rule or self-imposed quota for that sort of thing. It gets to the point where it loses its impact, feels trite, and burns people out of getting attatched.
It's not that he did it in that instance so much as the why and how often.
As opposed to? The "Beef" with Whedon relative to what? Disney style? Not even Disney considering Bambi, Dumbo, etc...
It something bad can't happen, if you know everything is going to be fine and everyone will make it, who cares about watching?
Who cares about playing?
|
|
Quite honestly, if the game is so hard I never get to see the end, I'm going to stop playing it. (I Wanna Be The Guy, Kaizo Mario World.)
But if continuing isn't a hurdle, I'll fight through the hardest battles to reach the end. (Shinobi, God Hand.)
If continuing isn't a hurdle, how hard is the battle?
And why do I want to sit and watch you saving and reloading over and over again? The rest of the table maybe wants you to give up and bring a more survivable and likely more helpful and interesting character into the story if your current one can't get off the fail train.
|
|
As opposed to? The "Beef" with Whedon relative to what? Disney style? Not even Disney considering Bambi, Dumbo, etc...
False dichotomies are bad.
It something bad can't happen, if you know everything is going to be fine and everyone will make it, who cares about watching?
Who cares about playing?
Who said anything about nothing bad being unable to happen. I'm pointing out the problem many people have with Whedon's style.
And this is coming from someone that has enjoyed quite a bit of his body of work.
It wasn't pointless. It had a very important purpose in the story.
At that moment, you believed that if he could die, ANYONE could.
You were legitimately afraid things may not have a happy ending. You were brought to the edge of your seat wondering who would be next.
That was done for a purpose. There was a point.
Except Book had already died at that point, meaning the "anyone can die" factor was already set up.
It furthered nothing in the story.
It created no new character conflicts.
It served no purpose.
As opposed to? The "Beef" with Whedon relative to what? Disney style? Not even Disney considering Bambi, Dumbo, etc...
It something bad can't happen, if you know everything is going to be fine and everyone will make it, who cares about watching?
Who cares about playing?
As opposed to pretty much every other show of the same type. When someone died in say, Farscape, it was an epic ending and it served a purpose in the story. The majority of the time, you KNEW the people were going to survive. Did that make it bad? No. Because you wanted to know HOW they were going to survive. Not even succeed (they failed multiple times, which led to quite a few dramatic situations), but survive.
I like Whedon. I enjoy pretty much everything I've watched that he's been involved in (except Dollhouse, I could never get interested.).
I do not like how he seems to think that every show has lots of wasted potential if he doesn't kill off the "crowd favorite" character. If he were any other writer it'd be damn hard to become invested in ANY character he has involvement with because you know that the winner of the popularity contest is likely to die a gruesome death.
He even managed to work the exact same thing into The AVENGERS for cryin' out loud.
|
|
Characters can die. At higher levels death isn't a big hurdle. But by Level 10 when this is so you aren't playing a gritty fantasy game. You're playing a Superhero game. Guess what? People still love comics even though most superheroes who die come back again and again anyway.
I don't understand why you don't just put a "do not rescuscitate" order on your characters if death is so important to you? The game allows for your playstyle at the same table as other play styles. Just opt out of resurrection.
|
|
As opposed to? The "Beef" with Whedon relative to what? Disney style? Not even Disney considering Bambi, Dumbo, etc...False dichotomies are bad.
It something bad can't happen, if you know everything is going to be fine and everyone will make it, who cares about watching?
Who cares about playing?
Who said anything about nothing bad being unable to happen. I'm pointing out the problem many people have with Whedon's style.
And this is coming from someone that has enjoyed quite a bit of his body of work.
I know, you create one when you said "The beef with..." and "The problem many people have with..."
Relative to what asks what is the alternative style that they would not have a "beef" with?
Without tension, there is no story. Without risk, there is no tension.
I know, you create one when you said "The beef with..." and "The problem many people have with..."
Relative to what asks what is the alternative style that they would not have a "beef" with?
Without tension, there is no story. Without risk, there is no tension.
Except the implied second half of your bit there is untrue.
Yes, without tension there is no story, and without risk there is no tension.
That does not mean that without death there is no risk.
|
|
I know, you create one when you said "The beef with..." and "The problem many people have with..."
Relative to what asks what is the alternative style that they would not have a "beef" with?
Without tension, there is no story. Without risk, there is no tension.
You can have tension without overwhelming the players to the point that they stop enjoying themselves because the game has either become too stressful or they can't feel bothered to invest in their characters anymore.
Some people feel more comfortable playing with some layer of presumed safety that they can step out of(or be forced out of) for those tense moments. When many people feel like they're being pushed into 24/7 paranoia mode or forced to work on their mechanics more than playing their character, it becomes unfun for them. And that's how the game can wind up feeling for some players when they're pushed into "hard mode".
Also, pointing out a problem that some people have is not forming a false dichotomy. Defining any range of alternatives as "this or that ONLY" or "this or this ridiculous caricature ONLY" certainly is though.
|
|
It wasn't pointless. It had a very important purpose in the story.
At that moment, you believed that if he could die, ANYONE could.
You were legitimately afraid things may not have a happy ending. You were brought to the edge of your seat wondering who would be next.
That was done for a purpose. There was a point.
Except Book had already died at that point, meaning the "anyone can die" factor was already set up.
It furthered nothing in the story.
It created no new character conflicts.
It served no purpose.
As opposed to? The "Beef" with Whedon relative to what? Disney style? Not even Disney considering Bambi, Dumbo, etc...
It something bad can't happen, if you know everything is going to be fine and everyone will make it, who cares about watching?
Who cares about playing?
As opposed to pretty much every other show of the same type. When someone died in say, Farscape, it was an epic ending and it served a purpose in the story. The majority of the time, you KNEW the people were going to survive. Did that make it bad? No. Because you wanted to know HOW they were going to survive. Not even succeed (they failed multiple times, which led to quite a few dramatic situations), but survive.
I like Whedon. I enjoy pretty much everything I've watched that he's been involved in (except Dollhouse, I could never get interested.).
I do not like how he seems to think that every show has lots of wasted potential if he doesn't kill off the "crowd favorite" character. If he were any other writer it'd be damn hard to become invested in ANY character he has involvement with because you know that the winner of the popularity contest is likely to die a gruesome death.
He even managed to work the exact same thing into The AVENGERS for cryin' out loud.
Watch the directors commentary and he explains it very clearly. At that moment, that death makes you wonder if they are all going to die, right then and there. You are watching what you know may be the end of the series and you think "Holy crap, this might be a suicide mission" and you are now ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEAT.
Books death told you it was serious buisness, Wash told you all bets are off.
Because death is the only thing that is permanent and gets your attention. Except when it doesn't, because all the sting was taken out of it.
Did it make you mad? Yes. Did it get your attention and make the rest of the movie more intense? Hell yes.
You believed any of them could die. You believed Mal could die.
That was what Wash's death did. That is tension. That it excitement.
That is why he gets paid the big bucks.
|
|
TPK. That's the risk. If the WHOLE party dies, who resurrects you?
Seems like a big threat and source of tension to me.
If it is TPK or bust, you basically have all the tension invested in destroying the campaign, rather than in individual events.
If anything that forces the GM to put the party at more collective risk to get the same tension. If the show goes on when one falls, the show goes on. If the only way to get the players worried is a TPK...well...you are going to have to up the ante pretty regularly or hope they keep caring about the never ending Maguffin trains.
|
|
I know, you create one when you said "The beef with..." and "The problem many people have with..."
Relative to what asks what is the alternative style that they would not have a "beef" with?
Without tension, there is no story. Without risk, there is no tension.
Except the implied second half of your bit there is untrue.
Yes, without tension there is no story, and without risk there is no tension.
That does not mean that without death there is no risk.
That means if even death is no real risk, where are you getting tension?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mad? Yes. More intense? Eh...
And even if it did, the feeling only lasted at most 5-10 minutes before River decided she was tired of sitting around and killed everything.
It's just like when he poked Xander's eye out in Buffy. It was shocking...for a moment, but once the initial shock factor wore off it just seemed pointless.
That means if even death is no real risk, where are you getting tension?
The risk and tension comes from while you're schmaltzing around in LaLa Land with no regard for your life and wasting time getting rezzed, the demon army or what have you is eating civilians like popcorn.
|
|
Mad? Yes. More intense? Eh...
And even if it did, the feeling only lasted at most 5-10 minutes before River decided she was tired of sitting around and killed everything.
It's just like when he poked Xander's eye out in Buffy. It was shocking...for a moment, but once the initial shock factor wore off it just seemed pointless.
You remember both of those things more clearly than most other events, don't you?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just like when he poked Xander's eye out in Buffy. It was shocking...for a moment, but once the initial shock factor wore off it just seemed pointless.
It bears noting that the abuse of shock value has made more than a few folks just not care about keeping up with Marvel or DC comics anymore.
|
|
Here's some tense situations where the players death doesn't matter:
A wicked witch has kidnapped some children, can the PCs find the gingerbread house before kids get eaten?
The village is burning! Put out the fire before its reduced to cinders!
The players are lost in a dungeon with no exit, can they find their way out or will they be forever locked in the dungeon of shame?
|
|
I know, you create one when you said "The beef with..." and "The problem many people have with..."
Relative to what asks what is the alternative style that they would not have a "beef" with?
Without tension, there is no story. Without risk, there is no tension.
You can have tension without overwhelming the players to the point that they stop enjoying themselves because the game has either become too stressful or they can't feel bothered to invest in their characters anymore.
Some people feel more comfortable playing with some layer of presumed safety that they can step out of(or be forced out of) for those tense moments. When many people feel like they're being pushed into 24/7 paranoia mode or forced to work on their mechanics more than playing their character, it becomes unfun for them. And that's how the game can wind up feeling for some players when they're pushed into "hard mode".
Also, pointing out a problem that some people have is not forming a false dichotomy. Defining any range of alternatives as "this or that ONLY" or "this or this ridiculous caricature ONLY" certainly is though.
You are the one saying that if your character might not be able to be brought back, that would be "overwhelming the players to the point that they stop enjoying themselves because the game has either become too stressful or they can't feel bothered to invest in their characters anymore." so which of us is practicing "ridiculous caricature" at this point?
|
|
That means if even death is no real risk, where are you getting tension?The risk and tension comes from while you're schmaltzing around in LaLa Land with no regard for your life and wasting time getting rezzed, the demon army or what have you is eating civilians like popcorn.
I know that I was certainly feeling tension all over the place in our Jade Regent game whare I had little worry for my PC's safety but all the worry in the world for various NPCs.
So again I ask, why don't you put a do not resuscitate order on your character?
Because he feels other players should be punished for not building effective enough characters, apparently:
The rest of the table maybe wants you to give up and bring a more survivable and likely more helpful and interesting character into the story if your current one can't get off the fail train.
It's just like when he poked Xander's eye out in Buffy. It was shocking...for a moment, but once the initial shock factor wore off it just seemed pointless.
Honestly, maiming Xander and the way Anya died pointlessly and no one even cared directly contributed to my not watching anything else he made for years. Didn't watch Angel or Dollhouse or Drive or even Firefly when it was originally on-air because I was tired of the way he was so cavalier with the lives of characters I cared about.
|
|
You keep making statements that have nothing to do with what I am saying.Battletoads was not a spectator game either...league game smoky.If continuing isn't a hurdle, how hard is the battle?You have clearly never played God Hand.
You seem to be saying that hitting "continue" over and over video game style is something good to have occur at the table, while I am saying it is a symptom of being "that guy" who won't let go of a failed concept that keeps dying and dragging the party down.\
It isn't sitting at a console playing over and over for personal sense of accomplishment.
You remember both of those things more clearly than most other events, don't you?
Yes, unpleasant memories do tend to stick in the mind more clearly.
I'm of the school that if a character's death is there for no other reason than to shock, it's pointless. I would have been A-OK had Wash died in the crash landing itself; He would have, in essence, sacrificed himself to get the crew to the ground safely. It would have had the same, if not more effect on establishing the anyone can die policy.
No, what makes Wash' death pointless is how, in his moment of triumph, he was killed unceremoniously by a bigass hook through the chest. The only reasons for doing so are:
A.) To be more shocking (nobody expects the character to die in that way and after a moment like that).
B.) To give a reason for River's big ass kicking scene later besides "Well we're all gonna die, we might as well go out swinging."
I kind of like B. It's not handled as well as it could be IMO, but it's a decent reason. Reason A is what pisses me off so bad about that scene.
|
|
So again I ask, why don't you put a do not resuscitate order on your character?And I ask you where is the tension if I hold all the cards and the dice mean nothing?
Why do the dice mean nothing? I don't understand that statement. You're trying to fight to survive you want those dice on your side.
Why does the system have to accommodate your playstyle instead of vice versa?
If the rules made death permanent or more punishing it discourages risky action. It is a disincentive to exciting action.
|
|
You are the one saying that if your character might not be able to be brought back, that would be "overwhelming the players to the point that they stop enjoying themselves because the game has either become too stressful or they can't feel bothered to invest in their characters anymore." so which of us is practicing "ridiculous caricature" at this point?I know, you create one when you said "The beef with..." and "The problem many people have with..."
Relative to what asks what is the alternative style that they would not have a "beef" with?
Without tension, there is no story. Without risk, there is no tension.
You can have tension without overwhelming the players to the point that they stop enjoying themselves because the game has either become too stressful or they can't feel bothered to invest in their characters anymore.
Some people feel more comfortable playing with some layer of presumed safety that they can step out of(or be forced out of) for those tense moments. When many people feel like they're being pushed into 24/7 paranoia mode or forced to work on their mechanics more than playing their character, it becomes unfun for them. And that's how the game can wind up feeling for some players when they're pushed into "hard mode".
Also, pointing out a problem that some people have is not forming a false dichotomy. Defining any range of alternatives as "this or that ONLY" or "this or this ridiculous caricature ONLY" certainly is though.
....I am not saying that.
You are overlooking all of the "some"s in the mix. Some people do feel that way.
I am not stating things, particularly opinions, as absolutes.
If you don't want to hear possible reasons for "why easy mode", a rather insulting dismissal of a playstyle more than a few people enjoy, why ask the question?
|
|
Here's some tense situations where the players death doesn't matter:
A wicked witch has kidnapped some children, can the PCs find the gingerbread house before kids get eaten?
The village is burning! Put out the fire before its reduced to cinders!
The players are lost in a dungeon with no exit, can they find their way out or will they be forever locked in the dungeon of shame?
Will they be locked in forever? That would seem to be real GM vs PC.
The other two are Macguffins, which are fine as an option but after awhile it gets old to just make up things for players to care about so they never are at personal risk as adventurers.
Even Superman had a weakness. Hell he died eventually. Death should be rare (unless they are dumb) and there should be ways to be brought back if the party (not just the player) cares enough to do so.
But it needs to be more than just a status effect if death is going to have any impact. If it will be something memorable that creates tension.
|
|
Honestly, maiming Xander and the way Anya died pointlessly and no one even cared directly contributed to my not watching anything else he made for years.
The throwaway nature of the latter, but especially the commentary along the lines that it was necessary more along the lines of fulfilling a quota than for dramatic impact was what burned me.
On the flipside, Agent Phil Colson's death didn't feel like a shallow need to fulfill a self-imposed rule. I was actually satisfied with that one.
|
|
So again I ask, why don't you put a do not resuscitate order on your character?And I ask you where is the tension if I hold all the cards and the dice mean nothing?Why do the dice mean nothing? I don't understand that statement. You're trying to fight to survive you want those dice on your side.
Why does the system have to accommodate your playstyle instead of vice versa?
If the rules made death permanent or more punishing it discourages risky action. It is a disincentive to exciting action.
It's that the system is drifting toward nerfing death. It is that currently, death has little to no long term impact and at least one Dev thinks even that is too much. This is not how it was in 3.5, it is certainly not how it was in earlier editions.
It has less effect now. So my comment is I disagree with the trend, you can praise the trend if you like. The trend is occuring.
As to the rest, If you aren't going to read what I've said and instead try to project a strawman I am not arguing for upon me, I don't think there is much more to discuss. I am not interested in defending a position you are creating, rather than the position I've actually staked in the thread.
|
|
Here's some tense situations where the players death doesn't matter:
A wicked witch has kidnapped some children, can the PCs find the gingerbread house before kids get eaten?
The village is burning! Put out the fire before its reduced to cinders!
The players are lost in a dungeon with no exit, can they find their way out or will they be forever locked in the dungeon of shame?
Will they be locked in forever? That would seem to be real GM vs PC.
The other two are Macguffins, which are fine as an option but after awhile it gets old to just make up things for players to care about so they never are at personal risk as adventurers.
Even Superman had a weakness. Hell he died eventually. Death should be rare (unless they are dumb) and there should be ways to be brought back if the party (not just the player) cares enough to do so.
But it needs to be more than just a status effect if death is going to have any impact. If it will be something memorable that creates tension.
You'll note Superman also came back from the dead.
There seems to be more and more of a push to nerf negative outcomes and conditions from edition to edition. There was a long and interesting discussion of the real costs of death in the long run in the game in another thread that seemed to indicate that there are none anymore.
Being the person you had this conversation with, it really feels like you don't actually pay attention sometimes.
I NEVER argued for a lack of negative outcomes. In fact, I said repeatedly that bad things should happen. I just thought they should be different from what you imagined, so you kept deciding to pretend I was arguing for zero consequences.
|
|
You are the one saying that if your character might not be able to be brought back, that would be "overwhelming the players to the point that they stop enjoying themselves because the game has either become too stressful or they can't feel bothered to invest in their characters anymore." so which of us is practicing "ridiculous caricature" at this point?I know, you create one when you said "The beef with..." and "The problem many people have with..."
Relative to what asks what is the alternative style that they would not have a "beef" with?
Without tension, there is no story. Without risk, there is no tension.
You can have tension without overwhelming the players to the point that they stop enjoying themselves because the game has either become too stressful or they can't feel bothered to invest in their characters anymore.
Some people feel more comfortable playing with some layer of presumed safety that they can step out of(or be forced out of) for those tense moments. When many people feel like they're being pushed into 24/7 paranoia mode or forced to work on their mechanics more than playing their character, it becomes unfun for them. And that's how the game can wind up feeling for some players when they're pushed into "hard mode".
Also, pointing out a problem that some people have is not forming a false dichotomy. Defining any range of alternatives as "this or that ONLY" or "this or this ridiculous caricature ONLY" certainly is though.
....I am not saying that.
You are overlooking all of the "some"s in the mix. Some people do feel that way.
I am not stating things, particularly opinions, as absolutes.
If you don't want to hear possible reasons for "why easy mode", a rather insulting dismissal of a playstyle more than a few people enjoy, why ask the question?
Some people say Glenn Beck....
Stake your position.
|
|
There seems to be more and more of a push to nerf negative outcomes and conditions from edition to edition. There was a long and interesting discussion of the real costs of death in the long run in the game in another thread that seemed to indicate that there are none anymore.Being the person you had this conversation with, it really feels like you don't actually pay attention sometimes.
I NEVER argued for a lack of negative outcomes. In fact, I said repeatedly that bad things should happen. I just thought they should be different from what you imagined, so you kept deciding to pretend I was arguing for zero consequences.
Dude, I don't even remember you being in the thread. I don't actually remember anyone beyond SKR, because he was the only one who is actually involved in writing and developing rules...
Well and Shallowsoul being kind of a jerk and me wishing he was on the other side of the argument.
|
|
What does a meme involving a loony pundit have to do with anything?
What we're saying is that there's a wider range of ways to play the game, why people don't like certain playstyles, and preferences for what people want out of the game than "easy mode" and "your way".
Likening anything that falls outside your approved box as "Disney style" is erroneous at best.
|
|
You'll note Superman also came back from the dead.Here's some tense situations where the players death doesn't matter:
A wicked witch has kidnapped some children, can the PCs find the gingerbread house before kids get eaten?
The village is burning! Put out the fire before its reduced to cinders!
The players are lost in a dungeon with no exit, can they find their way out or will they be forever locked in the dungeon of shame?
Will they be locked in forever? That would seem to be real GM vs PC.
The other two are Macguffins, which are fine as an option but after awhile it gets old to just make up things for players to care about so they never are at personal risk as adventurers.
Even Superman had a weakness. Hell he died eventually. Death should be rare (unless they are dumb) and there should be ways to be brought back if the party (not just the player) cares enough to do so.
But it needs to be more than just a status effect if death is going to have any impact. If it will be something memorable that creates tension.
Significantly changed, in a rather cheesy move that is a comic/soap opera cliche often mocked.
|
|
What does a meme involving a loony pundit have to do with anything?
What we're saying is that there's a wider range of ways to play the game, why people don't like certain playstyles, and preferences for what people want out of the game than "easy mode" and "your way".
Likening anything that falls outside your approved box as "Disney style" is erroneous at best.
You are using the "some people" argument in an effort to dismiss the impact of character death, Glen Beck style.
"Some people say..." things you don't personally seem to want to defend, but want to bring up to help your argument.
This isn't about play styles, it is about the conscious move of the game away from death having consequences.
That is actually happening. Pathfinder death is trivial compared to all past editions. Factually, this is true.
The discussion I was looking for was is this a good thing. That isn't happening, but that isn't unusual around here.