Significantly changed, in a rather cheesy move that is a comic/soap opera cliche often mocked.
Significantly changed how?
I haven't read the story (is that "The Death and Return of Superman?" or just "The Death of Superman"?) but the change obviously didn't last for too very long because he doesn't seem much different nowadays than he ever was before, barring the obvious writing shifts across the decades.
|
What I am saying...again...is why is the game drifting toward this playstyle.
Why is this becoming the baseline.
It factually is.
Stop projecting that I'm coming to your table and poking you. Quite the contrary, the games rules are moving toward that playstyle and I am pointing it out and asking why.
That play style is being accommodated and catered to now seems to be complaining that I am pointing it out and asking why?
That may be the final line in your OP, but that is not what your OP is saying.
You asked "why is the game drifting away from me?" after a stream of statement like "I want there to be consequences" and "I find the way the game is going disappointing".
You did not want to discuss why, you wanted to discuss how much you disliked this trend of ever more readily available resurrections.
What I am saying...again...is why is the game drifting toward this playstyle.
Why is this becoming the baseline.
I am pointing it out and asking why.
Because there is more people in the game scene who don't like your playstyle than people who does. And companies tend to catter a majority of customers.
Asking "why?" is like asking why current TV starlets are thin instead of chubby like in Rubens' pictures. Because a majority of people like them that way nowadays, even if some people still like Rubens' models of beauty.
You happen to be the guy who still likes chubby models. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just in disonance with the current majority taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The playstyle these days is tending towards focusing on the characters. This sounds like a "duh, it's always focused on the characters", but in truth it hasn't.
If you read some of Gygax's essays and editorials, you can get a sense that the focus was on the players. The characters were more like pawns and tokens, sure they should have life, emotion and be believable, but success in a dungeon wasn't about those things, it was about player skill and knowledge. Characters were disposable, players were supposed to grow and learn. This was more about tournament play especially, which he thought was part of the bread and butter of the game.
Now, some of the focus on players is assumed, and the game is becoming more geared to the character. You especially see this with indie games, like Burning Wheel (though I would argue that is a very gritty system and NOT easy mode). The character is the vessel through which the player experiences the story, instead of their tool for beating the dungeon.
IMO, gritty isn't about if characters die. Gritty is about pain and tough choices. Gritty can happen even in a game where characters don't die often, as long as they are making tough choices and sacrifices are happening.
To me, gritty exists more in the sphere where morally grey choices happen, if you stick true bad things happen to you or similar kinds of scenarios. I think the Dark Knight is a good example of something that can be gritty without even showing a lot of death on screen. It's a series of hard choices for the characters, and no matter the choice, everyone loses something too.
|
|
That may be the final line in your OP, but that is not what your OP is saying.
You asked "why is the game drifting away from me?" after a stream of statement like "I want there to be consequences" and "I find the way the game is going disappointing".
You did not want to discuss why, you wanted to discuss how much you disliked this trend of ever more readily available resurrections.
I have discussed why I want there to be consequences. I gave specific examples and explanations.
Then I got "Some people say" and "Don't tell me I like wrongbadfun!"
|
|
What I am saying...again...is why is the game drifting toward this playstyle.
Why is this becoming the baseline.
I am pointing it out and asking why.
Because there is more people in the game scene who don't like your playstyle than people who does. And companies tend to catter a majority of customers.
Asking "why?" is like asking why current TV starlets are thin instead of chubby like in Rubens' pictures. Because a majority of people like them that way nowadays, even if some people still like Rubens' models of beauty.
You happen to be the guy who still likes chubby models. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just in disonance with the current majority taste.
Oh irony in that analogy...
|
|
The playstyle these days is tending towards focusing on the characters. This sounds like a "duh, it's always focused on the characters", but in truth it hasn't.
If you read some of Gygax's essays and editorials, you can get a sense that the focus was on the players. The characters were more like pawns and tokens, sure they should have life, emotion and be believable, but success in a dungeon wasn't about those things, it was about player skill and knowledge. Characters were disposable, players were supposed to grow and learn. This was more about tournament play especially, which he thought was part of the bread and butter of the game.
Now, some of the focus on players is assumed, and the game is becoming more geared to the character. You especially see this with indie games, like Burning Wheel (though I would argue that is a very gritty system and NOT easy mode). The character is the vessel through which the player experiences the story, instead of their tool for beating the dungeon.
IMO, gritty isn't about if characters die. Gritty is about pain and tough choices. Gritty can happen even in a game where characters don't die often, as long as they are making tough choices and sacrifices are happening.
To me, gritty exists more in the sphere where morally grey choices happen, if you stick true bad things happen to you or similar kinds of scenarios. I think the Dark Knight is a good example of something that can be gritty without even showing a lot of death on screen. It's a series of hard choices for the characters, and no matter the choice, everyone loses something too.
*Note to the others, this post above is an actual discussion of the point by someone staking a position.*
I don't agree that a focus on the players is the changing element in this aspect I tend to think this is a perception of the industry rather than a fact of the industry that players want to be coddled, beyond the entry level.
But you make a good point that the money is now shifting more in the direction players than in the the past where a GM had the books and the players came to him as kind of an oracle figure. And so now the focus is shifting to giving players options and splat to bring to the table and the GM taking more of a facilitator role.
I still think it is a mistake to molly coddle the verisimilitude out, and I am very troubled that there is a belief that people who grow up on video games expect video game like recovery in tabletop RPG as SKR seemed to imply in the post I linked to. I think it is mixing media, similar to saying "People like this in video games, therefore we will put this into our movies."
Which is why most video game movies suck. And RPG movies for that matter.
For most of us, Tabletop RPG and video game are not equivalent entertainment media anymore than either relates to Movies. RPG's closer cousins are books, particularly fantasy books. And I think the audience for things like Game of Thrones shows that audience isn't adverse to having bad things happen in due course of adventuring.
The world we explore are a dangerous place. That is why it is so fun to adventure there.
I think the system goes at it's own peril when it tries to cater away from it's core, and I still think the core understand that bad things happen. I would be fine with a beginner box version, or even if there were parallel systems. But it concerns me that this seems to be the planned course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I am saying...again...is why is the game drifting toward this playstyle.
Why is this becoming the baseline.
It factually is.
Stop projecting that I'm coming to your table and poking you. Quite the contrary, the games rules are moving toward that playstyle and I am pointing it out and asking why.
That play style is being accommodated and catered to now seems to be complaining that I am pointing it out and asking why?
Because people enjoy this trend?
You need to learn that your way isn't the only one.
And since when has all change been a bad thing for a game?
I also disagree with you on another thing. I don't want to adventure mainly because I risk dying. I want to adventure for the experiences of adventuring.
The whole issue is part of the Everyone Gets A Ribbon culture we have today. It's not the game designers fault, they're marketing to their customer base. And the sad fact is, people don't like consequences for their actions, they want to be able to hit a Win button and see the huge numbers pop up.
It's not everyone, but it's the majority in the last decade.
It's kinda sad.
Personally my favorite game ever, (a warhammer fantasy/3.x hybrid world) my character got corrupted by Warpstone at level.. 4?ish. The character kicked it out, and got into the main plot of a sentient artifact whose soul purpose was to cleanse Chaos from the world. (I was only a sidekick to the main char, mind.) In the end, we found the portal, used another artifact to channel most of the tainted power back thru the gateway, and his final act was to walk thru so that the hero could seal it away, because he was already tainted. 20 levels later, evil overlord cast down, world saved from the minions of darkness, dark gods and their foul magic banished, that one mistake just out of character college before he could even point a sword in the right direction came home to haunt him. It was glorious.
So, you think people should stop liking what you don't like? If you had fun playing that, good for you. Not everyone enjoys the same things. Also, that whole culture rant. Is the DM supposed to tell the players "my way or the high way" because being fair to everyone is a stupid concept, or what kind of point were you trying to drive home here? Since it sounded to me like your point was "life ain't fair and some gotta deal with it" which is both technically true and absolutely absurd as a mentality for group gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Note to the others, this post above is an actual discussion of the point by someone staking a position.*
I don't agree that a focus on the players is the changing element in this aspect I tend to think this is a perception of the industry rather than a fact of the industry that players want to be coddled, beyond the entry level.
But you make a good point that the money is now shifting more in the direction players than in the the past where a GM had the books and the players came to him as kind of an oracle figure. And so now the focus is shifting to giving players options and splat to bring to the table and the GM taking more of a facilitator role.
There's something wrong if your GM is seen by you as some sort of "oracle figure". Something horribly, horribly wrong that lends credence to all those evil cult accusations.
Or it could just be bad choice of words, but I prefer to be dramatic.
I still think it is a mistake to molly coddle the verisimilitude out, and I am very troubled that there is a belief that people who grow up on video games expect video game like recovery in tabletop RPG as SKR seemed to imply in the post I linked to. I think it is mixing media, similar to saying "People like this in video games, therefore we will put this into our movies."
1.) What is it with everyone striving for verisimilitude in this game? It's an escapist fantasy, it's not supposed to be realistic.
2.) I think you'll find that people being resurrected by powerful magic goes back a lot further than the advent of video games.
3.) It's not the same thing at all. The largest difference between games (ALL GAMES) and movies or books is that movies and books are passive media while games are not. Things from Tabletop games translate very easily into video games (Your Neverwinter Nights', your Baldur's Gate's, your Dragon Age's) and many things from video game RPGs translate backwards as well. There is little distinction between a Tabletop game and a videogame other than the manner in which it is played and general higher flexibility in the rules and player actions.
Flameshields up for that remark, a lot of people seem to think that Pathfinder and other such games are elevated above video games or even board games like Monopoly for that matter. They are not.
For most of us, Tabletop RPG and video game are not equivalent entertainment media anymore than either relates to Movies. RPG's closer cousins are books, particularly fantasy books. And I think the audience for things like Game of Thrones shows that audience isn't adverse to having bad things happen in due course of adventuring.
Covered that first part already, moving on.
And it's funny that you bring up Game of Thrones, since it exemplifies what I'm talking about. Every major character death serves a purpose. Ned's death triggers the uprising in the north, which indirectly leads to the death of most of the family, which leads to a collapse of the uprising and most likely averted the fall of King's Landing. The only "pointless" death of a major character I can really think of off the top of my head is the Hound's death.
The world we explore are a dangerous place. That is why it is so fun to adventure there.
Yes, it's dangerous. I'm not sure you quite understand the distinction between general danger, personal danger, and death.
You can be in danger without dying. The world can be in danger without that danger posing any direct threat to you. Death is not the only way to create drama, as I stated before. In many cases the chance of failing in your goal is horrifying enough to make even a death that is a "minor setback" a terrible thought to consider.
I think the system goes at it's own peril when it tries to cater away from it's core, and I still think the core understand that bad things happen. I would be fine with a beginner box version, or even if there were parallel systems. But it concerns me that this seems to be the planned course.
I also think the core understands that bad things can happen whether or not Raise Dead doesn't exist, sets you back a month's worth of tedious grinding and a chunk of cash, or is just a slap on the wrist as well. Or at least I hope so.
Note, my definition of core may be different from yours. I don't particularly care about that vocal minority who's always dropping a tear in their beer about how much better it is in the good ol' days. The core is always shifting, and right now the core of players has no objection to the way the game is headed, or they're a particularly quiet bunch, one.
The whole issue is part of the Everyone Gets A Ribbon culture we have today. It's not the game designers fault, they're marketing to their customer base. And the sad fact is, people don't like consequences for their actions, they want to be able to hit a Win button and see the huge numbers pop up.
It's not everyone, but it's the majority in the last decade.
No, people like to be entertained. Well thought out consequences can be entertaining.
Being killed and having no way to get back into the game without breaking immersion (Oh! Danny died. How convenient that in the middle of the Cave of Wonders where no one but you has set foot in a thousand years a brand new Barbarian has stumbled his way across it!) or effectively making a month's worth of sessions rendered pointless as far as character progress goes is not well thought out nor is it entertaining.
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.
Sure. Sometimes having a main character die is dramatically interesting (I'm not familiar with your example, but I'll take your word for it). Sometimes having a main character die is lame and stupid (Two and a Half Men, anyone?). In my experience, main character death has little to do with how interesting a story is.
I guess I can think of one exception: if a particular genre is supposed to be deadly but no main character ever dies, it gets to be a bit ridiculous after a while. I'm thinking along the lines of comic books, where the idea of "The Death of Superman" or "The Death of Spider-Man" has been drained of all possible drama because you can be certain they'll come back in a few issues. Nevertheless, I don't think that comic books would be improved by having frequent permanent deaths of superheroes instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The playstyle these days is tending towards focusing on the characters. This sounds like a "duh, it's always focused on the characters", but in truth it hasn't.
If you read some of Gygax's essays and editorials, you can get a sense that the focus was on the players. The characters were more like pawns and tokens, sure they should have life, emotion and be believable, but success in a dungeon wasn't about those things, it was about player skill and knowledge. Characters were disposable, players were supposed to grow and learn. This was more about tournament play especially, which he thought was part of the bread and butter of the game.
Now, some of the focus on players is assumed, and the game is becoming more geared to the character. You especially see this with indie games, like Burning Wheel (though I would argue that is a very gritty system and NOT easy mode). The character is the vessel through which the player experiences the story, instead of their tool for beating the dungeon.
IMO, gritty isn't about if characters die. Gritty is about pain and tough choices. Gritty can happen even in a game where characters don't die often, as long as they are making tough choices and sacrifices are happening.
To me, gritty exists more in the sphere where morally grey choices happen, if you stick true bad things happen to you or similar kinds of scenarios. I think the Dark Knight is a good example of something that can be gritty without even showing a lot of death on screen. It's a series of hard choices for the characters, and no matter the choice, everyone loses something too.
Just to help reinforce what you're saying about the theory of 1e and previous editions, remember that they were created by wargamers. Originally there were no gods. The game was a dungeon, some minis, and dice. Essentially instead of having war bands on the table, now you had individual characters. They were still as disposable as units were in board games, but that's what kept character creation simple and fast in older editions; you NEEDED to be able to whip out another fighter after Bob the Fighter #3 got aced by green slime.
So first it was a wargame-esque simulation. Then around 2e the players said "I want to do MORE with my character. I want to develop them into something unique." The consumer base changed from tournament wargamers to more home gamers that wanted whole campaigns instead of dungeon hacks. D&D and other games responded by creating more robust options for character development in supplements. You'll also note that in the mid-to-late 80's modules began having more and more backstory and fluff.
Now 3x hit in 2k; I know 'cause I stood there in the auditorium at Gen Con and watched them roll it out and hurl t-shirts into the crowd. It was at that point that this "lack of consequence" as the OP has said began. You had an even greater shift toward the character focused game, with feats and a bevvy of skills and powers handed out like candy. Death became a potential inconvenience instead of a nearly foregone conclusion.
But something else happened. People responded. Not just the players but GMs too. Also you had a new generation of gamers who never even thought of leaving their PCs suddenly rotating out of their Diablo and Everquest and into a book.
That backstory should help with the "Why" this thread asked for. "Why" is because the majority of gamers asked for it with their dollars, evolving playstyles and lack of turnout for certain events. I remember going through Gen Con that year and realizing, for the first time in a long time, that almost no one was at the modular dungeon tourney for some Warhammer and Chronopia, the wargame I'd gotten sucked into had died a fast death; however there were a bazillion kids playing video games, MTG card games and D&D 3E.
That's where this all comes from.
But personally, I choose to respectfully disagree that the MECHANICS of the game have removed the consequence from the game. I've inflicted a lot of consequences on my players since 3e. Once a year some of my older buddies get together for a weekend. One year a white board was brought in with a tally of how many times we died. I've also diseased people, given them uncontrolable lycanthropy and robbed them blind. In a game I played the first session everything my character knew and loved were taken away along with all my possessions as I was removed to another plane and my home was destroyed.
There are OTHER ways to inflict consequence. They may not be as permanent as some gamers would prefer, but they exist. If those gamers who prefer permanent consequence so choose, they may modify the existing mechanics; not GM FIAT, but rather as a group coming to a consentual decision as to what kind of game they'd like to play.
However I'd like to point something out right there. You now get to DECIDE what kind of game you'd like to play, all by mod'ing a few mechanics and reskinning some fluff. That wasn't NEARLY as easy to do before 3x. I know, b/cause I tried.
If I want a superheroes game I can used PF. If I want a Conan game, I can use PF. If I want a post apocalyptic robots and mutants game, I can use PF. When I was a kid I owned Marvel Super Heroes, Runequest and Gamma World to cover all the above. Now? I own 6 books but only really need one.
Yes, these games drifted away from severe consequence. But they drifted TOWARD something else; choice. Instead of being destined to die as a snack for a demon, now you are empowered with the choice of your fate. You can work WITH your fellow players and GM to pull together the best game you can, rather than just take what the game gave you and hoped it was good. However, if you want, you can now CHOOSE to have the game you play actually simulate that very style of gaming.
The game drifted to what it is today because of choice, and now it asks you to choose the next step it will take. The question is; what is your answer?
I've noticed that some of the rules which make death "easier" to deal with, along with certain abilities, have come about out of concern for the player more than for the PC -- specifically, to mitigate circumstances which would force a player to stay out of play for a lengthy period of time, or would make a character impossible to play under the circumstances. Conditions, including death, which would result in the player sitting around with either nothing to do, or nothing effective to do, for lengthy periods of time.
Thus the means to keep a player active is the concern.
In short, it's not about preventing drama, it's about preventing boredom.
I am not saying this is the right or wrong way to play. I am saying it is why I think things have changed the way they have.
I will say that I do feel sympathy for a player when circumstances result in their sitting around for an hour or more watching everyone else play in the middle of the game with nothing to do. I have never in this case seen the player be impressed with the dramatic effects that this death or condition has put upon them. They have never said, "Wow! What amazing dramatic consequences!" They have said, "Well, I guess I'll go read a book for awhile, let me know when I'm back in the game."
At the same time, I agree actions should have consequences, and I even agree many conditions are either too easily avoided or cured. All too often I've seen a monster inflict a "terrible" condition on someone, only to have the cleric shrug and remove it entirely with a spell on the next round (interestingly, Pathfinder did make some of this ostensibly harder by requiring caster level checks for some things rather than just have it auto-succeed, but I've seldom seen a caster level check fail). While it does tick down the party's resources, I think it does make monsters less scary, because seemingly nearly anything they can do is instantly curable. It then does become contingent entirely upon the narrative to create dramatic tension, and if you're not a dramatic GM, you may be SOL.
What I would like to see is more conditions and effects which hinder a PC for a period of time--and capable of doing so even at high levels--but does not keep a player from playing the game, and gives them a challenge to overcome, rather than an either/or situation where they are always playing at full strength or are incapable of participating effectively at all.
As for "curing" death itself, it always strikes me that this is entirely in control of the GM. Last I checked, diamonds worth 5,000 and 10,000 gp do not grow on trees. You shouldn't be able to go into ye olde resurrection shoppe and buy one off a rack. Finding the spell component itself should require some level of difficulty. That does of course lead to the issue of if someone DOES die, they might be twiddling their thumbs while the party goes about trying to rescue them, but I don't think death is necessarily an "easy" cure.
And while I understand that the cry "just houserule it" is not always welcome -- I think it is better game design, in some circumstances in terms of newb friendliness to design an easier way out and houserule in the difficulty than the other way around. It is possible to remove the raise dead spells from the game entirely if that's what you want to do, but I think it's better to have them there to begin with as an option, and then each gaming group decides for themselves how easily available they want them to have.
Without jumping through a bunch of hoops, quotes, etc, I'm just going to say "tl; dr, I agree with Ciretose."
Character death has become less and less of an actual in game threat as editions progress, and just more of a speedbump. From a narrative standpoint, it's a joke. I shudder at playing games where players die and come back to life with the frequency of Kenny from South Park.
I don't get to DM as often(busy home life and no brain-space for carrying a campaign) so I do my part as a player; if my character dies, 9 times out of 10 I prefer they just stay dead and I roll up something else. If, and only if, the other players for some reason or another, decide they want my character to come back(maybe I'm carrying the macguffin, etc) then I'll agree to getting a Raise spell or something cast. But more often then not, I play "dead is dead" as a playstyle.
I too, like gritty, rough games where there are actual consequences for actions. If my character makes a misstep and winds up getting chased by a lynch mob, then I'm getting what's coming to me. Lately on these boards, the general feeling I get from the majority of players is that any kind of negative consequence, whatsoever, is "doinitwrong" and a DM should be ashamed to dare lay a scratch on the player's projected ego-worship of a PC... No thank you.
@ Josh: I've read many of your posts and have taken a lot of advice from you on horror in games. I wish I were fortunate enough to have been a player in one of your rare campaigns.
I also happen to agree that as editions have gone on the ability to die and come back has gotten easier, in that it has gotten less restrictive than bygone editions.
However let's not confuse perception with mechanics. Just because we perceive the attitude of other gamers to be that the game should be 0 consequence, that does not mean the mechanics support this. It just means...some punks out there have never had their lungs handed to them by Iuz or Tiamat at level 8, or had old-version Strahd drain them back to the stone age.
But again, these are perceptions of attitude based on players' posts, not any actual function of the mechanics of the game. PF, as it rolls out in the CRB IS a game set on easy mode, if compared to earlier editions; I will not dispute this. However many of my girls' games come pre-set to such mode to attract their attention, then after they finish the easy levels they either quit on to a different game or challenge themselves if they REALLY like the game they're playing.
I've come to think of PF as the same thing.
But, and I can't stress enough, the mechanics are CERTAINLY there if you want to play the hard version. The game nowadays can be tailored to whatever you want it to be. But my complaint in an earlier post was that, back in the old days, if I flat out beat on one of my players with a death ray, or disintegration or their spell had no effect the result was grown men (in some instances) pouting like little girls that they'd worked their butt off for the last 6 levels and now they were starting over.
Now life SHOULD have consequence and to a degree, so should these games. However these games are NOT real life. They're a pastime, a way to have fun. If my players are not having fun, I USED to be able to blame the mechanics, back in the day. "Hey, YOU didn't make your save" or "YOU were the one that tried on the boot...", but nowadays I don't have that luxury. I have only 2 things that could've gone wrong - Me, or them.
That's what I love about the current PF stuff. It's not SO basic as 4e where it honestly feels like a full on video game, but it's also not as restrictive as some of the older games are. It hits a sweet spot that puts the fun, or lack therof, squarely on the people participating.
Think about it Josh; if you sat down to run one of your AWESOME horror games, wouldn't you tell your players that's what they were getting into? Then, when I hit the table with my cute-n-squishy anime princess that 3 rooms in gets consumed by the unameably darkness and is permanently destroyed forever, I shouldn't rage over the fact that it was horrible, since I should've expected HORROR should I?
In 1e and 2e, I had to fudge, and squidge, and houserule to customize my game to make it more or less horrible. Now I just simply tell my players "hey, this one's gonna be high fantasy" and pick and choose some rules over others or exclude some monsters/classes/races whatever to make it work.
Thanks Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without jumping through a bunch of hoops, quotes, etc, I'm just going to say "tl; dr, I agree with Ciretose."
Character death has become less and less of an actual in game threat as editions progress, and just more of a speedbump. From a narrative standpoint, it's a joke. I shudder at playing games where players die and come back to life with the frequency of Kenny from South Park.
I don't get to DM as often(busy home life and no brain-space for carrying a campaign) so I do my part as a player; if my character dies, 9 times out of 10 I prefer they just stay dead and I roll up something else. If, and only if, the other players for some reason or another, decide they want my character to come back(maybe I'm carrying the macguffin, etc) then I'll agree to getting a Raise spell or something cast. But more often then not, I play "dead is dead" as a playstyle.
I too, like gritty, rough games where there are actual consequences for actions. If my character makes a misstep and winds up getting chased by a lynch mob, then I'm getting what's coming to me. Lately on these boards, the general feeling I get from the majority of players is that any kind of negative consequence, whatsoever, is "doinitwrong" and a DM should be ashamed to dare lay a scratch on the player's projected ego-worship of a PC... No thank you.
What I usually disagree with is that death is the best negative consequence. In fact, the reliance on death (and any side effects of having previously been dead) as a consequence is a weakness IMO.
There's a game called Sorcerer. It's a pretty simple game, each character has an inner 'demon'. It's pretty much literally a demon inside of you giving you power, except it asks for things, bad things. The game is about having your own internal power struggle to maintain control of your life, while still having the power to achieve the things you desire. There's all sorts of mechanics on how all of this works, but in the end, I think it's a pretty gritty game, but since it relies heavily on character investment, it doesn't work with a revolving door of characters.
I have another game I run called Mythender, it's a game about killing gods. That game is also about power struggles, you have to balance your desire for free will vs survival. Too much power and you lose your free will, too little power and you die. In the past year I've run 8 sessions and about half of the characters have fallen off the knife edge (most losing their free will). It ISN'T an especially gritty game though, because it's very over the top in it's action style. I add a little grit here and there, but overall it's about the PC's being epic mofo's who kill gods.
Negative consequences should be much broader than just character death. Not rescuing the princess should have dire consequences for the kingdom, not just be an "oh well, better luck next time", that way the PC's can go on to the next challenge while still having it feel like it mattered.
A flaw of games like PF is that the default mode for combat is to fight to the death. More fights should have objectives besides stabbing the other guy in the face, that way the times when death really NEEDS to be on the line, it actually feels important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The threat of character death has always, and still completely is, in the hands of the gamers at the table. I do not believe you are being held hostage to the game system.
I have heard many fine points in this thread for both sides of the debate about play style. It was a very interesting read. I think there were many intelligent things stated that I both agreed and disagreed with.
However your question seems to be less about the play-style opinion and more about causality. However, since every attempted explanation of causality has been dismissed let's get straight to what I view as the heart of the matter:
Talk to your GM.
If you feel like there is not enough grit, consequence, or fear of death, the source begins and ends at your table. It seems like in your game it is raining Clerics holding diamonds. The GM, without breaking a single Pathfinder rule, can very easily accommodate you. I know I could.
So, in summary, if you want the game to feel differently, the community isn't going to be able to help you with that. We will discuss things intelligently about the future of gaming with you, but I'm getting the impression that you are not entirely too interested in that discussion.
It may be a joke, but it's an old joke. I remember the cartoon with a tombstone with multiple death dates on it from way back when I was reading Dragon in the mid-80s.
The rules may make it easier now, but the issue and the difference in playstyles goes back to the early days of the game.If you like gritty rough games, that's great, though I somewhat wonder at your choice of PF. If I don't, that's great too.
Lately on these boards, the general feeling I get from the majority of players is that "old school" play is the best way to play and if permadeath isn't an ever present threat then it's badwrongfun.
Maybe we're reading different threads. Or just focusing...
I think we are reading different threads. I don't have any links to any of them, just sort of a gut feeling and overall impression. Which, yeah, I realize makes for jack squat in the case of an argument.
My situation is fairly anecdotal; I only play PF because that's what my group is currently playing. I'd much rather be playing something else. But that would involve leaving my group, which I'd rather not do at the moment.
I realize my original post is sort of standoff-ish, so let me refrain a little and say that these are just my preferences and opinions. Have fun the best way your group knows how, and nobody can tell you otherwise.
@ Josh: I've read many of your posts and have taken a lot of advice from you on horror in games. I wish I were fortunate enough to have been a player in one of your rare campaigns.
I also happen to agree that as editions have gone on the ability to die and come back has gotten easier, in that it has gotten less restrictive than bygone editions.
However let's not confuse perception with mechanics. Just because we perceive the attitude of other gamers to be that the game should be 0 consequence, that does not mean the mechanics support this. It just means...some punks out there have never had their lungs handed to them by Iuz or Tiamat at level 8, or had old-version Strahd drain them back to the stone age.
But again, these are perceptions of attitude based on players' posts, not any actual function of the mechanics of the game. PF, as it rolls out in the CRB IS a game set on easy mode, if compared to earlier editions; I will not dispute this. However many of my girls' games come pre-set to such mode to attract their attention, then after they finish the easy levels they either quit on to a different game or challenge themselves if they REALLY like the game they're playing.
I've come to think of PF as the same thing.
But, and I can't stress enough, the mechanics are CERTAINLY there if you want to play the hard version. The game nowadays can be tailored to whatever you want it to be. But my complaint in an earlier post was that, back in the old days, if I flat out beat on one of my players with a death ray, or disintegration or their spell had no effect the result was grown men (in some instances) pouting like little girls that they'd worked their butt off for the last 6 levels and now they were starting over.
Now life SHOULD have consequence and to a degree, so should these games. However these games are NOT real life. They're a pastime, a way to have fun. If my players are not having fun, I USED to be able to blame the mechanics, back in the day. "Hey, YOU didn't make your save" or "YOU were...
I agree for the most part. And yes, the game can be tailored to almost any playstyle, but like Ciretose tried to say a dozen times, it's more of a comment on the trend of just making the game easier and easier with less negative consequence for your characters. Even Save or Die spells got turned into just a bunch of damage, which if that doesn't kill your character outright, it can be remedied with a quick Cure spell and a pat on the shoulder.
Every group has their own playstyle and preference as far as "difficulty mode" goes, and I'm not saying it's "my way or the highway" or whatever. My preferred gaming style is in the minority even in my own gaming group, let alone when weighed against the entire gaming community. I was basically just stating an opinion on the trend.
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.)
You should try La-Mulana.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As so for diamonds, there's sort of a problem with the economics here. You need a diamond worth 5000gp. If there are less diamonds, the price should go up. I suppose they could be entirely unavailable in a given area, but otherwise you will just buy a smaller diamond for your 5000gp, which would still work, since it's worth 5000gp.
The example given was that grit is experienced with the player feeling starved through CON and negative levels. You can just as easily starve them of money. It ends up creating the exact same atmosphere.
I've done it before actually. I wanted the players to have a bit more anxiety and concern for their lives. After they realized that they will either die forever or not upgrade their gear ever again, the tough choice had them sweating the exact way they used to in 1st edition. The GM can create tension if he chooses and there's more tools out there than simply this.
I've been through 1st edition, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th. I've played almost all World of Darkness, L5R, 7th Sea, Rifts, Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands, and a plethora of more games. Dave Arneson actually was a teacher of mine. I'm not simply some new school gamer.
I don't say this all to gloat, but to add weight to my statement AS an old school gamer: The games still play exactly how we decide to play them. The community may change, but if you are unhappy you still have the choice to try to fix it for yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I usually disagree with is that death is the best negative consequence. In fact, the reliance on death (and any side effects of having previously been dead) as a consequence is a weakness IMO.
There's a game called Sorcerer. It's a pretty simple game, each character has an inner 'demon'. It's pretty much literally a demon inside of you giving you power, except it asks for things, bad things. The game is about having your own internal power struggle to maintain control of your life, while still having the power to achieve the things you desire. There's all sorts of mechanics on how all of this works, but in the end, I think it's a pretty gritty game, but...
I never said death was the "only really consequence." In fact, (I know I reference this campaign way too often) in Ravenloft, there are MUCH worse things than dying. A divine spellcaster can actually botch casting Raise Dead or the like, and your character could wind up a random kind of undead. This happened in one game I ran and it made for a powerful story arc, as one character in the party struggled with having become an undead(a "curst") and trying to retain their humanity, slowly slipping away.
Character death should not be the big motivator against PC"s misbehaving, and it should be used extremely sparingly in my opinion. But when it does happen, it needs to have some impact greater than "aw crud, there's goes some of our loot."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to boil down this whole thread, the basis is: why have games drifted away from the "consequences" of previous editions? B/cause enough people don't like them. Why don't people like them? B/cause they make us all victims of the mechanics/dice. Why do we allow ourselves to be victims as such? B/cause we didn't know any better. Why didn't we know any better? B/cause no one asked why. And why didn't we ask? B/cause we didn't want to.
And there it is. We can blame anything; kids today w/their long hair and loud music and their need for participation trophies; an MTV generation that grew up w/no attention span; sun spots. But at the end of the day we consume the things we like, we play the things that are fun, and we move away from the other stuff.
Ok, so all my defense of PF aside, and looking at the core premise of the thread, it is a reality that 51% of the gaming community likes winning and positivity. This has translated to the current edition of this game. Whatever our perceptions are of this current edition, that is our reality.
This does not please 49% of gamers. That is also a reality. Every other conjecture in this thread is just that: speculation.
We got the games we wanted. Not we as individuals but we as a consumer base. Games have gone easy mode b/cause that's what we asked for. Now that it's here, what will we do with it?
We can wax nostalgic about older editions. We can chastise the community for their apparent whininess and fragile egoes. We can point those opinions in every other direction. Orrrr...
Consider the games you've played, as a player not a GM, and think back to them in as much detail as you can. Consider; did you ever want to have more than a 50/50 (sometimes less depending on your saves) to save the world? Did you ever brow beat a GM for seemingly arbitrarily springing a full-grown Bengal tiger out of a chest onto your thief with only a few of his thiefly hp left? Did you ever wish you had a way to keep your epic 13th level fighter on his feet, despite negative HP, 'cause you knew ONE more swing at the console in the middle of baba yagga's hut would end the whole module?
If you have, then you now have a game with feats, skills and a reduced hinderance of black-and-white consequence. If you didn't...well then I both envy you and lament the lack of support for the few games out there that cater to your style.
Me? I'm glad to be done with being called a Killer GM just cause I ran the meat grinder that is The Tomb of Horrors purely by the book. I'm not a bad guy, a control freak or a particularly violent GM. One black hole wall sculpture later, I'm a dirtbag.
But I'm tangenting. This thread's point has been asked and asked over and over, so I'm answering the way I see it. Why easy mode? Because its what we wanted.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's with all those "I want to play truecore Gygaxian -1E D&D and I am shocked to see a post-modernist Gygax-wasn't-always-right player-oriented 3.5/PF ruleset not entirely suitable for it?" threads of late?
I mean, when I want turbo historical simulation experience, I play Ars Magica. When I want grim gritty turbo mortality wading through the piles of human misery experience, I play WH40K/WFRP. If I want grognardish "Screw You, I'm the GM" experience, I go Old School D&D. If I want my turbo magical superheroes, I go 3.5/PF. Why is everybody recently debating about how to fit a square in a round peg?
The example given was that grit is experienced with the player feeling starved through CON and negative levels. You can just as easily starve them of money. It ends up creating the exact same atmosphere.I've done it before actually. I wanted the players to have a bit more anxiety and concern for their lives. After they realized that they will either die forever or not upgrade their gear ever again, the tough choice had them sweating the exact way they used to in 1st edition. The GM can create tension if he chooses and there's more tools out there than simply this.
I've been through 1st edition, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th. I've played almost all World of Darkness, L5R, 7th Sea, Rifts, Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands, and a plethora of more games. Dave Arneson actually was a teacher of mine. I'm not simply some new school gamer.
I don't say this all to gloat, but to add weight to my statement AS an old school gamer: The games still play exactly how we decide to play them. The community may change, but if you are unhappy you still have the choice to try to fix it for yourself.
I think you are missing the point a little. Ciretose is lamenting the fact that the rules no longer back up a DM that prefers grittier gameplay. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that each DM or group can run a game anyway they like.
But now the DM has to do so by fiat, instead of with some backup from the rules.The example you gave of a DM starving the players of gold to make death scarier is a beautiful example of this. In that past that would work just as you say. But now, thanks to( what some hold as sacred) the wealth by level tables, a player can turn to the DM and say Nuh uh. The DM then has shaky ground to stand on.
It's not just death either, though that is what has become the focus of this thread. You can see it(the reduction of grit, easymode, whatever you want to call it) in other parts of the game as well.
The classes have to be balanced mindset, level draining, everyone can detect traps, etc...
I think a lot of people will agree that earlier editions (especially some as written modules- the ravenloft one with vampiric mindflayers springs to mind) were far too deadly, absurdly so. And 3rd edition did incorporate some of the more popular house rules that were widely accepted by the community.
But it seems that the pendulum has perhaps swung to far in the opposite direction for some of us. (for me 4th ed. was when the pendulum swung to far, and why I play pathfinder)
Ciretose is asking why, and is that really a good thing/what players want. And is it a case of players getting to much of what they want to their own/and the hobbies eventual detriment.
.
What's with all those "I want to play truecore Gygaxian -1E D&D and I am shocked to see a post-modernist Gygax-wasn't-always-right player-oriented 3.5/PF ruleset not entirely suitable for it?" threads of late?
I mean, when I want turbo historical simulation experience, I play Ars Magica. When I want grim gritty turbo mortality wading through the piles of human misery experience, I play WH40K/WFRP. If I want grognardish "Screw You, I'm the GM" experience, I go Old School D&D. If I want my turbo magical superheroes, I go 3.5/PF. Why is everybody recently debating about how to fit a square in a round peg?
well just in my experience, not all of us have the time/inclination to learn the rules of all those games. I wish I did, but for me, nD-Pathfinder is the game I know the rules for and I only have time for one. So I'd like it to be closest to what I want.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is everybody recently debating about how to fit a square in a round peg?
Possibilities:
• They can only afford rulebooks for one RPG
• They think every RPG is trying to go for the same thing, so what they're getting from Pathfinder must be the trend of the industry
• "Different strokes for different folks" makes it really hard to feel superior
• They don't know other (or how many other) RPGs exist
• They've found the only four people in town who can stand them, and they're playing Pathfinder
• They've found the only four people in town whom they can stand, and they're playing Pathfinder
I'm sure I've missed other possible explanations, but there you go.
All I'll offer to this is that I'm sorry you're not getting what you want from PF and that for whatever reason switching to a system more suited to your tastes isn't an option. But I am getting what I want from PF, and for that reason I would much rather it didn't change to suit your requests.
And that, in the end, is the conundrum. If it changes so you like it, I probably won't. If it remains how I like it, you will continue complaining that it doesn't fit your wants. In the end one of us is either going to have to adapt to the style that's available or bite the bullet and find a more fitting system. (Or just maintain the status quo and continue complaining about it.) If forced to choose, I'm not going to vote against my own preferred style. Don't ask or expect me to support what you want if it isn't what I want, and do expect me to vote against things you want if they're opposed to what I want.
It's the nature of the beast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are missing the point a little.
Well, you are correct in that my point is going in a new direction. I wouldn't say I'm missing the point as much as I am purposefully deflecting the point to what I see as the actual core to satisfying ciretose, if possible. I am making a new point.
Ciretose is lamenting the fact that the rules no longer back up a DM that prefers grittier gameplay.
He is, and my point is that this is false. The rules completely back up grittier game-play if you choose to do so.
A role-playing game is a series of rules laid out by a publisher to make a collaborative work of imaginative fiction easy to describe and create. The guidelines are a means to an end. The rules simplify a complex creation process. My main point is that if you are finding that the rules are dictating the limits of your imagination, then you must re-evaluate your own stigmata on how you define imagination. The rules do not decide how the story goes nor how difficult or gritty something is. They help you describe the infinite ideas in your own head. If you find something is wrong, the tool set you have to fix it is also infinite.
You state the wealth by level as a deflection to my proposed solution. I would like to begin by saying that the wealth by level chart is a suggestion and not a rule. However, let's move forward and assume it IS a rule, shall we?
It can still be done.
1) You give players the wealth by level.
2) Kill half the party horribly.
3) Profit!
Now they no longer have the wealth and are afraid to go back into the dungeon with no funds. You abide by the wealth by level and yet still they don't have the funding because the wealth by level chart accommodates for money SPENT, including money spent to either raise or stay alive.
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that each DM or group can run a game anyway they like.
But now the DM has to do so by fiat, instead of with some backup from the rules.
It's interesting you say this. I was just thinking the other day that the concept of DM fiat is a very particular term that I have not yet seen consistency for a definition.
When does it stop being called DM Fiat and start being "the story"? Literally everything is DM Fiat by some definitions. I can easily create grit without breaking a single rule, so how are the rules not gritty? When you remove subjectivity you realize the rules have very little consequence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking for myself, I'm glad they moved away from the losing levels if you die. Not to say there shouldn't be consequences for death, but speaking as a DM having a bunch of PCs at vastly different character levels is a monstrous pain in the butt to plan for. Consider nixing that a major improvement.
|
|
Even with raise dead and miracle and reincarnate available, when the GM notes your dead character's body has gone missing, and you liked that character and the party decides as a group to bring it back...and their attempt at your reincarnation fails...
Let me tell you truly: it's those times that death seems truly permanent.
My point is that groups play differently, regardless of the ruleset, and that's fine. It's up to the whole table to make character life and death meaningful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of reincarnate, something as simple as a Dwarf being reincarnated as a Drow or something would be drama enough for one death.
I think you guys are thinking way too much about this. In the one instance: When Wash died in Serenity, I figured it was just because they were in a dangerous battle, and people often get killed, often randomly in such situations :P. It didn't matter if he should have died there from a writing standpoint, or some crap. Thinking about it like that is no fun. I actually did think anyone could die at that point, and the final fight was way more tense. And it would have been silly if nobody died in the most rediculously dangerous fight they've had in the whole series.
Also with role playing games. Thinking too much about that too. It's supposed to just be fun playing out fantasy adventures. If you're DM wants to make things hard he can. You could die, and then the rest of your party might run away. Or you fell down a chasm. Or the bad guys took your body and ate it. Or maybe they even cast that spell on you that keeps you from being ressurected if they really hate you. If it isn't tense enough, tell your DM that he's bad. Then, recommend one of those games where you roll up a throwaway character in five minutes because you know they could die any second. That can be fun too, it's just a different kind of fun.
1.) They weren't really in the middle of a battle per se.
2.) It IS fun to think of it like that, at least to me. Considering that my long time hobby is storywriting and I'm shooting to be a writer/character designer once I get that all-important degree here in about a year now. (Game Design, it focuses more on writing than you might think).
1.) They weren't really in the middle of a battle per se.
2.) It IS fun to think of it like that, at least to me. Considering that my long time hobby is storywriting and I'm shooting to be a writer/character designer once I get that all-important degree here in about a year now. (Game Design, it focuses more on writing than you might think).
^^Yeah, but I love that movie, so usually I assume people just are upset that Wash died because he was awesome, instead of there being anything actually wrong with it.
And yeah, the game design/writing relationship is kind of what I had in mind with my last post, although I didn't clearly state it admitedly. If you're in a well written, satisfying, fun adventure with a good DM, you aren't really worried abut things like tension.
Edit: Wait, they were totally in the middle of a battle. They just dodged there way through an armada of ships shooting at eachother, and then when they landed Wash got aced by a spear thing, because the Reavers were still trying to kill them. But that's niether here nor there.
On the concept of SoD spells, there is a good reason those went away, they're poor game design. The trend is similar in board games as well.
If you go back 20-30 years or more in board games, you'll see a lot more games that implement mechanics where you can force someone to lose their turn, or ways of eliminating players from the game. Over time, players and designers have realized that this isn't an especially fun way to play for the person who is the target. You miss your turn (or all of them) and just watch. So games have evolved to not include elimination and instead create costs instead of lost turns.
RPG's have to an extent done the same thing. It is much less common to see mechanics where you stun your opponent or eliminate them with one or two die rolls. Mechanics like Dirty Trick are becoming more common, while Hold Person are becoming more rare.
To me, this is good design. Using Hold Person on someone is neat from the attackers perspective, but using it on a PC doesn't just remove the character from the fight, it also disengages the player mentally. They can't impact anything, so there's less impetus for them to pay attention. IMO, that is a bad thing. I'd like to see more spells offer choices, like an entangling spell that a target can "ignore" the entangled condition, but they take damage.
On the concept of SoD spells, there is a good reason those went away, they're poor game design. The trend is similar in board games as well.
Oh, if only they had. Flesh to Stone, Baleful Polymorph, Phantasmal Killer... all still in the game. They are kind of the "second rate" SoD spells, but if your party wizard has cranked his saves up into the sky ( as most of them tend to do by their very nature ), they still tend to take NPCs out of the fight with one spell.
On the concept of SoD spells, there is a good reason those went away, they're poor game design. The trend is similar in board games as well.Oh, if only they had. Flesh to Stone, Baleful Polymorph, Phantasmal Killer... all still in the game. They are kind of the "second rate" SoD spells, but if your party wizard has cranked his saves up into the sky ( as most of them tend to do by their very nature ), they still tend to take NPCs out of the fight with one spell.
My PF group had this discussion and encountered Phantasmal Killer just last night. The GM had sprung a trap on the party rogue(failed his check to find it) and his first thoughts were "Oh, PF changed SoD spells so they just deal damage. I'll go ahead and use Phantasmal Killer then." The GM knew ahead of time that PK was the trap's spell effect, but had reconsidered for a moment. Went ahead since he figured it just dealt damage. Although, the fault lies more with him since he should have read the spell thoroughly in the first place. I just chalk it up to "I thought this got changed but actually didn't #4,762."
Ooops! A Pathfinder SoD spell still insta-killed a PC. Well, it has "killer" in the name of the spell, so buyer-beware I guess.
For all the hooting and hollering that has been done in this thread about "Pathfinder fixed SoD spells..." Uh, no they didn't. I am not opposed to nixing SoD spells instant-death effects and just replacing it with damage. But, I am bothered when a lot of attention is raised about a company "fixing" them, yet many of them remain. Why bother fixing the other SoD spells in the first place?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Curse this game designed to appeal to as many people as possible for not being exactly what I alone want in every facet!