Curse this game designed to appeal to as many people as possible for not being exactly what I alone want in every facet!
+9001
|
So to boil down this whole thread, the basis is: why have games drifted away from the "consequences" of previous editions?
You are defining it to broadly. It isn't about drifting away from "consequences" but drifting away from consequences for "death".
As a PC for most of the game, your biggest fear is going to be death. Sure there are "fates worse than death" but the one thing you don't want to happen while adventuring is for your player to die.
Except now, it is now becoming not that big a deal.
Can you create other motivations? Sure. Is reducing a primary motivation from the game a good thing? In my opinion, no.
Deathquaker made a very good point about death potentially leaving a player out of the game for several hours, and this being a factor in wanting to lessen the impact. But I would argue the removal of level penalty did nothing to address this concern.
I am not, and I don't think anyone is arguing, death shouldn't be able to be overcome. What I think those on my side of the argument are saying is that death needs to have enough of a penalty that it enduces fear again.
I proposed a 5% XP penalty, with a negative level occuring if the penalty reduces you to a lower level, until you are able to get back to EX of your level. In exchange, lose the material component cost.
This would not make death any more or less a player removal issue than it currently is. In fact, without the material component cost, it would be easier to keep the character in play for the night.
It would mean death has a lasting penality, and it would mean if a player keeps dying over and over they are going to reach a point where they are going to need to make changes. If it is a high death campaign, everyone will die equally and be penalized equally. If you suck, you will be penalized more.
Which is fair.
The question I asked is why is the trend away from having death be meaningful and toward making it meaningless in the long run. What does that add to the game that balances what it takes away from the game?
|
|
Curse this game designed to appeal to as many people as possible for not being exactly what I alone want in every facet!
But is it? Again, death having a long term effect on a PC is a feature of the game since it's inception, through the boom days.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the first version (if we are assuming pathfinder is the progression) that has no long term effects for death.
And while it is passing 4e, it isn't nearly the juggernaut of the industry 3.5 was. Not saying it is because of this, but also not saying it is in spite of this.
Just pointing out that we both have the same amount of evidence of this being a popular or unpopular change in the rule set.
None.
I'm asking the question as to why this is the trend. If you are arguing more people who are willing to purchase product want it that way, that is an opinion you can hold that has the same amount of evidence as my opinion to the contrary.
I'm asking the question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a separate post to several of you
NO ONE IS ARGUING RAISE DEAD SHOULD GO AWAY OR YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BRING BACK PLAYERS WHO DIE.
Put that strawman away, no one is interested in fighting it.
The question is why are we removing any and all long term effects from death, and therefore making death have the same impact as a generic status effect. Why that trend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a way to look at it:
Should recovering a preexisting character that died cost the player more than if they scrap a character and start a new one?
|
|
Here's a way to look at it:
Should recovering a preexisting character that died cost the player more than if they scrap a character and start a new one?
Fair question.
1. Scrapping and starting a new character is a cost in and of itself, out of game, I think we would all agree on that.
2. Depending on your group, the new character doesn't always come in at the same level as the dead character. In our group, for example, if you make a new character, they come in at the minimum XP for of the lowest level player currently playing in the game.
In 3.5 your dead character could catch back up to the group thanks to extra XP for being levels behind. We actually generally still use this formula in our group rather than the pathfinder way, as we have a handy app that does the math.
But it will vary from group to group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, sorry Mr. C; I did in fact over simplify. So, this whole thread then boils down to one fairly specific issue and everything else is window dressing. That one issue is: why, since PF, are versions of the game that started in 1e moving away from a lasting, permanent negative effect for dying.
My answer, IMO, is still the same: b/cause that's what 51% of the players wanted.
You've just died in a game. You are sitting there with egg on your face, your corpse is now an item the party has to transport, you will suck up party resources to bring back, not to mention the fact that now you as a player have to sit and wait until your guy is back in the game to participate in the game you got together with your friends/family/etc to play in the first place. Now after all that momentary inconvenience (and this is not sarcasm; I honestly believe this is only a momentary inconveninece, allbeit a really big one) there are 49% of the gamers out there who want to return to a time when you had to add insult to injury and permanently penalize your character when they DO make it back.
My question is: why?
Is it PUNISHMENT? You died. That could be from a million different things that were outside your control. In Josh M's example above the rogue died b/cause 1. he failed a roll (random) and 2. the GM forgot to read the spell. So...should the rogue then be permanently hand-slapped for that?
Is it for GAME BALANCE? Yo've already lost out on whatever the party did after your body became a paperweight. Now by losing more you might be a full level behind your fellows. All that will accomplish in balance is a very slight inequity of power between you and your other PCs. Unless they all also die and suffer the same penalty then this rift will always exist, and further "mistakes" will only widen it, unless your GM takes pity and side quests you.
I can't really think of a use for permanent negative consequence associated with dying in these games. But maybe there is one. It's insidious and I'm not accusing ANYONE of this, but it's out there b/cause I played under a 2e GM back in the day that had this attitude. The reason I cite is this: I'm teaching you a lesson - don't you dare do something stupid in MY game.
The GM in question in the experience I had as a young guy felt that any time you died you deserved it, 'cause you were obviously doing something stupid. It didn't matter if it was sheer chance, poor planning, actual stupidity or a save you didn't expect the enemy to make. You died. That was a major frustration to his narrative and he took it personally.
That same GM though, it bares pointing out, took some glee in killing players. He ran a dark, "gritty" world and mortality rates were high. In his opinion we were all lemmings and we needed to be taught our place with him as the superior strategist. I don't play with this guy any more...
But seriously my question still stands: what is the advantage to permanently penalizing a player for dying?
|
|
Given that PF seems to be moving from individual XP to group XP or even away from XP to simply fiat leveling, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to shift back to XP penalties.
And then there is another question about if this is an appropriate shift as well.
I don't think we should assume these are popular or good changes just because 4e failed.
|
I'd personally be a big fan of Raise Dead / Ressurrection requiring the revived character (and his party, should they desire to help) to perform some sort of quest for the diety/power that provided his revival. And if the quest is subsequently ignored, then the diety/power would rip the soul out of their body again, and no further ressurections would be possible. [Spitting in the face of the guy who just brought you back to life isn't a good idea.]
|
|
@Mark - There are a few parts that I would take issue with, or maybe not take issue...let's say I would question
1. Do 51% really feel that way. I don't know. I'm kind of asking as part of the intent of this thread. I know my group hated the change, but not as much as they hated 4e and for some of us not as much we like other changes and having a supported system.
2. Let's say for a secondt that 51% is accurate (again I question this, but lets say it is). Are they ones who are buying the product. Are the serious "I have a library of books I have spent real money on".
I think there is a lot of merit in having a nerfed Beginner box version of raise dead. I also think after a while of plugging quarters into the machine every time you die gets boring for the people who will be around for years and years and really invest.
I don't know the answer. I know if SKR's proposal on raise dead went through, I may reconsider my subscription and will actually take a look at 5E (something I was not planning on doing) because that would indicate to me the same concerns with Paizo's goals that I had with WoTC.
That table top was being left behind in search of the mysterious new market of "gamers". It was a mistake for WoTC, it would be a mistake for Paizo. The people who pay 40 bucks for a game they burn through in a few weeks may have some crossover, but I don't know that they are looking for the same experience.
I think the Paizo is successful based on the stories. The money machines are the APs, modules, and setting books. To use the video game analogy in a different way, the rules are the Console, the rest is what makes you use the console.
If the console makes the stories more boring, or forces GMs to come up with never ending Macguffins to entice the PCs because not-dying isn't enough motivation...I think that is a mistake.
All of us have played more than one character. A character dying isn't going to make an investment gamer stop gaming.
Maybe a case can be made for a training wheels version for new gamers, but if at some point the training wheels don't come off the game, it gets boring.
|
|
I'd personally be a big fan of Raise Dead / Ressurrection requiring the revived character (and his party, should they desire to help) to perform some sort of quest for the diety/power that provided his revival. And if the quest is subsequently ignored, then the diety/power would rip the soul out of their body again, and no further ressurections would be possible. [Spitting in the face of the guy who just brought you back to life isn't a good idea.]
And as I said in the other thread, love the concept, have no idea how you could possibly implement it.
Imagine the threads..."My GM is a jerk who is making me do X"
Paladin threads on Crack. Truly GM vs Player.
|
|
@Mark - And sorry, I didn't answer the last question. So let me do so now.
"But seriously my question still stands: what is the advantage to permanently penalizing a player for dying?"
1. Natural selection: Builds that fail will be replaced, rather than the gimped party limping along with Bob the Failbot.
2. Motivation: You don't need as many MacGuffins to motivate the PCs if not dying is a strong one in and of itself.
3. Impact: "Remember that time I got mummy rot and you cast a spell and it went away" isn't a great story. It is also the same mechanical impact.
4. Death with no impact is a very different setting than we are accustomed to.
5. Disney vs Game of Thrones: Which is more interesting to you?
|
|
I'd personally be a big fan of Raise Dead / Ressurrection requiring the revived character (and his party, should they desire to help) to perform some sort of quest for the diety/power that provided his revival. And if the quest is subsequently ignored, then the diety/power would rip the soul out of their body again, and no further ressurections would be possible. [Spitting in the face of the guy who just brought you back to life isn't a good idea.]And as I said in the other thread, love the concept, have no idea how you could possibly implement it.
Imagine the threads..."My GM is a jerk who is making me do X"
Paladin threads on Crack. Truly GM vs Player.
Which gets down to the root of the problem, the neutering of GMs.
|
|
Which gets down to the root of the problem, the neutering of GMs.
Careful now, that is the verbal componet of the "Summon the Player Entitlement Brigade" spell...
As I said in another thread a few minutes ago, you either trust your GM or you don't.
The table either agrees that person is in charge, because they believe he will be fair and look out for making the game enjoyable for the table (if not always an individual player in every instance) or they don't.
My main point with the post was that if a player is honest and not trying to game the system, it works out better for everyone involved.
If they are selfish and/or sneaky, it can be a long night for the rest of the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disney vs Game of Thrones: Which is more interesting to you?
Disney simply by default of I don't like SoIaF.
@ C-dawg: I concur - 51% is arbitrary and I'm pulling that out of a hat to keep from saying "the majority". The only reason I say "the majority" is b/cause a gaming co wouldn't last long if it didn't cater to the whims of such.
Are they buying the books? As far as I can tell on these forums...yes. I don't however have the Paizo sales spreadsheets. I know in my extremely limited experience of about 50 gamers I know (including me) that most went to PF and bought books b/cause we've felt this superior to previous editions and 4e, dying included. In fact the whole reason I started chiming into this thread was b/cause it seemed novel that someone actually preferred the old penalties. I've not heard these concerns before.
Now you said something just a moment ago that makes me pause:
If the console makes the stories more boring, or forces GMs to come up with never ending Macguffins to entice the PCs because not-dying isn't enough motivation...I think that is a mistake.
Ok, please clarify: are you suggesting ONE of the primary motivations for adventuring on the part of the PCs s/be "not dying?" If so, I feel we're playing 2 very disparate styles of play and I should be done chiming in. If not, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I'm merely suggesting that death is its own consequence. I don't really understand the point of making it sting twice. If you're ok with having raise dead in the game, then you're ok with people coming back to life, therefore you have no issue with the video game mentality of going back to a save point and trying again. However, I'm asking posters in this thread to help me understand what the advantage is to then setting the player back further or making permanent death that much more potential, by adding old mechanics back into the equation.
Now one thing that's been tossed around is making the character's death MEANINGFUL. That doesn't come from the mechanics IMO and that's the bit the old grognard in me chafes at w/new gamers. Any rat at a feeder bar can rez back into the game; it takes some real skill in rp'ing to ignore the ease with which you can raise the dead in this game and look down at your fallen comerade, then up at the demon troll over his body and spit through gritted teeth: "By Abadar's Key and ALL that I hold dear, this man's sacrifice shall NOT be in vain. Your perverse evils end HERE and NOW villain!" Meanwhile the NPC gir the rogue loved holds him in her arms crying "NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!"
Help me get on the other side of this thing C-note.
Edit: sorry, I'm too slow a typer and you're too high level a ninja!
|
|
If you are offended when I say asking to have no penalty for failing at the game is something I consider to be training wheels...that kind of illustrates my argument.
One side is arguing that if you fail at living, punishing you for that is wrong.
It is easier when you don't have any penalties. That is an easier mode.
That it bothers you to be told that doesn't make it factually not true.
And this is where people start getting annoyed with the rhetoric.
The MacGuffins are the interesting part. The story, the character interaction, the roleplaying, etc. If my characters only motivation was "not dying", why would he go adventuring in the first place? Stay home and drink in the bar. Much less chance of dying there.
For some players the boring part of the game is optimizing every last detail of the character build and the characters tactics to minimize the chance of death. Winning the tactical combat part of the game isn't the point.
I'm not a gamer who's trying to do the same thing you are but who needs training wheels because I suck at it. I'm playing for different reasons and need a different approach to accomplish my goals. Insulting other players who play differently doesn't help persuade them.
This.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That it bothers you to be told that doesn't make it factually not true.
Maybe not, but it does make you a jerk for so casually insulting people left and right.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
5. Disney vs Game of Thrones: Which is more interesting to you?
I hate ASoIaF. There's a world of difference between a world where anyone can die and a GM who basically promises you that it will happen every time you find a character that isn't absolutely terrible.
Why would you -want- to create a world that actively discourages investment? "I made an awesome character, and it's all optimized, and I'm good to go-" "Well, you're about to be executed for this law. Roll a new one!"
And not sure why we're thinking Disney's so nice and harmless. Make sure your PCs don't have kids if you want them to survive...
Look, you want a gritty world, fine. Make it gritty. As has been stated, the PF rules allow for it to happen. Let the rest of us have a chance to play characters we want to play until the world we run them in sees fit to end their stories. But please stop implying I'm a hopeless newbie running Bob the Failbot just because you happen to have a different playstyle from mine. It's quite condescending, and you seem to fall into that a lot.
|
|
@Mark - First, I kind of like the C-Dawg thing :)
Second, I approach the characters I make (as a player) as people living a life in another world. In my own life, one of the main goals is not dying. Other goals fall 2nd to the not dying goal, because if I fail at the not dying goal, pretty much everything else is moot.
I don't want players at the table often having a reasonable cost benefit analysis for dying as a path to winning. I don't want Bill the Blocker to stay in front of the dragon another round rather than retreating because they will just raise him if the party wins and who cares, that is an extra blocking round rather than a cowering round toward party winning and my personal death has no real downside.
Even in video games, when you die you fail. There is no benefit in it, you just have to do it again and not die this time. In the narrative of a video game, the hero generally never actually dies. You just went back before the save point and did it again, the death never having occurred in the story.
Players who don't fear death don't play "realistically". It is just a calculation you make, like any other status effect.
|
Ciretose, i agree with you, in my game, death has serious consequences, to make the dead character come back with a level behind, to not going back at all. But, what i don`t understand is: Why bother with what is written on the book? If it`s your game, change it. You alredy did this on XP progression, why not in this single spell?
|
|
That it bothers you to be told that doesn't make it factually not true.Maybe not, but it does make you a jerk for so casually insulting people left and right.
Are you arguing the game isn't easier when you don't have any penalty for death?
If you find facts insulting, you are bothered by the facts not the source of the facts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, i agree with you, in my game, death has serious consequences, to make the dead character come back with a level behind, to not going back at all. But, what i don`t understand is: Why bother with what is written on the book? If it`s your game, change it. You alredy did this on XP progression, why not in this single spell?
Because at least one of the Devs believes in removing even more of the penalites going forward, nerfing it even further.
I am not trying to go to anyones house and make them play how I play. I'm questioning why the rules are being changed from where they were to where they seem to be going.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That it bothers you to be told that doesn't make it factually not true.Maybe not, but it does make you a jerk for so casually insulting people left and right.Are you arguing the game isn't easier when you don't have any penalty for death?
If you find facts insulting, you are bothered by the facts not the source of the facts.
Actually, it's your tone.
"Hey, the game is easier if you can recover from death more easily."
"You're running a game for newbies with Bob the Failbot if you don't penalize death to its maximum."
You are the latter. Every post you have made is the latter.
|
|
.
Why would you -want- to create a world that actively discourages investment? "I made an awesome character, and it's all optimized, and I'm good to go-" "Well, you're about to be executed for this law. Roll a new one
Where has anyone said this.
Please, cite this. Link to anyone saying anything remotely close to this.
Exactly.
Not interested in fighting the strawman.
.
Why would you -want- to create a world that actively discourages investment? "I made an awesome character, and it's all optimized, and I'm good to go-" "Well, you're about to be executed for this law. Roll a new one
Where has anyone said this.
Please, cite this. Link to anyone saying anything remotely close to this.
Exactly.
Not interested in fighting the strawman.
I've read A Game of Thrones. Your example. My extrapolation.
|
|
"You're running a game for newbies with Bob the Failbot if you don't penalize death to its maximum."
The line was
"1. Natural selection: Builds that fail will be replaced, rather than the gimped party limping along with Bob the Failbot."
In reference to why it is better to have a penalty for death.
Quote me accurately or don't use quotations. It is dishonest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My extrapolation.Made of straw.Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?
I notice everything you disagree with seems to be made of straw.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That it bothers you to be told that doesn't make it factually not true.Maybe not, but it does make you a jerk for so casually insulting people left and right.Are you arguing the game isn't easier when you don't have any penalty for death?
If you find facts insulting, you are bothered by the facts not the source of the facts.
Not the facts. Just your attitude. Here and pretty much everywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the console makes the stories more boring, or forces GMs to come up with never ending Macguffins to entice the PCs because not-dying isn't enough motivation...I think that is a mistake.All of us have played more than one character. A character dying isn't going to make an investment gamer stop gaming.
Maybe a case can be made for a training wheels version for new gamers, but if at some point the training wheels don't come off the game, it gets boring.
And this is where people start getting annoyed with the rhetoric.
It's not about "training wheels" or "easy mode" or "the gimped party limping along with Bob the Failbot". Nor is it about "never ending Macguffins to entice the PCs because not-dying isn't enough motivation".The MacGuffins are the interesting part. The story, the character interaction, the roleplaying, etc. If my characters only motivation was "not dying", why would he go adventuring in the first place? Stay home and drink in the bar. Much less chance of dying there.
For some players the boring part of the game is optimizing every last detail of the character build and the characters tactics to minimize the chance of death. Winning the tactical combat part of the game isn't the point.
I'm not a gamer who's trying to do the same thing you are but who needs training wheels because I suck at it. I'm playing for different reasons and need a different approach to accomplish my goals. Insulting other players who play differently doesn't help persuade them.
Whoa now...I don't think anyone's trying to insult anyone here. I get what you're suggesting though Tose-in-the-water: there is no meaning or impact to dying. But you feel that the stripped away mechanic is what did that. And (if I've got this wrong please forum-slap me here) you're suggesting these mechanics were watered down b/cause of a popular shift in gamer thinking?
Well there's the underlying cause: gamer thinking. There's no impact to character death b/cause the people at the table don't assign any meaning to it. Now ironically I agree w/you but for a whole OTHER reason and with a whole OTHER quotient of gamers in my opinion. In my very limited experience the people who are robotic about dying are the old grognards.
I have a buddy that's a great tactical gamer. He's been gaming longer than I have, which is to say the dawn of man. He comes from the same mentality of you and I that death is lasting, permanent and blah blah blah. He rolled up 2 characters for my game - brothers. I thought he was going to really rp this time. 5 minutes into the game he says "don't worry about killing either guy; they're just some builds I'm trying out. I've got like 4 other ones I'm thinking about so have at it."
Really? This is an old school guy. My kids, raised on video games and aged 10 and 8, were more concerned with their characters dying than this guy.
I disagree that penalties from dying will correct this way of thinking; good rp will. Make your player care about their character, then the fear of death will survive. Make characters and builds just mechanical objects to be tinkered with...you're bound to have at least one player sucumb to a god complex.
And on a personal note lets not belittle one another for opinion.
|
|
Not the facts. Just your attitude. Here and pretty much everywhere.That it bothers you to be told that doesn't make it factually not true.Maybe not, but it does make you a jerk for so casually insulting people left and right.Are you arguing the game isn't easier when you don't have any penalty for death?
If you find facts insulting, you are bothered by the facts not the source of the facts.
Yet you don't (possibly can't) refute the game is easier when you don't have any penalty for death?
Yet you don't (possibly can't) refute the game is easier when you don't have any penalty for death?Not the facts. Just your attitude. Here and pretty much everywhere.That it bothers you to be told that doesn't make it factually not true.Maybe not, but it does make you a jerk for so casually insulting people left and right.Are you arguing the game isn't easier when you don't have any penalty for death?
If you find facts insulting, you are bothered by the facts not the source of the facts.
Frankly at this point I don't care about that anymore.
But yeah, TOZ answered that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
snipBeing the person you had this conversation with, it really feels like you don't actually pay attention sometimes.
snipYou keep making statements that have nothing to do with what I am saying.
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.
snipI notice everything you disagree with seems to be made of straw.
|
|
I notice everything you disagree with seems to be made of straw.My extrapolation.Made of straw.Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?
It does seem to be a recurring trend that rather than discussing or refuting what I've said, people on the other side of arguments with me instead try to say that I've said things I have not said and argue against that.
Which is the definition of a strawman.
As a person who specifically changed my quote, I find your indignation quite bold...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My extrapolation.Made of straw.
Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?
I would. That death has or doesn't have long term effects, its still a result. And when does death occur? When the game gets hard.
PF is a hard game when the GM makes it so, OR the rolls don't go your way, OR you make a mistake in your build, OR many other factors. Why compound this difficulty? But you've answered that already, so I apologize for being a broken record.
Let me try a different approach: have your players ever reacted positively from the lasting impact of character death?
|
|
Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?Probably. Enemy CRs don't change.
Having infinite continues in God Hand doesn't make defeating Elvis any easier.
Of course it makes it easier. You are given more opportunies to do it so you are more likely to do it.
Would you not agree it is harder to do it with only 1 opportunity rather than with a thousand?
As to CR, you are correct that they don't change. However if you are a lower level because of dying in the past (as you would have been in 3.5) that will be more difficult for you, won't it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I notice everything you disagree with seems to be made of straw.My extrapolation.Made of straw.Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?It does seem to be a recurring trend that rather than discussing or refuting what I've said, people on the other side of arguments with me instead try to say that I've said things I have not said and argue against that.
Which is the definition of a strawman.
As a person who specifically changed my quote, I find your indignation quite bold...
Quotations are used to mimic dialogue, as in an imagined conversation. Were I quoting you, I'd be using quote tags.
My indignation is about you flat out calling my play style inferior for the sin of not being yours.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it makes it easier. You are given more opportunies to do it so you are more likely to do it.
Would you not agree it is harder to do it with only 1 opportunity rather than with a thousand?
As to CR, you are correct that they don't change. However if you are a lower level because of dying in the past (as you would have been in 3.5) that will be more difficult for you, won't it?
I would say you are making the mistake of thinking an increase in skill is a decrease in difficulty. And being lower level is a decrease in skill.
|
|
Let me try a different approach: have your players ever reacted positively from the lasting impact of character death?
Have you ever reacted positively when you've played a game with a group of friends and you were not the one who won on a given evening?
We have a game night on Wednesdays at our house (generally not RPG as it is during the week and we all work). We played Settlers of Catan and my wife won despite me being a 9 for like 5 rounds (you need 10 points to win). Was I happy I lost? No. Did I enjoy the challenge of the game? Yes.
It isn't about that specific moment of failure. It is about that moment actually mattering so that when you don't die (which happens much, much more frequently) you are that much happier and that much more relieved something bad didn't happen.
It is about how my wife felt winning, about how the rest of us felt challenges, and about how now I want to play again so that I can try and win next time.
Focusing on the bad ignores that most of the time you don't die, and it is that much more of an accomplishment when the negative outcome could have been catastrophic.
You don't remember the times you almost stepped on a piece of paper, you remember the times you almost fell off a cliff.
|
|
I notice everything you disagree with seems to be made of straw.My extrapolation.Made of straw.Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?It does seem to be a recurring trend that rather than discussing or refuting what I've said, people on the other side of arguments with me instead try to say that I've said things I have not said and argue against that.
Which is the definition of a strawman.
As a person who specifically changed my quote, I find your indignation quite bold...
Quotations are used to mimic dialogue, as in an imagined conversation. Were I quoting you, I'd be using quote tags.
My indignation is about you flat out calling my play style inferior for the sin of not being yours.
Your indigantion is against an enemy of your own creation.
I say your play style is easier, because it is. Factually it is. Factually not having a penalty in a game is easier than having one.
If this bothers you, have a penalty in your game.
|
|
I would say you are making the mistake of thinking an increase in skill is a decrease in difficulty. And being lower level is a decrease in skill.Of course it makes it easier. You are given more opportunies to do it so you are more likely to do it.
Would you not agree it is harder to do it with only 1 opportunity rather than with a thousand?
As to CR, you are correct that they don't change. However if you are a lower level because of dying in the past (as you would have been in 3.5) that will be more difficult for you, won't it?
I believe you are arguing the encounters will adjust up or down to the level of the party, and I get that.
But if Bob died 5 times and Bill only died 1 time in the course of an AP, and they are both in the same encounter. Bill gets no benefit for having played much, much, better than Bob throughout in pathfinder, but in every other incarnation, Bill would.
You say I am punishing Bob, I say I am giving Bob what he earned. I say it is punishing Bill to have him not be rewarded for playing better than Bob.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I notice everything you disagree with seems to be made of straw.My extrapolation.Made of straw.Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?It does seem to be a recurring trend that rather than discussing or refuting what I've said, people on the other side of arguments with me instead try to say that I've said things I have not said and argue against that.
Which is the definition of a strawman.
As a person who specifically changed my quote, I find your indignation quite bold...
Quotations are used to mimic dialogue, as in an imagined conversation. Were I quoting you, I'd be using quote tags.
My indignation is about you flat out calling my play style inferior for the sin of not being yours.
Your indigantion is against an enemy of your own creation.
I say your play style is easier, because it is. Factually it is. Factually not having a penalty in a game is easier than having one.
If this bothers you, have a penalty in your game.
When did I ever say it wasn't easier? I'm arguing that easier is not necessarily worse. My game is not your game, and that, despite your opinion, is just fine.
Your indigantion is against an enemy of your own creation.I notice everything you disagree with seems to be made of straw.My extrapolation.Made of straw.Would you argue the game is not easier if death has no long term effects?It does seem to be a recurring trend that rather than discussing or refuting what I've said, people on the other side of arguments with me instead try to say that I've said things I have not said and argue against that.
Which is the definition of a strawman.
As a person who specifically changed my quote, I find your indignation quite bold...
Quotations are used to mimic dialogue, as in an imagined conversation. Were I quoting you, I'd be using quote tags.
My indignation is about you flat out calling my play style inferior for the sin of not being yours.
It's her own creation that you're smug?