Why easy mode?


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 515 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yep.

If you got the same reception as you would when you offer to give them things they ask for your group is not reflective of my experience on the boards, where such things are described as "Cruel"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Again, it is no more difficult to add a rule than to subtract one. Player acceptance doesn't factor into that.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Again, it is no more difficult to add a rule than to subtract one. Player acceptance doesn't factor into that.

When you go off book into houserule territory, player acceptance very much comes into play.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I know all about houserule territory. I played at Kirth's table after all. And mdt's.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I know all about houserule territory. I played at Kirth's table after all. And mdt's.

Neither of which are particularly known for decreasing player power. Not a knock at either, but both take the approach of rebalancing up rather than down if I am not mistaken.

Sovereign Court

Toz you are blessed with awesome players.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

mdt ruled you need to make a Fort save to wake up in the middle of the night if you hear something. My dwarf cleric ended up unconcious from a non-lethal CdG for an entire battle.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
mdt ruled you need to make a Fort save to wake up in the middle of the night if you hear something. My dwarf cleric ended up unconcious from a non-lethal CdG for an entire battle.

Seems an odd choice for a wake up mechanic, but that is a ruling on what the mechanic is that wakes you up, which isn't well defined, rather than a than a house rule that from now on, we are ignoring the rule and death has permanent effects.

CdG?


Coup Da Gracie.

I've added and subtracted rules, gotten pushback on both. I added a houserule for stealth that made rogues gods - pushback from the fighter player. I took out the tiny amount of restriction to magic item creation, saying it ONLY took money - slammed by the rogue.

As for the PHYSICAL ACT of doing the subtraction or addition, it seemed to take roughly the same amount of words and jaw strength.

Liberty's Edge

If it is Coup de Grace your lucky it was non-lethal. I generally go the perception check route to wake up, with penalties for sleeping obviously, but I don't see that as the same as telling players "Ignore the book, I'm penalizing more"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I want to houserule anything, I treat my group as a committee and present the houserule accordingly. As a group, we talk the rule out, weigh the pros and cons, and decide if we want to use it. Often times, someone in the group points out something I missed, and vice-versa.

More often than not, my houserules are just streamlining and simplifications, such as letting short swords deal piercing and slashing damage, etc.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:

If I want to houserule anything, I treat my group as a committee and present the houserule accordingly. As a group, we talk the rule out, weigh the pros and cons, and decide if we want to use it. Often times, someone in the group points out something I missed, and vice-versa.

More often than not, my houserules are just streamlining and simplifications, such as letting short swords deal piercing and slashing damage, etc.

Generally the same here, unless a GM is looking to run a type of campaign in which case they need to sell us as players on playing that type of setting and we have to aquience if we want to play.

The point is if you make the default no penalty, it is generally harder to get players to then agree to having a penalty rather than if you make the default a penalty and asking them if they are ok with removing it.


Mark Hoover wrote:

That might also be something to consider, when asking why games are trending toward less restriction on rezing PCs - story. Go back and re-read your old 1e modules. Most of them were basically stand alones; one shots with no real "story" to speak of.

No one made whole campaigns through their company's modules - that was left to the GM. The game was more restrictive and less concerned with character continuity through the campaign.

Nowadays even the board game Descent has a contiuity campaign. Games are trending toward linked adventures, whether by creating one long AP, leaving obvious plot hooks for continuation or at least using the same sites such as Darkmoon Vale.

Yet again, I'd say there's nothing inherently good or bad in this. However if this observation is acurate then it helps explain why death has become less restrictive; b/cause there's a sense that you want this PARTICULAR character who started the AP to get to the end and reap the final reward or fate.

This.

I once lurked on a RotRL PbP where half the party died in the second major encounter. The players made new characters, and half the party died again in the BBEG battle of the 1st book. The players built new characters again, and one of them had the motivation of joining the heroes of the second encounter because they had a friend who was one of the NPC victims of the bad guys at the location.

New PC walks up to the survivors in the local tavern and says, "Hey, aren't you the guys who beat the monsters at location X? Those bastards killed my best friend. I'd be honored if you'd allow me to join you in his memory." To which the party responds with a blank stare. "Location X?" one of them repeats. "Never heard of it." "Oh, wait," another says, "one of our fallen comrades mentioned a battle at location X. But all the heroes of location X are dead now."

And that doesn't even get to what happens at the beginning of book 2 when an NPC the party met in the first encounter of book 1 is supposed to call on his old friends to advance to the next part of the plot -- only they're all dead and he's never met any of the present party. And all this assumption that the party is going to be composed of the original PCs occurs by level 4, long before anyone is supposed to be "attached" to their characters or could hope to have access to raise dead.

Something similar happened in a Red Hand of Doom game I was a player in. After 5 deaths, 1 reincarnation, 1 raise dead, and 3 replacement PCs, we just collectively lost interest in keeping any semblance of our original party together. We had this backstory of being a cohesive party who had stuck together through thick and through thin, and the loss of what were in-character lifelong friends really ate away our morale. Even two players who still had their original PCs decided to get rid of them and build new ones because it was too depressing for them to keep going with the new recruits. Loss of group cohesion through a revolving-door of PCs can really kill emotional investment in a game.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about that RHoD game and Bob the Failbot: 4 of those deaths were all the same player. The first death could be attributed to poor tactics (although not necessarily a poor build), but the other three were either unavoidable or just bad luck: getting Bullrushed off a cliff by a dragon (who probably could only have missed the CMD by rolling a 1), failing a save, and then being adjacent to a party member who failed a save vs. confusion and took her from full hp to dead-dead in a single attack.

Liberty's Edge

If your GM is going to put you in unavoidable random death situations, that is a GM problem, not a system problem.

Now you can avoid being bullrushed off a cliff depending on the terrain, and similarly the confused buddy is part of the same spread out philosophy used against fireball and such.

EDIT: Also, as someone who ran ROTRL it would require some really bad luck or GMing for half the party to die in the 2nd encounter.


ciretose wrote:

If your GM is going to put you in unavoidable random death situations, that is a GM problem, not a system problem.

Now you can avoid being bullrushed off a cliff depending on the terrain, and similarly the confused buddy is part of the same spread out philosophy used against fireball and such.

It was actually a 5-foot-wide bridge between two cliffs, and the dragon didn't show up until we were halfway across. With the confusion, the PC's last death had come about because she had failed a save vs. paralysis while out of melee and the rest of the party couldn't get to her before she was stabbed to death, so the ranger was actually close to her on purpose to be protecting her in the next battle. He was one of the players who built a new PC, largely because he was overwhelmed with guilt at having killed the woman he was supposed to be protecting and couldn't imagine his PC going on.

But, yeah, there was a lot of adversarial GMing in that game.

RotRL, Burnt Offerings:
It was the Glassworks; I don't remember if it's actually the second encounter as written in the AP, but it's the second one that sticks out in my mind from a player standpoint after the opening festival. When I played it, we had one PC who should have died to the Sinspawn but the DM fudged it (allowing him to spontaneously awaken from unconsciousness and still be holding his weapon somehow). Then we would have TPKed at Thistletop but for Orik changing loyalties to help us. I didn't follow the other game enough to know exactly what they faced, but our game was brutal, based mostly on the fact that we never had the chance to rest once we started into the thorn maze so had to fight everything on one day's worth of spells/cures. We even had a wand of clw with 12 charges from Father Zantus, and it was a worthless stick before we even got inside the building.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
If it is Coup de Grace your lucky it was non-lethal. I generally go the perception check route to wake up, with penalties for sleeping obviously, but I don't see that as the same as telling players "Ignore the book, I'm penalizing more"

It was with a sap, so no lethal damage could be dealt.

The Exchange

ciretose wrote:

If your GM is going to put you in unavoidable random death situations, that is a GM problem, not a system problem.

Now you can avoid being bullrushed off a cliff depending on the terrain, and similarly the confused buddy is part of the same spread out philosophy used against fireball and such.

EDIT: Also, as someone who ran ROTRL it would require some really bad luck or GMing for half the party to die in the 2nd encounter.

what you seem to be saying is, that character death should be harsh and permanent... so long as it dosen't happen very often. I kind of agree with that notion, but the very real problem is that PCs take risks (sometimes huge risks) on a regular basis. You don't want your campaign to come to a screeching halt just because your players made a mistake. That leaves with the need to fudge rolls, which in terms of switiching to "easy mode" is just as bad as making resurrection easy.

So what is the solution you can come up with? How do you present realy challange and danger to your PCs, while also not allowing them to recover from mistakes?

I am really intrestet in a good answer to that question - I never played high level before so up til now, death was permanent in my group. I wonder how to handle raise dead in my game.


I think what I find most amusing about this thread is that every game I have played with that has had a player/character who "doesn't care about the consequences of death" has been in a system that have no revival mechanic. I think the characters most afraid of death have been in Nobilis, where Immortality is something you can purchase at character creation and even the lowest HP chracters can survive a nuke dropped on their head.


Mark Hoover wrote:
I'm sorry, as Cora above pointed out, if I'm an exceptionally bad GM which is skewing my experiences and perceptions of older editions, but there you go.

If by "Cora" you mean me, I have to point out that I didn't accuse you of being a bad DM. Indeed, I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply wrote that I had never seen an AD&D game devolve into a fistfight, and that such an outcome is not a typical experience.

Dark Archive

ciretose wrote:

Perhaps it is just me, but I like my game a bit gritty. I want a bit of fear at my table. I want to know that the rolls matter, and that I can't just make everything ok if something bad happens.

I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.

While I get the concept and understand and even sympathize with it, I saw someone do that in a ptolus game. If not handled properly, like he did(ie- he didnt handle it properly) the game became a grind, the players COULDNT catch a break, and eventually the players gave up becuase the game became a burdern and they couldnt win or achieve any victory.

You have to handle with care.

Grand Lodge

Mark Hoover wrote:

Go back and re-read your old 1e modules. Most of them were basically stand alones; one shots with no real "story" to speak of.

No one made whole campaigns through their company's modules - that was left to the GM. The game was more restrictive and less concerned with character continuity through the campaign.

The majority of the really early 1st edition modules were like this (with a few exceptions like the "Slave Lord" series or "Against the Giants/Queen of the Demonweb Pits" for example), but as 1st edition progressed forward, modules were getting more and more story oriented and campaigned focused (the original Ravenloft, the Dragonlance series, Sentinel and Gauntlet, etc.) and these sorts of modules started coming out in the early 1980’s...

And almost right out of the gate, 2nd edition modules were story and campaign oriented with very few "stand alone" modules being produced; and even these few “stand alones” were VERY story driven. Also, 2nd edition had a more severe penalty to being brought back from death than 1st edition had; you actually LOST points to your character's CON score (in addition to everything that was in place in 1st edition; like system shock rolls and limits to the number of times you can be brought back based upon CON score)...

And like these 3rd edition/Pathfinder APs, there was no shortage of players that wanted their characters to see the story through and gain the benefits of their conclusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
The point is if you make the default no penalty, it is generally harder to get players to then agree to having a penalty rather than if you make the default a penalty and asking them if they are ok with removing it.

The problem I have with your side of the argument is that you seem to keep implying that death should be the only penalty for failure, and so we have to make death feel worse.

It's a one-dimensional solution that isn't innovative or interesting. I find it uninteresting actually.

I am not anti-consequence. I just find your one-dimensional approach to consequences in these threads to be dull.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
And like these 3rd edition/Pathfinder APs, there was no shortage of players that wanted their characters to see the story through and gain the benefits of their conclusion.

The difference though, Gygax viewed the player as the important component piece of the puzzle, not the character. What he would describe as the skills and knowledge a player accrued would often be called metagaming these days. You didn't roll knowledge checks to remember trolls were vulnerable to fire. You were expected to remember as the player, not the character.

Grand Lodge

Irontruth wrote:
Gygax viewed the player as the important component piece of the puzzle, not the character. What he would describe as the skills and knowledge a player accrued would often be called metagaming these days. You didn't roll knowledge checks to remember trolls were vulnerable to fire. You were expected to remember as the player, not the character.

This is true, but with 2nd edition, TSR distanced themselves as far from Gygax as they could; and either directly or indirectly because of that, the characters had become the focus in 2nd edition...

And while there were no "knowledge checks", they did address the problem of player vs. character knowledge in 2nd edition:

2nd edition DMG wrote:
Information is a much more difficult problem. Your players must understand the distinction between what they know as players and what their characters know. Your players have read the rules and shared stories about each other's games. They've torn out their hair as the entire party of adventurers was turned into lawn ornaments by the medusa who lives beyond the black gateway. That is all player information. No other characters know what happened to that group, except this: they went through the black gateway and never returned. The problem of player knowledge/character knowledge is always present, but it is much worse when players control more than one character in the same region. It takes good players to ignore information their characters have no way of knowing, especially if it concerns something dangerous. The best solution is to avoid the situation. If it comes up and players seem to be taking advantage of knowledge they shouldn't have, you can discourage them by changing things a bit. Still, prevention is the best cure. And remember, when problems arise (which they will), don't give up or give in. Instead, look for ways to turn the problem into an adventure.


Yes, but that early concept is important to understanding why some modules could be meat grinders, while being part of a long term series.


ciretose wrote:

If your GM is going to put you in unavoidable random death situations, that is a GM problem, not a system problem.

Now you can avoid being bullrushed off a cliff depending on the terrain, and similarly the confused buddy is part of the same spread out philosophy used against fireball and such.

EDIT: Also, as someone who ran ROTRL it would require some really bad luck or GMing for half the party to die in the 2nd encounter.

As an interested reader of this thread, I find it frustrating when you propose a theory ("lack of consequences for death makes the game less gritty/more Disney-like, and thus less fun"), are presented with anecdotal evidence to the contrary ( detailing how grittiness and perma-death can really detract from fun), and then just wave your hand dismissively ("that's a GM problem, not a system problem").

Now, to answer that: this thread is not about a system problem. It's about your tastes, preferences, and biases, even though you present them as facts.

Personally, I hate the idea of easy rezzes that make players fearless.

Read that again: we have the same base opinion.

But I'm pretty sure that's not a system problem. That's my problem, if I let it be.

I've never changed rules in games I've run regarding coming back from the dead. And I find my players to be just as concerned about death playing PF, in "easy mode" as you call it, as any other system, even those that had no res mechanic.

Nope, not a system problem.

Waiting to see you use wand of counter-opinion dismissal on this post :)

Liberty's Edge

RotRL spoilers below:
There were a number of side quests prior to the glassworks, presumably to assure the players leveled before going to the glassworks. So looking at that encounter, everyone should have been level 2, fighting mostly goblins that they should almost certainly gotten the drop on going downstairs and finding a drunk Tsuto who wants to escape. I can see one death if someone gets knocked out and thrown in the oven, but two seems like something went horribly wrong on one side of the table or the other.

If they continued down to the Catacombs of Wrath, I can kind of see that I guess, but that seems like bad choices by the party if they don't stop to rest first.

Thistletop can be deadly if the party tries to take it all in one go, but you should also be 3rd level by then and possibly 4th by the time you reach Nualia.

Back on topic, a Good GM doesn't put you in situations that would kill someone of your level arbitrarily. If you put someone on a 5 foot ledge and a dragon appears, you should at least give your players some access to fly potions.

Adversarial GMing is bad. If your GM can't handle being a GM, you need to find one that can or get that person to understand they aren't actually competing with the party. Just challenging them.

Now if they are at the end of the night fighting the BBEG, that is when death is a very real possibilty that doesn't mess with the game in the same way as a random early evening death. If you die on the last encounter, you have between sessions to figure out what to do next.

High level is different, because you can bring them back mid-session, and that is fine. What bothers me is not having it carry over with some consequence, even if it is as simple as "Subtract a percent of XP and take a negative level if that brings you below your current".

Liberty's Edge

@littlehewy - If your system doesn't match your setting, that causes verisimilitude problems.

As I said, it is much easier to be permissive with players than be restrictive.

How many people actually run APs with 15 point buys, as written.

Exactly. Yet that is where they are written and designed to be run.

It is easier to loosen the reins than trying to get it on the horse already charging out of the barn.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The point is if you make the default no penalty, it is generally harder to get players to then agree to having a penalty rather than if you make the default a penalty and asking them if they are ok with removing it.

The problem I have with your side of the argument is that you seem to keep implying that death should be the only penalty for failure, and so we have to make death feel worse.

It's a one-dimensional solution that isn't innovative or interesting. I find it uninteresting actually.

I am not anti-consequence. I just find your one-dimensional approach to consequences in these threads to be dull.

I am implying death should actually have a penalty for failure. Other things will as well, but few of them are in any way permanent.

This is what makes death different and special. Or did.

If you would like to propose a solution that is innovative or interesting, feel free.

So far I've said I don't dislike the Macguffin approach, but don't see how it could reasonably be implemented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

@littlehewy - If your system doesn't match your setting, that causes verisimilitude problems.

As I said, it is much easier to be permissive with players than be restrictive.

How many people actually run APs with 15 point buys, as written.

Exactly. Yet that is where they are written and designed to be run.

It is easier to loosen the reins than trying to get it on the horse already charging out of the barn.

Your argument/issue isn't based in verisimilitude though. It's just a useful tool for you to bring up sometimes when your real issue is semi-competently countered :). Your issue is that epic doesn't feel epic if dying isn't punished as much as you think it should be.

However, I agree that core-wise, it is best to have some punishment in there, as some players take it personally when punishments are added rather than nerfed, as I described here

Quote:

I am implying death should actually have a penalty for failure. Other things will as well, but few of them are in any way permanent.

This is what makes death different and special. Or did.

If you would like to propose a solution that is innovative or interesting, feel free.

See, this posts demonstrates more my point before. You are stating things as fact that are actually just your opinion, ie "This is what makes death different and special."

Incorrect. That's what you feel makes death different and special. Others have tried to explain that most people don't feel that way, but you continue to regard your own preferences and opinion as gospel.

Likewise, your constant inferences that any that don't think "hard mode" is better are less skilled, and thus lesser players than you - that the only reason Fred's PCs have died twice in the campaign is because he can only make "failbots". That's as reasonable as calling someone "gay" in high school for playing in the band rather than on the football team, or using the term "gay" as derogative in the first place. Maybe leave it out.

Anyway, my players certainly feel that death is different and special, and very important and worthy of fear. But it ain't because of the 5k.

But, as you said, I leave it in there because deviating from core in a way that the players perceive as making it harder can give rise to complaints and arguments.

Liberty's Edge

Because in the setting death is special. Death is the end of life, when you go to Pharasma's boneyard to be judged, unless there is some divine intervention.

I'm glad your players "feel" it is special. Mechanically, it isn't anymore.

It used to be, in 3.5. Now in the long run it is like any other status effect.

Why is it hard for you to understand I object to this change in the game, that this change is, factually, making the game easier?

And why does it bother you that I am posting my objections to it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Because in the setting death is special. Death is the end of life, when you go to Pharasma's boneyard to be judged, unless there is some divine intervention.

I'm glad your players "feel" it is special. Mechanically, it isn't anymore.

It used to be, in 3.5. Now in the long run it is like any other status effect.

Why is it hard for you to understand I object to this change in the game, that this change is, factually, making the game easier?

And why does it bother you that I am posting my objections to it?

I agree, death is special in the setting.

I disagree that mechanically it ever was special. Special is a qualitative term - mechanics focus on the quantative by their very nature. And raise dead was always an option.

None of that bothers me. What bothers me is that you imply others are worse, or below you, for having a different opinion - you don't even see that his discussion involves opinions, just right and wrong, or, "the way I do it" and "easy/failbot".

I have no problem with what you like, what you prefer, and what you think is a better system. In general, I agree with many of your points. It's the way you subtly disparage others when they can cogently counter your points.


we have that anyone who is raised will have some sort of derangement upon returning to life. things just aren't psychologically right for them anymore.

Liberty's Edge

I am implying that it is nerfing the game to remove penalties from death, because it is.

It is an easier mode that is less likely to force players who are having trouble surviving to adjust either build or behavior going forward.

I think it is a mistake to nerf the game because people don't like to die in some home games. I think that nerf should come in the home games, not in the rule set.

I said the beginner set should be easier and less punative, which is that also insulting I guess.

I think the game is drifting into participation trophy territory as the norm, rather than as a play option for those who don't want serious consequences. And I think that is a mistake that is watering down the product.

Because others disagree and feel like they are every bit as upset when a player dies as someone in a game where it actually has in game consequences isn't a cogent counter to my points.

It functionally says "I like it this way and I don't like it your way."

Which is saying the same thing I'm saying, without being able to show any mechanical effect or historical precedence for why death should have no long term effect.

I am not implying others arguing for no consequence for death want to play a game that is easier and with less consequence.

I am outright saying it.

If statement bothers you, it doesn't make it less true. And I'm not interested in beating around the bush in the discussion and pretending like death having no effect doesn't make the game easier.

Other changes that made the game easier I agree with. Giving more hit points before you die I agree with. Nerfing SoD spells I agree with. And if I were in a discussion with someone opposed to these things, I would fully admit that, yes, I want the easier version.

This, I don't want the easier version.

Others do.

That admitting that makes them feel sad and now the discussion is about how they feel about it rather than the actual facts is...demonstrative.

Liberty's Edge

Nepherti wrote:
we have that anyone who is raised will have some sort of derangement upon returning to life. things just aren't psychologically right for them anymore.

More impactful that I would personally like, but it is a way to go.

How would you adjudicate and what type of effects?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
littlehewy wrote:
It's the way you subtly disparage others when they can cogently counter your points.

It is the tone that motivates me to respond more than any actual disagreement with the statements. Not just to ciretose but many other regulars around here.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
It's the way you subtly disparage others when they can cogently counter your points.
It is the tone that motivates me to respond more than any actual disagreement with the statements. Not just to ciretose but many other regulars around here.

And response is discussion.

I am blunt, because I find beating around the bush on the internet leads to bland discussions that go no where.

Take a stand and say where it is.


ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
It's the way you subtly disparage others when they can cogently counter your points.
It is the tone that motivates me to respond more than any actual disagreement with the statements. Not just to ciretose but many other regulars around here.

And response is discussion.

I am blunt, because I find beating around the bush on the internet leads to bland discussions that go no where.

Take a stand and say where it is.

Instead you get flamewars that go no where. Big improvement.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
It's the way you subtly disparage others when they can cogently counter your points.
It is the tone that motivates me to respond more than any actual disagreement with the statements. Not just to ciretose but many other regulars around here.

And response is discussion.

I am blunt, because I find beating around the bush on the internet leads to bland discussions that go no where.

Take a stand and say where it is.

Instead you get flamewars that go no where. Big improvement.

Actually many if not most of the discussions actually lead to interesting and productive discussions and solutions.

The thread that spawned this post was one of the best on the boards, the monk threads lead to FAQs, as have quite a few others.

Someone demanding a build, or asking for evidence moves the debate to a concrete footing and out of the realm of I think into "I'll show".


ciretose wrote:

I am implying that it is nerfing the game to remove penalties from death, because it is.

It is an easier mode that is less likely to force players who are having trouble surviving to adjust either build or behavior going forward.

I think it is a mistake to nerf the game because people don't like to die in some home games. I think that nerf should come in the home games, not in the rule set.

I said the beginner set should be easier and less punative, which is that also insulting I guess.

I think the game is drifting into participation trophy territory as the norm, rather than as a play option for those who don't want serious consequences. And I think that is a mistake that is watering down the product.

Because others disagree and feel like they are every bit as upset when a player dies as someone in a game where it actually has in game consequences isn't a cogent counter to my points.

It functionally says "I like it this way and I don't like it your way."

Which is saying the same thing I'm saying, without being able to show any mechanical effect or historical precedence for why death should have no long term effect.

I am not implying others arguing for no consequence for death want to play a game that is easier and with less consequence.

I am outright saying it.

If statement bothers you, it doesn't make it less true. And I'm not interested in beating around the bush in the discussion and pretending like death having no effect doesn't make the game easier.

Other changes that made the game easier I agree with. Giving more hit points before you die I agree with. Nerfing SoD spells I agree with. And if I were in a discussion with someone opposed to these things, I would fully admit that, yes, I want the easier version.

This, I don't want the easier version.

Others do.

That admitting that makes them feel sad and now the discussion is about how they feel about it rather than the actual facts is...demonstrative.

Again you've avoided the main thrust of my post. Ok.

If the only way you can discuss this issue is by being insulting, and the only way you can understand "consequence" and "difficulty" in RPGs is by numbers, then I'll leave you to your insults and numbers.

Liberty's Edge

I disagree with main thrust of your post?

It is factually easier to play if when you die, you get no consequences.

If is factually easier to play the game if you die at -12 rather than -10 because you have a 12 con and in Pathfinder that means you die at -12 rather than -10.

It is factually easier to play if SoD spell no longer kill with only one save, or don't kill any more.

If you want to discuss how your players "feel" about death, that doesn't change that it is easier.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And to be clear why I am fine with one and not the other, making SoD spells less lethal and making it harder to kill a player doesn't change the setting.

The fact that it is harder to die doesn't change what death means. It just makes that occurence less frequent.

I would be more than open to making death occur in a less random way, to make deaths more rare and when they occur assue that they are as meaningful as possible.

That is a goal I would endorse.

Having the solution be "People don't like dying, lets make it less bad so people don't hate it as much" is a goal I do not endorse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So that being said Vitamin-C, what is the result you're looking for in this discussion? Are you looking for a dev to chime in and answer your question? Done. Are you looking for the community at large to answer your OP? Done.

My only guess from here is - you're looking to either 1. have your opinions validated/invalidated which could go on forever or 2. have your summation change the entire momentum of tabletop RPG development, at least in regards to consequences for dying in said games.

Either way you didn't start out with a question of fact; your question was on opinion - why easy mode, or why is the gaming industry watering down death consequences. Yes you've used fact to prove that less consequence = easier. I'd argue that the "easier" you speak of has minimal impact, but that's an opinion. The fact remains that you're right about that fact.

But your OP was..."WHY?" This is an open-ended, opinion-driven question, especially considering the tone in the title of the thread and the tone in MANY of the answers, mine included I'm sorry to say.

But getting back to that OP..."why?" Well many have answered that, even JJ in another thread. So it would appear: discussion over. Yet the answers don't seem to satisfy you or others...based on how you "feel" about the answers.

So I'd ask again: where are we going with this? Are we looking for an answer, b/cause several have already been given though they may not be the ones some folks wanted to hear. Or instead, do we want to stop arguing and simply admit that long ago this thread was motivated to perpetuate based on our OPINIONS of the reality of death consequences in tabletop RPGs today as opposed to 5, 10 or 20 years ago?


ciretose wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The point is if you make the default no penalty, it is generally harder to get players to then agree to having a penalty rather than if you make the default a penalty and asking them if they are ok with removing it.

The problem I have with your side of the argument is that you seem to keep implying that death should be the only penalty for failure, and so we have to make death feel worse.

It's a one-dimensional solution that isn't innovative or interesting. I find it uninteresting actually.

I am not anti-consequence. I just find your one-dimensional approach to consequences in these threads to be dull.

I am implying death should actually have a penalty for failure. Other things will as well, but few of them are in any way permanent.

This is what makes death different and special. Or did.

If you would like to propose a solution that is innovative or interesting, feel free.

So far I've said I don't dislike the Macguffin approach, but don't see how it could reasonably be implemented.

I did, you just decided to dismiss it without actually looking at how it could achieve what you're looking for.

I have played games where it is easily implemented. But you like your thought experiments more than my actual playing experience to inform your decision.


@ciretose, its mostly RP for now. If a PC dies and is resurrected, then player and GM discuss how the death itself will manifest a psychosis.

My rogue was fed to a crocodile god, now she fears crocs. She also has no fear of anything else. This leads her to be reckless.

An NPC was resurrected by my PC, the NPC now has a fear of dark, closed in spaces (she was locked in a trunk) and hates to be alone.


Anecdotal evidence from another thread:

Ravingdork wrote:
Of the four adventure paths my friends and I have played, three of them have had TPKs, some multiple TPKs (the fourth has eaten only half the party). We have yet to finish the third adventure module in any given adventure path (and rarely make it past the second) because our revolving door of new characters no longer hold any connection to the story at hand, causing the players to lose interest.

I'm actually thoroughly okay with ciretose's 5% solution, for the record. (I presume that you wouldn't actually delevel the character, and that the negative level would go away without casting restoration if you gained enough XPs to get back to your previous level?) It's more low-level-friendly than RAW combined with the WBL table and also makes death more than the monentary inconvenience it is now for high-level parties with their own cleric and plenty of treasure. RAW makes death unconquerable without DM fiat at low levels and a speedbump equivalent to healing up between fights at high levels; his proposal would make it a roughly-equivalent sacrifice across all levels, keeping in mind that low-level parties without their own clerics will still face the hurdles of finding a caster and paying for the spellcasting fee. Wouldn't work for groups that don't track individual XP, though.

Liberty's Edge

@joana - Yes it would go away, the only penalty being you now level later than everyone else since you have less XP. Happens enough, you may want to consider retiring the character.

@Irontruth - And it was?

@Mark Hoover - Actual ideas are on the table for alternatives. As to intent, it was to point out that the nerf is happening and to ask why it is happening. There has been a good bit of "I like it and you are mean for saying it is easier" and very little discussion of the need for the change.

@Nepherti - I think like the Macguffin it can work in a good group of people who are willing to have penalties and quests inserted by the GM, but part of the concern voices by SKR was a percieved GM vs PC problem. I like both ideas, I think groups that can execute them will have more interesting sessions than ones who can't, but I'm not sure how you write it into a spell.


@ciretose
Yeah, it does take a certain group dynamic to pull the derangement idea off. Both examples I gave came from the game I play Nepherti Beit Shai'rut in---as the only PC. We designed her party to function like Mass Effect choices, where she chooses who she wants accompanying her and who she wants in other missions. Since she is the only PC, she also cannot truly die, else the intricate story we have going for her dies as well. We haven't tried derangement death with a full group yet, for the need for resurrection is quite rare in our groups.


ciretose wrote:
@Irontruth - And it was?

At this point, you've worn me down, intentionally or not. I don't care enough to continue repeating myself after you've repeatedly treated my responses in a dismissive manner.

Or you can go find a session of Dungeon World to play in. I highly recommend it.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
@Irontruth - And it was?

At this point, you've worn me down, intentionally or not. I don't care enough to continue repeating myself after you've repeatedly treated my responses in a dismissive manner.

Or you can go find a session of Dungeon World to play in. I highly recommend it.

I just went back over 10 days in this thread, and then stopped because if asking you to say something you wrote over a week ago is asking you to repeat yourself excessively...

I honestly have no idea what you have proposed.

301 to 350 of 515 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why easy mode? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.