|
@Jiggy - It clearly wasn't to add anything to the discussion.
I went back and read what Irontruth posted, and I did respond to it. Favorably actually, it is on page 2 or 3 of the discussion, perhaps he forgot...
He was arguing gritty could exist without the penalty if you just find other stories and plots. And this is true.
It is also true that I can use a piece of wood rather than a hammer in a pinch. And I could kill a man with a frozen fish if I don't have a club.
But does that mean we shouldn't have hammers or clubs because other things can be used to accomplish most of the goal with a bit more effort, time and creativity?
Why should I have to add more complicated and less setting appropriate plot twists to achieve what should be basic, and has always been a basic part of the the system. Death is a penultimate bad thing to happen that has campaign length consequences.
Why make the rules harder to make consistent with the setting. Why nerf death as a thing that happens if what you really want is to nerf dying meaninglessly.
Why make all deaths meaninglessly easy to overcome when what it seems many if not most people actually want is for meaningless deaths not to occur.
And if that is the issue, then if we are asking the GM by fiat to create complex plots to overcome the shortcomings of the rule system for the death effects, isn't is more reasonable to ask the GM not to set up situations where players die meaninglessly or unfairly from things beyond their reasonable control?
Isn't that the more logical implementation of the GM intervention that Irontruth seemed to advocate as the solution?
PF is not default "gritty" since one of the implied definitions of "Gritty" is death consequences. The product is fairly vanilla by nature to appeal to the widest audience. If you want grit then add it. If you're going to add that grit to setting, theme and such...add it to death consequences and other rules or gray areas.
Alternatives to no death consequences:
1. remove Rezing of any kind from the game
2. give players a set amount of lives based on either a base stat or a fixed number
3. lower NPC levels so players have to do it themselves
4. create a stat or exp tax - each time a PC is rez'd they lose a point in a stat or a percentage of exp
5. impose a disability such as derangement, an incurable limb loss or other hindrance
6. randomly impose a "judgement" by the setting's default death god for defying them. Judgements could be any of the above or permanent curses
7. impose a quest for every rez
8. shatter a key piece of hardware alongside the monetery cost of the spell
9. remove a feat for each Rez
10 disease the PC to represent the fact that they've cheated death; disease kills them slower than a mundane one but if they die again takes a deeper toll. Ex: die and come back once, you're taking 1 con damage per mo. Die and come back again - you're taking 2 con damage per mo. and so on.
11. each time they come back the charcter gets a new split personality
12. modify alignment toward evil; if evil toward good; if neutral then insanity
13. impose a permanent condition - die once you come back permanently fatigued; die twice you come back permanently exhausted
14. impose thematic changes that modify social interaction and escalate with continued Rez's - come back once, animals don't like you; come back a 2nd time they flee from you; a third time animals attack you on sight; a 4th time and they're actively hunting you
15. create supernatural agents of the default death god to hunt the rez'd
16. each rez kills someone close to the PC, including other PCs
17. each rez blanks the last 9 mo's of the PCs life
18. every rez creates a world change - an island is destroyed, a plague is unleashed, a blight kills the crops, etc.
19. every rez carries a geas for the rez'd PC; they must perform some quest for the default death god or other divine agency
20. every rez carries a chance that scales upward with successive rez's that the PC will become an unwilled undead and thus unplayable.
There: 20 ideas. Good, bad, repeated from other sources such as this thread or past editions...whatever. But 20 possible death consequences.
ALL of them call for some kind of added rule or rule mod since PF was written vanilla, meaning that every one of them is GM Fiat. This means that every one of them is something the GM and their players would have to discuss before the game hits the table, bringing us back to the fact that yes C-man is right: PF and others have nerfed death consequences and thus made the default game easier, but if you still want to play the game then just make it what you want.
Make the game what you want. Let me say it again: make it what you want. I did that all the time even as far back as 1e; so did all the GM's I played with. Even at a tournament as a kid once the GM announced it was going to be an anti-cleric module so if we decided to play a cleric there'd be bonuses to spell powers based on the good gods wanting you to survive to do their will but you'd be preternaturally targeted in the game by enemies.
Add or subtract rules or go back to a previous version. Make it what you want.
|
|
Pathfinder's setting is default gritty.
It more often than not, the story of adventurers dealing with monsters who kill people.
Now make bringing those people back to like cheap and without consequence. Lines and lines of gentle reposed waiting for clerics to raise them...tragedy not so tragic.
Needs lots of high level clerics, you say? There will be since death doesn't even slow down xp progression, let alone end the game I say.
Interesting setting. Not Golarion. Or Forgotten Realms. Really, really not Eberon.
The product isn't, in my opinion "vanilla". The product is drifting toward "vanilla". Currently the 5k does have a bite, if not a permanent one.
I'm asking why?
As to your list.
1. No one wants that.
2. Maybe
3. Meh...not sure I fully follow how that changes much.
4. This is kind of what I advocated for, I would go XP as I think the other is a bit too punitive (look at me not arguing for something excessively punitive)
5. I think this is also to punitive, but I could see it working very well in some groups and being a lot of fun. Not a bad idea, just one that requires a group and GM trust that seems lacking on the messageboards.
6. Again, would work in some groups, but creates the Player vs GM that SKR said was the problem.
7. See #5
8. See #6
9. Too punitive, IMHO.
10. Interesting...same cure mechanics for disease?
11. See #6
12. See #6 and #7
13. See #9
14. See #5
15. See #6
16. This is funny for reasons I can't discuss currently, but see #5
17. See #5
18. See #5
19. That is an interesting mechanic for the Macguffin idea, and I like it a lot but it still is a see #5...although that could be an interesting path to a solution. I like it.
20. See #6.
Hope that doesn't come off as dismissive, because it wasn't meant to be at all. It's just with 20 solutions addressing each on can get to be a wall of text without brevity.
Brevity = fine. Levity = better. The "why" seems to have already been answered. However your OP has modified a bit to...what now. While I admit that many are punitive (ok, in my opinion they're ALL punitive) they all get to the root of it in that the game HAS indeed changed and all we're doing in this thread is tossing around homebrew suggestions.
I find that by imposing any of these I become the GM that punishes people's characters for dying...when I'm the one that killed them. Regardless I'm glad I could contribute something positive to the discussion. If I HAD to do any of these, I think I'd go either 7 or 19, thus FORCING the party and possibly the PC to learn something from the experience in a quantifiable way (the xp they get from the quest).
|
|
And this is largely why I am annoyed by the change, as it shifts the conversation from the GM being benevolent for offering an alternative like a Macguffin quest, etc...to that being more punitive than the current outcome.
In 3.5 a GM could say to a player "Your god brought you back, and you don't have to give up the level if you do X" and that was something nice the GM was doing.
Now it is punishing them.
You are thinning the GM toolbox, which is why Irontruth's point isn't valid to me. The fact I still have wood and frozen fish doesn't change that you took my hammer and club.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's setting is default gritty.
It more often than not, the story of adventurers dealing with monsters who kill people.
Funny, Doctor Who is "more often than not, the story of adventurers dealing with monsters who kill people." But "gritty" is NOT the term I'd use to describe it. Your idea that if it's about deadly monsters it must be intended to be gritty is a flawed premise, and as a result your assessment of Pathfinder's intended default setting is incorrect.
Sounds to me like YOUR default setting is "gritty" - which is, of course, totally fine. But maybe straight-off-the-shelf Pathfinder just isn't for you.
|
|
Funny, Doctor Who is "more often than not, the story of adventurers dealing with monsters who kill people." But "gritty" is NOT the term I'd use to describe it.Pathfinder's setting is default gritty.
It more often than not, the story of adventurers dealing with monsters who kill people.
Have you seen the Angel statue episode? :)
And Dr. Who isn't described as gritty because the Doctor just comes back again and again and again....
More illustrating my point than refuting it. So thanks!
I've never seen Pathfinder (or D&D) as gritty by default.
Are you implying I'm having badwrongfun because it's not the case?
|
|
For the purpose of defining terms, let me lay out what I think of as "Gritty" and see what others think to see if we can come to a consensus definition.
Gritty is when something bad can happen to the primary characters, redirecting the narrative.
Dr. Who will come back.
Buffy may not have (she did, but you weren't sure and she was fundimentally changed)
Look at the Grimm Fairy tales as written originally (for scaring small children) vs the sanitized version.
It isn't just about bad things happening to some people, it is that bad things can happen to all people, including the heroes. And sometimes, you can't fix it.
That, to me, is gritty.
What is gritty to you? Open question.
|
|
I've never seen Pathfinder (or D&D) as gritty by default.
Are you implying I'm having badwrongfun because it's not the case?
Oh look at you trying to put words in my mouth.
Have you read any of the Adventure Paths. I ask so I can pick a few scenes to spoiler tag. Rise of the Runelords...man...that got dark...
|
|
And as to the setting...I mean, there is an entire country that went from worshiping the God of Humanity to Devil worship. There is a more or less permanent "French Revolution Terror" country. There is literally a rift in the fabric of the universe pouring demons out that corrupt even the purest of heart...
|
|
@thejeff - Fair point, but I would argue that aside from solo quests, it should never be about a solo protagonist. In fact many tables complain if one player becomes "The star"
It shouldn't be about "the hero". In Noir, people you care about die and there is nothing you can do about it. I'm not a big watcher of Dr. Who, but I'm betting that the episodes where the companions die are probably considered "grittier" by those who are fans.
If you want high powered fantasy, that is fine. That is not wrongbadfun.
But as I said, it is much, much easier for a GM to say "We are going to give you less penalties and make death less impactful" than for them to say "I'm going to make the game harder."
Mark's example led to my comment that in 3.5 as a GM I could be benevolent about "bad" character deaths and offer options to "fix" when death wasn't meaningful by offering things like a sidequest to avoid the penalities.
But when there are no penalties, all deaths are equally easy to overcome unless you create some elaborate complication...which then is Player vs GM, forcing the GM to concoct plots in order to have something that can scare the PC...rather than just having the normal things in the premise of the game scare the PC.
Again, it would be easier for people who want...well...easier to get it through house rule than those who want the status quo for the previous 25 years or so to remain as it has been.
|
|
What is gritty to you? Open question.A theme of the bad outweighing the good. A scene set with few positive attitudes, overwhelmed by negative attitudes. Where life is hard and miserable, with brief respites of happiness.
Fair. Darker than I was going for, but fair. I imagine that is where TOZ lives :)
Anyone else?
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is pretty much the exact opposite of gritty. Pretty much everything Whedon does is the opposite. Character death has nothing to do with gritty. Gritty is about the style and attititude of the work.
Pathfinder is about Big Damn Heroes going out and doing heroic things. It is not gritty by default. Pretty much no version of D&D has been.
Flashy, high powered SF or fantasy isn't, even if characters die.
You can have high powered fantasy that can qualify as gritty. I have only read a little of it, but Dresden Files could qualify.
|
|
Fair. Darker than I was going for, but fair. I imagine that is where TOZ lives :)
Not really. Mood has a pretty strong effect on me. 'Saving Private Ryan' is what I would consider gritty. I can't watch it more than once.
It's the same for gaming. If the tone is overly negative, it will bring me down. Even if characters can come back from death, I have to ask 'why would they WANT to?' Usually loyalty to companions is a good enough reason, but it all depends on the game.
I've talked about the intro game I participated in at the local college. The DM refused to kill any characters, but it was a prime example of a gritty game to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so I'm pondering this whole "what is 'gritty'?" thing. Not sure I have a definition per se, but I'm pretty sure I identify something as gritty by the tone rather than specifically the risk of death for the characters.
For instance, I'm thinking of one fantasy movie in particular where one of the main sources of conflict is from multiple parties chasing down an innocent girl with the intent of cutting out her heart and eating it. People die left and right, with only two of the movie's primary characters surviving to the end. Someone gets impaled, someone else gets their head blasted off, someone else gets eaten alive by a swarm of animals, someone else gets their throat slit while in the bathtub, etc. Yet even so, I would call that movie the opposite of gritty, because the tone still comes across rather lighthearted and quirky and fun.
Meanwhile, I'm thinking of another (non-fantasy) movie that takes place in American suburbia, where exactly one (IIRC) person dies (no one is even in any real danger, for that matter). Yet you feel awful at the end (and most of the way through it), and I would call it 'gritty'.
So I guess I'd have to say that, to me, 'gritty' is a matter of the overall tone, independent of how easy it is to die or how many people die.
So it could be, ciretose, that when you say "gritty", you're meaning "risky" while people are instead hearing "negative tone" or some such thing, which would explain why you can't seem to find any common ground with anyone about deadliness' role in making the game "gritty".
Gritty = Peter David's stint in the Hulk. No matter WHAT they tried to cure Banner, it never worked. Everyone distanced themselves from him...even his own "selves". They went as dark with the characters as comics would allow, making the Hulk a mob hitman. And when all was said and done, as he was on his way out of the series...they killed Betty.
I concur with TOZ: gritty is the attitude of the game and the gamers playing it. I've played gritty and frankly I hated it. Everything I did, even my successes, were ultimately futile and meaningless. I only died once but upon rezing suffered physical and social consequence that lasted the rest of the game.
But here's the rub - none of that was built into the mechanics, save for the death consequence to con and level. I lost my eye to an angry treant. I got a new one...only to find out it was as much a curse as a gift - made up by the GM. All our enemies knew all our secrets regardless of our protections, explained later by a combination of demigod powers and my cursed eye - GM Fiat. My father disowning me permanently for the remainder of the game for dying and getting rez'd - story driven.
Gritty is IMO not the default. Gritty is an environment invoked by the GM and agreed upon by the immersion of the players. PF off the shelf assumes you've got roughly a 50/50 shot at "winning"; sometimes more, sometimes dramatically less, but averaging out. That's one of the complaints of the CR system - 4 guys at level 1 vs a single goblin dog w/no other terrain hazards, obstacles or whatever that add significantly enough to influence the dog's CR? That fight'll be over in about a round; 2 depending on initiatives.
This is why I gave my opinion that PF isn't gritty by default. But it's also not a Superman comic either - it's not a charicature where heroes with square jaws fight brainless monsters and laugh at every threat. "Don't WORRY fellows," the shiny paladin calls over his shoulder to his squishy wizard and rogue friends, "Death means NOTHING in this realm! If you but suffer a minor contribution to the church, you are virtually immortal as is EVERYONE here, save for the blighters who wait in closed rooms for us to kick open their doors and murderrob them!"
The above doesn't seem to be the default attitude of the game's design. It might be what's interpreted by examining the mechanics of rezing in this game nowadays, but as C-top has pointed out, that's not the attitude written into the AP's and I don't think it's the default setting.
So if the default isn't gritty, and it's not super-shiny, then what is it? This is why I suggested the default is vanilla - open to ANY perception, interpretation, spin or whatever you want. Make it what you want.
|
|
Fair. Darker than I was going for, but fair. I imagine that is where TOZ lives :)Not really. Mood has a pretty strong effect on me. 'Saving Private Ryan' is what I would consider gritty. I can't watch it more than once.
It's the same for gaming. If the tone is overly negative, it will bring me down. Even if characters can come back from death, I have to ask 'why would they WANT to?' Usually loyalty to companions is a good enough reason, but it all depends on the game.
I've talked about the intro game I participated in at the local college. The DM refused to kill any characters, but it was a prime example of a gritty game to me.
It may be I chose the wrong word.
I want a setting where I am afraid of failure so I can rejoice when I achieve success rather than it being a foregone conclusion.
I want it to be possible for the big damn heroes to fail, so that it means something when they don't.
I want players to retreat sometimes, because they aren't invincible, because I want them to be shocked at what they can accomplish when they come back later and slay what was impossible.
Gritty may not be the right word, but what I described above is how I envision the game I want to play, and that game is hindered if death becomes a speedbump.
|
|
@thejeff - "Script immunity" is a perfect way to describe what I don't want in my game and what I fear comes when you remove the consequences of death.
It isn't that I want the heroes (or more specficially for "a" hero" to fail), it is that I want that to be something that could happen.
I think the GM should try to avoid "meaningless" deaths, but some of the most powerful moments in the game for me came from meaningful table deaths.
And that is negated a great deal if the effect of death itself is negated.
As you correctly said, the players are supposed to win. The game is, correctly rigged. If you add to the rigging the additional factor that even if you do lose in the most serious manner, you don't really lose anything at all...that for me is a bridge to far.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Gritty may not be the right word, but what I described above is how I envision the game I want to play, and that game is hindered if death becomes a speedbump.
Okay, so what you want is a game where:
• Success is not guaranteed• Failure is a possibility
• Some obstacles can't be overcome yet, and must be retreated from instead
Seems to me that there are lots of ways to accomplish these things without harsher individual penalties for death, so why do you see them as so inextricably linked?
Why should I have to add more complicated and less setting appropriate plot twists to achieve what should be basic, and has always been a basic part of the the system. Death is a penultimate bad thing to happen that has campaign length consequences.Why make the rules harder to make consistent with the setting. Why nerf death as a thing that happens if what you really want is to nerf dying meaninglessly.
Why make all deaths meaninglessly easy to overcome when what it seems many if not most people actually want is for meaningless deaths not to occur.
What are you basing these statements off of, because from my experience, they are all false. I play games with the concept I am sharing with you, none of these problems that you are bringing up plague us. I know it's anecdotal, but I play games in 3 groups locally, plus I have played games with people in other parts of the country. I say this because it's not like I'm taking one highly specialized set of friends and making assumptions. I play games with complete strangers, at places like GenCon, and have a ton of fun with games that use these concepts.
Plus, there are fates worse than death. I run a game where you potentially have the outcome of becoming the thing you hate, making you the next target on the kill list for the party. Some players have chosen to die, rather than becoming that thing.
If you add to the rigging the additional factor that even if you do lose in the most serious manner, you don't really lose anything at all...that for me is a bridge to far.Why is death the "most serious manner" of failure/losing?
Not sure. I know at least one of my characters refused a resurection, in the highest magic setting I have played in. Resurections were cheap, he had paid for at least 40 of them by that point (most of his extended family and retainers). He probably would have committed suicide if he was forcibly resurected. The amount of failure he accomplished without knowing was staggering. Yay being murdered by your best friend after watching your lover commit suicide because you publicly executed her father.
|
|
The GM has all the power they need to avoid meaningless deaths. They control the world.
If there is a meaningless death, and that isn't kosher for the table, the GM can and IMHO should find a way to deal with it. And there are a million ways to do that, including all of the quest suggestions, which are good suggestions.
You can deus machina that after the dragon knocked you off the cliff you fell into water rather than rock...etc...the GM can find ways to correct a meaningless death so as not to penalize players for accidents and bad luck.
But Raise dead is not the domain of the GM. And most of the suggestions would make it the domain of the GM. Raise Dead It is something the players control. Do I spend the money or not, do I want to bring my player back or not, etc...if a GM says "No you can't" that GM is outside of the rules and what most of us would consider their sphere of interest.
If death has no lasting consequence, there is no reason other than player preference, not to bring them back. It is functionally script immunity. No matter what happens, my hero will live to fight another day, good as new. Script immunity.
If death has a lasting consequence, even a minor one, then something fundimentally changes if you die. You aren't just as good as new if you come back. In theory a replacement may actually be a better mechanical option. You have to make a choice based on factors other than "Do I still like playing my character?"
A good GM will try to minimize "meaningless" Death. If the BBEG kills a player or two during the epic final conflict of a story arc, that isn't a meaningless death. That is something that happened in the Narrative of the larger story.
I see them inextricably linked, as Jiggy described it, because you are giving players script immunity if you make raise dead have no penality, unless, as Irontruth suggested, the GM comes up with elaborate plots to create scenarios that are actually risky for the players.
Which I would consider kind of a dick move.
If we are running and I put up an APL +3 encounter for the end of story loop/night encounter and someone dies, that isn't GM vs Player. That is the dice. I'm not plotting against them, I'm putting up an encounter they should be able to accomplish and hoping they do.
If I make that encounter include creatures that specifically are going to screw over the PCs more than a normal encounter, because that is the only way I can make an encounter really matter...that is a problem.
As a GM I shouldn't have to try to find ways to make an encounter worry my players beyond having an encounter that is challenging.
When you add script immunity, that isn't wrongbadfun. Some people like story games, and that is fine. But when you add it as the default, you force GMs who don't want players to have it to be jerks.
I don't want to have to plot against my players just to have something like death have a lasting mechanical effect.
None of us have ever had to before. Most would not say a GM who was playing fairly was plotting against the PC if they died against a normal monster in a level appropriate encounter.
However if I have to add weird monsters to make that same encounter be dangerous, it would be fair for a player to feel like I was out to get them.
|
|
If you add to the rigging the additional factor that even if you do lose in the most serious manner, you don't really lose anything at all...that for me is a bridge to far.Why is death the "most serious manner" of failure/losing?
Because the game is largely based on hit points, and when you are out of them, minus your con, you are dead.
Not being dead is largely what the game is based around.
If as a GM I have to come up with "fates worse than death" because we've decided that death shouldn't be that bad, you've now put the onus on the GM rather than on the dice.
|
|
Not sure. I know at least one of my characters refused a resurection, in the highest magic setting I have played in. Resurections were cheap, he had paid for at least 40 of them by that point (most of his extended family and retainers). He probably would have committed suicide if he was forcibly resurected. The amount of failure he accomplished without knowing was staggering. Yay being murdered by your best friend after watching your lover commit suicide because you publicly executed her father.If you add to the rigging the additional factor that even if you do lose in the most serious manner, you don't really lose anything at all...that for me is a bridge to far.Why is death the "most serious manner" of failure/losing?This is what roleplaying is about.
Having an experience penalty from being raised because some random monster in a dungeon got a lucky crit in doesn't compare.
But the player had script immunity 40 times.
40 times.
40 times they asked the gods to bring him back, and 40 times they did. And then on the 41st time, the gods were still willing to bring him back but he said "Nah, I'm good."
Being 35 years old has lasting and permanent effects, but dying literally at least 40 times, nothing.
Not sure. I know at least one of my characters refused a resurection, in the highest magic setting I have played in. Resurections were cheap, he had paid for at least 40 of them by that point (most of his extended family and retainers). He probably would have committed suicide if he was forcibly resurected. The amount of failure he accomplished without knowing was staggering. Yay being murdered by your best friend after watching your lover commit suicide because you publicly executed her father.If you add to the rigging the additional factor that even if you do lose in the most serious manner, you don't really lose anything at all...that for me is a bridge to far.Why is death the "most serious manner" of failure/losing?This is what roleplaying is about.
Having an experience penalty from being raised because some random monster in a dungeon got a lucky crit in doesn't compare.But the player had script immunity 40 times.
40 times.
40 times they asked the gods to bring him back, and 40 times they did. And then on the 41st time, the gods were still willing to bring him back but he said "Nah, I'm good."
Being 35 years old has lasting and permanent effects, but dying literally at least 40 times, nothing.
I could be wrong, but I believe you are misreading that sentence.
He PAID for 40 resurrections, followed by "most of them were family and retainers". As in the people who were resurrected were other people, that he paid to have it applied to.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So let's look at two heroes, Xavier and Yalan:
Each had a village to save, or a doomsday plot to foil, or something. They had an important goal.
Xavier died in the course of achieving Goal X. His GM doesn't allow raising, so he stays dead. But he achieved his goal.
Yalan's GM makes it easy to get raised. Unfortunately, Yalan was unable to achieve Goal Y (the village burned, the kingdom fell, whatever). But he's alive.
Now, ciretose says that dying is failure/loss "in the most serious manner". He also says "Not being dead is largely what the game is based around."
According to these statements, Xavier has lost "in the most serious manner" and has failed at what is "largely what the game is based around." Xavier failed.
Meanwhile, Yalan is alive, and has therefore succeeded at what ciretose has deemed to be the whole point of the game. Yalan "wins".
But, ciretose has also said that what he wants in his games is:
"I want a setting where I am afraid of failure so I can rejoice when I achieve success rather than it being a foregone conclusion.
I want it to be possible for the big damn heroes to fail, so that it means something when they don't."
According to this statement, ciretose should be happier with Xavier, since he actually accomplished something, while Yalan failed.
So which is it?
Correct me if I'm wrong enchantment under the C, but one point you keep stating over and over is because Raise Dead and other spells like it can either be in the hands of the players themselves OR purchased reasonably by these players for their dead characters and that these rez effects have no lasting consequence (other than monetary in the current ruleset) on said recipient, we must automaically assume the following:
1. players will on average feel no commitment to the game; no immersion, or verisimillitude, or whatever, based on the fact that the average player simply can't be moved to care about the death of their character.
2. this may lead to rampant abuse due to the combined apathy and thus disregard for death by the average character as well as the lack of lasting consequence to the character.
3. B/cause this is how the rules are written currently any attempt to mod them by the GM is a fiat, and most (not all, you've been clear there are some options you like) of these GM controls must then be perceived as badwrong and potentially "dickish"
I have not had the breadth of experience as virtually everyone else who's posted anecdotal experience in this thread. Speaking for my very narrow window of experience I have not perceived these norms in my campaigns. I'd like to know if my above assessment is accurate and if so, if anyone has had the chance to see these natural extensions of lack of death consequence in action.
So let's look at two heroes, Xavier and Yalan:
Each had a village to save, or a doomsday plot to foil, or something. They had an important goal.
Xavier died in the course of achieving Goal X. His GM doesn't allow raising, so he stays dead. But he achieved his goal.
Yalan's GM makes it easy to get raised. Unfortunately, Yalan was unable to achieve Goal Y (the village burned, the kingdom fell, whatever). But he's alive.
Now, ciretose says that dying is failure/loss "in the most serious manner". He also says "Not being dead is largely what the game is based around."
According to these statements, Xavier has lost "in the most serious manner" and has failed at what is "largely what the game is based around." Xavier failed.
Meanwhile, Yalan is alive, and has therefore succeeded at what ciretose has deemed to be the whole point of the game. Yalan "wins".
But, ciretose has also said that what he wants in his games is:
"I want a setting where I am afraid of failure so I can rejoice when I achieve success rather than it being a foregone conclusion.I want it to be possible for the big damn heroes to fail, so that it means something when they don't."
According to this statement, ciretose should be happier with Xavier, since he actually accomplished something, while Yalan failed.
So which is it?
I'm happier with the GM that allowed rezes. GM fiat to remove the rez by the other GM is just dickish IMO.
Sorry about my inflamatory pile of straw on top of Jiggy's strawman C-note; I just couldn't resist.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy - Did I ever say not to allow raise dead.
Did I?
Nope, and I never claimed or implied that you did.
I know it is much, much easier to create a strawman to defeat than deal with what I said.
But that is pathetic.
I didn't attribute Xavier's inability to be raised to you or your position.
I know it is much, much easier to cry "strawman" at an inconsequential detail rather than deal with what I said.
But that is pathetic.
|
|
@Mark - You are being hyperbolic, but sure lets go through what you said.
1. "No" is a bridge to far. "Less" is my argument. And less is...well...less.
2. If everything is less meaningful, it is, well...less meaningful.
3. The issue is you are forcing the GM to find ways to make PCs worry about what happen rather than having the system, inherently, have things that make the PC worry.
You are making the GM be the bad guy if the campaign is going to have any possible permanent effects. You are setting up PC vs GM.
If death just has a consequence, it is no more the GMs fault than if the Monster hits you because they rolled above your AC. It is something that happens in the game.
If I set up a tough encounter and you die, that happens.
If I set up a tough encounter and you suffer a fate worse than death because that is the only way I can possibly have something happen with lasting consequences in the game, I as the GM had to do that to you, the player. I had to create a scenario to have something lasting happen to your player because the game doesn't do it on it's own.
You are forcing the GM to be aggressive toward the player, rather than just asking what would happen next in the story and doing that.
And asking what would happen next in the story and doing that is what a GM should be doing. Not trying to figure out ways to "get" the player.
But now, to have something lasting and meaningful occur, I have to leave the world of just doing what would happen in the setting and find something else and make it fit.
That sucks.