RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, you created a scenario that no one was defending and then proceeded to defeat it.
That is the very defintion of a strawman.
I mean, literally. Look it up.
That is the definition of a strawman, but it's not what I did.
I didn't "defeat" anything, or imply that anyone needed to defend anything, or do anything else that's part of what a strawman is.
I illustrated that some things you've said (actual quotes) appear to contradict each other, and asked for clarification.
Can't you just answer the question?
|
Just because you seem to not understand what a strawman is, and your post is such a perfect illustration of one that it can be a learning tool.
Part one is creating a scenario no one is arguing for.
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.
No one, I repeat no one is arguing to remove raise dead.
No one.
So you start by creating a scenario no one is arguing for.
Then you asked me to defend it.
That is a strawman.
Now if you had said "Xavier died in the course of achieving Goal X. His GM has lasting consequences for raising, and Ciretose specifically has proposed those be a 5% reduction in XP, therefore Xavier comes back with 5% less XP, which may cause him a temporary negative level until he gains back some XP." That would not be a strawman.
See the difference.
Of course, then your argument falls apart, so you didn't do that.
Except Ciretose, Raise Dead isn't entirely in the hands of the players. The material components are expensive and and their rarity is entirely determined by GM fiat. The number of casters high enough level and willing to cast it, if the players cannot, is also up in the air. What those casters may want in exchange is up to the GM.
In my game I have 10th level characters. I know for a fact that the nearest cleric who can raise a party member is more than a month of travel away from their current location. They need to get to a major city, and they are currently in no man's land. Only 1 party member has the power to raise dead, with reincarnation, and she doesn't have any incense on her. The nearest place she could buy it is 2 weeks away. Since we have a druid and oracle in the party with no cleric, and no wizard, they don't know Gentle Repose. If someone dies, they have a week to get to the nearest small city, which is about 4 days hard travel away, where they can hire someone to cast it for them and travel with them for a few weeks. This person is a liability who needs to be protected. Death becomes whole session to deal with, and brings them out of their current adventure. The villians won't stop in this month-long detour for them, and if they retreat from where they are now they will have a much bigger problem in the future. Heck, without winning they may not be able to even make it out of the dungeon.
Now, a lot of this could be offset if the Druid pre-invested in the materials to reincarnate. But then they have invested money to ofset negative penalties and don't have those resources for other uses. For a group that feels like they are already undergeared (they are close to wbl but are players used to high loot games), it would be a serious investment.
In the other game I mentioned, I was from one of the wealthiest families in the wealthiest city in world. I named things I wanted, and if they could be bought I was given them. My family controlled all the churches, with many of the highest level clergy in multiple congregations being my relatives. I offered annother player 500K for a magic item, and I was turned down. I wouldn't have missed the money. Resurecting my household after a mob that was incited by my political enemy assaulted our family compound was chump change. It cut into our war supply of diamonds a little more than I liked though. Having the wealth of the gods (literally, I fought alongside at least 3 in the final battles. They were on my war council. I was on a first name basis with Death.) did not prevent me from failing misserably.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Part one is creating a scenario no one is arguing for.
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.
No one, I repeat no one is arguing to remove raise dead.
No one.
Never claimed anyone was. For my post to be a strawman, don't I need to have claimed (or at least implied) that someone was arguing for that?
Then you asked me to defend it.
No, I didn't.
I asked you what your opinions of hypothetical situations were. That is not the same as asking you to defend something.
I hear you Sailing the C's of Cheese, I really do. And I see what you're saying - if the GM HAS to engineer bad consequence based on the lack of death consequences then players might get mad at them. But let's look at Jiggy's example for just a sec.
There's a goal. Regardless of whether there's death consequences or not, there's STILL a goal. This is the nature of the game; the GM (or AP if you're running one) sets a goal and the party runs for it.
Now most of the time these goals are set for a party - in this exercise we'll say 4 characters, one of whom is Yalan. Now they go to the village, figure out there's a bunch of goblins marching on the place, and head out to stop them. Only... SURPRISE - the main force of the goblins snuck way around and burned down the village while Yalan's party did their thing.
If another person in the party died during this, and they were rez'd no problem, OR if the party came back w/out losing a person, wouldn't there still be some animosity that they missed the goblins and lost the village anyway? In other words - aren't "fates worse than death" inherent to the game's mechanics?
Caineach - You may be coming in late to the discussion and missed the other stuff.
The discussion is about the move to lessen the costs. SKR proposed removing the material costs, arguing that WBL functionally removes them in the long run anyway.
So what if it does? I could charge any amount for the material component. If it is not something that is readily available, then the GM controls resurection. If the GM controls the number of NPCs who can do it, he is in control. Players will eventually get the power, but by that point they are dealing with so many other overpowered rediculous things that death really is a status ailment.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In other words - aren't "fates worse than death" inherent to the game's mechanics?
I *think* that when ciretose reads/writes the phrase "fate worse than death", he's talking about something like the dementors' kiss from Harry Potter - you're still "killing" or otherwise ending the career of the PC, but doing so in a "special" way that prevents raising. Not just "failing at an important goal".
I think.
|
|
@Jiggy - Keep digging.
@Mark - Jiggy's example isn't one anyone is trying to defend.
It is like me saying what if no one was every allowed to die because we give them unlimited hit points.
Because Jiggy says death shouldn't have consequences.
So what about that Jiggy?
But moving where you seem to be going, I would argue that mission failure isn't a fate worse than death.
I can understand that could be a point of disagreement, but I would also say that there is no difference in either position about a mission succeeding or failing.
That was why Jiggy's post was so ridiculous. The outcome is the same for both his stated position and for my stated position.
Only when he ascribes a position to me that I am not proposing, does any difference emerge.
Which is what makes it so dishonest.
|
|
So what if it does? I could charge any amount for the material component. If it is not something that is readily available, then the GM controls resurection. If the GM controls the number of NPCs who can do it, he is in control. Players will eventually get the power, but by that point they are dealing with so many other overpowered rediculous things that death really is a status ailment.Caineach - You may be coming in late to the discussion and missed the other stuff.
The discussion is about the move to lessen the costs. SKR proposed removing the material costs, arguing that WBL functionally removes them in the long run anyway.
He is saying remove all material components, full stop.
This is kind of my point. Raise dead isn't under GM control any more than a Fireball spell is. The players can do it if they know the spell and have the material components. The only downside, currently is the cost.
And I agree, as is it is a problem, as costs matter in zero sum games.
But SKR was arguing that WBL should be something you adjust for over time, so a player who spends 5 to rez will get 5k more than the party later to balance out.
Meaning in the long run, no effect.
Which is part of why he was arguing to remove it entirely, thereby making raise dead have no material cost at all. And as is, most would argue if the players do or do not raise someone is going to be beyond GM control without major fiat.
|
|
In other words - aren't "fates worse than death" inherent to the game's mechanics?I *think* that when ciretose reads/writes the phrase "fate worse than death", he's talking about something like the dementors' kiss from Harry Potter - you're still "killing" or otherwise ending the career of the PC, but doing so in a "special" way that prevents raising. Not just "failing at an important goal".
I think.
It is actually referencing back to Irontruth's suggestions of creating threats that have permanent effects on the PC's.
Or did you forget about them?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Only when he ascribes a position to me that I am not proposing, does any difference emerge.
The only things I ascribed to anyone were direct quotations from you. Nothing else in my post was ascribed to anyone.
Saying "This quote from you seems to lead to X conclusion, buy this other quote from you seems to lead to Y conclusion, so what are your actual thoughts?" is not ascribing a position to you. It's asking you to clarify.
|
|
Only when he ascribes a position to me that I am not proposing, does any difference emerge.The only things I ascribed to anyone were direct quotations from you. Nothing else in my post was ascribed to anyone.
Saying "This quote from you seems to lead to X conclusion, buy this other quote from you seems to lead to Y conclusion, so what are your actual thoughts?" is not ascribing a position to you. It's asking you to clarify.
Keep digging the hole, the post speaks for itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, perhaps you should actually read Jiggy's comments in the thread rather than continuously putting him down, since he has made many good points you keep ignoring.
|
|
Ciretose, perhaps you should actually read Jiggy's comments in the thread rather than continuously putting him down, since he has made many good points you keep ignoring.
I read it and then broke it down in a separate post.
Do you want to try and defend the post he made? Feel free, there is plenty of room in the hole.
If you place what I actually said and proposed into the scenario he created, there is no difference in outcome.
Zero.
Both are raised, one may or may not have a negative level. That is the difference.
No one is saying no raise dead. So either he knew that and dishonestly created a false scenario no one has proposed or...well...what would the "or" be?
Seriously, what would the alternative to that be? Shovel is out, might as well see how far he wants to dig.
I think having something bad happen to the non-heroes is a fine Macguffin that most quests are based on.
I think having something bad happen to the heroes is a different animal entirely.
It is similar to the difference between fluff and crunch.
But you aren't arguing against nothing bad happen to them. You are in fact arguing for measurable consequences, like negative levels, % chance of failure, etc. You want to make death hurt more, which most of the time, is considered a bad thing.
I'm telling you, in the course of my experience, I find that dull compared to the alternative I am telling you about.
This alternative isn't my invention. It is in fact something I have experienced multiple times over the past few years and has improved my gaming experience. But you don't seem interesting in learning about it.
I think for easy mode, you have to vary the acceleration. I have been in easy games and extremely hard games. If it is too easy or too much of a grind, everything almost kills you, then satisfaction can slide right down.
I was in one game that had two tpks, everything was so damn tough, we had jack for magic items, almost zip treasure and got caned over and over, that was not fun.
|
|
I think having something bad happen to the non-heroes is a fine Macguffin that most quests are based on.
I think having something bad happen to the heroes is a different animal entirely.
It is similar to the difference between fluff and crunch.
But you aren't arguing against nothing bad happen to them. You are in fact arguing for measurable consequences, like negative levels, % chance of failure, etc. You want to make death hurt more, which most of the time, is considered a bad thing.
I'm telling you, in the course of my experience, I find that dull compared to the alternative I am telling you about.
This alternative isn't my invention. It is in fact something I have experienced multiple times over the past few years and has improved my gaming experience. But you don't seem interesting in learning about it.
Yes and no. On the one hand I'm advocating in agreement of making death less frequent and random.
On the other hand I'm arguing for it to matter when it happens.
So I'm arguing death shouldn't be common, but when it does occur it should have a lasting effect.
Me too.
I happen to think that stories and memories about events in a game have a more meaningful impact than a negative level, even into the long term after a campaign has ended.
*sigh Just can't help myself...
Ciretose, let me try and break Jiggy's post down to it's essential question, and take out the "strawman" you keep ranting about. Here it is:
In some comments, you've stated that the main goal of the game is surviving, not dying.
In other comments, you've suggested that it's about other things, like heroically saving the day.
Jiggy's question is, which is better? Surviving but failing the quest, or dying but succeeding at the quest?
Jiggy's scenarios weren't there as examples of what you're suggesting, he made them up out of thin air to help him pose that question. He knows that, I know that, everyone knows that. You're the only one that thinks he's attributing a "no rez" suggestion to you.
Get over it and answer the question. There ain't no strawman.
Hewy out.
|
|
Jiggy didn't make them up out of thin air randomly. He chose scenarios no one was advocating when both sides had listed scenarios they actually were advocating.
There was no reason to make a no rez scenario.
None.
So the choice was a false one to start with.
The question of "Which is better, surviving but failing or dying but succeeding" is as relevant to this conversation as "Paper or Plastic"
He was either trying to derail or set a straw trap. Either way, his "question" has nothing to do with what has been proposed by anyone in the thread. Both sides want to keep raise dead. Most of us agree it is a player based decision as to when and if to use the spell.
Neither proposal is going to have one side dying and one side living. One side will have death have a consequence, and one side won't. But both can come back if either can come back.
The only difference is if the decision to come back has any conflict because bringing them back would mean X would happen which you might not like.
That is it.
Now to answer your question, "A" main goal of the game is surviving.
There is a lot of interest in making either or statements..."A" main goal of the game is surviving, because if you don't you can't do much of anything.
A hero goes into a dungeon to defeat/find/rescue X Macguffin. The challenge of doing this comes in large part from the risk involved in the endeavor.
The biggest risk, most of the time, is that your character will die.
Why is this considered a risk? Well if it were "real" it would be because your character would then loose the mortal coil never to be seen again...but this is fantasy so that risk is reduced to "Because you may not be able to play the character unless you can find a moderately high level cleric and 5000 gold before it is too late."
That is where we are now. It is, for lack of a better word "O.K." It is at least somewhat fear inducing, particularly at lower levels. It is a risk factor to consider when deciding fight or flight.
However, remove the 5000 gold and it is far, far less of a risk. Which is what at least one Dev has proposed. And as it stands it is far, far less of a risk than 3.5 or any other previous version was.
Add to that, that according to the same Dev who wants to remove the penalty, the player should be able to earn back that 5000 gold to be even with the rest of the party. It shouldn't be, in any way, a lasting penalty.
So the adventurer in 3.5 goes to accomplish X at great peril, since death could be a real problem, and multiple death could be a career ending thing. Caution is the word from all sides, including GMs who really don't want players to have serious consequences for stupid deaths.
Death is, in 3.5, serious buisness.
The adventurer in Pathfinder goes to accomplish X at moderate peril, since death is going to cost a substantial amount of coin and could put them at a minus one for a week or so. But it isn't going to really matter in the game overall, so it is less important. In a week, other than gold, it won't have any effect at all.
Going forward with what was suggested by SKR, the adventurer goes to accomplish X at very little peril, since coming back from death is basically free other than a status effect for a week (he wants to remove the restoration costs as well). So all sides kind of shrug if the GM messes up with a random death because of poor planning and such, because meh, death ain't that big a deal.
Now, with what I have proposed (and including suggestions by others at similar consequence), the adventurer goes to accomplish X at some peril less than 3.5 but more than Pathfinder, as the outcome of death would cause a lasting penalty or force some kind of side quest, or whatever thing that happens. The player fears death, because something bad that can't be undone will occur. All sides are cautious, GMs who mess up try to find ways to make it up to the players, because the penalty is real, and they have more incentive to not have random meaningless deaths. Players are more cautious...it is fairly serious business.
Now since there is a call for a discussion of comparing impressive adventurers, lets do it with the actual proposals on the table rather than making up a scenario no one is proposing. looking at the the four heroes, let us assume they make it through an Adventure Path.
Which one of the four is more impressive.
I say getting to high levels in 3.5 was hard to do, and it meant something to say you have a PC who completed an AP. So that is #1. But I can understand why they adjusted that, as the level loss math was a huge pain.
My solution is #2.
Current is #3
SKR's suggestion is #4
Would you disagree?
|
|
Me too.
I happen to think that stories and memories about events in a game have a more meaningful impact than a negative level, even into the long term after a campaign has ended.
I don't disagree, as I've said my only concern is how you would implement it, since you would be functionally taking a spell that is basically player controlled and moving it out of player control into GM control.
@Gorum's cousin - I'm interested in the becoming what you hate scenario of death consequece.
@ everyone (including me) - it seems we ended yesterday in a rough patch, so let's everyone have a good breakfast, enhance our calm, and go on.
Dr C - I think you've said before that you want the death consequences in the mechanics of the game and thus out of the GM's hands? Using that it seems our man C has no issue with these consequences no matter what they are (though in his opinion they should be a bit more robust) but rather is getting... frustrated we'll say over the fact that, if SKR and others remove even the cost of rezing then it is ENTIRELY in the GM's hands to impose consequence, and therefore it REALLY seems like punishment then, not an arbitrary balancer of the game.
Did I get that right? I'm not trying to ignite ANOTHER flamewar here Ciretose so let me know if I'm off base.
IF I have that right I think what some of us are saying (or at least me) is that, on this point of mechanics vs GM fiat, the GM's decisions and reactions are already built into the mechanics as well. If the GM is building an organic and reasonable world around the PCs then there is a resonable expectation of consequence from failure such as in the case of death or other negative outcomes. Therefore to me and anyone on this side of the aisle it seems redundant to penalize them narratively in GM fiat - from my own ex I've failed at the final blow, killed, then rez'd by deus ex machina in a dystopian future based on my own failed saving throw - and then ALSO penalize the PC who died mechanically with lowering their abilities to cope w/whatever failure their death has caused should they choose to be rez'd.
The one place I agree w/you is that something should be done mechanically to keep powers such as raise dead from being used freely all across the game world in the default setting. Right now its a high cost/rare material component. But if even that goes away and it's just V, S, and the holy symbol, then going by the mechanics of settlement statblocks as written vanilla now PLUS no cost restrictions or whatever on rezing, then even a Large Town or Small City would have an auto rez booth in the form of a high level cleric who at least once a day (more with magic items) could raise ANYONE from the dead. That seems...over the top for lack of a better term.
|
|
@Mark - More or less, that is what I am looking for.
As to the other part, I thought I made clear earlier when I said a GM who messes up and creates a meaningless death has the power to fix it, and in most games should and would.
If the mechanics of the setting were Rez came in a dystopian future, that is a fine and frightening penalty worse than what I have proposed and you are right, no additional mechanic would be needed or appropriate. It would induce the concern I am looking for. But that isn't the standard setting the rules are written for. Similarly if rather than raising a player, they went to the planes to rescue them I probably would say that allows them to avoid any mechanical effect.
Having a way to get around the penalty is fine, and that is a place for the material component MacGuffin approach to be implemented.
But I think we basically agree on the concern of the Raise booth with Gentle repose storage.
I don't disagree, as I've said my only concern is how you would implement it, since you would be functionally taking a spell that is basically player controlled and moving it out of player control into GM control.Me too.
I happen to think that stories and memories about events in a game have a more meaningful impact than a negative level, even into the long term after a campaign has ended.
Because at the moment, the GM can't just say "there are no 5,000gp diamonds available, except for one, and the owner wants you to do something for it"?
It doesn't fundamentally shift the nature of the relationship between player and GM. It just assigns a game mechanic moment where they have to interact over a certain issue. Bad table relationships are more likely to produce bad results, but that is true with any mechanic.
|
|
Wait, did you just say it's against the rules for the GM to restrict material components? :)
So if I'm understanding the arguement, if the GM says by fiat you can't have a diamond material component, that is fine.
That will completely address the "Player vs GM" concerns SKR said was the reason he wants to get rid of the raise dead costs...
Edit: Also, :)
Exactly, that's why there shouldn't be a material component. Good point ciretose.
|
|
Wait, did you just say it's against the rules for the GM to restrict material components? :)So if I'm understanding the arguement, if the GM says by fiat you can't have a diamond material component, that is fine.
This is a strawman position no one is arguing. Keep digging. :)
I believe Irontruth's example was a limiting, not a banning.
|
|
Wait, did you just say it's against the rules for the GM to restrict material components? :)So if I'm understanding the arguement, if the GM says by fiat you can't have a diamond material component, that is fine.This is a strawman position no one is arguing. Keep digging. :)
I believe Irontruth's example was a limiting, not a banning.
I don't think think Irontruth is wrong that limiting access to the diamond is within the GM toolbag.
But I do think that is exactly the player vs gm kind of thing that SKR was concerned with.
I don't think SKR is wrong in having a goal of removing the conflict between the GM and the Player be a goal, I do think he is missing the fact that often the rules are the "Bad Cop" to the GM's "Good Cop"
It would be much less of a conflict for a GM to say "If you can find X Macguffin, you have no penalty, because I am a nice GM." if that is how you want to handle it. You are being "Good Guy" GM giving the player an out.
The other way the same strategy puts the GM in conflict with the Player for adding another thing they have to do to cast a spell.
If someone said to a wizard "Sorry, no bat guano around here. Fireball is out" they would be within the rules, but I think a lot of people wouldn't want to play at that table.
Also, I know you are being sarcastic but I'm not letting Jiggy off the hook for that one unless he acknowledges it.
|
|
@thejeff - It isn't a given, but it is the design intent, at least according to SKR.
Why I didn't have major objections to the nerf before (I never liked it, but I understood how much of a problem calculating level loss was so I didn't disagree a fix was needed) was because I thought it was part of the design that you would then be penalized long term by cost differential.
Now it seems that wasn't intended.
As I said above, what is in place now is "o.k." much in the same way the monk fix that came through is "o.k."
There was a problem, they put a bandaid on it made of compromise, and I'm not going to make my idea of perfect the enemy of improvement.
But now it seems to be part of a larger trend toward completely nerfing the spell, with the cost not intended to be a lasting factor...meaning the next step would be to "fix" that.
Which is the part I have trouble with.
Wait, did you just say it's against the rules for the GM to restrict material components? :)So if I'm understanding the arguement, if the GM says by fiat you can't have a diamond material component, that is fine.This is a strawman position no one is arguing. Keep digging. :)
I believe Irontruth's example was a limiting, not a banning.
My example was actually how Ciretose's analysis is irrelevant, because a GM can be a jerk regardless with either method. The flaw he found isn't in my suggestion, it's in the existence of bad GM's.
Jiggy didn't make them up out of thin air randomly. He chose scenarios no one was advocating when both sides had listed scenarios they actually were advocating.
There was no reason to make a no rez scenario.
None.
So the choice was a false one to start with.
The question of "Which is better, surviving but failing or dying but succeeding" is as relevant to this conversation as "Paper or Plastic"
He was either trying to derail or set a straw trap. Either way, his "question" has nothing to do with what has been proposed by anyone in the thread. Both sides want to keep raise dead. Most of us agree it is a player based decision as to when and if to use the spell.
Neither proposal is going to have one side dying and one side living. One side will have death have a consequence, and one side won't. But both can come back if either can come back.
The only difference is if the decision to come back has any conflict because bringing them back would mean X would happen which you might not like.
That is it.
Now to answer your question, "A" main goal of the game is surviving.
There is a lot of interest in making either or statements..."A" main goal of the game is surviving, because if you don't you can't do much of anything.
A hero goes into a dungeon to defeat/find/rescue X Macguffin. The challenge of doing this comes in large part from the risk involved in the endeavor.
The biggest risk, most of the time, is that your character will die.
Why is this considered a risk? Well if it were "real" it would be because your character would then loose the mortal coil never to be seen again...but this is fantasy so that risk is reduced to "Because you may not be able to play the character unless you can find a moderately high level cleric and 5000 gold before it is too late."
That is where we are now. It is, for lack of a better word "O.K." It is at least somewhat fear inducing, particularly at lower levels. It is a risk factor to consider when deciding fight or flight.
However,...
I will disagree only in that,
There was no reason to make a no rez scenario.
None.
Because in the end you answered his question, and it was a very detailed and interesting answer, once you got past the "heated" stage :)
Like I've said, it's a material cost that I don't waive, and I generally agree that death being meaningless is a bad thing.
I just think that in the modern game, modern GMs and players tend to take the load off the system and create that by default in the story and the role playing of their characters. Many players play in a very different style to you, where the game is not so much a tactical game to beat, or a proving of gaming skills, but a story that all contribute to.
Sure, there's lots of players out there that are a pain, and game the system excessively, but they're not really part of this discussion.
Given that those that share your play style wish for consequence for death as a system feature are probably numerically comparable to those who prefer to have that narrative control belong to the group , I think the current "price" of death (which system-wise does allow for some GM fiat) is a fair compromise.
My thoughts about your position are, you probably need to recognise the modern prevalence of players who don't play for mostly tactical challenge but are narratively mature enough to handle the responsibility of when their character should stay or go.
Your views and preferences are understandable and valid, but the default game allows a good compromise for most types of gamers, which is a good design choice.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy didn't make them up out of thin air randomly. He chose scenarios no one was advocating when both sides had listed scenarios they actually were advocating.
....
He was either trying to derail or set a straw trap.
Boy, good thing we have a psychic on hand to inform me of my true motives; I might never have realized I was flat-out lying about the intentions behind my earlier post had you not been here to tell me!
|
|
I understand that. I was merely suggesting that the rationale for the "next step" doesn't hold up.
Any more than making potions, wands and scrolls free would make sense, even though, once you've used them up, they don't count towards WBL and therefore there's no lasting cost.
When one of the devs argues that is the rationale, and says that they would like the next step to be no cost at all.
I'm not here to defend the rationale. Quite the opposite.
|
|
It would never have been heated if it didn't start with "One side doesn't allow raise dead"
I was only throwing lie in as an option because it seems nicer to assume you they aren't an idiot.
But hey, feel free to explain why you used "raise dead being impossible" as your basis for the scenario rather than any of the actual solutions discussed or proposed by anyone in the thread.
I love watching live tap dancing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umm...whoa. It seems silly and non-productive to say we want a discussion and then name call. J-wow, C-plane, don't make them put you in a time out now.
Let's get back to the material component thing - that seemed civil.
|
|
At this point we have a spell, and spells are primarily player controlled.
When or if you cast/memorize/etc is the domain of the player.
There seems to be consensus that raise dead with no cost or consequence isn't the goal.
Currently the cost is literally cost. 5000 gold up front, 7000 total with the restore for the two negative level. This is, IMHO "O.K.".
To quote the farmer to the pig "It'll do pig, it'll do."
SKR voice the opinion that he believes in removing the cost, as along with other concerns, it is a source of "Player vs GM" conflict and he feels it in anacronistic with people playing in a "Press A to continue" culture.
I say removing the financial cost from death is fine, so long as it has a significant enough long term consequence that it still remains something to be feared.
Irontruth seems to be say (seems, so correct me if I am wrong) that the material cost is under GM purview to make available or not available, and this can be used to facilitate quests or whatever consequence is deemed appropriate by he GM.
My concern with this is it doesn't address any of the concerns raised by SKR, and in fact creates a dynamic with greater potential Player vs PC conflict.
I prefer a system with a stronger GM hand that can be relaxed as needed rather than a loose GM hand that needs to go into the land of fiat to create narrative tension.
Does that sum up?