Why easy mode?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 515 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

There seems to be more and more of a push to nerf negative outcomes and conditions from edition to edition. There was a long and interesting discussion of the real costs of death in the long run in the game in another thread that seemed to indicate that there are none anymore.

And I find that disapointing.

I don't come to the table to always have the good guys win, no matter how badly we perform. I don't want a participation trophy.

I want a world. A real, gritty, dark world where if my character makes it to high levels, it is an accomplishment I can be proud of rather than a function of patience.

And I want to have to decide if it is time to hang up my haversack after a few to many run ins that didn't go my way.

I am looking for immersion. I am not looking to be a disney hero, who knows it will always work out for everyone. I'm looking to be a Joss Whedon hero, who knows good will triumph, even if not all of us are around to see it happen.

Why is the game drifting away from me?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
Why is the game drifting away from me?

Because you got Whedon's first name wrong. That's worse than breaking a mirror. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Why is the game drifting away from me?
Because you got Whedon's first name wrong. That's worse than breaking a mirror. ;)

Thanks. It really is :)


I promise you this play style is easily handled by the system, if your DM wishees to run the game that way.

Dark Archive

I guess it depends on how you run your games, and what your setting is mainly.

I understand the idea that easier gameplay = more prospective customers, simply based on how people feel when they fail, or simply dont succeed at task, and I sympathize with you here.

Have you tried running some more "classic" content with pathfinder? Many of the older edition content has been updated for it, and I would highly recommend a few Frog God Gaming/Necromancer Gaming books if you are looking for that kind of danger and grit. Heck, I'm running The Slumbering Tsar Saga for my players, and they know the fear of death, the back of the book even has a graveyard for dead PCs, which I will add has been useful more than once.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I promise you this play style is easily handled by the system, if your DM wishees to run the game that way.

What worries me is the drift away from having actions have consequences.

In 1e if you died it was a con save as part of raise dead you stayed dead forever. Even then, you could only be raised a number of times up to your con.

In 3.5, you lost a level, forever, period. You could catch up eventually with the group to a degree thanks to the XP difference bonus, but you would always be behind everyone else as a result.

In Pathfinder, you can have no effect at all in about a week.

Can I house rule it back to 3.5. Sure. But the trend isn't one I'm pleased with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

There seems to be more and more of a push to nerf negative outcomes and conditions from edition to edition. There was a long and interesting discussion of the real costs of death in the long run in the game in another thread that seemed to indicate that there are none anymore.

And I find that disapointing.

I don't come to the table to always have the good guys win, no matter how badly we perform. I don't want a participation trophy.

I want a world. A real, gritty, dark world where if my character makes it to high levels, it is an accomplishment I can be proud of rather than a function of patience.

And I want to have to decide if it is time to hang up my haversack after a few to many run ins that didn't go my way.

I am looking for immersion. I am not looking to be a disney hero, who knows it will always work out for everyone. I'm looking to be a Joss Whedon hero, who knows good will triumph, even if not all of us are around to see it happen.

Why is the game drifting away from me?

Immersion and grit has much less to do with the game system and much more to do with the GM and Players. See: Monty Haul dungeons in the 70s and 80s.

1st edition AD&D would kill you repeatedly with no save by the books, but that didn't stop some DM's from running Tomb of Horrors as if it were a candy store.

Pathfinder and 4th edition, by the books, are a lot less ... arbitrary? In how they kill you, but both can still be plenty deadly.

While I will agree that the rule system can aid or hinder a GM in going for the feel you want, it isn't the ruleset that's gonna make the difference, it's the people at the table.

Liberty's Edge

Carbon D. Metric wrote:

I guess it depends on how you run your games, and what your setting is mainly.

I understand the idea that easier gameplay = more prospective customers, simply based on how people feel when they fail, or simply dont succeed at task, and I sympathize with you here.

I don't know if this is completely true.

For the beginner box, sure you want it to be nerfed until people get hooked.

But I think the game gets boring pretty quick if you aren't interested in wearing the big boy pants. At least that has been my experience with those who have played the game long term.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't know what you're talking about. mdt dragged our characters through the mud, and every victory was hard-fought and dearly bought. We lost one character by the third session and another at the last.

My PFS crew played up a tier yesterday and nearly TPKed. As it was they earned nothing for the scenario and some lost money in expended items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You may find GNS theory interesting.
Another group of interesting articles on RPG theory.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about. mdt dragged our characters through the mud, and every victory was hard-fought and dearly bought. We lost one character by the third session and another at the last.

It is more the push for "lost" to be more or less a meaningless game condition overcome with relative ease.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I think you're overstating this 'push' due to your own perceptions.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, to answer the question, I imagine it's an issue not so much of there being no risks in adventuring, but rather that the risks are different than you expect them to be.

For instance, in a world with healing magic, maybe an adventurer doesn't fear swords and arrows... But he might fear being eaten alive or having his very essence drained from him. He might not fear the villains threatening the village, but he'll fear how many people might die in the crossfire if he can't draw them away from the innocents. He might be able to survive swan-diving off a 100ft cliff, but can the NPC he's supposed to protect?

Instead of saying "Why doesn't X threaten the PCs?", a good GM asks "What will threaten the PCs?"

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Warhammer 40k RPGs, if ran by a sentient GMs, are games where the entire party can die in a horrible way just because you said the wrong thing to the theoretically friendly NPC.

Same for L5R.

Ars Magica.

O HAI WORLD OF DARKNESS.

D&D was always turbo superheroes fantasy, except there were editions that were more catering to "Mother May I?" gaming style where GM was the overmaster of creation and could screw over the players at his/her whim (1E/2E), and there were editions where the GM was a mindless storyteller who occasionally got to read the rulebook if the players let him/her, god forbid make any arbitrary interpretation lest he was accused of being a overbearing monster who dared to thread on constitutionally granted rights of the players (3E/4E).

Liberty's Edge

One of the people in our group was running an Asian themed campaign, I had a Samasarian Monk who decided to grapple a flying BBEG Oni to protect the rest of the group, as it was looking like a retreat or TPK situation otherwise. He was basically sacrificing himself to save the party since he will be reborn. It was epic and memorable.

And for 5000 and a week with a negative level it would have had the same impact as a nap long term if I wanted it to.

Kind of kills the sacrifices when they aren't really sacrifices. Kind of kills the risk when it isn't really a risk.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I think you're overstating this 'push' due to your own perceptions.

Maybe. But this post troubled me.

Having something bad happen be a bad thing isn't a flaw to me. It's a feature.

That seems to be a view in decline.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
Kind of kills the sacrifices when they aren't really sacrifices. Kind of kills the risk when it isn't really a risk.

Then the GM needs to adapt and find relevant things to fill the roles of sacrifices and risks. If the GM is throwing non-threats at the party, it's not the system's fault.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:

Anyway, to answer the question, I imagine it's an issue not so much of there being no risks in adventuring, but rather that the risks are different than you expect them to be.

For instance, in a world with healing magic, maybe an adventurer doesn't fear swords and arrows... But he might fear being eaten alive or having his very essence drained from him. He might not fear the villains threatening the village, but he'll fear how many people might die in the crossfire if he can't draw them away from the innocents. He might be able to survive swan-diving off a 100ft cliff, but can the NPC he's supposed to protect?

Instead of saying "Why doesn't X threaten the PCs?", a good GM asks "What will threaten the PCs?"

I don't disagree with you about this being an approach to patch the problem, but it also removes a good chunk of the material that isn't really a threat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the "get rid of raise dead" camp. I even understand the 1e way is probably too harsh. But I do think there need to be more than speedbumps if you want to have impact.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I think you're overstating this 'push' due to your own perceptions.

Maybe. But this post troubled me.

Having something bad happen be a bad thing isn't a flaw to me. It's a feature.

That seems to be a view in decline.

Oh, the good old boardgame "Ameritrash with their player elimination and ability to screw up the guy next to you just because vs. Eurogames with their lack of such features, which is superior?" discussion, how nice to see you're finally reached the shores of RPG land.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Death is a speedbump for the Doctor in Doctor Who. He still manages to be challenged, get scared, etc.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kind of kills the sacrifices when they aren't really sacrifices. Kind of kills the risk when it isn't really a risk.
Then the GM needs to adapt and find relevant things to fill the roles of sacrifices and risks. If the GM is throwing non-threats at the party, it's not the system's fault.

If the system makes death largely irrelevent, what is the actual threat of most of the monsters in the bestiary other than "moderate inconvience for about a week"

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
Death is a speedbump for the Doctor in Doctor Who. He still manages to be challenged, get scared, etc.

In no small part because it isn't a speedbump for everyone else involved...

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I think you're overstating this 'push' due to your own perceptions.

Maybe. But this post troubled me.

Having something bad happen be a bad thing isn't a flaw to me. It's a feature.

That seems to be a view in decline.

Oh, the good old boardgame "Ameritrash with their player elimination and ability to screw up the guy next to you just because vs. Eurogames with their lack of such features, which is superior?" discussion, how nice to see you're finally reached the shores of RPG land.

I didn't read it that way at all. I was bothered by the implication that having players die at your table and that being a bad thing is somehow "Player vs GM".

Player vs GM happens with bad GMs. But this isn't player vs GM. It is table vs dice.

The GM should always try to be fair, but fair isn't always autowin.


ciretose wrote:
If the system makes death largely irrelevent, what is the actual threat of most of the monsters in the bestiary other than "moderate inconvience for about a week"

You die and the ne'er-do-wells loot your body. When you wake up and your vorpal nail clippers are nowhere to be found, and you now are copper-less and owe the church for your rez you will be more than moderately inconvenienced.

The follow up trials (you will be ill-prepared for since you're using mundane gear/weapons/armour) will make you rue ever dying again...forever...for serious.

It is all how it is adjudicated/delivered. A truly psychotic DM (I am of their ranks) will deliver fitful punishments for the masochists in my player ranks, with one eye firmly fixed on making it a fun experience (seems counterintuitive I know, the job of the DM is oft contradictory) for all.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Death is a speedbump for the Doctor in Doctor Who. He still manages to be challenged, get scared, etc.
In no small part because it isn't a speedbump for everyone else involved...

Exactly (I already brought this up, in fact). Give the PCs something to protect besides their own skin.

The real risk of death is not that you don't come back, it's that you don't come back until it's too late to save the NPC/village/country/world/plane/multiverse. If the GM never threatens those things, it's not the system's fault.

If the GM singles out the one easiest-to-defend thing (the life of the PC) and never tries to threaten anything but that, it's not the system's fault.


ciretose wrote:

One of the people in our group was running an Asian themed campaign, I had a Samasarian Monk who decided to grapple a flying BBEG Oni to protect the rest of the group, as it was looking like a retreat or TPK situation otherwise. He was basically sacrificing himself to save the party since he will be reborn. It was epic and memorable.

And for 5000 and a week with a negative level it would have had the same impact as a nap long term if I wanted it to.

Kind of kills the sacrifices when they aren't really sacrifices. Kind of kills the risk when it isn't really a risk.

THAT, my friend, is a good death! Unfortunately, in a "harsher" game, not only are the good deaths final, but the myriad of ignoble deaths are permanent as well.

Personally, I'd prefer if magic that can raise the dead were kept for a very high level spells. I love the spell Breath of Life, which allows fights to have a real threat of death, but without every x3 crit ending a character's entire story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.

Consider the first movie in a movie series, like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

In theory, it "matters" if Indiana Jones or Harry Potter makes a mistake. And yet there's no chance of them dying in the first installment, since you know it's the first installment of many featuring the same character. So how can they be exciting or suspenseful? Well, the excitement and suspense shift from "Will they survive?" to "How will they survive?"

From my point of view, when I hear the beginning of an interesting story, I usually like to hear how that story will end.

Liberty's Edge

Perhaps I am being unclear.

I love breath of life. That is an epic moment that demands a player daily sacrfice a relatively high slot and then charge into danger that just killed a friend to try to cast a spell (likely on the defensive) that may or may not work depending on how much damage they took and/or are recieving.

That is a brilliant spell that creates excitement at the table, which IMHO is one of the primary goals.

And I like raise dead fine if it has a bite to it that means you can't just keep doing it every other session and moving on like nothing happened.

And yes, plots should involve things dear to the players.

But the players lives themselves should be dear to the players, and that is mitigated when death has no real sting.

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.

Consider the first movie in a movie series, like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

In theory, it "matters" if Indiana Jones or Harry Potter makes a mistake. And yet there's no chance of them dying in the first installment, since you know it's the first installment. So how can they be exciting or suspenseful? Well, the excitement and suspense shift from "Will they survive?" to "How will they survive?"

From my point of view, when I hear the beginning of an interesting story, I usually like to hear how that story will end.

Who is to say that specific hero is "the" hero? It is presumably a 4 player game. Who is to say you are Malcolm and not Wash?


ciretose wrote:
hogarth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.

Consider the first movie in a movie series, like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

In theory, it "matters" if Indiana Jones or Harry Potter makes a mistake. And yet there's no chance of them dying in the first installment, since you know it's the first installment. So how can they be exciting or suspenseful? Well, the excitement and suspense shift from "Will they survive?" to "How will they survive?"

From my point of view, when I hear the beginning of an interesting story, I usually like to hear how that story will end.

Who is to say that specific hero is "the" hero? It is presumably a 4 player game. Who is to say you are Malcolm and not Wash?

I don't understand how your question relates to my comments. Are you claiming that "How will they survive?" is only interesting if there's a single hero in a story? That's just not true (and it seems like an odd idea, frankly); whether you're talking about Harry Potter or Harry, Hermione and Ron, "How will they survive?" can be the basis of a lot of excitement and suspense.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ciretose, it occurs to me that perhaps you'd like Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and here's why:
.
.
.
.
• You have to start at level 1.
• Die in the early levels, and you're done. Make a new PC (at first level).
• You can save up Prestige Points to pay for a raise. Except it's expensive enough that usually you can only do that once in your career.
• You can pay with gold, but unless you'd put away a nestegg you're going to be selling gear at half price to pay for it. And then you need to re-buy gear (at full price). Your income does not change to make up for it.

So in PFS, death can be overcome, but the cost is real. Might be right up your alley. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I love breath of life. That is an epic moment that demands a player daily sacrfice a relatively high slot and then charge into danger that just killed a friend to try to cast a spell (likely on the defensive) that may or may not work depending on how much damage they took and/or are recieving.

Exactly!

The problem spells, in my opinion, are Raise Dead cast by a measly 9th level character, and Resurrection, cast by a 13th level character. I'd love to see Raise Dead actually replaced by Breath of Life and Resurrection replaced by something like a "Greater Breath of Life", and reserve the real Lazarus stuff for 9th level spells.

Alternatively, the costs of Raise Dead or Resurrection could be replaced by something other than gold. For example:

Alternative Raise Dead
In a ritual which must take place at a site significant to the deity being petitioned, the caster may bring a dead companion back to life. The caster and target must share permanent negative levels equal to the level of the target.

There are two changes. First, you have to leave "the dungeon" and go to a holy site, effectively interrupting the current adventure. Second, sharing a bunch of negative levels shows some personal cost to the caster and probably makes the time until full recovery more than one day.

Liberty's Edge

Not to say PFS isn't a wonderful thing, just not sure it would be my thing. I like to screen my GM and players, and the ones who have gotten through the screen all prefer running home brews or APs.

I would probably like it a great deal in the right group with the right GM, but I've seen to many FLGS games blown up by entitled players and heard too many horror stories of schrodingers wizards sitting down to set aside more time above and beyond my home game with players I know well and drink beer with even when we aren't gaming.

In other words, I love the concept, I fear the execution.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
I would probably like it a great deal in the right group with the right GM,

Then why not run the scenarios "off the record" using PFS rules (or an approximation thereof)? Get the "death matters but can be overcome" thing you seem to want, but still get to play with your own group. Sounds like a win-win.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I would probably like it a great deal in the right group with the right GM,
Then why not run the scenarios "off the record" using PFS rules (or an approximation thereof)? Get the "death matters but can be overcome" thing you seem to want, but still get to play with your own group. Sounds like a win-win.

It isn't a bad plan, but I have trouble selling PFS stuff to my group. One GM still doesn't want to convert from 3.5...

I've being thinking of trying a %5 XP loss, with a negative level penalty if you are below level rather than level loss. It will mean death has a bite, but you won't have the complex recalulations of lost levels and you can still mostly keep up with the rest of the party (unless you die much more often than they do, in which case...)

I do agree with Sean about losing the gold cost, but that is a whole other discussion :)

But thanks for the suggestion, I don't mean to sound dismissive, but my group gets it's haunches up whenever I push PFS stuff.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Well, the key thing in PFS that makes death have bite seems to be that you don't get a "refund" via increased future treasure. You could simply adopt that one specific piece in your campaigns, by determining ahead of time how much treasure is available and where, and your players have to deal with it.

Or, again, you could simply threaten things that are less easily protected than their own lives - threaten innocent villages, put them on the clock against Doomsday, etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree w/you Cire; things ARE getting more nerfed. However, they're also getting more fair. For example there was a 1e module (maybe TOEE?) that in room 1 there was a boot. Mind you, this is 1e and said module was suggested to start at character level 1.

Anyway, there's this boot. You deal w/the room and you've still got the boot, so maybe someone inspects it or puts it on. Yellow mold; insane save or death.

Now, that to me doesn't suggest "gritty", it suggests a GM sitting there sniggering and yelling "Ha ha...sucker!" I don't really enjoy playing that way or running that way.

However, recently I ran a game for a bunch of die-hard 1e guys and I had a simple, CR2 breakaway bridge trap. It killed one player and left several others badly injured. I thought it was a genuinely stupid way to die but let it happen. Said players thought that trap was the highlight of the adventure.

Now bear in mind - I was running PF, had an APL+1 trap for a bunch of 1st level characters, and have admitted I'm not a killer GM. This by the book should've been little more than a challenging speedbump.

I think PF still has the CAPABILITY of challenge just as much as it has the capability of nerf. Think of it like a weapon, this PF system: it is intristically neutral but in the hands of different wielders, it can be a force for good OR evil.


Oh, and the whole "death doesn't matter" thing? There are ways, built into the system, that keep death real for home or CRB games (I can't speak to PFS since I haven't played.):

1. Kill 'em young: die at 1st level, you won't have enough GP to get back to the living. Roll up a new guy.

2. Lots of Undead/Controller type villains out there: kill the PC round 1, take the body round 2, reanimate the corpse in other rounds and watch comedy ensue.

3. Kill 'em in the middle of nowhere: kill em in the right place, at the right time, and there's no way the PCs are going to be able to raise em.

If I'm really in a good old fashioned killing mood, I'd pull out things like acid vats, lava, floods or gusts of wind off mountains. There would be swarms as well; ever see that time lapse of the locusts consuming a cow? With magic in the world there's also things like walls of fire or iron to keep foes at bay while you steal a corpse for later abuse.

Again I think it all comes down to how you play. In the example from my other post I killed a guy but another player risked his own life, swung down into the drink and grabbed his buddy, taking significant damage on a botched roll in the first place. If I was really mean or wanted a CONCRETE guarantee of death, I could've just as easily said "sorry; current's too fast. By the time you've got the rope tied off and you're diving over the side you teammate is a quarter mile downstream..."

Death CAN be death, if you want it to be.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A player who nobly sacrifices himself for the party, if they truly want an epic story, will refuse a raise dead. The player needs no game mechanic. However, to create the "atmosphere" (you can check a prior post of mine on the lengthy raise dead discussion), game designers want some thrill and anxiety associated with dying while not unduly frustrating players who have become attached to characters. I'm not convinced D&D or Pathfinder capture my desires in this aspect, but they set the framework. So I can work with it.

My group has adopted a hybrid Raise Dead/Resurrection from PF and D&D that does not apply to Breath of Life. We do this because we recognize dying in Pathfinder happens a lot less than when we played 2nd edition and we want it to be serious stuff.

1. Casting time 8 hours. Coming back from the dead, that's serious stuff. This truly makes dying a punishment, for there's no swift return in the middle of a dungeon, and the rest of the world may be moving on with nefarious plans.

2. 500gp per Hit Die (level) of target being raised. Cost of salves and unguents. Mechanically it gives lower-level characters a shot at being restored that was not previously financially viable.

3. Resurrection Survival Chance required based off 1st/2nd edition. Starting CON score in the game determines how many times a person can be raised ever and a % to be successfully raised. Failure of the % means dead forever. Each successive raise dead treats % as if 1 CON lower. A 10 CON = 70% success, so odds are good but not automatic.

4. Because of #1, #2, and #3 there is no need for temporary level loss, penalties. Hit points (1 per HD when returned) must be recuperated by natural rest, unless Resurrection or a Heal spell is used.

Our hybrid can be harsh. A 10th level character (5000gp) may fail the % chance and the party is out that money and lost the character. But odds are I'm going to see less kamikaze tactics and more use of terrain, withdrawal tactics, and cooperation to keep others alive than before. Ultimately, it's a thrill my players like having in the game.


I think alot of your problem with consequences is making resurection magic entirely too prevalent. Admitedly we dont lose character terribly often, but its very tough in our game to bump into an NPC that can cast a raise before someone in the party gets it. People of that level are supposed to be rare folks indeed, not the local preacher. Beyond that we are seldom running around with the kind of money needed to supply the casting. YMMV but to me blaming the rules for the tone of your game is like driving a sports car at 35 and then claiming its the cars fault you dont feel like your racing.


Blueluck wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I love breath of life. That is an epic moment that demands a player daily sacrfice a relatively high slot and then charge into danger that just killed a friend to try to cast a spell (likely on the defensive) that may or may not work depending on how much damage they took and/or are recieving.

Exactly!

The problem spells, in my opinion, are Raise Dead cast by a measly 9th level character, and Resurrection, cast by a 13th level character. I'd love to see Raise Dead actually replaced by Breath of Life and Resurrection replaced by something like a "Greater Breath of Life", and reserve the real Lazarus stuff for 9th level spells.

Alternatively, the costs of Raise Dead or Resurrection could be replaced by something other than gold. For example:

Alternative Raise Dead
In a ritual which must take place at a site significant to the deity being petitioned, the caster may bring a dead companion back to life. The caster and target must share permanent negative levels equal to the level of the target.

There are two changes. First, you have to leave "the dungeon" and go to a holy site, effectively interrupting the current adventure. Second, sharing a bunch of negative levels shows some personal cost to the caster and probably makes the time until full recovery more than one day.

Blue it may be your intent in the first place so more power too you, but I think I would abandon any character who died under those rules. Its one thing for me to incur a permanent penalty for death, its another all together to inflict it on another player..And unless I was playing the most altruistic character ever, there is no way in hell I would be casting a raise for anyone my character was not in love with or related too.


The game is drifting away from what you and I prefer Ciretose because of the perceived need to appeal to the instant gratification/short attention span crowd.

Technically all you need now in pathfinder is a diamond worth 5000gp and a divine caster of sufficient level to cast 5th level spells.

So any added difficulty is perceived by some players as the DM just being a jerk. A number of posts in this thread give ways and examples that the DM can increase the impact of death, the difficulty in coming back, etc. But it all comes down to DM fiat then.
And you know how well that goes over with the current player centric mentality of the hobby.

Heck there are people in the other thread that think the DM is being a jerk if they insist it actually be a 5000gp diamond and not just 5000 gp of whatever.

The rules have made the game less gritty. You can see it in the CR system in some ways and the drastic reduction in XP needed to level now.
Think about it, In 2nd edition a Paladin or Ranger needed 2,250Xp to get to 2nd level and Kobolds were worth 7XP!
Now you need 2,000Xp and kobolds are worth 100XP each.
Honestly the whole formulaic wealth by level tables are a symptom of it too IMHO.
The game has lost alot of grit in the name of progress and I'm not saying it's all bad, far from it. I remember how amused we were when 3rd edition came out and a number rules that used to be house rules were incorporated into the RAW. But not all "change" is good, and some cows should have remained sacred.


Death has consequenses.

I keep a white board set up with coffins on it for the player deaths. There are 6 coffins on the board so far. None of these are ever coming back. But then again thus far none of my characters are above 4th-6th level and none of them have 5000 gp for a raise dead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Who is to say that specific hero is "the" hero? It is presumably a 4 player game. Who is to say you are Malcolm and not Wash?

When you die a stupid pointless death out of nowhere because Joss Whedon likes being a dick sometimes you'll know exactly which character you are.


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I love breath of life. That is an epic moment that demands a player daily sacrfice a relatively high slot and then charge into danger that just killed a friend to try to cast a spell (likely on the defensive) that may or may not work depending on how much damage they took and/or are recieving.

Exactly!

The problem spells, in my opinion, are Raise Dead cast by a measly 9th level character, and Resurrection, cast by a 13th level character. I'd love to see Raise Dead actually replaced by Breath of Life and Resurrection replaced by something like a "Greater Breath of Life", and reserve the real Lazarus stuff for 9th level spells.

Alternatively, the costs of Raise Dead or Resurrection could be replaced by something other than gold. For example:

Alternative Raise Dead
In a ritual which must take place at a site significant to the deity being petitioned, the caster may bring a dead companion back to life. The caster and target must share permanent negative levels equal to the level of the target.

There are two changes. First, you have to leave "the dungeon" and go to a holy site, effectively interrupting the current adventure. Second, sharing a bunch of negative levels shows some personal cost to the caster and probably makes the time until full recovery more than one day.

Blue it may be your intent in the first place so more power too you, but I think I would abandon any character who died under those rules. Its one thing for me to incur a permanent penalty for death, its another all together to inflict it on another player..And unless I was playing the most altruistic character ever, there is no way in hell I would be casting a raise for anyone my character was not in love with or related too.

Don't forget that "permanent negative levels" are curable with a 4th level spell (Restoration), so anyone who can raise dead can restore the levels too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or maybe it's not the "instant gratification/short attention span crowd."

Maybe it's those who who are more interested in the roleplaying side than the war-gaming side of the hobby. I'm more interested in figuring out the bad guy's plot and how to stop him and in all the relationships with NPCs and other PCs I develop along the way than in the challenge of surviving enough fights without dying.
Losing or crippling a character to a lousy die roll or two sucks, not because of my short attention span or my desire for instant gratification, but because it derails all the character development that's happened around him and possibly parts of the larger plot as well.
Noble sacrifices and other dramatic ends can work well, but many deaths are largely pointless and uninteresting, especially if the character is just replaced with another one and the game goes on.

It isn't the challenge of the fights (or avoiding traps or whatever) that's really the focus for me. In fact, optimizing both my character's build and my character's behavior can interfere with what I enjoy about RPGs. The closer I have to come to the best tactics I can choose, the less room I have to be the character. In a more laid back game I can have my character screw up by losing his temper or being too honorable in a fight or something and not get everyone killed and screw up the game. In a hardcore game, I have to use the best tactics I can come up with and not worry about what the character would do.

If you approach the game from a more gamist perspective and get your enjoyment from the fights and the tactics, then that isn't an issue. And I can see why you want the challenge of playing on "hardcore" mode.
To me focusing too much on that aspect makes me feel like I'm just moving tokens around on a map. It's not what I'm here for.
Different people come to the game wanting different things.

That said, we generally handle this by soft balling the encounters and a little bit of fudging rather than easy raise dead/resurrection.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I never played an edition earlier than 3rd.

Lately all my games have been APs. They aren't cheap, at $120 for an entire AP I'd like the players to get to the end. To see all the cool content and interesting encounters. My players get very attached to their characters. I don't want to scrap an AP because luck went against my otherwise clever and cool players.

In my experience perma-death doesn't make people treasure the lives of their adventuring alter-ego. It does the opposite. As players just build new characters to replace the old the player and the party has no connection to the new guy. Why would they? My players are interested in the story they invested time and money into. The story of their character.

Also if you want to make the game hard for you you can opt not to accept the raise. If you sacrificed yourself nobly, then your character can kick it in the afterlife with your deity of choice. The problems of the mortal realm need not concern you. Your old allies can certainly find a new ally in their fight. I have a player who insists on doing so and it works for me. Other players prefer to be raised, some prefer reincarnation.

You choose your own difficulty level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:

I agree w/you Cire; things ARE getting more nerfed. However, they're also getting more fair. For example there was a 1e module (maybe TOEE?) that in room 1 there was a boot. Mind you, this is 1e and said module was suggested to start at character level 1.

Anyway, there's this boot. You deal w/the room and you've still got the boot, so maybe someone inspects it or puts it on. Yellow mold; insane save or death.

I definitely don't miss the days of trying multiple characters to finally survive to 5th level.

Shadow Lodge

Start with playing "The Darkest Vengeance".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I played 1e all the way back in 1980 too. I wax nostalgic sometimes about those days, but y'know what I really remember more than anything? Being annoyed, and houseruling things. A lot.

I GM'd pretty exclusively in HS in the 90's. I ran 1e, then eventually 2e. We had fights that ended in wrestling matches and fists at the table; guys whipped dice around. Oh sure, there were some good times too. But almost EVERY game I ran died around 3rd to 4th level b/cause of lost interest.

Going back in college and poling some of my old buddies I was told hands down that people lost interest b/cause they were roleplayers stuck playing a war-gamers game. Our characters were like tissue paper for the first 3-5 levels. Advancement was PAINSTAKINGLY hard and nobody got any cool loot unless I went monty haul.

Once we got to about 6th level, those 3 campaigns were REALLY a blast! We had artifacts, castles, and all of it. But that's THREE campaigns over the course of 10 years that went the distance.

Now of course there were other factors to all this I'm sure; we were also in school, chasing girls, young guys with agression and all that. But the no 1 pet peeve we all had was dying all the time and not getting anywhere.

Me as the GM, my personal pet peeve was spending MORE time trying to ad lib rules, arguing over effects and using GM FIAT than I was just running the game. I'd write this awesome cheese and then spend an hour in my buddy's basement trying to explain the pretend physics of a web spell.

...

I'm sorry for the rant I really am. And hey, if the old days got your blood pumping then that is awesome and I really do feel bad that those older editions are tough to get back. But for ME and my own personal gaming experience, I'm really glad to have PF.

Now when I GM I set up a scene, throw it out there, and then just react. Period. I don't have to blow an hour on a web spell effect; you get caught, you're Entangled or whatever; simple math. I can kill with impunity if I feel like it and if I don't want someone coming back I make it so...JUST like I could've in 1e. However now my players feel empowered with the knowledge they have about the mechanics and the game to play WITH me instead of AGAINST me.

I don't want to go head to head against my players in a gritty game. I don't want my players so paranoid that they're scraping together every possible advantage for everything. I want a collaborative game. And now I have it.

1 to 50 of 515 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why easy mode? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.