You make a good point. I don't know what your game is like beyond what you've said. It's not a great idea for me to judge it. Much like it's not a great idea for someone to judge others' games as "easy mode" because they run things another way.
My initial post was more in reference to the OP...which sounds to me that the OP is playing a lot more game leathal than the OP wants. Also it seems to me atleast that the OP was judging 'hard mode' a little too much.
I have played games on 'easy mode' and can find them fun...I just enjoy the game more if it is harder.
Also this is not black & white. There is alot of greys in between...I am sure that there are people who would call my games 'Easy' and there are people who would call your games 'hard'.
The reasons you like action movies and have liked comics night be different from why you like RPGs, but for many people they're the same. There are people who enjoy playing the action hero types, and and beating the bad guys. Doesn't mean the enemies are "rolling over", it means they want something else from the game than you do. Luckily, it's a big enough system for both types.
Agreed but...
Sorry if it seems like I'm argumentative, it's a bit of a peeve of mine when people say "Pathfinder isn't the game fir you, try game X", because to Mr that sounds like "you're playing wrong, go play something else". Which is elitist, and exclusionary. I would like more people to game, not less. Even if they don't play how I do.
When I make a suggestion like this it is not my intent to say that they can't play x game. But I realize different games offer something different. This is because I have been blessed by the people have played with to be open minded about the system. I play currently Pathfinder, Champions, Rifts, Legend of the 5 Rings, and Iron Kingdoms. So I don't think asny system is superior to another.
I also realize also just because I don't like 4th ed does not mean it is not better suited to other people. Instead of banging their heads against a roll...I perfer to suggest a alternative.
Also...is not kind of system elitist to suggest there is only one system?
Not saying you are wrong...just explaing myself and I apologize if you take offense to anything.
I must admit, I've refused to answer a DM when he asked for my hit points. But it was a long build-up kind of thing, so it may not be quite the same situation.
I fight this fight in PFS all the time. It would be nice if I didn't have to. When you're in a shared world that isn't supposed to use house rules, where the judge isn't responsible for long term story, it should n't be hard.
Sorry if it seems like I'm argumentative, it's a bit of a peeve of mine when people say "Pathfinder isn't the game fir you, try game X", because to Mr that sounds like "you're playing wrong, go play something else". Which is elitist, and exclusionary. I would like more people to game, not less. Even if they don't play how I do.Then maybe you should extend that definition to include even if they don't play the same game I do. The suggestion usually is given because the person genuinely thinks the alternate system handles X better than Pathfinder/d20 does. And they just might be right. For example, if you plan to run a investigation-heavy game set in outer space, Pathfinder probably isn't the best choice of systems to use (try Ashen Stars instead).
The suggestion isn't usually meant to say you are playing WRONG, only that there might be a way to play that is less work and more enjoyable for everyone.
Also Table top games might not be for you...video games are very easy now a days.
That's more what I'm talking about.
Sorry if it seems like I'm argumentative, it's a bit of a peeve of mine when people say "Pathfinder isn't the game fir you, try game X", because to Mr that sounds like "you're playing wrong, go play something else". Which is elitist, and exclusionary. I would like more people to game, not less. Even if they don't play how I do.Then maybe you should extend that definition to include even if they don't play the same game I do. The suggestion usually is given because the person genuinely thinks the alternate system handles X better than Pathfinder/d20 does. And they just might be right. For example, if you plan to run a investigation-heavy game set in outer space, Pathfinder probably isn't the best choice of systems to use (try Ashen Stars instead).
The suggestion isn't usually meant to say you are playing WRONG, only that there might be a way to play that is less work and more enjoyable for everyone.
Also Table top games might not be for you...video games are very easy now a days.That's more what I'm talking about.
Since it is my line I will explain it.
Video games now a days are impossible to 'loose'...if you die you go to the last save point and retry. Video games are all about the story. This is som,ething I have heard from my video game playing friends. From OPs issues a video game might be better(and there are multi-player video games out there.
People are very different. Not everyone in the world will like a given thing. There are people I think should just stop playing table top games and play video games...it is nothing elitist(funnily enough I see more elitism on the video game side) in that statement.
I can see how it can be taken that way so I'll apologize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Video games have always been impossible to "lose" except for Roguelikes.
At the very least you could always start the whole game over with the same character like nothing ever happened.
Also Table top games might not be for you...video games are very easy now a days.That's more what I'm talking about.Since it is my line I will explain it.
Video games now a days are impossible to 'loose'...if you die you go to the last save point and retry. Video games are all about the story. This is something I have heard from my video game playing friends. From OPs issues a video game might be better(and there are multi-player video games out there.
People are very different. Not everyone in the world will like a given thing. There are people I think should just stop playing table top games and play video games...it is nothing elitist(funnily enough I see more elitism on the video game side) in that statement.
I can see how it can be taken that way so I'll apologize.
Thanks. I just didn't see a need for that when the Pathfinder system (and many other tabletop gaming systems) are quite well suited to providing a game experience that can match what the OP is looking for.
As for elitism, given how often I see "WoW", MMORPG, and video gamey used as pejoratives on this board, I'm not sure I can agree with you. I've never once heard anyone in an MMO General channel say something negative about tabletop or D&D.
Edited for spelling. Typing on a phone isn't fun.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Video games have always been impossible to "lose" except for Roguelikes.
At the very least you could always start the whole game over with the same character like nothing ever happened.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that. It's hard to say you 'lost' at Pac-man.
Video games have always been impossible to "lose" except for Roguelikes.
At the very least you could always start the whole game over with the same character like nothing ever happened.
I guess it all depends on youir defination of loosing. To have to start from the begining is loosing.
Heck it usualy even ask would like to NEW game? Which to me indicates you have lost the old game...
Thanks. I just didn't see a need for that when the Pathfinder system (and many other tabletop gaming systems) are quite well suited to providing a game experience that can match what the OP is looking for.
Not if the OP's group does not like the same style...and if that is the only group in town...than the video game option is a good one.
As for elitism, given how often I see "WoW", MMORPG, and video gamey used as pejoratives on this board, I'm not sure I can agree with you. I've never once heard anyone in an MMO General channel say something negative about tabletop or D&D.
Experiences may differ...I usualy run into the elitism in that many video gamers refuse to acknowledge tha table games in anyway influence mordern video games at all.
Video games have always been impossible to "lose" except for Roguelikes.
At the very least you could always start the whole game over with the same character like nothing ever happened.
I guess it all depends on youir defination of loosing. To have to start from the begining is loosing.
Heck it usualy even ask would like to NEW game? Which to me indicates you have lost the old game...
And having to start from the beginning of a mission/checkpoint/whatever is also losing by that logic. It's just less losing, and it's a necessary mitigation since I know that pretty much every extant genre of game would either be non-existent or significantly changed (mostly for the worst) if you had to start the game over when you died.
S@%@, could you IMAGINE having to start over, say, Final Fantasy X every time you got a Game Over?
THINK ABOUT THAT. IT'S HORRIFYING.
Thinking about the OP, one has to ask the question as to what is hard mode? I for one never use this house rule of 3 natural 20's. What is it, an autokill? Yes, I agree, too arbitrary to luck. I like to challenge the party to the point where they think they are all going to die and then they either have to withdraw becuase it is too tough and live to fight another day or just barely over come the BBF with perhaps 1 or 2 party losses. I don't mind characters dying. I have had 12 in about 6 months with about 20 sessions. Only once did I step in and aide the party and gave them 3 free resurrections because I felt the encounter was too tough. I rarely do that anymore. Usually characters did due to poor teamwork or poor player choices.I would say my games are played in hard mode, but fair. After all, they all signed their wills prior to playing for their characters! It is kind of a give away when the players graves are predug for them outside the dungeon.
Video games have always been impossible to "lose" except for Roguelikes.
At the very least you could always start the whole game over with the same character like nothing ever happened.
I guess it all depends on youir defination of loosing. To have to start from the begining is loosing.
Heck it usualy even ask would like to NEW game? Which to me indicates you have lost the old game...
And having to start from the beginning of a mission/checkpoint/whatever is also losing by that logic. It's just less losing, and it's a necessary mitigation since I know that pretty much every extant genre of game would either be non-existent or significantly changed (mostly for the worst) if you had to start the game over when you died.
S!$&, could you IMAGINE having to start over, say, Final Fantasy X every time you got a Game Over?
THINK ABOUT THAT. IT'S HORRIFYING.
Also Game Over...means game over you have lost...it usualy says You Have Won if you beat the game...
Nope never got into video games much...so I can't imagine. Though having seen my college roomate go through on the Final Fantasey game I think I would have done him and his GPA a favor if I earsed his saves games.
As I said most of what I am saying in that video games have gotten easier and the whole loosing thing is just what I have heard from friend who play alot of video games. They routinly usualy go back to play older games because there is actualy challenges.
If you go back and play a lot of older games the challenge either comes from 2 things:
The controls/game itself were bad/broken.
You just sucked.
Nintendo games were hard, yeah, but it's more a trend away from those genres (mostly platformers or shoot 'em ups) than any shift in overall game difficulty.
Also the reason that would be horrifying is because it's not uncommon for that game to have 100 hours of playtime to complete. And unskippable cutscenes.
Really though, up through the PS2 era games were still pretty hard, again because the platformer was still pretty much the default game (though by that point they were all Platformer/X Other Genre hybrids) and it's easier to make fair difficulty in that genre than the current reigning champ: The FPS, where the only real difficulty spikes that can be made are of the "unfair" variety, namely making the AI hyper-competent, making them do more/take more damage, or by throwing them at you in overwhelming numbers.
Not impossible, but requires a different approach to level design and such than the glut of CoD-likes that get made.
It's very hard to make a game like that difficult when the main factors are twitch aim and reflexes rather than usage of terrain and timing.
You should tell them to go play God Hand.
S$$~, could you IMAGINE having to start over, say, Final Fantasy X every time you got a Game Over?
THINK ABOUT THAT. IT'S HORRIFYING.
Mostly due to you having to play Final Fantasy X.
What were we talking about again?
I still don't understand the hate for this game.
You'd think people would especially stop bashing on it after the small, but very vocal minority of hate for X and (I think more common hate for) XII (an awesome game that SHOULD have influenced the rest of the series) pretty much directly led to that abomination XIII being created.
If you go back and play a lot of older games the challenge either comes from 2 things:
The controls/game itself were bad/broken.
You just sucked.
Or, in the case of NeoGeo era SNK fighters, because the boss could break the rules and use attacks you could only dream about. :P
Thanks. I just didn't see a need for that when the Pathfinder system (and many other tabletop gaming systems) are quite well suited to providing a game experience that can match what the OP is looking for.Not if the OP's group does not like the same style...and if that is the only group in town...than the video game option is a good one.
In that case, I'd suggest the OP either DM their own game, try to find some new people, even if it means teaching the game to some new players. In my experience, video games make a poor replacement for tabletop gaming. The closest I've ever seen is the newer Fallout games, because of their willingness to let you solve problems in so many different ways. Then again, that's my bias of what I'm looking for in RPGs showing. If someone who enjoyed structured adventures more night be able to get their "fix" from a video game.
I prefer to see a story come to its conclusion. Doesn't mean I don't occasionally kill a player character ( often due to players not being careful... was it really necessary to charge the Frost Giant With Haste? ), but I try to avoid doing it all the time, since it interrupts the flow of the game.
Likewise I sometimes fudge saving throws on BBEGs, so that they get at least one full round of actions in... nothing more frustrating and anticlimactic that an BBEG croaking before he get to act. Damn high level transmutation spells...
In that case, I'd suggest the OP either DM their own game, try to find some new people, even if it means teaching the game to some new players. In my experience, video games make a poor replacement for tabletop gaming. The closest I've ever seen is the newer Fallout games, because of their willingness to let you solve problems in so many different ways. Then again, that's my bias of what I'm looking for in RPGs showing. If someone who enjoyed structured adventures more night be able to get their "fix" from a video game.Thanks. I just didn't see a need for that when the Pathfinder system (and many other tabletop gaming systems) are quite well suited to providing a game experience that can match what the OP is looking for.Not if the OP's group does not like the same style...and if that is the only group in town...than the video game option is a good one.
Sure that is another solution...since the OP just posted and ran though it is kinda hard to offer solutions.
And having to start from the beginning of a mission/checkpoint/whatever is also losing by that logic. It's just less losing, and it's a necessary mitigation since I know that pretty much every extant genre of game would either be non-existent or significantly changed (mostly for the worst) if you had to start the game over when you died.
S@%!, could you IMAGINE having to start over, say, Final Fantasy X every time you got a Game Over?
THINK ABOUT THAT. IT'S HORRIFYING.
There's a community of no-reload video gamers. Playing games like Final Fantasies, Baldur's Gate I & II, and similar games where if you die you start over. Save files are used to save progress, but game over is game over. It's hardcore, it can be hella fun or damn frustrating. It adds real fear. It makes you do things like plan for bad things to happen and play safer. It's like Hadcore Mode in Diablo II or Torchlight I & II.
Something similar actually happened to be by accident years ago. I was playing FF7 and had been really into it. Somehow, I'm not sure how, I forgot to save for ages. I was like early disk 2 and during a random encounter I used Cait Sith's random slot machine limit break and got Cait, Cait, Bar. Game over. I went to reload my save and realized the last time I saved was late Disk 1. FML.
When I first got my PS1, it was the first console I had ever had that needed a memory card. A memory card that didn't come with the console. I got the console purely for Final Fantasy VII and Street Fighter EX plus Alpha. I got my console for Christmas in 97 and played from the start of Final Fantasy VII and onward until I got my memory card for my birthday in January. Essentially I played through the entire Midgar area of the game and was at the end of the Shinra building when I got my fist memory card to actually save my game. What a magical moment that was. :D
I've done no-reload challenges in Baldur's Gate as well. In some cases no-reload solo-character challenges. You will never taste fear of defeat in a game so sweet.
And having to start from the beginning of a mission/checkpoint/whatever is also losing by that logic. It's just less losing, and it's a necessary mitigation since I know that pretty much every extant genre of game would either be non-existent or significantly changed (mostly for the worst) if you had to start the game over when you died.
S@%!, could you IMAGINE having to start over, say, Final Fantasy X every time you got a Game Over?
THINK ABOUT THAT. IT'S HORRIFYING.
There's a community of no-reload video gamers. Playing games like Final Fantasies, Baldur's Gate I & II, and similar games where if you die you start over. Save files are used to save progress, but game over is game over. It's hardcore, it can be hella fun or damn frustrating. It adds real fear. It makes you do things like plan for bad things to happen and play safer. It's like Hadcore Mode in Diablo II or Torchlight I & II.
Something similar actually happened to be by accident years ago. I was playing FF7 and had been really into it. Somehow, I'm not sure how, I forgot to save for ages. I was like early disk 2 and during a random encounter I used Cait Sith's random slot machine limit break and got Cait, Cait, Bar. Game over. I went to reload my save and realized the last time I saved was late Disk 1. FML.
When I first got my PS1, it was the first console I had ever had that needed a memory card. A memory card that didn't come with the console. I got the console purely for Final Fantasy VII and Street Fighter EX plus Alpha. I got my console for Christmas in 97 and played from the start of Final Fantasy VII and onward until I got my memory card for my birthday in January. Essentially I played through the entire Midgar area of the game and was at the end of the Shinra building when I got my fist memory card to actually save my game. What a magical moment that was. :D
I've done no-reload challenges in Baldur's Gate as well. In some cases no-reload solo-character challenges. You will never taste fear of defeat...
A small community, in the grand scheme.
Can you honestly say you'd play them if that were the only way to play?
Or would you get frustrated at losing 50 hours of work on a death (and that's just one death), like most people would?
Hell yeah I would. The vast majority of games I play end when you die. The only games I've played in recent memory that I ever re-loaded after dying were Dishonored and Dark Souls.
Games I've played recently:
League of Legends (Match based)
DotA 2 (Match based)
The Showdown Effect (Match based)
Heroes of Might & Magic VI (Match based, invidivual deaths cause permanent power loss)
Ancient Domains of Mystery (Perma-death rogue-like)
Sword of the Stars: The Pit (Perma-death rogue-like)
Hack, Slash, Loot (Perma-death rogue-like)
Dark Souls (Permanent resource loss on death)
Dishonored
If the option to reload from a previous save in single player games was gone I don't think I'd miss a thing.
A small community, in the grand scheme.
Can you honestly say you'd play them if that were the only way to play?
Or would you get frustrated at losing 50 hours of work on a death (and that's just one death), like most people would?
It's hard to say. I probably would but that doesn't mean that I think that it should be the norm because not everyone is up for a no-reload challenge. The idea however isn't exactly an alien one to me though. Here's a little backstory on my life with games.
Smokes Bubble Pipe and Rewinds the Screen
I've been playing video games since I was two years old on the Nintnedo. One of my favorite games to play was Dino Riki (a game that has become infamous for downright stupid levels of difficulty and unforgiving gameplay). I beat Donkey Kong as a child (someone on these very boards called me a liar when I included it on a list of games I've beaten). I grew up on games that by their nature often gave you at best a couple of tries (in the form of extra lives) and then proceeded to shunt you back to the start screen when you ran out (comparing modern Mario games with original Mario looks like comparing a Mushroom Lover's Extra Mushroom Pizza to the Pizza you eat if you're deathly allergic to Mushrooms :P).
I cried when I beat The Little Mermaid NES, and was disappointed when I found Barbie Super Model only has like 4 stages (still a good game though).
I get excited when I meet someone who can kick my ass up down left and right at a fighting game I enjoy like Street Fighter or Guilty Gear XX#Reload. It means I'm going to be having a ton of fun for the rest of the day and double in skill by tomorrow.
Before my first GGX2#Reload tournament I decided to practice my blocking and combos in training mode while fighting Justice (a tournament illegal secret character that is widely considered OP) in training mode on the hardest difficulty with maximum block value (if the NPC could block it was blocking, period) with infinite tension, infinite burst, and life regeneration (either I killed her in one combo or she regained max HP between the time she hit the ground and stood up again). I lost until I could beat her regularly and after a while it lost challenge. I might go back and do the same with each other character in the game just to get good at fighting each of them under goofy extreme conditions.
One might say that I enjoy a bit of challenge. I think this is why my cousin and I were never going to see eye to eye on things or why I had no desire to play with him in video games. I like cheat codes as much as the next guy and I love modding my games (I ****ing loved my Gameshark when playing Pokemon and Final Fantasy Tactics*) but he wouldn't play a game unless he was playing with cheat codes that ensured he couldn't fail. That concept is about as alien to me as the innermost thoughts of a Neothelid.
So...yeah, I might try it. I've recently fallen in love with Dark Souls which has been a very fun game and I was elated to find that it was a bit more difficult than most of the stuff on the market today (and dying in that game really does suck because you basically lose all your currency/XP/humanity when you die and it takes a lot of that stuff to level up).
But again, understand that I'm not suggesting that games should be that way by default. Far from it. Just merely suggesting that such things aren't that horrifying or alien in concept to some people. Though perhaps I'm wrong and it actually is a really alien concept to most people. I've never claimed to be normal or not somehow insane (I know I have difficulty understanding other people because I feel like my mind is operating in some vastly different way which makes it difficult for me to relate or comprehend certain things which seem abhorrently illogical or irrational to me to the point of actually causing me physical pain).
*: I loved playing Pokemon but do to certain circumstances I didn't have many people to play pokemon with on a regular basis and I didn't have a link cable for my gameboy for quite a while, and I certainly couldn't take a trip to Japan to get a Mew on my games so I got a gameshark instead. Now I never did the crazy stuff like giving my pokemon infinite life or maxing their attack powers and stuff. Nah, I hacked the ID code for the random encounters and then through trial and error modified the hex code and wrote down which digits produced which random pokemon (this was a hell of a lot easier in the Gold & Silver versions where the pokemon appear in order of pokedex entry # rather than seemingly random order).
I did this so I could actually play with pokemon of different types or attempt to catch certain pokemon that I couldn't otherwise. See, even if I could have traveled to Japan to get a mew traded to my cartridge, that's kinda lame. I mean the seeing the world part would be pretty cool (I mean, omg, Japan, right?) but the moment the save was corrupted or the battery died, no more Mew. Bummer. So instead I found the hex mod for him and decided to catch him as a random encounter. Now due to the way that pokemon are classed by rarity in the game's database the difficulty of successfully capturing a Mew you find in the wild is at least equal to the difficulty of catching Mewtwo in the wild as well. Since you've only got 1 masterball it's time to throw down! :D
Later I used the gameshark for other interesting things. For example, you can modify the level of pokemon you're encountering in the game and the game will adjust their stats accordingly. Since the original games kinda cap out in NPCs around level 50-60 out of 100 levels, it became really hard to find challenges for your pokemon after the elite four and mewtwo's dungeon (which isn't very fun to wander around in just fighting Rydons and stuff). But by adjusting the level modifier in my gameshark code I could make any random encounter spit out pokemon of any level (including pokemon higher than the level cap if you just want to test your might {ahhh Mortal Kombat I and hidden Reptile}).
In Final Fantasy Tactics I enjoyed my Gameshark because it allows you to view the different character classes that only appear during certain plot battles or during cut scenes. Yep, every last character you see in FFT during cut scenes (such as when nobles are talking around a table and such) are actually given unique classes in the game. Most of them don't do anything, some have odd skills or interesting skill combinations. Others just look cool while being rather useless. It was fun to tinker with them and try out combinations of things that you can't normally get access to or see in the normal game after beating the game several times and acquiring new legal tactics becomes boring (Tip: If you want the game to cease being fun, Ramza->Bard->Calculator->Wizard w/Excalibur & Blade Grasp. Avoid this combination unless you just like seeing every enemy on the screen explode to death at infinite range while fully healing you).
Meanwhile Back on Topic
I actually enjoy my D&D games easier since it's a group activity. I don't build games to be that difficult. My group plays with 15 point buy with minor house rules (the only house rule I'm using in my current tabletop is one that gives a little bonus Hp to each character at 1st level based on their HD just so I can arm my NPCs with stuff like great-axes for flavor without assuredly murdering PCs with every successful hit, and I use an Action Point system that allows PCs to take 1 extra standard or move action with +1 AP at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level; which believe it or not is actually based on the Action Surge feat from SWd20).
I do feel that some risk should be present though, lest it become not a game and instead just collaborative storytelling event where the GM tells the story and you offer some tweaks to the plot until the GM decides you're no longer worth keeping around and you die off like a sidekick so the real heroes can mourn your loss.
Hell yeah I would. The vast majority of games I play end when you die. The only games I've played in recent memory that I ever re-loaded after dying were Dishonored and Dark Souls.
Games I've played recently:
League of Legends (Match based)
DotA 2 (Match based)
The Showdown Effect (Match based)
Heroes of Might & Magic VI (Match based, invidivual deaths cause permanent power loss)
Ancient Domains of Mystery (Perma-death rogue-like)
Sword of the Stars: The Pit (Perma-death rogue-like)
Hack, Slash, Loot (Perma-death rogue-like)
Dark Souls (Permanent resource loss on death)
DishonoredIf the option to reload from a previous save in single player games was gone I don't think I'd miss a thing.
Now that we're talking about it, I recall one of my favorite games is Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together for the SNES/PSX. It's by the same team who made Final Fantasy Tactics later on but with some critical differences. The largest differences is that the battles are much larger (FFT = 5 man team, often smaller due to plot NPCs poking their unwanted nose in your business; Tactics Ogre = 10 man teams virtually every encounter) and Tactics is way less forgiving (in tactics you die when you die, while in FFT there is a 3 round countdown between the moment you were hit with the hand of god {such as being at 1 HP and then directly hit by a meteor that is as large as the battlefield} and your actual death (until then you can just get a medic to throw some pheonix down on you and you'll be a'ight). In tactics ogre you die when you die. :P
Amusingly I think I prefer Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together. >.>
Fire Emblem is a strategy game series where a unit stays dead if it dies.
I love that series, despite the frustrations it brings to my perfectionist side.
That "rule" about three 20s isn't a rule of Pathfinder, it's just a house rule. It's always important to clarify House Rules as soon as possible when joining a game.
I GM a Pathfinder game. I do not use the three 20s VARIANT because I don't like it. My game does use Crit House Rules though, because I use Critical Hit AND Critical Fumble decks. (Fumbles themselves being a non-standard variant house rule.)
I don't necessarily like killing the player characters, but I do like to keep the illusion that they could die at any time. The illusion is far more fun than the reality of killing them because it keeps them on edge. The problem arises though that in order to maintain the illusion, close calls are mandatory. Close calls are scary and fun, but they're also a serious risk to character mortality--and sometimes I roll my dice in the open so fudging isn't always an option. So far in the current campaign we haven't had any character deaths, but we've had multiple party members in negative hitpoints at the same time at least twice. There haven't been any character deaths yet simply because the monsters have elected to focus on active threats rather than finishing off fallen enemies. At one point three of four party members were paralyzed and it would have been easy to coup de grace at least one of them, but it was more fun, and better for the game, I thought, if maybe the monsters chased the last PC around some to give them time for it to wear off.
Critical Fumble cards are vicious, but nobody has lost a hand yet. Had a PC crit-fumble when he decided to attack a stone statue (because it was there) with a sword. Lucky he just got stunned 1d4 rounds. It was pretty funny. I use the fumble "rule" where Weapon Focus in the fumbled weapon allows the fumbling character to draw two cards and pick his fumble from between them, so that usually helps martial characters some when they fumble, and gives a little bonus to the feat.
But anyway, my point is just perception of threat of PC death makes the game more intense, but it can be hard to do without killing a PC sometimes.
Of, and that three 20s thing isn't a standard rule.
When I game I want to be GAMING.
Where as when I play I would rather be playing.
Gaming is one way of playing RPGs - one that I dislike intensly. :)
All that grind and crunch - great for rules lawyer and Min/Maxers (as we used to call them when I started playing) - not at all good for a long RP campaign :P
But there are many different ways of playing. 'Gaming' - as in modelling computer games - is a modern addition to a long standing hobby.
|
|
Massive Damage was always a houserule in 3.x if I recall correctly. Not a bad idea in that it gives melee characters the chance to pull off SoDs, but monsters in the upper levels tend to do that kind of damage on every hit. Having PCs make Fort saves every round on top of all that HP damage is a little much.
The only games I play "Hardcore" are First Person games, like Halo(-insert joke about FPS games here-). I like to call these Pilgrimages, where I start at the beginning of a series on it's highest difficulty and play through to the end of the franchise. If I die, I start the series over(or give up). Its a quick way to get good at those kinds games imo.
Back on Topic, I've killed a PC every week for the past month so... I guess I'm a "killer" DM who sees himself as the arbiter of the die? Though 3 of them have already been revived.
Heh, my kids loved Final Fantasy. I have to admit that I sort of felt like the franchise jumped the shark when "Final Fantasy II" came out.
I mean, how final was it really?
I'm on the fence on this one. I've been playing for going on two decades now and have had many GM's and many players. My experience is from both sides of the table.
As a GM:
I'm player centric, I don't like to kill the players and sometimes will fudge the dice if I am at fault with putting together an encounter that is way outside their weight class. At the same time, if it's a battle/encounter where the players are just being straight up dumb with tactics or rush headlong into something way too dangerous for them without thinking ahead, I won't pull punches and let them learn from their mistakes.
As a Player:
I like the element of danger involved in playing the game. I enjoy and strive to have a single character last from levels 1-20 without losing him to death, but I also know that sometimes the randomness of the dice gods is cruel and characters die. So I don't mind having to roll up a new character when something happens like that.
So I can feel the pain of a new player wanting to experience the whole game and understand why they'd be upset if they put two weeks of their time into rolling up the PC, adding a backstory, and building out where they want to take the PC and then lose it two years into an epic campaign. I also can understand why GM's do or do not fudge dice and why sometimes the dice gods are fickle.
Massive Damage was always a houserule in 3.x if I recall correctly. Not a bad idea in that it gives melee characters the chance to pull off SoDs, but monsters in the upper levels tend to do that kind of damage on every hit. Having PCs make Fort saves every round on top of all that HP damage is a little much.
Actually massive damage was core in 3.x and one of the dumbest most arbitrary rules in the game. One that WotC even suggested that you ignore when they released the ELH because pretty much every attack at high levels becomes a 5% save or die (the DC vs massive damage was 15 but you can always roll a 1, so if a Barbarian smacked you for 50, 53, and 60 damage during a turn, not only did you just lose 163 life but you made 3 DC 15 fortitude saves or die; can you say Rage-Lance-Pounce!?). :P
It was amazingly arbitrary because it was whenever you took 50 damage. No real explanation as to why it was just 50 damage. At low levels suffering 50 damage in a single attack meant you were dead anyway. At high levels 50 damage was relatively like getting stabbed by a dagger back at 1st level. It was just kinda dumb and most people ignored or forgot about it. Now it exists as an "optional rule" in Pathfinder but it should have just died in a fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One time I saw one of my players slip and fall down some stairs in real life, so I told him that his character was now dead because if luck was so against him then the game results should reflect that, where is my best GM ever prize
Hell yeah I would. The vast majority of games I play end when you die. The only games I've played in recent memory that I ever re-loaded after dying were Dishonored and Dark Souls.
Games I've played recently:
League of Legends (Match based)
DotA 2 (Match based)
The Showdown Effect (Match based)
Heroes of Might & Magic VI (Match based, invidivual deaths cause permanent power loss)
Multiplayer or "simulated multiplayer" (computer opponents). Not exactly what I was talking about since every match win OR lose will be different. I'm not entirely certain about Showdown Effect or HoMaM VI (the last one I played was IV), but neither of those sound like the type of game that shunts you back to level 1 or whatever every time you die in a match (which MOBAs do, but leveling up is so damn fast it's not even a punishment).
Ancient Domains of Mystery (Perma-death rogue-like)
Sword of the Stars: The Pit (Perma-death rogue-like)
Hack, Slash, Loot (Perma-death rogue-like)
I already noted that Roguelikes were the exception, and are not what I was talking about here as they are randomized upon death. You lost progress, yes, but not in the same way. Since the experience is different every time, it doesn't carry near the amounts of frustration as having to go through a game that never changes multiple times.
Dark Souls (Permanent resource loss on death)
But you respawn at the nearest campfire and can just kill all the dewds nearby again again to get your soul thingies back anyway. Its difficulty comes from the fact that you'll die often, not that progress is erased.
Dishonored
Autosaves at the start of every mission (which are generally pretty short, even if you're being stealthy) and has a normal save feature.
If the option to reload from a previous save in single player games was gone I don't think I'd miss a thing.
I think you'd miss more than you realize, especially if you played more than a narrow sub-set of games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so. I tend to bring the same mindset of "death is the end" to any game I play, which is why I frequently do "hardcore" runs of non-permanent death games I enjoy (such as the aforementioned Dark Souls and Dishonored).
My intent wasn't to list a bunch of games that punish you for death, just games that I've played recently, to support my assertion that most of the games I play punish you for death. I didn't even mean to assert that it's that way for most people, though that's how you took it (and I apologize for that).
Gaming as a hobby would probably suffer very badly if there weren't any "do overs". Learning how to play and developing muscle memory is already a pretty huge barrier to entry for new gamers; the frustration would probably result in a lot of people quitting and never coming back. But I personally wouldn't go anywhere, because I enjoy that kind of thing. :)
On Topic Though
I think calling it "Hard Mode" is a bit disingenuous. Playing with permanent death, not fudging dice, 15 point buy, all those are rules the game was designed around and balanced for. It's really "normal", if we're going to use difficulty settings as an analogue for this discussion.
Personally, I couldn't imagine playing in a campaign that was on "easy mode". I imagine some people would like it (and that's fine), but it's really not for me. I love role-playing and all, but when I'm playing D&D/Pathfinder I'm playing because I want to role-play and play a game; one that involves tactical thinking, problem solving, and deadly, punishing threats. If all I want to do is role-play there are plenty of options for that, and I feel like if I'm not getting the game part out of my Pathfinder experience I'm wasting my time.
Massive Damage was always a houserule in 3.x if I recall correctly. Not a bad idea in that it gives melee characters the chance to pull off SoDs, but monsters in the upper levels tend to do that kind of damage on every hit. Having PCs make Fort saves every round on top of all that HP damage is a little much.Actually massive damage was core in 3.x and one of the dumbest most arbitrary rules in the game. One that WotC even suggested that you ignore when they released the ELH because pretty much every attack at high levels becomes a 5% save or die (the DC vs massive damage was 15 but you can always roll a 1, so if a Barbarian smacked you for 50, 53, and 60 damage during a turn, not only did you just lose 163 life but you made 3 DC 15 fortitude saves or die; can you say Rage-Lance-Pounce!?). :P
It was amazingly arbitrary because it was whenever you took 50 damage. No real explanation as to why it was just 50 damage. At low levels suffering 50 damage in a single attack meant you were dead anyway. At high levels 50 damage was relatively like getting stabbed by a dagger back at 1st level. It was just kinda dumb and most people ignored or forgot about it. Now it exists as an "optional rule" in Pathfinder but it should have just died in a fire.
They did kinda fixed it in PF though. It is now 50 or half your HPs whichever is higher.
I don't think so. I tend to bring the same mindset of "death is the end" to any game I play, which is why I frequently do "hardcore" runs of non-permanent death games I enjoy (such as the aforementioned Dark Souls and Dishonored).
My intent wasn't to list a bunch of games that punish you for death, just games that I've played recently, to support my assertion that most of the games I play punish you for death. I didn't even mean to assert that it's that way for most people, though that's how you took it (and I apologize for that).
Yar, I got ya now. If you enjoy it, more power to ya. I enjoy it occasionally, with games I've played a bunch (did a no-death run of Jak 2 once. NEVER AGAIN.), but it's not my usual cup of tea.
|
Statistically without a loaded die the chance of rolling three 20s in a row is not even 1/100.
It comes down to a 1/10,000 shot.
Personally though I HATE bringing people back from the dead. It just seems shallow and anticlimactic. I will fudge the dice for my players if it seems unfair, or if I planned something that wasn't meant to be so difficult however at a climax of the story I wouldn't be upset if a player dies. It adds story and character development for the rest of the group as they have to come to terms with a good friend of theirs dieing. (Which is great in roleplaying heavy groups.)