Ok because I was curious I wandered over to look at TOZ's house rule link. Death Flag reminds me of a similar but certainly not equal rule I once proposed. Basically mine was based off video games like NWN2 where the only way you could die is if the whole party died. It didn't stop you from taking damage at -con+1 like death flag does but rather removed the killed condition unless everyone in the party was down into the negatives. If the still positive characters flee then anyone left in negatives is now dead. If the PCs win the fight then they can use first aid to restore anyone in the negatives back to zero HP. My system is less abusable than death flag. Simply put death isn't the players choice in my system but it is still very hard to die. Also keep in mind death flag was supposed to be used only in games where death was permanent.
The death flag is definitely designed for campaigns where characters can’t come back from the dead.
Where mine is usable in most games to prevent character turnover.
If the still positive characters flee then anyone left in negatives is now dead.With the caveat that the enemy may use healing to take characters prisoner?
Of course. Depending on whether the enemy wishes realistically to capture rather than kill they can take the ones left behind captive and save them themselves. And that CAN make for a good story especially with bandits for example who may see some real potential for ransom, but obviously not with beasts or the like who would rather kill and eat the poor dropped PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it doesn't, the game is an essentially meaningless exercise in self gratification.This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts about the "hard mode" proponents.
Yes. It's "an essentially meaningless exercise in self gratification." Of course it is. It's a game. You're playing it for fun. Not for money or fame or power or anything else. What would it be but a meaningless exercise? Well, self gratification and gratification of your fellow players.
Whether you die and have to make up another character or not doesn't change that in the slightest.
Eeeeeyup.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the fun of the game is the individual challenge and the cooperation with fellow Pathfinders to overcome challenges.
For me, the fun of the game is playing. I don't need challenge or risk to accomplish that. And random character death can sometimes detract from the enjoyment, so I prefer to have controls in place to mitigate those times.
The 'cert or XP and treasure' is not the reward, the game itself is.
|
For me, the fun of the game is the individual challenge and the cooperation with fellow Pathfinders to overcome challenges.For me, the fun of the game is playing. I don't need challenge or risk to accomplish that. And random character death can sometimes detract from the enjoyment, so I prefer to have controls in place to mitigate those times.
The 'cert or XP and treasure' is not the reward, the game itself is.
Depends on the game and the GM. One GM I play with has created a really rich world where each campaign is Canon and things that happen come back later on from group to group and campaign to campaign. I don't want anything but hardcore in that group.
Other GMs who aren't as...well I'll just say it...good at creating worlds, I don't care as much about hardcore, because I'm there to roll dice and talk smack. What happens doesn't really "matter" as much as having a laugh with friends around the table.
|
|
Depends on the game and the GM.
I'm responding in kind. He speaks in absolute statements, so do I. He acknowledges it's his playstyle, so do I.
What happens doesn't really "matter"
This is how I feel about all games, even the ones you want to be hardcore. See thejeff's post upthread.
The game only has the meaning you give it, regardless of how you play it.
|
|
This is how I feel about all games, even the ones you want to be hardcore. See thejeff's post upthread.The game only has the meaning you give it, regardless of how you play it.
While this is true, with some groups we want to give it that meaning. At one point we had a fairly regularly updated wiki for one of our campaigns settings, because lots of stuff happened and what happened matters. Where your character died and how came back into play.
This isn't all groups. It's pretty rare to have a GM who can pull it off. But it does cause problems when you have players who throw a wrench into a group that would like to take a given game seriously.
I enjoy a beer game as much as the next guy, but some games I really care about the story we are creating.
Would anyone argue that DnD isn't already drifting toward easy mode? You get max HD to start. You get better powers. You get more options and abilities. You can't die unless you reach negative constitution etc. This doesn't even include 4e and second winds.
The thing is... there are a few ways to increase the challenge of an encounter. I think randomness is a cheap, lazy way to do it. I try and give my players tools to reduce that randomness so that I can be confident in using encounters that may be a higher CR and opponents that have decent tactics.
It's pretty rare to have a GM who can pull it off. But it does cause problems when you have players who throw a wrench into a group that would like to take a given game seriously.
Yeah, I could see that as a large draw. And I if someone had made a speech like my original post at the beginning or end of one of your groups sessions, it would most certainly not have been welcome. The expectations for your group and that GM are to have a hard mode game. One person expecting something different would be disruptive, and that person should either settle down and adjust their expectations or seriously begin looking for a new group where they can have fun again.
This is not the case for my group. We have two players with some prior experience but new to Pathfinder, a GM who is pretty flexible, and an experienced player who is strongly opinionated and Serious about his gaming.
The expectations are all over the place. This is our first campaign. We don't know the likes and dislikes of the other players. And for two of us, our likes and dislikes are subject to change. The player of the Ranger in our group came into Pathfinder from 4e. He started off very "where is the combat? Arg, kill 'em all!" After the last 3 sessions of nothing but combat, he told me that he's not enjoying the current combat focus of the adventure and hopes we can get back to the role-playing. I can only imagine that my attitudes towards the game are changing just as swiftly.
|
|
But that has very little to do with how hard core the game is.A serious game can be disrupted by players who know they won't die metagaming their characters actions and acting as if there is no risk.
A serious game can also be disrupted by being too hard core. Meaningless deaths can break plotlines. Too common death can lead to detachment from the characters.
Or it can be a point of pride to have survived and outlived your fallen comrades.
There is no one "serious" game. There are games that are more casual and others that are more serious. Many would argue that they don't want death at all in a "serious" game.
What I am saying is in the games I consider "serious" deaths can't break plotlines, because the plotline is the setting.
If there is a TPK, that becomes part of the Canon and the setting continues the logical conclusion of that particular mission failing.
On the other hand, illogical outcomes can make the setting less "serious" and more casual, because if the dice don't matter and the GM just fudges, it doesn't actually matter going forward. We are going where he is driving, not where the players are steering.
|
The thing is... there are a few ways to increase the challenge of an encounter. I think randomness is a cheap, lazy way to do it. I try and give my players tools to reduce that randomness so that I can be confident in using encounters that may be a higher CR and opponents that have decent tactics.Would anyone argue that DnD isn't already drifting toward easy mode? You get max HD to start. You get better powers. You get more options and abilities. You can't die unless you reach negative constitution etc. This doesn't even include 4e and second winds.
What's the point of the dice then? Do away with them, gather round once a week and tell a story...freak accidents and stupid deaths happen. More often to people who takes risks.
|
|
On the other hand, illogical outcomes can make the setting less "serious" and more casual, because if the dice don't matter and the GM just fudges, it doesn't actually matter going forward. We are going where he is driving, not where the players are steering.
Except that it would be in fact where the dice are steering.
|
|
Well, I tend to consider a TPK game ending. There may be another game in the same setting in which that TPK and mission fail is Canon, but it's not the same game. The character development is over. New characters won't have the same ties to NPCs, the same motivations, won't be tied into the same events. A new party, even if they start up right afterward in the same area, will have their own motivations, they'll meet different NPCs or forge different relationships with the old ones. If they're lower level, they'll be moving in different circles and dealing with different problems.
Absolutely. But it all exists in the same game world. We also have multiple groups with the GM, often split with one group doing one part of "The Thing" while another does another part and all depend on each other, in addition to having high and low level campaigns going on simulataniously in the game world, with outcomes of one effecting outcomes in the other.
You don't start a new party with "Bob the Beserker 2: Electric Boogaloo", but you do have the other party you were playing in the same world suddenly dealing with new challenges caused by the failure (or success) of others.
But that is the "serious" game. We also have "We are going to be pirates and do pirate things!" games.
|
|
On the other hand, illogical outcomes can make the setting less "serious" and more casual, because if the dice don't matter and the GM just fudges, it doesn't actually matter going forward. We are going where he is driving, not where the players are steering.Except that it would be in fact where the dice are steering.
Dice kill because you choose to put yourself in harms way. Half the game is making good choices for better outcomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the point of the dice then? Do away with them, gather round once a week and tell a story...freak accidents and stupid deaths happen. More often to people who takes risks.The thing is... there are a few ways to increase the challenge of an encounter. I think randomness is a cheap, lazy way to do it. I try and give my players tools to reduce that randomness so that I can be confident in using encounters that may be a higher CR and opponents that have decent tactics.Would anyone argue that DnD isn't already drifting toward easy mode? You get max HD to start. You get better powers. You get more options and abilities. You can't die unless you reach negative constitution etc. This doesn't even include 4e and second winds.
I don't want to do away with die-rolling, I just don't want it to be a focus. It's enjoyable to deal a lot of damage even if it just means, hey, we ended this a round earlier, maybe we don't need to use as many charges on the CLW wand.
I could just as easily flip your question around, why bother playing Pathfinder at all? You could just play tabletop Russian Roulette. Roll a d6, on a 6 you die. Wasn't that fun? It has a higher mortality rate than most games, so obviously it's *challenging*.
I don't want to do away with die-rolling, I just don't want it to be a focus. It's enjoyable to deal a lot of damage even if it just means, hey, we ended this a round earlier, maybe we don't need to use as many charges on the CLW wand.
Seconded. This is exactly the tone my idea game would take.
I could just as easily flip your question around, why bother playing Pathfinder at all? You could just play tabletop Russian Roulette. Roll a d6, on a 6 you die. Wasn't that fun? It has a higher mortality rate than most games, so obviously it's *challenging*.
Again, seconded. This has seemed like the logical outcome of "hard core" play. Most of the HC proponents do like story with their game. Ciretose's unified campaign world is a great example. But there a few other forum members who seem to be describing exactly this as their ideal game. "Let the dice solve everything!" Well, people have asked me if I am really playing Pathfinder by fudging dice. Are you, when the dice results are everything?
Would anyone argue that DnD isn't already drifting toward easy mode? You get max HD to start. You get better powers. You get more options and abilities. You can't die unless you reach negative constitution etc. This doesn't even include 4e and second winds.
I would say that levels 1-3 in 1e and 2e were more "hard mode" ...the game is pretty balanced to me now that you don't have to nerf it much more. Hell I might argue PF is easy mode now (this can depend on the DM as well I know).and the adventures are already designed for the most part not to annihilate you off the bat like some previous adventures now that they have a "science" of figuring out appropriate difficulty.
I guess it comes down to how much of a challenge you want. It could be because I grew up starting out on games like Mario then Contra and Battle Toads and others that were disgustingly difficult at a young age and still would be difficult today..and when you died you started at the beginning of a level..and when you died a few more times you started from the BEGINNING. I've noticed as time goes on games seem to be getting easier. Any game I play now doesn't come off as particularly challenging unless its vs other players or something like guitar hero that requires 5k hours to master a fake instrument. You just start up at about the same spot and try that bbeg/obstacle a few more times and move on.
But 1e and 2e didn't have critical hit rules like battle axes in the hands of 1st level humanoid warriors that do triple damage. So, what the hand of the rules giveth, they also taketh away.
When it comes to video games these days, sure, there quite a few in which you don't have to restart from the beginning when you run out of lives or don't have to practice for hours to master. This is, I would argue, a good thing because not everyone is into the hard core play until you master the game completely thing. If we're playing Rock Band, we're doing so as part of a casual social activity - "winning" isn't a factor. And many video games now have long and involved stories or places to explore that the designers want everyone to see and experience. I don't want to have to fight through hours of mooks and sub-bosses repetitively just to get to the end of an interesting, interactive story. I want ways to save my game so, if I fail, I can retry with another tactic or better execution without going back to the start. The fun, for me, is seeing the story unfold as I play through it, not that I execute it perfectly in one run.
|
|
Dice kill because you choose to put yourself in harms way. Half the game is making good choices for better outcomes.Of course, "not putting yourself in harm's way" generally makes for boring gaming.
Seriously the first step would be "Don't go on adventures." :)
I think if you adventure wisely, the dice have a lower chance of killing you. At least in games with GM's I like to play with.
|
|
What's the point of the dice then? Do away with them, gather round once a week and tell a story...freak accidents and stupid deaths happen. More often to people who takes risks.The thing is... there are a few ways to increase the challenge of an encounter. I think randomness is a cheap, lazy way to do it. I try and give my players tools to reduce that randomness so that I can be confident in using encounters that may be a higher CR and opponents that have decent tactics.Would anyone argue that DnD isn't already drifting toward easy mode? You get max HD to start. You get better powers. You get more options and abilities. You can't die unless you reach negative constitution etc. This doesn't even include 4e and second winds.
I don't want to do away with die-rolling, I just don't want it to be a focus. It's enjoyable to deal a lot of damage even if it just means, hey, we ended this a round earlier, maybe we don't need to use as many charges on the CLW wand.
I could just as easily flip your question around, why bother playing Pathfinder at all? You could just play tabletop Russian Roulette. Roll a d6, on a 6 you die. Wasn't that fun? It has a higher mortality rate than most games, so obviously it's *challenging*.
A very weak argument, or poorly chosen. It's not challenging at all. A challenge is something that forces you to spend some of your resources, more challenging, more resources spent. I don't like to have a near TPK every other fight, but sometimes, it is pretty good to take the kiddy gloves off and make the PCs sweat bullets to accomplish their goal. If it's all easy, what's the point? Unless, of course, you like to breeze through encounters...
As a note maybe I just don't see the problem as I have had exactly one character who has died from a unlucky roll...and did not get a resurrection.
But I have seen a ton of characters who have made mistakes, or due to RP reason like making a last stand survive due to random dice rolls.
So for those who think the dice should not be a determiner...do you think if your character does something stupid they should just die with not a roll? Or if they make a sacficial last stand...do you think no dice should be rolled?
Also the fact that there is a randomness to the game can actualy add to the enjoyment of the game. For instances I love random encounters. Sure if you treat them as just as just a combat they are stupid...but they really don't have to be. The same holds true for the 'random pointless deaths' people are talking about.
There this guy I know. While we get along out of game great...in game though...there was this random encounter. He started to bemoan the fact that it was not 'narrative important'. Me as a player I was looking for ways to use it in game to help us on the outcome of the adventure.
Now lets be clear I am not saying the GM should never 'fudge' the dice...or that characters should be facing death at every turn. There are certain siturations in which I'll fudge( new players, first couple of levels, that particular person is just having a bad day, etc). But I try to aviod if I can. Because than it the game itself I find just becomes stagnant.
@Ciretose: As a side not I am very fortunate to play in such a campaign. I also try to run my games very similairly(though I tend to jump systems at times too much). I will say those games are often the best I have played in...and they don't always has to be that 'serious'...for instance we have done the whole 'lets be pirates and do pirates stuff' campaign in thos worlds. It does require work by the GM...to maintain a timeline and play traffic cop(knowing where all the varied groups are)...but that cvan be lessened by having helpful players.
If it's all hard, what's the point?
Um to be fair Hama did say sometimes it is fun to have hard fights....
So where did you get 'all hard' from?
As a counter to his 'if it is all easy' comment. How hard the encounters are or how prevalent death is has nothing to do with wether the game has a point.
Ah...got it.
I could just as easily flip your question around, why bother playing Pathfinder at all? You could just play tabletop Russian Roulette. Roll a d6, on a 6 you die. Wasn't that fun? It has a higher mortality rate than most games, so obviously it's *challenging*.Again, seconded. This has seemed like the logical outcome of "hard core" play. Most of the HC proponents do like story with their game. Ciretose's unified campaign world is a great example. But there a few other forum members who seem to be describing exactly this as their ideal game. "Let the dice solve everything!" Well, people have asked me if I am really playing Pathfinder by fudging dice. Are you, when the dice results are everything?
This by as much the 'logical' outcome of the hard core style as this statement as "'Soft core' leads to players doing often stupid things because there is no threat of death."
So how many characters have you had that died to a 'unlucky crit? or the 3 d20 roll HOUSE RULE? I am curious.
Also here another question...
If it is ok for the GM to fudge dice rolls...is it OK for the players to do so also? Why or why not?
I am not saying your play style is wrong...but atleast understand what the other side is saying.
|
|
I could just as easily flip your question around, why bother playing Pathfinder at all? You could just play tabletop Russian Roulette. Roll a d6, on a 6 you die. Wasn't that fun? It has a higher mortality rate than most games, so obviously it's *challenging*.Again, seconded. This has seemed like the logical outcome of "hard core" play. Most of the HC proponents do like story with their game. Ciretose's unified campaign world is a great example. But there a few other forum members who seem to be describing exactly this as their ideal game. "Let the dice solve everything!" Well, people have asked me if I am really playing Pathfinder by fudging dice. Are you, when the dice results are everything?This by as much the 'logical' outcome of the hard core style as this statement as "'Soft core' leads to players doing often stupid things because there is no threat of death."
So how many characters have you had that died to a 'unlucky crit? or the 3 d20 roll HOUSE RULE? I am curious.
Also here another question...
If it is ok for the GM to fudge dice rolls...is it OK for the players to do so also? Why or why not?
I am not saying your play style is wrong...but atleast understand what the other side is saying.
One character died when in a bar brawl swords were drawn and he was disemboweled by a greataxe wielding barbarian. When you are a level 1 rogue with 7 hit points, 48 points of damage kinda does kill you.
Never had anyone die to 3 20s house rule. Never used it in any of my groups. Always considered it arbitrary and idiotic.
The GM has a much larger responsibility then players. He has to keep the story going and things interesting and fun for the players. If a random encounter that does not contribute to the story in any way would kill off a PC, why not fudge a little and give him a chance to survive by reducing him to 3-4 hitpoints above the negative threshold for death?
Players shouldn't cheat, GMs do this out of the consideration for the overall game, players do that because they don't want to fail.
A very weak argument, or poorly chosen. It's not challenging at all. A challenge is something that forces you to spend some of your resources, more challenging, more resources spent. I don't like to have a near TPK every other fight, but sometimes, it is pretty good to take the kiddy gloves off and make the PCs sweat bullets to accomplish their goal. If it's all easy, what's the point? Unless, of course, you like to breeze through encounters...
I don't want to breeze through encounters. If you read my previous post, I want the freedom to throw high-CR encounters and appropriate tactics at my players without killing a player every other combat. That's why I give players tools like hero points that reduce randomness. Otherwise I would end up with either an *extremely* deadly game, which reduces party cohesion, or a world where all their enemies are inexplicably less competent than they are.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to breeze through encounters. If you read my previous post, I want the freedom to throw high-CR encounters and appropriate tactics at my players without killing a player every other combat. That's why I give players tools like hero points that reduce randomness. Otherwise I would end up with either an *extremely* deadly game, which reduces party cohesion, or a world where all their enemies are inexplicably less competent than they are.
A very weak argument, or poorly chosen. It's not challenging at all. A challenge is something that forces you to spend some of your resources, more challenging, more resources spent. I don't like to have a near TPK every other fight, but sometimes, it is pretty good to take the kiddy gloves off and make the PCs sweat bullets to accomplish their goal. If it's all easy, what's the point? Unless, of course, you like to breeze through encounters...
Well, that is a skill that takes mastering. You can't just page through a book pick a CR and expect things to work out. Designing appropriate encounters is an art. And when you throw a high CR encounter at the PCs, some may die.
Not every encounter should be high CR, actually, less then 20% of overall encounters during a campaign should be APL +2 or +3. at least 35% should be APL -2 to -1 about 25% APL equal and 20% APL+1...(works like a charm for me)