Why can't I care deeply about my character and accept arbitrary death?


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
If I have a player who seriously takes three weeks to make a character, sorry, but I'm gonna build it for him. Once he's good enough at the system to write his characters up in time to actually play them, he can start building them on his own.

Uh-huh. I'm pretty sure "system" and rules and number-crunching has anything to do with it when you run across players who take that long to create characters-- it's usually all that other stuff that isn't directly reflected in the rules, all that free exercise of imagination, creativity (and sometimes obsession with detail to ridiculous degrees) that causes players to take such lengths of time in crafting a character for a given campaign.

So far that statement implies to me that you don't want your players to worry about anything like backstory, character history, pre-thought-out personality and motivations; but would prefer them to just crunch the numbers and get ready to roll (perhaps with characterization to be developed spontaneously as the game goes on).

If I have misinterpreted your intentions on this and you really prefer some middle ground between the two, please feel free to clarify.

Well of course, why bother with any of that. He's just going to die anyway. Come up with a name if he makes to 3rd level. :)

That said, I usually prefer to let most of the character develop in play. I find they fit better with the game that way and my portrayal of the character doesn't wind up clashing with what I've said in the backstory write up.

And it can still take me quite awhile to build characters, though I can get playable basics down pretty quickly. I usually wind up wanting to tweak the details for quite awhile. PF particularly can leave me in option paralysis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


Uh-huh. I'm pretty sure "system" and rules and number-crunching has anything to do with it when you run across players who take that long to create characters-- it's usually all that other stuff that isn't directly reflected in the rules, all that free exercise of imagination, creativity (and sometimes obsession with detail to ridiculous degrees) that causes players to take such lengths of time in crafting a character for a given campaign.

So far that statement implies to me that you don't want your players to worry about anything like backstory, character history, pre-thought-out personality and motivations; but would prefer them to just crunch the numbers and get ready to roll (perhaps with characterization to be developed spontaneously as the game goes on).

If I have misinterpreted your intentions on this and you really prefer some middle ground between the two, please feel free to clarify.

If a player takes three weeks to make a character he can enjoy, maybe he should find a group that will never let characters die. As is, he's holding up the game. Backstory, personality and motivations do not take me three weeks--heck, I don't know anybody who even takes one week. A good player can build his PC in one session's worth of discussion with the GM and other players. Maybe this made up guy isn't a good player.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


Uh-huh. I'm pretty sure "system" and rules and number-crunching has anything to do with it when you run across players who take that long to create characters-- it's usually all that other stuff that isn't directly reflected in the rules, all that free exercise of imagination, creativity (and sometimes obsession with detail to ridiculous degrees) that causes players to take such lengths of time in crafting a character for a given campaign.

So far that statement implies to me that you don't want your players to worry about anything like backstory, character history, pre-thought-out personality and motivations; but would prefer them to just crunch the numbers and get ready to roll (perhaps with characterization to be developed spontaneously as the game goes on).

If I have misinterpreted your intentions on this and you really prefer some middle ground between the two, please feel free to clarify.

If a player takes three weeks to make a character he can enjoy, maybe he should find a group that will never let characters die. As is, he's holding up the game. Backstory, personality and motivations do not take me three weeks--heck, I don't know anybody who even takes one week. A good player can build his PC in one session's worth of discussion with the GM and other players. Maybe this made up guy isn't a good player.

I wouldn't say that "good player" has much at all to do with how fast someone can make up a character. I've seen lousy players who always had multiple characters ready to go and could whip another up in minutes. And great players who needed help with mechanics every time.

That said it's something of a side excursion. I'd be much more concerned about losing a character I'd spent an hour building, but three weeks of play time developing into a interesting character and building ties to NPCs and to plotlines, that I'll never get to follow through on.
How long it takes to write up another character isn't the issue. It's how long it takes to build up the connections again. And what the chances are he'll get to follow through on them.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say if it takes you 3 weeks to make a character AND you require plot armor for your elaborate backstory...those aren't signs you are interested in the whole collective story aspect.

Losing a character sucks. We all agree with that. Which is why it is so scary that it could happen, and your heart races when you believe that if the dice say so, you could die.


ciretose wrote:

I would say if it takes you 3 weeks to make a character AND you require plot armor for your elaborate backstory...those aren't signs you are interested in the whole collective story aspect.

Losing a character sucks. We all agree with that. Which is why it is so scary that it could happen, and your heart races when you believe that if the dice say so, you could die.

Except when it's too common. In which case it's easy to stop caring and replace it with a different toon.


ciretose wrote:
I would say if it takes you 3 weeks to make a character AND you require plot armor for your elaborate backstory...those aren't signs you are interested in the whole collective story aspect.

Yeah, putting work into your character and wanting to use him makes that guy a selfish jerk, right?

But no, not really. Everyone is different. Wanting to get something out of your investment doesn't make you a selfish jerk, that's pretty normal. If you worked on something for three weeks and it broke on day one you'd probably curse up a storm yourself.


thejeff wrote:
Rictras Shard wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Depending on who is describing "carelessly"

I think if a player opens a door without checking for traps in a place where traps are likely, the GM wasn't the one who carelessly killed anyone.

This illustrates a consequence of trap-heavy play: it slows down the pace of the game. PCs have to check for traps on every door. This means you have to take the time for someone (or multiple characters) to announce they are checking for traps, to roll a perception check, communicate the check to the DM, the DM to announce the results, and, if there really was a trap, to redo the entire process with disable device instead of perception. Multiply this by however many doors the party has to go through, and it becomes a significant chunk of real-world time to resolve all the trap checking.
This takes about two to three seconds. Add perhaps ten seconds in the few times there is a trap. If it is an unusual trap that is difficult to disable, then you have something interesting to play through.

2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

So what is the rush? I mean, if the area you are in is trap heavy, wouldn't you want to take it slow and easy, take your time and work things out? If that sort of play isn't your thing, then doesn't this fall into the whole communication issue? Don't go on quests/adventures in places where you're going to deal with traps. If you don't like undead, don't do quests that involve graveyards.

Sorry, but if the main argument against traps is that they slow down things and force the character who designed a character to deal with them to, you know, deal with them, then that's pretty weak tea.

Given that we've had people arguing that they design their special character to be an uber negotiator who stays away from combat and that people going after them in combat isn't something they like, isn't this the same sort of thing?

Players should be talking to each other about their goals and communicating that with their GM. I've found that cuts down on a lot of these theoretical mishaps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I would say if it takes you 3 weeks to make a character AND you require plot armor for your elaborate backstory...those aren't signs you are interested in the whole collective story aspect.

Yeah, putting work into your character and wanting to use him makes that guy a selfish jerk, right?

But no, not really. Everyone is different. Wanting to get something out of your investment doesn't make you a selfish jerk, that's pretty normal. If you worked on something for three weeks and it broke on day one you'd probably curse up a storm yourself.

The bolded part above is very interesting given that we've had exactly the same argument against the GM being protective and invested in their setting.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is nothing anywhere that says you can't give your players an heirloom weapon at any level. RAW? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure if memory serves me correctly the number one rule of DMing is ignore the rules when & where they get in your way.

This isn't carte blanche to be taken "over the top" with idiotic arguments (well in that case, I want my wizard to be d12 HD!), but used judiciously it makes for fantastic games. I've done countless games that players started off with an item they didn't fully understand and it unlocked with them.

Also, you can't argue RAW about heirloom weapons and starting at level 2, and then talk about how the "rules" constrain you with regards to player death.

Just play the game you like to. Players that like your style will stay, and the rest will kick rocks.

-Vaz

EDIT: Grammar

Silver Crusade

When did this evolve into a discussion about the DM actually killing the character outright?

This thread is about characters dying in legit situations that are not heroic.

Traps, crits, failed saves, etc all happen during the game and are a part of it. If you don't like that then honestly Pathfinder is not really for you.

Silver Crusade

Investment time should never ever be used as plot armour because not all players need that much time to create a character.

Frankly, its not fair for a player to expect it. Tell you what I will do. I will make all my villains some how live through all the battles because of the amount of time I spend in preparing the game.

How about that?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Lost a character in the first encounter last night. Crit from a colossal insect took him from full to deader-than-dead.

Party had to struggle on with only three characters. We made it to the final boss and got blasphemy'd to a TPK. Pretty rough game.

Luckily we had to resources to pay for body retrieval and rez.


knightnday wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Rictras Shard wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Depending on who is describing "carelessly"

I think if a player opens a door without checking for traps in a place where traps are likely, the GM wasn't the one who carelessly killed anyone.

This illustrates a consequence of trap-heavy play: it slows down the pace of the game. PCs have to check for traps on every door. This means you have to take the time for someone (or multiple characters) to announce they are checking for traps, to roll a perception check, communicate the check to the DM, the DM to announce the results, and, if there really was a trap, to redo the entire process with disable device instead of perception. Multiply this by however many doors the party has to go through, and it becomes a significant chunk of real-world time to resolve all the trap checking.
This takes about two to three seconds. Add perhaps ten seconds in the few times there is a trap. If it is an unusual trap that is difficult to disable, then you have something interesting to play through.

2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

So what is the rush? I mean, if the area you are in is trap heavy, wouldn't you want to take it slow and easy, take your time and work things out? If that sort of play isn't your thing, then doesn't this fall into the whole communication issue? Don't go on quests/adventures in places where you're going to deal with traps. If you don't like undead, don't do quests that involve graveyards.

Sorry, but if the main argument against traps is that they slow down things and force the character who designed a character to deal with them to, you...

It's about slowing down the game, not the character's time. The characters can be moving slowly down the 300' corridor, checking every inch of it for traps, but the GM can handwave it, knowing there aren't any traps: "You reach the end of the passage safely." Or he can wait at every bend in the passage to see if you remember to check for traps in this section. Or just take any player decisions out of it entirely and say "as usual you keep checking for traps and find one 30' from the end of the passage. <rolls again> Disarmed. You reach the end."

The more it gets abstracted the less it adds. The more it doesn't, the more time it takes up and the bigger chance of screwing the players because of forgetting to mention checking one time. And yes, I've played with GMs who would do that. Wouldn't let you set up a standard routine either. You, the player, had to explicitly say it each time. Or you deserved whatever happened.

It does fall into communication. Fairly simply: "GM, we'd all rather not deal with a lot of traps." "OK"
You seem to be suggesting more of a character level approach. There should still be quests with traps, but the characters should avoid them. Tricky, especially if you're not just doing jobs for hire. "We'd love to rescue the princess, but can you promise us the kidnapper's won't have set traps?"


shallowsoul wrote:

When did this evolve into a discussion about the DM actually killing the character outright?

This thread is about characters dying in legit situations that are not heroic.

Traps, crits, failed saves, etc all happen during the game and are a part of it. If you don't like that then honestly Pathfinder is not really for you.

Or with some GMing styles, it works just fine. As your game does for you.

Traps can certainly be pulled out without any fudging or house rules. The GM just doesn't put them in the game. Done.


shallowsoul wrote:

When did this evolve into a discussion about the DM actually killing the character outright?

This thread is about characters dying in legit situations that are not heroic.

Maybe everyone just agreed that if it just happens we all have different ways of handling it and needs? I might just be in my dreams atm... So we just moved on to something else.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lost a character in the first encounter last night. Crit from a colossal insect took him from full to deader-than-dead.

Yarr, I hate when you go from full to dead. I always feel robbed myself. I've had it happen once to me in the past year. I managed to survive by one hp! Also robbed me of my con and I couldn't play the character for the rest of the adventure.

Isn't a colossal insect an oxymoron unless its relative? Maybe it was an ant..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I wouldn't say that "good player" has much at all to do with how fast someone can make up a character. I've seen lousy players who always had multiple characters ready to go and could whip another up in minutes. And great players who needed help with mechanics every time.

That said it's something of a side excursion. I'd be much more concerned about losing a character I'd spent an hour building, but three weeks of play time developing into a interesting character and building ties to NPCs and to plotlines, that I'll never get to follow through on.
How long it takes to write up another character isn't the issue. It's how long it...

Fast-building players aren't necessarily good, but the inverse is different. A player who holds up my game because he takes ten times longer than everyone else combined, who also has the nerve to be upset when I don't work harder to keep his character alive?

No offense, but this imaginary player's an a!~@##*.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
MrSin wrote:

Yarr, I hate when you go from full to dead. I always feel robbed myself. I've had it happen once to me in the past year. I managed to survive by one hp! Also robbed me of my con and I couldn't play the character for the rest of the adventure.

Isn't a colossal insect an oxymoron unless its relative? Maybe it was an ant..

Sorry, should have capitalized Colossal, since it was the game term. Thing took me to negative ten as well. Diehard was a good feat choice.


thejeff wrote:

It's about slowing down the game, not the character's time. The characters can be moving slowly down the 300' corridor, checking every inch of it for traps, but the GM can handwave it, knowing there aren't any traps: "You reach the end of the passage safely." Or he can wait at every bend in the passage to see if you remember to check for traps in this section. Or just take any player decisions out of it entirely and say "as usual you keep checking for traps and find one 30' from the end of the passage. <rolls again> Disarmed. You reach the end."

The more it gets abstracted the less it adds. The more it doesn't, the more time it takes up and the bigger chance of screwing the players because of forgetting to mention checking one time. And yes, I've played with GMs who would do that. Wouldn't let you set up a standard routine either. You, the player, had to explicitly say it each time. Or you deserved whatever happened.
It does fall into communication. Fairly simply: "GM, we'd all rather not deal with a lot of traps." "OK"
You seem to be suggesting more of a character level approach. There should still be quests with traps, but the characters should avoid them. Tricky, especially if you're not just doing jobs for hire. "We'd love to rescue the princess, but can you promise us the kidnapper's won't have set traps?"

I suppose it's all in what you and your players want to do. I've had my players take entire game sessions buying gear and clothing and generally doing things in town. So we're not in any sort of hurry in that regard.

And yes, your suggestion of how to handle it would work. It's something that each group would need to work out on their own. Some people really enjoy the traps and puzzle solving, and others want to get to the monster slaying.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I would say if it takes you 3 weeks to make a character AND you require plot armor for your elaborate backstory...those aren't signs you are interested in the whole collective story aspect.

Yeah, putting work into your character and wanting to use him makes that guy a selfish jerk, right?

But no, not really. Everyone is different. Wanting to get something out of your investment doesn't make you a selfish jerk, that's pretty normal. If you worked on something for three weeks and it broke on day one you'd probably curse up a storm yourself.

If it takes you three weeks AND you require plot armor, what am I supposed to do?

"Sorry guys, we can't play for three weeks. Bill needs to find his muse."

"I know, I know, it was a crit, but if I don't handwave it we are going to have to stop playing for three weeks while Bill finds his muse again. We can't possibly play without Bill, ever. Bill's needs supercede ours wishes, guys. He's that awesome."

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I would say if it takes you 3 weeks to make a character AND you require plot armor for your elaborate backstory...those aren't signs you are interested in the whole collective story aspect.

Losing a character sucks. We all agree with that. Which is why it is so scary that it could happen, and your heart races when you believe that if the dice say so, you could die.

Except when it's too common. In which case it's easy to stop caring and replace it with a different toon.

Which is when the GM has messed up, or the player (if it is only one, if it is happening to everyone in the the group the GM messed up) perhaps sucks at playing the game that everyone else seems to be not having a problem with.

There was a reason I capitalized "AND"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
If it takes you three weeks AND you require plot armor, what am I supposed to do?

Erm... Be my friend? Well maybe not mine, but whoever this hypothetical friend is.

And all the situations your describing are ones that make it look bad. Alternatively this guy spend three weeks working on it before the game started and took those three weeks to make sure everything was okay with you and how to integrate everything and its also a major loss for you. Suddenly it makes a lot more sense.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If it takes you three weeks AND you require plot armor, what am I supposed to do?

Erm... Be my friend? Well maybe not mine, but whoever this hypothetical friend is.

And all the situations your describing are ones that make it look bad. Alternatively this guy spend three weeks working on it before the game started and took those three weeks to make sure everything was okay with you and how to integrate everything and its also a major loss for you. Suddenly it makes a lot more sense.

The guy spent three weeks AND demanded plot armor. His masterpiece is for all of us to behold...oh how fortunate and blessed we are all...such a thing must never be subject to the whims of the cruel, cruel dice...


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If it takes you three weeks AND you require plot armor, what am I supposed to do?

Erm... Be my friend? Well maybe not mine, but whoever this hypothetical friend is.

And all the situations your describing are ones that make it look bad. Alternatively this guy spend three weeks working on it before the game started and took those three weeks to make sure everything was okay with you and how to integrate everything and its also a major loss for you. Suddenly it makes a lot more sense.

The guy spent three weeks AND demanded plot armor. His masterpiece is for all of us to behold...oh how fortunate and blessed we are all...such a thing must never be subject to the whims of the cruel, cruel dice...

Again, your describing it in the worst way possible. Alternatively he's just trying to make it fun for everyone and everyone is making characters with in depth backstory that would be a pain to lose. The guy who spent a day on his is the odd one out and has the negative stigma.

But no, your making him look like a jerk, because why?


Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

There is nothing anywhere that says you can't give your players an heirloom weapon at any level. RAW? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure if memory serves me correctly the number one rule of DMing is ignore the rules when & where they get in your way.

This isn't carte blanche to be taken "over the top" with idiotic arguments (well in that case, I want my wizard to be d12 HD!), but used judiciously it makes for fantastic games. I've done countless games that players started off with an item they didn't fully understand and it unlocked with them.

Also, you can't argue RAW about heirloom weapons and starting at level 2, and then talk about how the "rules" constrain you with regards to player death.

Just play the game you like to. Players that like your style will stay, and the rest will kick rocks.

I want a way to favorite this post twice.


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I would say if it takes you 3 weeks to make a character AND you require plot armor for your elaborate backstory...those aren't signs you are interested in the whole collective story aspect.

Yeah, putting work into your character and wanting to use him makes that guy a selfish jerk, right?

But no, not really. Everyone is different. Wanting to get something out of your investment doesn't make you a selfish jerk, that's pretty normal. If you worked on something for three weeks and it broke on day one you'd probably curse up a storm yourself.

If it takes you three weeks AND you require plot armor, what am I supposed to do?

"Sorry guys, we can't play for three weeks. Bill needs to find his muse."

"I know, I know, it was a crit, but if I don't handwave it we are going to have to stop playing for three weeks while Bill finds his muse again. We can't possibly play without Bill, ever. Bill's needs supercede ours wishes, guys. He's that awesome."

If I recall the original "Three week" bit it was about the work involved, not about having to wait 3 weeks while he makes a new one.

Maybe he can do it faster, but put extra time and effort into this one before the game started because he really liked the character and wanted to develop it properly. Maybe it takes 3 weeks, but he's got several ready. Maybe you only play once a month anyway.
Anyway, he still doesn't want to throw away 3 weeks worth of work.

As I said earlier, I've probably got more than 3 weeks worth of work in a character by the time they really come together, but that includes actual play time. I'm still frustrated when a character dies without seeing at least some of the plot threads work out.
If it happens too often, I'll either back out of the game or just play token style PCs. No reason to develop them if they're not going to last.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

Okay, let's presume the party checks for traps sixty times during the session. That takes three minutes of the game.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I get upset when a character dies, wether it was meaningful or arbitrary because I am invested in the characters I play in an actual game.

I get over it because it is a game.


Rictras Shard wrote:
thejeff wrote:


2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

Okay, let's presume the party checks for traps sixty times during the session. That takes three minutes of the game.

It takes 3 minutes, if it's all completely routine and takes no player interaction.

Of course, if it takes no interaction, what's the point in it?

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:

But no, your making him look like a jerk, because why?

I'm describing a behavior. If you think that the behavior I am describing is a jerk thing to do...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:

But no, your making him look like a jerk, because why?

I'm describing a behavior. If you think that the behavior I am describing is a jerk thing to do...

Right, I think its a jerk. Because its a biased thing you made up to look like a jerk. I could also say he's the guy who spits in your coffee or the guy who brings pizza everytime and pays for it or that he's Jesus. Details change things.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@thejeff - I've played a character I've spent tons of time on developing throughout the game, pouring through books, etc...

I never, not once, thought that entitled me to any special treatment at the table beyond the hope that the work I put in paid off in making my character more fun.

And I did it because I enjoyed putting that time in. I made that choice, just as I make a choice to post here on the boards.

And that doesn't make me or my needs or wishes more important than anyone else at the table. And it doesn't entitle me to any special treatment or plot armor, unless that is how that particular group of people chooses to play at that table.

Not "person", "Group of people"

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:

But no, your making him look like a jerk, because why?

I'm describing a behavior. If you think that the behavior I am describing is a jerk thing to do...
Right, I think its a jerk. Because its a biased thing you made up to look like a jerk. I could also say he's the guy who spits in your coffee or the guy who brings pizza everytime and pays for it or that he's Jesus. Details change things.

The guy who spits in my coffee is being a jerk to me.

And the guy who brings pizza every time is doing something nice for everyone at the table.

And the guy who feels entitled to people accommodating them is being that guy who feels entitled to people accommodating them.

Just like the sky that is blue, is blue.


In this equation, here are the immutable facts about "Bill":

- He takes three weeks to build a character.
- He wants the GM to put some effort into keeping his character alive.

Best-case scenario, Bill is just an extremely unreliable player who quits the group every time his PC dies so he can make a new one. Even that's pretty bad. In a worse scenario where, say, his absence also holds up the game?

Yeah, I'm gonna be looking for a new player.


I think the subsystems of Paizo's APs also make PC death harder to take. Since if you build up a number of friends in say Skull and Shackles, if your PC gets eaten by a shark all of that is gone and the NPCs won't know the new PC from chopped liver.

Liberty's Edge

Or Bill is awesome at the table where people take 3 weeks to make characters because no one dies.

But at the table where people don't take 3 weeks, and where the dice aren't ruled by plot armor, Bill ain't gonna work.


thejeff wrote:
Rictras Shard wrote:
thejeff wrote:


2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

Okay, let's presume the party checks for traps sixty times during the session. That takes three minutes of the game.

It takes 3 minutes, if it's all completely routine and takes no player interaction.

Of course, if it takes no interaction, what's the point in it?

No, it takes three minutes if on each of those occasions the player makes a skill check and tells the DM the results.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Best-case scenario, Bill is just an extremely unreliable player who quits the group every time his PC dies so he can make a new one. Even that's pretty bad. In a worse scenario where, say, his absence also holds up the game?

Uhh... That's not a very good best case scenario you've got there. Wouldn't the one I posted about how he's working with the GM be a better scenario?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrea1 wrote:
I think the subsystems of Paizo's APs also make PC death harder to take. Since if you build up a number of friends in say Skull and Shackles, if your PC gets eaten by a shark all of that is gone and the NPCs won't know the new PC from chopped liver.

I agree with this, and based on discussions I fundamentally disagree with at least one of the developers about how death should be involved in the game.

But so does my group, so it works great for us.

Liberty's Edge

Rictras Shard wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Rictras Shard wrote:
thejeff wrote:


2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

Okay, let's presume the party checks for traps sixty times during the session. That takes three minutes of the game.

It takes 3 minutes, if it's all completely routine and takes no player interaction.

Of course, if it takes no interaction, what's the point in it?

No, it takes three minutes if on each of those occasions the player makes a skill check and tells the DM the results.

Or the GM makes the skill check and has a notecard....


Well, I was going to note that he totally works if he's in the right group. My example was therefore assuming he was in an ordinary group like mine.

Of course, in mine, I'd probably have to put up with him. I've got so few players as it is. >.>


ciretose wrote:

@thejeff - I've played a character I've spent tons of time on developing throughout the game, pouring through books, etc...

I never, not once, thought that entitled me to any special treatment at the table beyond the hope that the work I put in paid off in making my character more fun.

And I did it because I enjoyed putting that time in. I made that choice, just as I make a choice to post here on the boards.

And that doesn't make me or my needs or wishes more important than anyone else at the table. And it doesn't entitle me to any special treatment or plot armor, unless that is how that particular group of people chooses to play at that table.

Not "person", "Group of people"

Nor have I claimed it entitled me to any special treatment. Nor, unless I've missed it, has anyone else claimed it.

People have described preferred playstyles and suggested why they might prefer those styles. Or why people might want a less randomly lethal style of game.

And it's been met with straw men and distortion.
And claims that you shouldn't play PF if you didn't like "arbitrary death".


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Well, I was going to note that he totally works if he's in the right group. My example was therefore assuming he was in an ordinary group like mine.

Of course, in mine, I'd probably have to put up with him. I've got so few players as it is. >.>

Ordinary is subjective. and I might play with you if I could, but you know, instantaneous teleportation has yet to be invented/discovered.

Liberty's Edge

Is there a misunderstanding of to OP or of the term "Plot armor?

Because both are describing seeking special treatment


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

In this equation, here are the immutable facts about "Bill":

- He takes three weeks to build a character.
- He wants the GM to put some effort into keeping his character alive.

Best-case scenario, Bill is just an extremely unreliable player who quits the group every time his PC dies so he can make a new one. Even that's pretty bad. In a worse scenario where, say, his absence also holds up the game?

Yeah, I'm gonna be looking for a new player.

Actually, the only immutable fact about Bill from the original example is that he took three weeks to make that character and would like it keep it alive for awhile. Maybe he could slap together a substitute quickly, but wouldn't have as much invested in that one.

As a best-case scenario, Bill comes with a richly developed character with lots of plot hooks for the GM to work with that he plays with depth and adds a lot to the game. Also in the best-case he doesn't happen to die and it becomes a memorable character in a great game.

And seriously, how often do your characters die, that whether someone will be able to quickly come up with a replacement is a major issue about whether you'll play with them or not? Every couple sessions? Monthly? A few times a year?

Hell, in most games I've played it's often a few sessions before we reach a point where we could reasonably meet a new character to work in anyway.


Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

There is nothing anywhere that says you can't give your players an heirloom weapon at any level. RAW? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure if memory serves me correctly the number one rule of DMing is ignore the rules when & where they get in your way.

This isn't carte blanche to be taken "over the top" with idiotic arguments (well in that case, I want my wizard to be d12 HD!), but used judiciously it makes for fantastic games. I've done countless games that players started off with an item they didn't fully understand and it unlocked with them.

It's not an issue of whether the rules allow something. Obviously. The issue is one of intra-party balance. If I start the party off at level 6, I can tell them they start out with 16,000 gp worth of equipment, as given by Table 12-4 in the CRB. They are allowed to flavor this however they want, whether the equipment is part of their character's backstory or just a sword. I'm guaranteed that all my players are at roughly the same power level and no one is getting access to things denied to others.

If I start them off at level 1 with level appropriate wealth, it doesn't work this way. I can choose to allow someone equipment beyond the recommended starting wealth, but there's a few obstacles. First, there's the issue of extra equipment changing how the party can handle encounters. How much more difficult do I have to make encounters to make it a reasonable challenge to the 1st level inquisitor with a +1 longbow? Further, players then have to come to me and request that I allow their character to starting off with a powerful heirloom weapon. My experience is that some players don't like asking for things too far outside of the rules/guidelines. There's also the fact that if one player asks for something like this, I have to make sure that their characters won't end up overshadowing other characters. So I either have to deny the request, severely limit its effectiveness, or give everyone something.

Of course, I could just not wait for them to come to me and just tell them what cool items they get to have. The problem with this is that it removes choice from the hands of my players. In the example of the heirloom greataxe I mentioned earlier, this was an idea from my player. It wasn't me deciding that it'd be cool for his character to own a greataxe originally belonging to her great-grandfather, that had been passed down through her family. (Sidenote: this player is currently in the same room as me. I mentioned this thread to him and his response was that the idea for the greataxe came from having to pick magical equipment. If the party had started at level 1 without a budget for magical gear, he wouldn't have thought to have done it.) I want to give my players the power to make important decisions about their characters. This is just one facet of that.

It's certainly possible to let players start off with backstory-important equipment at level 1, but it adds a lot of complications for me to juggle as DM. It's much easier to just let them start off at a higher level. Also, this avoids some other issues with starting games at level 1. It gives players more choice in creating character background---besides just the question what equipment they start out with. They don't have to explain how their character is 1st level at the end of their backstory which opens up a lot more options. Last game I ran, every single PC would have required significant changes to their backstory to start as level 1. It's hard to say "I've spent several years drifting between mercenary groups/adventuring groups. Also I'm a 1st level fighter." and have it be believable. It also makes it hard to create characters that are older than the random starting age. It's kinda hard to justify an Old character being only a 1st level wizard.

Not to mention I don't think it's very fun to DM for a 1st level party.

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:
Just play the game you like to. Players that like your style will stay, and the rest will kick rocks.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn't work well for those of us who feel that who we play with is more important than just playing. If one of players doesn't want to play in my game because they don't like the style, then that's one of my friends who I want to play Pathfinder with who doesn't want to play. They're not really replaceable with generic roleplayer #31.


Good point. Here's my definition of ordinary: A relatively even mix of roleplaying and combat. The players all get along fairly well with each other (though there is the occasional argument). The group meets once a week.

Ironically, this "ordinary" group is much more than I can aspire to. I can't even get one of my players to show up every other week, and the main source of my woes is having to kick out a couple players for being a&&%$!$s.

151 to 200 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why can't I care deeply about my character and accept arbitrary death? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.