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

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

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

Because both are describing seeking special treatment

The OP wrote:

Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?

I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.

I don't see it.

And plot armor is your term. I don't think it's been used as a positive thing on this thread.

The original three weeks post is more about "rocks fall", which is pretty much the opposite of plot armor, being truly arbitrary GM killing.

Quote:

So if I say "rocks fall, Shallowsoul dies" then its okay and he accepts it? Even if he spent three weeks working on the character?

Anyways, opinions on whats right change from person to person. Best to present yours on a session 0 that way there aren't any hurt feelings or surprises. Sure one guy might be fine with rocks falling from the sky and murdering 'Joseph the 8 page backstory', but I know I prefer my characters not to die, and that thSo if I say "rocks fall, Shallowsoul dies" then its okay and he accepts it? Even if he spent three weeks working on the character?

Anyways, opinions on whats right change from person to person. Best to present yours on a session 0 that way there aren't any hurt feelings or surprises. Sure one guy might be fine with rocks falling from the sky and murdering 'Joseph the 8 page backstory', but I know I prefer my characters not to die, and that that comes off as ridiculously boring to me.at comes off as ridiculously boring to me.

I guess you could extrapolate "I prefer my characters not to die" into "plot armor" == "seeking special treatment".

Even beyond that it's still describing a preferred playstyle, presumably with everyone being treated the same way, not "I get plot armor, even if no one else does."

Even you said "unless that is how that particular group of people chooses to play at that table." How can we choose to play that way if even admitting your preference is "seeking special treatment"?

[thejeff]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

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.

And here's mine, based on my gaming experience. Usually meets once a week. Players are friends, some fairly casual gamers. Much roleplaying, some combat in most sessions, but not all. Occasional big battle, full session combats. Low lethality, maybe one PC per year, maybe less.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Lethality levels tend to depend on how stupid the players are, so it's pretty hard to work out "normal" levels. That's why I left 'em out.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Here's an example: In my Skype game this morning, a cavalier went up to a stone statue that was potentially a golem and peed on it to see if it was alive.

It was.

[Berik]

Say that I have a friend named Bill. Bill is a good guy, but for whatever reason it takes him about 3 weeks to come up with a character to play. In play he doesn't demand any more 'screen time' than anybody else, but he gets very attached to the character and I know he'd get pretty upset if his character died.

Where do people actually see the harm from avoiding killing Bill and setting things up so that if he does die he can come back with the same character? If I was a player who enjoyed the thrill of my character potentially dying I wouldn't be resentful if my character could potentially die but I know that Bill's would always survive in some fashion. That's just the GM trying to accommodate both players in the group.

Sure, if I had somebody in the group who would throw a fit over Bill miraculously surviving then it's a different situation. But we're all friends, if having his character not actually die is what makes him enjoy the game most and it doesn't take attention from everybody else then I'd see no harm in doing that

[Kobold Catgirl]

I never said it would ruin the game, I just said it's a pretty big failing as a player and probably something to work on. ;D

[Berik]

But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spent three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?

Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.

[shallowsoul]

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.

Please stop using the "friend" card.

I tell you from my experience that if he/she was truly a friend of the group then we wouldn't be having this conversation or the one from the other thread.

That person would agree that the majority voted for that certain campaign and they will play in it under those restrictions.

[ciretose]

thejeff wrote:

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.

Everyone wants to keep characters alive. Just like everyone wants to succeed in every endeavor they are ever involved in.

The amount of time Bill took is relevant to if he should or should not live relative to anyone else at the table only if that time was invested in things that will keep Bill's character alive.

If Bill thinks I should treat Bill differently than anyone else at the table because he somehow deserves special treatment because he cares more is Bill expecting special treatment.

[thejeff]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Lethality levels tend to depend on how stupid the players are, so it's pretty hard to work out "normal" levels. That's why I left 'em out.

Given the context of the discussion it's kind of a big omission. :)

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's stupid players or (on the other side) lenient GMs, but it's still nice to have a little context.

It's very hard for me to tell in this kind of discussion whether we're talking about "somebody probably dies in every session" or "maybe one a year". People from both of those games could still be arguing for no plot armor, let the dice fall where they may and/or stupid kills, but I'd be a lot happier with one game than the other.

[ciretose]

shallowsoul 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.

Please stop using the "friend" card.

I tell you from my experience that if he/she was truly a friend of the group then we wouldn't be having this conversation or the one from the other thread.

That person would agree that the majority voted for that certain campaign and they will play in it under those restrictions.

I've noticed the "friend" card seems to be about what you should do for me because you are my friend rather than what I shouldn't ask of you, since you are my friend.

[ciretose]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here's an example: In my Skype game this morning, a cavalier went up to a stone statue that was potentially a golem and peed on it to see if it was alive.

It was.

Logical consequences and Darwinian outcomes ensued I suppose?

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

thejeff wrote:

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.

Everyone wants to keep characters alive. Just like everyone wants to succeed in every endeavor they are ever involved in.

The amount of time Bill took is relevant to if he should or should not live relative to anyone else at the table only if that time was invested in things that will keep Bill's character alive.

If Bill thinks I should treat Bill differently than anyone else at the table because he somehow deserves special treatment because he cares more is Bill expecting special treatment.

And no one, except in straw man, has asked that Bill be treated differently.

Bill wants to play this character in a game where he isn't likely to die quickly. He wants that because he invested heavily in this character and wants to play him for a long time.
It's not contingent on everyone else still being likely to die.

And I've played characters designed to die early. Not often, but I've done it. As well as other characters I didn't really care about because I knew it was a high lethality game going in, so I didn't invest much in the characters. Not my favorite style of game, but fun in brief doses. Shades of Paranoia. (Though not actually in that system.)

[shallowsoul]

Berik wrote:

But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spend three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?

Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.

How about I run this by you?

Nobody really cares how long someone spends on their character but why should the DM give that person special treatment?

What about John over there who isn't good at creating backstories that take three weeks? Should he be shown any less attention?

If you say no then this will involve showing everyone special treatment etc....

In fairness, I stick to the default rules of the game. If you fail your save vs a Finger of Death then you take a dirt nap. Same goes with losing all of your hit points.

I would suggest finding a like minded group of players.

[Kobold Catgirl]

thejeff wrote:

Given the context of the discussion it's kind of a big omission. :)

I didn't think it was very smart to go claiming "ordinary" levels when those are currently in question. ;P

And yeah, I do think it's "wrongbadfun" in that a player who is only able to play in one highly specialized style is going to have a lot of trouble adapting to more mainstream games. Flexibility is a life skill, after all. Like I said, he does fine in his home games, but I'd be annoyed if he expected "plot armor" in my group. ;D

[MrSin]

ciretose wrote:

I've noticed the "friend" card seems to be about what you should do for me because you are my friend rather than what I shouldn't ask of you, since you are my friend.

And I notice you try to put things in the worst light possible and twist the truth to make people look bad, rather than actually make a counter argument. In particular adding biased details, as I mentioned earlier.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here's an example: In my Skype game this morning, a cavalier went up to a stone statue that was potentially a golem and peed on it to see if it was alive.

It was.

We had a similar guy once hug a tree and get attacked by an assassin vine. Same guy also happens to be the most likely one to try and go for a beer run and take other players with him.

In another game I coup de grace'd a statue that only woke up after an aggressive act. GM won't let me coup de grace statues anymore for some reason.

[shallowsoul]

All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.

[thejeff]

shallowsoul wrote:

Berik wrote:

But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spend three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?

Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.

How about I run this by you?

Nobody really cares how long someone spends on their character but why should the DM give that person special treatment?

What about John over there who isn't good at creating backstories that take three weeks? Should he be shown any less attention?

If you say no then this will involve showing everyone special treatment etc....

In fairness, I stick to the default rules of the game. If you fail your save vs a Finger of Death then you take a dirt nap. Same goes with losing all of your hit points.

I would suggest finding a like minded group of players.

If everyone gets special treatment, it isn't really special is it?

Which is fine by me.

Of course, if John over there really wants the thrill of a high lethality game, but Bill doesn't, it might be possible to do that for both players in the same game. It would be tricky to GM, I'll admit. As long as neither of them got upset about the other getting the special treatment that he wanted.

And there's a lot more to it than following the rules and not fudging rolls. You can do an awful lot of adjustment with encounter design, tactics, target choice, pacing etc.

[MrSin]

shallowsoul wrote:

All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.

Same to you aye?

[shallowsoul]

thejeff wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Berik wrote:

But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spend three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?

Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.

How about I run this by you?

Nobody really cares how long someone spends on their character but why should the DM give that person special treatment?

What about John over there who isn't good at creating backstories that take three weeks? Should he be shown any less attention?

If you say no then this will involve showing everyone special treatment etc....

In fairness, I stick to the default rules of the game. If you fail your save vs a Finger of Death then you take a dirt nap. Same goes with losing all of your hit points.

I would suggest finding a like minded group of players.

If everyone gets special treatment, it isn't really special is it?

Which is fine by me.

Of course, if John over there really wants the thrill of a high lethality game, but Bill doesn't, it might be possible to do that for both players in the same game. It would be tricky to GM, I'll admit. As long as neither of them got upset about the other getting the special treatment that he wanted.

And there's a lot more to it than following the rules and not fudging rolls. You can do an awful lot of adjustment with encounter design, tactics, target choice, pacing etc.

That's why I run the game according to my rules and restrictions so that everything is fair for each player instead of trying to run a game where each player wants their own different rules and restrictions.

[thejeff]

shallowsoul wrote:

All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.

And I doubt it's any where near so highly specialized as you think. Nor that yours is so overwhelmingly dominant.

[shallowsoul]

MrSin wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.

Same to you aye?

I don't have that problem because I more or less stick with the default.

[MrSin]

shallowsoul wrote:

MrSin wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.

Same to you aye?

I don't have that problem because I more or less stick with the default.

Mmhmm, or what you think is the default, or 'dominant' as jeff put it.

[Immortal Greed]

The black raven wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

The black raven wrote:

Immortal Greed wrote:

Not every adventurer survives the dungeon.

A sudden death can be an end to a story.

Now, are you rolling up a new character?

Why should I ?

If you want to continue playing you will.

If not then good luck.

Why should I continue playing with a GM who carelessly kills my PC ?

I think every such death undermines the player's trust in his GM.

However if the death is grand and enjoyable for the player, it is actually a great enticement to keep on playing with the same GM (as a new PC of course).

Why just and solely blame the dm if your character dies?

You have never been at fault?

[thejeff]

shallowsoul wrote:

That's why I run the game according to my rules and restrictions so that everything is fair for each player...

Personally, I don't really care a lot about "fair", as long as everyone's having fun with it.

But no one is saying you shouldn't run the game how you want. I'm glad it works for you and your players.

OTOH, I think you've said a few times here that people who didn't agree with you shouldn't be playing Pathfinder.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

thejeff wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.

And I doubt it's any where near so highly specialized as you think. Nor that yours is so overwhelmingly dominant.

It's been the style in every game he's DMed in. How is that not dominant? :P

[MrSin]

Immortal Greed wrote:

Why just and solely blame the dm if your character dies?

You have never been at fault?

That's not what he said though.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

Immortal Greed wrote:

Why just and solely blame the dm if your character dies?

You have never been at fault?

"I don't like it when the DM carelessly kills my character" and "It's always the DM's fault if my character dies" aren't the same.

[Immortal Greed]

shallowsoul wrote:

Berik wrote:

But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spend three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?

Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.

How about I run this by you?

Nobody really cares how long someone spends on their character but why should the DM give that person special treatment?

What about John over there who isn't good at creating backstories that take three weeks? Should he be shown any less attention?

If you say no then this will involve showing everyone special treatment etc....

In fairness, I stick to the default rules of the game. If you fail your save vs a Finger of Death then you take a dirt nap. Same goes with losing all of your hit points.

I would suggest finding a like minded group of players.

Absolutely.

I remember a vampire dm who wanted the big backstories and downtime stories. I put a lot of effort into one, didn't get much back from it. I was wondering, so why couldn't we just resolve downtime like we do in dnd, with a few spoken sentences?

See, we just didn't hit his critical tooth of appreciation that day. So we wasted our time. The backstories and downtime also didn't come into much relevance to the present squabbles.

On threat and dead characters, if you didn't want your character to be at risk, don't bring them to the table of adventure. You can also retire a char that gets some successes, wealth and station if you don't want them to die (possibly permanently). Then take a new one into the high danger stuff you aren't invested in. Sometimes I wish I'd done this, but I don't mind char death anymore because I came to realise:

Ôuchi Yoshitaka
1507-1551

Both the victor
and the vanquished are
but drops of dew,
but bolts of lightning -
thus should we view the world.

[Berik]

shallowsoul wrote:

How about I run this by you?

Nobody really cares how long someone spends on their character but why should the DM give that person special treatment?

What about John over there who isn't good at creating backstories that take three weeks? Should he be shown any less attention?

If you say no then this will involve showing everyone special treatment etc....

In fairness, I stick to the default rules of the game. If you fail your save vs a Finger of Death then you take a dirt nap. Same goes with losing all of your hit points.

I would suggest finding a like minded group of players.

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want. If nobody in the group ever wants to die then I'd run a game where nobody dies. They're always miraculously saved, or come back to life, or whatever else the solution becomes. Equally if people want danger around every corner then the game can be set up to reflect things as well.

If one player wants his character to be always in danger of permanently dying, and the other player never wants his character to permanently die, then setting the game up to reflect that isn't giving either person special treatment. They're getting the treatment that they want. Now sure, if John wants to play the game where the whole party is always in danger of permanently dying then that's different. But if John doesn't care whether Bill dies or not, or if he'd prefer Bill doesn't die as well since he knows Bill's preferences, then nobody in the group is likely to be surprised when John dies and Bill escapes. And both people have gotten the treatment they wanted.

Really though, as far as I can tell you're just saying that everybody who doesn't play the way you do is having badwrongfun and playing the wrong system. I've been playing D&D for 20 years now and I've enjoyed both lethal games and times and (more often to be honest) games where death is extremely rare. If you don't think the system works for certain types of things then great, don't use it for those things! But why do you feel the need to tell people who are doing things differently from you, but still enjoying themselves, that they're doing it wrong?

[ciretose]

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

[MrSin]

ciretose wrote:

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

Yeah, the group is trying to make everyone happy! That's such an awful thing to do isn't it?

Edit: but no really, what's wrong with that?

[Vivianne Laflamme]

ciretose wrote:

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

It's not special treatment if it's being done for everyone.

[thejeff]

Immortal Greed wrote:

On threat and dead characters, if you didn't want your character to be at risk, don't bring them to the table of adventure. You can also retire a char that gets some successes, wealth and station if you don't want them to die (possibly permanently). Then take a new one into the high danger stuff you aren't invested in. Sometimes I wish I'd done this, but I don't mind char death anymore because I came to realise:

Because generally if I'm invested in a character it's not because of "successes, wealth and station", but relationships and plotlines within the game. Those are cut off just as much by retirement as by death.

Nor would it make much sense in the middle of a long-term quest. "Guys, I know we're trying to <stop the apocalypse/find the cure for your mother/rescue the dragon/whatever>, but I've made some money and I think I'm going to settle down now. Hope it works out for you."

This also suggests a different fundamental difference in gamestyle. If you're playing a more serial game where the main question is which dungeon to raid today, it's easy to retire (or die) and bring in another character. No big deal. In other games, the characters are actually tied into plotlines and it's not quite so easy to swap them out for another.
Like someone mentioned above about APs and some of their subsystems, except it's true even without mechanics. Even if there isn't a Relationship tracking subsystems, the NPCs still won't know your new PC from Adam.

[ciretose]

MrSin wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

Yeah, the group is trying to make everyone happy! That's such an awful thing to do isn't it?

Not trying to make the group happy.

Trying to make one person who wants it how they want it happy.

If the group doesn't want death, they will select someone who runs a game that way.

The GM (at least no GM you should let run your game) does not kill your character. The dice kill your character, and/or occasionally the GM saves your character.

If you want to have a game where you don't die, but the rest of the table wants to actually let the dice fall where they may, you are asking for special treatment, by definition.

[ciretose]

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

It's not special treatment if it's being done for everyone.

If it is being done for everyone, it is what everyone wants and there is no complaint to be had.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

ciretose wrote:

If it is being done for everyone, it is what everyone wants and there is no complaint to be had.

Then why are you complaining? The scenario you responded to was everyone getting this treatment.

[Berik]

ciretose wrote:

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

There isn't a problem, but we'd be much further along in this conversation if you'd actually have a go at saying what you think the problem is. And hey, as long as we're asking questions, if Bill doesn't like to face death, John does like to face death, and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death, why is it any kind of bad thing to run the game in a way that accounts for that? The only complaint seems to be that you wouldn't find it fun, therefore nobody could find it fun.

Giving different people different treatment isn't 'special', it's the normal way of dealing with things. If I have one friend who I always greet with a manly embrace and another friend I always greet with a handshake which one am I giving special treatment to when we meet up? Or am I just giving different treatment based on what I know about them?

[MrSin]

ciretose wrote:

Trying to make one person who wants it how they want it happy.

Where is the problem? Are you saying I should never try to make someone happy?

ciretose wrote:

If the group doesn't want death, they will select someone who runs a game that way.

Uhh... not talking about the same thing anymore. What you just said was that someone was doing it wrong. One particular person. Someone who said he'd try and accommodate people who ran his games. We aren't talking about a whole group and putting someone up, we're talking about someone who you suggested was doing it wrong.

ciretose wrote:

If it is being done for everyone, it is what everyone wants and there is no complaint to be had.

Right, then stop complaining.

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

MrSin wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

Yeah, the group is trying to make everyone happy! That's such an awful thing to do isn't it?

Not trying to make the group happy.

Trying to make one person who wants it how they want it happy.

If the group doesn't want death, they will select someone who runs a game that way.

The GM (at least no GM you should let run your game) does not kill your character. The dice kill your character, and/or occasionally the GM saves your character.

If you want to have a game where you don't die, but the rest of the table wants to actually let the dice fall where they may, you are asking for special treatment, by definition.

You could maybe read the rest of Berik's post instead of picking one line you could jump on.

You know, the part of his post where he said exactly that.

No one is arguing that "If you want to have a game where you don't die, but the rest of the table wants to actually let the dice fall where they may", then you should get special treatment. People have argued that a game where the chance of dying is low (or even non-existent) is a reasonable thing to want. Some have even said that it might be possible to combine the two styles, if people wanted different things, but were all ok with it.

Several people however have claimed that it's badwrongfun to want that at all and that you shouldn't be playing PF/using dice if you do. You, on the other hand, just keep twisting everyone's preferences into demands for special treatment even when they specifically say it isn't.

[Tylinhae]

shallowsoul wrote:

MrSin wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.

Same to you aye?

I don't have that problem because I more or less stick with the default.

Disclaimer: I don't own a personal copy of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, so I am making some assumptions here.

That being said: If we're talking "default" as in "rules as written," every roleplaying game I have ever owned (and it's a fair sized list) has had at least a line or two that says- in essence- This is a game. Games should be fun. I don't play Pathfinder Society. I play a game with my friends to pass time and enjoy each other's company.

And that has always been my personal policy. If a character dies in combat, how will that death impact the player AND the group? How will it affect the fun we were all having before that unlucky roll? Can I work the death into the story, or is it going to just ruin our collective night?

The challenge and threat created by the looming spectre of death is totally necessary to a game; without it, combat is meaningless because your character is invincible. However, to me, this does NOT mean it should be the definition of "game over." The continued enjoyment of all my players is the final, and most important, factor in any decision I make. Unless you are running organized league play, the rules are guidelines to help a DM present a challenge.

Beyond a player's attachment to his or her character, arbitrary death can ruin games in other ways. For example: Unless you carry a box of premade alternates with you everywhere, the rest of the group has to wait for you to make a new character. This breaks the flow of the game and can potentially end a session prematurely. Who wants to call it a night after a half hour of play because we have to wait for one guy to reroll?

The alternative is to press on without that crucial 4th party member, which raises the risks of a TPK, which in turn potentially ruins an entire campaign prematurely.

If you and your group enjoy the challenge that adhering to arbitrary death brings, good for you! There is nothing wrong with that, and nothing of the sort should be implied or inferred.

There is likewise nothing wrong with "ignoring" or deus-ex-machina-ing an unlucky roll at a very unlucky moment, if it preserves the fun.

Ultimately you will play the way you want to play, because that is what is enjoyable to you. I can only assume it is natural to find like-minded people to play with. So what everyone else does is kind of redundant.

[ciretose]

Berik wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Berik wrote:

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.

Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

There isn't a problem, but we'd be much further along in this conversation if you'd actually have a go at saying what you think the problem is. And hey, as long as we're asking questions, if Bill doesn't like to face death, John does like to face death, and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death, why is it any kind of bad thing to run the game in a way that accounts for that? The only complaint seems to be that you wouldn't find it fun, therefore nobody could find it fun.

Because then you are given Bill special treatment. And maybe John doesn't like Bill having plot armor and resents that Bill has plot armor.

And maybe the GM is tired of Bill demanding plot armor, and tired of having the responsibility of saving Bill from his bad choices and handwaving dice rolls away.

Maybe people actually like everyone at the table to play the same game with the same rules, and don't feel like having to accommodate the guy who wants the rules bent in their favor in the interest of "fairness"

[ciretose]

MrSin wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Trying to make one person who wants it how they want it happy.

Where is the problem? Are you saying I should never try to make someone happy?

I'm saying that if you make everyone at the table less happy because Bill "needs" special treatment, Bill is being selfish.

And if Bill doesn't like traps (the discussion that started this all) and the rest of the group does, the solution is not to say "Everyone is effected by traps except Bill, because he doesn't like them."

The solution is to say "Hey Bill, if you feel that strongly and are unwilling to adjust to the group, maybe this isn't the group for you."

[Berik]

Except part of my scenario was explicitly 'and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death'. My argument is that if these people are okay with these things, it's fine to try and give both what they want.

If different people aren't okay with these things, then you need another solution. I'm just saying that when people are okay with different players working under different assumptions then that's okay.

[shallowsoul]

Berik wrote:

If different people aren't okay with these things, then you need another solution. I'm just saying that when people are okay with different players working under different assumptions then that's okay.

The DM needs to be okay with it more than the other players unless they want to stop being players and be the DM.

[ciretose]

Berik wrote:

Except part of my scenario was explicitly 'and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death'. My argument is that if these people are okay with these things, it's fine to try and give both what they want.

If different people aren't okay with these things, then you need another solution. I'm just saying that when people are okay with different players working under different assumptions then that's okay.

Then I don't care. But if John (and the majority of the group, John isn't special either) is even remotely bothered by it, then Bill needs to adjust to the group norms or move on.

Would you disagree with that?