|
Sure, I've been saying from the beginning that the group should do what the group wants to do. If you'd read my posts rather than tried to pull out random elements to attack a point not being made by me you'd have seen that. Bill, John, the DM and any other players should be happy. Most friends I've played with have no trouble organising that even when individuals have different tastes.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?
And as you can see above, what started all this was a comment saying that trap death is disrespectful.
Would you agree with that statement?
And as you can see above, what started all this was a comment saying that trap death is disrespectful.
Would you agree with that statement?
Loaded question is loaded.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as you can see above, what started all this was a comment saying that trap death is disrespectful.
Would you agree with that statement?
Yes Berik, ciretose demands that you defend what I said to him. Apparently he thinks we're the same person or something. (I suppose, if I have to be the same person as someone who makes reasonable and thoughtful points, that's not too bad.)
Bold it all you like, the disclaimer changes little about the assertion.
What if I used bold and italics....
...at the same time!!
You are likely now stunned speechless by my powers of stylized text formatting.
Happens to everyone. I'll give you a moment.
Seriously though, I think Vivianne was citing a pretty circumstantial scenario, and this entire thread is a pretty circumstantial argument. It all boils down to context, and everyone is going to disagree to agree to disagree.
I'm with you that a situation like this should be a majority rule. The entire group shouldn't have to conform to a single underdog. And a lot of times arbitrary RP death can happen because that single underdog did something stupid (often repeatedly).
Really though, that comes around to just playing the way you enjoy, with people who also enjoy playing that way. Otherwise you may as well just be arguing politics with an opposing viewpoint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I look away for thirty minutes to talk about my Season Four pony wishlist and boom, tons of posts. Fortunately, none of them address me, so I've decided to ignore them. ;D
Man, I look away for thirty minutes to talk about my Season Four pony wishlist and boom, tons of posts. Fortunately, none of them address me, so I've decided to ignore them. ;D
I have to ask, what is a season four pony wishlist?
There, now you have a reason to come back.
Man, I look away for thirty minutes to talk about my Season Four pony wishlist and boom, tons of posts. Fortunately, none of them address me, so I've decided to ignore them. ;DI have to ask, what is a season four pony wishlist?
There, now you have a reason to come back.
Oh no, he's not getting off that easy. I'm calling you out, Kobold Cleaver! Your opinion is wrong! I have no idea what your opinion even is, but I oppose it, and call your IQ level into question for having it! This is war, man!
|
|
Loaded question is loaded.And as you can see above, what started all this was a comment saying that trap death is disrespectful.
Would you agree with that statement?
I've noticed you don't like when people are actually called on to defend things they said...at least on your side of the argument.
Don't seem to have any issue with it when it goes the other way...odd that.
But this is the statement that started all of this. I quoted it, I linked to it.
Would you care to respond to the statement that started this? Is trap death "disrespectful"
I've noticed you don't like when people are actually called on to defend things they said...at least on your side of the argument.
But, but... Berik didn't say what you are asking them to defend. You are asking Berik to defend something I said.
Would you care to respond to the statement that started this? Is trap death "disrespectful"
MrSin isn't me either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one have been inspired by this debate to create the first "respectful" death trap. It will be sentient, intelligent and have a smashing English demeanor. It will feel terrible about killing you, and apologize profusely afterwards.
"Terribly sorry about the death spike to the cranium, old chap. Nothing personal, those are the hazards of the job eh? Cheerio!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to go back to what was said on some other thread about trap death or not without reading it. I never commented on that thread and haven't been talking about that. No interest in being dragged into that discussion and I'm not going to make a conclusion from one quote that may or may not be in context.
Broadly I'm not a huge fan of overdoing it on traps because they're a tricky thing to balance, but it has little bearing to the point I was making.
That is why Shallowsoul started this thread. That is what started all of this discussion.
This isn't a discussion of over or under doing it. This all started because of the above assertion of it being "disrespectful" if a trap kills of players.
The added bit that I really take offense to, that has come up in this thread, is that the GM "killed" the PC with a trap.
The implication it seems, being the GM not using Fiat to save the player from death is "killing" a PC, rather than the PC activating a trap that was placed beforehand with no knowledge of who would trip it, or if they would trip it, which has an effect adjudicated by dice.
The next step in this logic train is the GM "Killed" the PC because the party was unable to defeat a monster, or chose to attack one player over the other.
This is what I have a problem with. Because you don't want bad outcomes, you feel bad outcomes are "disrespectful" or "mean" when in fact they are just the game playing out and the dice gods doing what they will.
That is what bothers me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one have been inspired by this debate to create the first "respectful" death trap. It will be sentient, intelligent and have a smashing English demeanor. It will feel terrible about killing you, and apologize profusely.Glados?
....curses! My brillaint plan, foiled!
I for one have been inspired by this debate to create the first "respectful" death trap. It will be sentient, intelligent and have a smashing English demeanor. It will feel terrible about killing you, and apologize profusely afterwards.
"Terribly sorry about the death spike to the cranium, old chap. Nothing personal, those are the hazards of the job eh? Cheerio!"
That doesn't sound terribly sorry. It does however sound like he needs a top hat and monocle somewhere on his contraption.
I'm not sure how a death trap would feel about having sentience. I guess it would have to depend on what type of death trap he is. I bet a slowly moving wall is much more talkative, but the falling spikes are more to the point. I guess he could be one of those fun ones that just exist to mess with the party. That actually sounds fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet a slowly moving wall is much more talkative, but the falling spikes are more to the point.
I see what you did there...
|
|
Can someone tell me why these threads almost always turn into the player almost always being part of th problem and not the solution. Im starting to wonder if some posters here really dont have much respect for players as a whole. A thread starts okay then it always comes down to players being portrayed as the ones being part of the problem. Second thread. Boils down to it being a failing on the players part. Do some of you who complain about players not liking deaths also complain that players dont spend enough time giving any backstory as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet a slowly moving wall is much more talkative, but the falling spikes are more to the point.I see what you did there...
I'm not one to put my points in stealth pun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@137ben - I largely agree with everything you posted.
The only issue I take is that death means the the player leaves the group usually. That has not been my experience at all. Quite the contrary, the player stays on because they are excited about the story an want to make a new character to be a part of the story.
Character death in the games I play in is a big deal, particularly at lower levels where it is permanent. When a character dies in the game worlds we generally play, they die in the canon of the game. The death is remembered and where possible incorporated.
That character lived, them dying is part of the story going forward. Revenge is a wonderful quest motivational tool.
I personally think investing to much of the story in any one character limits the world. It makes it seem like the party is "The" party, rather than just a part of a larger world.
Quite often we will have lower level groups as a spin off to the higher level group. And we've had times were a new party was formed to "rescue" the old party, or just perform a support role that the "main" party is really to high to do themselves, but needs to be done.
If Bill dies in a trap, that was Bill's story. Bill is one of many possible stories in a larger world, and it isn't disrespectful that Bill died in a world that is dangerous in the pursuit of adventure.
What I think can be patronizing to some people is to have the GM "save" you. We have a GM who we don't let GM anymore because he kept falling back on Deus Machina to save the party. It was boring, and so we almost always select someone else's quests to run.
Everyone can play how they want to play, if you like the GM protecting you, great. But don't say the GM is disrespectful if they don't. Or if they don't like your idea, or don't want to play your style.
That is disrespectful.
|
|
Character death in the games I play in is a big deal, particularly at lower levels where it is permanent. When a character dies in the game worlds we generally play, they die in the canon of the game. The death is remembered and where possible incorporated.
That character lived, them dying is part of the story going forward. Revenge is a wonderful quest motivational tool.
Yeah we definitely need to get revenge on that trap in the side quest. You know the one that we killed everyone in before we went back to town and found a new character to join us.
Revenge works when the circumstances of the death are significant, even if it was just luck or something. If it's a random encounter along the way or a trap while raiding an abandoned tomb, it's hard to get much out of it.
Oh and suddenly it is a TPK trap...Traps just randomly appear in your game? No one sets them ever...
So you are going to defend Viv's position then, and I wasn't being unfair...
|
|
Uh, I didn't say that. I said that death (without raising) means the character leaves the group. Nowhere did I suggest that character death means loss of a player (I did say the converse of that--losing a player generally also means losing the character).
The only issue I take is that death means the the player leaves the group usually.
My bad.
Man, I look away for thirty minutes to talk about my Season Four pony wishlist and boom, tons of posts. Fortunately, none of them address me, so I've decided to ignore them. ;DI have to ask, what is a season four pony wishlist?
There, now you have a reason to come back.
It is a wishlist for what I want to see in season four of pony.
Oh no, he's not getting off that easy. I'm calling you out, Kobold Cleaver! Your opinion is wrong! I have no idea what your opinion even is, but I oppose it, and call your IQ level into question for having it! This is war, man!
Gah! I have no option but to retaliate in kind by insinuating you are a powergamer who probably just plays Pathfinder alone in a padded cell with a bunch of stuffed dummies!
I for one have been inspired by this debate to create the first "respectful" death trap. It will be sentient, intelligent and have a smashing English demeanor. It will feel terrible about killing you, and apologize profusely afterwards.
"Terribly sorry about the death spike to the cranium, old chap. Nothing personal, those are the hazards of the job eh? Cheerio!"
I love this. Kinda reminds me of the
it certainly doesn't include the "disrespect" angle
Since the issue of word choice has come up a few times now, I feel the need to defend myself somewhat and point out that saying "respect" didn't start with me. I responded to Immortal Greed's usage of it in the linked thread. On my own, I probably wouldn't choose to use that word out of nowhere, since it does come off strangely. Instead, I'd talk about---like I've been doing in other posts on the subject---ensuring the game is fun for everyone, or how meaningless character death pushes players towards caring less about their characters, or how it's disruptive to the story for both players and DM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, as a kobold, I'm deeply offended at how callously you people can dismiss my kind's primary cultural pastime as "disrespectful". How else are we supposed to get our gnomes for the biannual Running of the Gnomes? Order them off Travelocity?
By the way, as a kobold, I'm deeply offended at how callously you people can dismiss my kind's primary cultural pastime as "disrespectful". How else are we supposed to get our gnomes for the biannual Running of the Gnomes? Order them off Travelocity?
Yes. Steal them from Travelocity.
Alternatively, make traps more fun. The ones I keep finding say something like walk into square C4 and take 4D6 damage. I want something magical to happen!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it certainly doesn't include the "disrespect" angleSince the issue of word choice has come up a few times now, I feel the need to defend myself somewhat and point out that saying "respect" didn't start with me. I responded to Immortal Greed's usage of it in the linked thread. On my own, I probably wouldn't choose to use that word out of nowhere, since it does come off strangely. Instead, I'd talk about---like I've been doing in other posts on the subject---ensuring the game is fun for everyone, or how meaningless character death pushes players towards caring less about their characters, or how it's disruptive to the story for both players and DM.
And yet you keep using the word "meaningless" as if that isn't also saying basically the same thing.
Because you don't like that it happens doesn't mean that it is meaningless, in the same way that because you were upset Wash died, doesn't mean it was meaningless.
And it is unarguably not arbitrary.
If your character dies, and people cared about your character at all, it isn't meaningless. It may be sad, upsetting, etc...but it isn't meaningless.
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.
Yeah, although not every quest has to be about the apocalypse. I try not to run them too often.
If they clear a region of threats and dangers, it can be a good time to retire a character and take on a new one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The character's death is as meaningless or arbitrary as you and your table make it. Yes, you can handwave and/or fudge die rolls to make the bad thing go away. You can also weave whatever is going on into the story and maybe your death inspires better things. Or whatever. There are a lot of things that can come out of this.
I keep seeing "arbitrary" and "meaningless" used and it seems to be "this is something I don't like or want to happen, so it is bad and I will call it these names."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing "arbitrary" and "meaningless" used and it seems to be "this is something I don't like or want to happen, so it is bad and I will call it these names."
Telling people they're having bad wrong fun for not doing what you do? Probably could've phrased that in a way your suggesting something, rather than making it look like everyone else is an idiot.
Character death in the games I play in is a big deal, particularly at lower levels where it is permanent. When a character dies in the game worlds we generally play, they die in the canon of the game. The death is remembered and where possible incorporated.
That character lived, them dying is part of the story going forward. Revenge is a wonderful quest motivational tool.
Yeah we definitely need to get revenge on that trap in the side quest. You know the one that we killed everyone in before we went back to town and found a new character to join us.
Revenge works when the circumstances of the death are significant, even if it was just luck or something. If it's a random encounter along the way or a trap while raiding an abandoned tomb, it's hard to get much out of it.
Take out the trap. Find the trapmaker, kill their family with the trap. Sit them down and lecture them on it being their fault. Evil would kill you and your family being no excuse.
Good side-quest.
The character's death is as meaningless or arbitrary as you and your table make it. Yes, you can handwave and/or fudge die rolls to make the bad thing go away. You can also weave whatever is going on into the story and maybe your death inspires better things. Or whatever. There are a lot of things that can come out of this.
I keep seeing "arbitrary" and "meaningless" used and it seems to be "this is something I don't like or want to happen, so it is bad and I will call it these names."
Damn straight knight.