| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point was that you can still have danger and something to lose even if you ignore death. Getting robbed, captured, losing loved ones, etc. I'm not the guy who posted the list, but I'm pretty sure those things can all really suck. Death can be slap on the wrist compared to losing out in the narrative imo. 'can be' being a key phrase mind you.
|
I think the point was that you can still have danger and something to lose even if you ignore death. Getting robbed, captured, losing loved ones, etc. I'm not the guy who posted the list, but I'm pretty sure those things can all really suck. Death can be slap on the wrist compared to losing out in the narrative imo. 'can be' being a key phrase mind you.
But you can't compare those to the risk of losing your character for good, except for losing your items.
In-game risk is not the same as out of game risk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you can't compare those to the risk of losing your character for good, except for losing your items.
Well this is a game where you can come back to life with relative ease. If you want permadeath maybe this isn't the game for you. Echo
It does depend on how you see it. Some people might be relieved at death compared to what can happen to their character ingame. Some people might be royally PO'd that their character died from stepping on the wrong square out of combat, while another might go "dang, should've seen that coming!" Imo, best way to handle anything is by making the expectations clear that way no one ends up with hurt feelings. This is a game that can be run in a lot of ways and everyone uses houserules and table variance is something that is to be expected. Everyone has different needs and preferences, and likely no one is running it the wrong way unless they're going out of their way to make hurt feelings.
|
|
But you can't compare those to the risk of losing your character for good, except for losing your items.Well this is a game where you can come back to life with relative ease. If you want permadeath maybe this isn't the game for you. Echo
It does depend on how you see it. Some people might be relieved at death compared to what can happen to their character ingame. Some people might be royally PO'd that their character died from stepping on the wrong square out of combat, while another might go "dang, should've seen that coming!" Imo, best way to handle anything is by making the expectations clear that way no one ends up with hurt feelings. This is a game that can be run in a lot of ways and everyone uses houserules and table variance is something that is to be expected. Everyone has different needs and preferences, and likely no one is running it the wrong way unless they're going out of their way to make hurt feelings.
If you've been playing the game long enough you will know that there are instances of perma-death. Do you not pay attention to other posts or do you just cherry pick?
Spells like Raise Dead and Resurrection either need the body or even a piece and if you have none of those then the character is gone for good.
|
|
I think the point was that you can still have danger and something to lose even if you ignore death. Getting robbed, captured, losing loved ones, etc. I'm not the guy who posted the list, but I'm pretty sure those things can all really suck. Death can be slap on the wrist compared to losing out in the narrative imo. 'can be' being a key phrase mind you.But you can't compare those to the risk of losing your character for good, except for losing your items.
In-game risk is not the same as out of game risk.
To twist the usual response back at you, What kind of hero are you if the only thing you might value as much as your life is your stuff?
More seriously, this lies at the root of our difference. I want my characters to care about things. That's a good part of what I play for. Death being too common interferes with that. Focusing too much on the constant struggle to avoid dying around the next corner interferes with that too. At least for me.
And maybe for you too? If your players aren't motivated by anything but survival (and loot), maybe that's partly because your gamestyle is so focused on short term survival.
I've had characters devastated by the loss of an NPC. I've had characters devastated by having to kill an NPC they thought was a friend. Hell, I was devastated by that. But that's what I play for. The emotional attachment. And, for me, the kind of casual death you advocate makes that emotional investment harder.
Since when are you automatically a hero?
I think the default term is adventurers which isn't the same thing. Sure adventurers can gain the title of hero but this can be gained while achieving something else entirely.
The princess was saved and the king rewarded them handsomely. Guess what? The character just become a hero even though he was only interested in the money. He saved the world because he didn't want his own ass to die, not because he cared so much for everyone else.
Get it now?
If you've been playing the game long enough you will know that there are instances of perma-death. Do you not pay attention to other posts or do you just cherry pick?
I could say the same to you, only inverse.
If you've been playing the game long enough you will know that there are instances of easily resurrected death. Do you not pay attention to other posts or do you just cherry pick?
Spells like True Resurrection or Wish don't need a body, so long as you have access to either of those your character is isn't gone.
|
|
If you've been playing the game long enough you will know that there are instances of perma-death. Do you not pay attention to other posts or do you just cherry pick?I could say the same to you, only inverse.
If you've been playing the game long enough you will know that there are instances of easily resurrected death. Do you not pay attention to other posts or do you just cherry pick?
Spells like True Resurrection or Wish don't need a body, so long as you have access to either of those your character is isn't gone.
Correct but that's not until 17th level and you need 50,000 gold if there is no body when using Wish and to use True Resurrection is going to cost you 25,000.
Now I can tell you that at these levels, most characters don't have that kind of money laying around because they have already spent it on their own magic items.
You make it sound easy but it's not.
|
|
But you can't compare those to the risk of losing your character for good, except for losing your items.
In-game risk is not the same as out of game risk.
To twist the usual response back at you, What kind of hero are you if the only thing you might value as much as your life is your stuff?
More seriously, this lies at the root of our difference. I want my characters to care about things. That's a good part of what I play for. Death being too common interferes with that. Focusing too much on the constant struggle to avoid dying around the next corner interferes with that too. At least for me.
And maybe for you too? If your players aren't motivated by anything but survival (and loot), maybe that's partly because your gamestyle is so focused on short term survival.
I've had characters devastated by the loss of an NPC. I've had characters devastated by having to kill an NPC they thought was a friend. Hell, I was devastated by that. But that's what I play for. The emotional attachment. And, for me, the kind of casual death you advocate makes that emotional investment harder.
Since when are you automatically a hero?
I think the default term is adventurers which isn't the same thing. Sure adventurers can gain the title of hero but this can be gained while achieving something else entirely.
The princess was saved and the king rewarded them handsomely. Guess what? The character just become a hero even though he was only interested in the money. He saved the world because he didn't want his own ass to die, not because he cared so much for everyone else.
Get it now?
a) I'm thinking of a different definition of hero, I think. And it seemed that the same one was being used everytime it was thrown back at me saying my character couldn't be a hero since I didn't want the risk.
But I don't really care about that. It was mostly a snarky aside.b) More importantly, you ignored the rest of the post. Which I thought was the...
Some people here feel that if your scenes are setup for you to succeed then you are not a hero.
You make it sound easy but it's not.
Depends on your level and game. It can be very easy or very difficult. Of course we're just splitting hairs here, eh? How often you actually have perma-death is depends a lot on your group and their playstyle. You might have the GM who thinks level one traps that fire disintegrate are great! or the one who thinks those are still pretty bleh even at level 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people here feel that of your scenes are setup for you to succeed then you are not a hero.
And lots more people in the real world would find it hilarious that we're here debating the best way to play make-believe heroes in the land of improbable dungeons and harmless-to-real-people dragons. Let it go, dude. Not everyone wants to play your particular brand of magical elf tea party, and that's okay.
Assuming your OP question was in good faith, you've had eleven pages of responses to help you wrap your head around the answer. And if you haven't by now, you never will. And that's okay, because you don't have to understand; you just have to play and let play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Losing" can still be:
Getting knocked unconscious.
Getting captured.
Getting robbed.
Getting all your valuables destroyed (Holy crap a rust monster, run!).
Failing to save the hostages.
Failing to stop the BBEG from taking over the world.
Failing to destroy the ring.
...
This looks like a good illustration of ways to handle narrative defeat, to me.
In some ways you can actually make the defeat even more devastating than a character death (if they get to roll a replacement, it can give the game a feel of "keep on throwing characters at it, you'll win in the end"). If the BBEG wins, for example - let's say the town is destroyed. That's a big fail right there. The characters lived, but they lived to see their failure. Oh, and the BBEG has left their lair, and is gone without a trace. Cleared out the treasure room too. The party will just have to live with the fact they failed, which adds some excellent RP opportunities too. They'll have another adventure, sure, but the one they just participated in ended in defeat.
On the arbitrary death topic - I sometimes play with a "no one-shotting" house rule. I don't let a killing blow in combat reduce anyone below 0hps, giving the party the chance to save them. Sometimes they don't get to save them because they're too busy fighting, and that character bleeds to death, but they have that final chance of recovery. It also reduces the raise/resurrect spam, which I feel tend to cheapen the overall story. If I'm using hero points (and that's starting to become my preference) then I let them do the job instead through the "cheat death" mechanic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure you can. For somebody highly invested in a character losing your friends or loved ones can be worse than having your own character die, let alone worse than losing some items. Look, most people here have said they're okay with 'meaningful' death, and I'm pretty sure most would consider dying to save friends and family in-game to be meaningful (maybe depending on the circumstance). For myself I'd say that having friends and family in danger would be a much larger motivator for most of my characters than having the character in danger.
Seconded big time.
NPC deaths and suffering can hit hard. Certainly harder than losing freaking gear.
Honestly, loss of gear isn't even a blip on the radar compared to the bad things I've seen happen to NPCs and how it affected the PCs/players. And it's been enough motivation to cause some PCs to go right to their deaths to prevent it.
A few questions.
1) Is dying bad?
2) Can you accept a character dying?
3) You know this is a game right?
A few questions.
1) Is dying bad?
2) Can you accept a character dying?
3) You know this is a game right?
1) Some believe that it can be, yes.
2)Sure.
3) Ah, this again. Just because it is a game doesn't mean that it doesn't impact some people. Others don't care and are not affected, just like some people get involved in sports and burn down half the town if their team wins or loses. Others shrug and move on with their day. Being a game doesn't change the fact that you may have committed time, effort, and emotion into the character. Not everyone plays the same or feels the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few questions.
1) Is dying bad?
2) Can you accept a character dying?
Answering these together with "in moderation".
Occasional death is fine. One per game session is probably too much than I'd like to see. Obviously if it happens, it happens, but if it looks like things are going to end up that I'll try my best to find a way to mitigate it realistically.
I prefer to keep the real danger of death for the occasional "big one", when the party reaches a pivotal point in the story (hitting the BBEG's stronghold). For the routine combat scenarios outside of that (such as raiding a goblin lair) I prefer defeat to death when possible.
For me, it mostly comes down to how it feels at the time. I'd rather see a hero die a heroic death that die from a poison-tipped needle opening a chest. Of course, that poison could well be the factor that makes them ineffective fighting the ogre in the next room, and why they may die during that fight.
3) You know this is a game right?
That doesn't mean I want to reduce PCs to the status of discardable playing pieces in my game, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that derogatory term there, is exactly where you are saying he's having badwrongfun.
But thank you for telling me yet again that I'm having badwrongfun.
Thank you for letting my opinion affect you as though I were making blanket statements regarding all of gaming.
I was expressing my opinion on the topic. My bad. I'll be sure to cater every one of my responses to your delicate play style.
Yes, actually. In my response, not my original comment. If this person is going to internalize my honest opinion and make this about them, personally, I'll oblige.
Not sure what the "yet again" is referring to, though.
Your posts have had a very strong "This is the way to do it" tone to them. (Moderated somewhat in the posts after this one.)
This particular one had ""Asking that not to happen just sounds petty and selfish" and in the part I quoted in that reply, advice on dealing with traps that a) I've heard a 100 times before and b) would ruin any sense of heroism that I might be looking for in the game. Either paranoia or Summon Monster silliness.
Since you were replying to a post where all I said was that the style you lauded works for you but others work well for other people with a post saying "Traps make the game so much better. If you don't like dying, just learn to deal with them." It's really hard, even looking back at it now to read that as anything other than "My playstyle is great, yours sucks." Especially when you threw the "petty and selfish" bit in.
Sounds like you're projecting an awful lot. I'm pretty sure I used terms like "my opinion," "style I prefer" and "YMMV" to a decent enough degree. If your total complaint is on my tone, flag it and move on.
I was expressing my opinion on the style of game that I, personally, prefer playing. If you do not like that kind of play style, then do not play it. Or do play it, I don't care. There's a very minimal chance of us ever playing at the same table, so it's not worth worrying about(although I have met and gamed with people from the forum before).
Otherwise, get off my case and stop getting offended over people's "tone."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all about expectations. No one way to play is correct, but everyone at the table should know what to expect. If you're the kind of DM or player that enjoys brutal games, make it known to the group before the campaign starts. Get it all out there and make sure everyone's on the same page.
Some people don't mind character death, others do. As a DM, it's your responsibility to know these things and to provide a gaming experience everyone will enjoy. (i.e. Don't play the game you want to play; play the game that's most accommodating to the majority of folks involved, and maybe rotate campaigns so that everyone's preferences are explored from time to time.)
See, that's the thing. We're not talking about "brutal" games, we're talkiing about "arbitrary death." Although, I don't think "arbitrary" is the right word. "Inconvenient" seems to work better.
Also, if you're playing a PF game, and your character happens to die to a trap or random encounter, that is the default of the game. That is not a playstyle, that's the game as written. Traps are supposed to hurt/kill. Monsters are trying to kill/capture/etc your PC. The degree of lethality is dependent on several factors(group class make up, level variances, current HP/resources, etc), but in the default of Pathfinder, this is how the game is played. All I'm saying is that I try to play the game at a base, default level.
I am not a "killer DM." I do not kill PC's "arbitrarily." I simply run the game as written, and whatever happens, happens. In rare instances, I have fudged a few die rolls, in some cases to help avoid these "inconvenient" deaths. If one of my players has just been having an awful day, comes to my game to relax and unwind, and a monster rolls 3 natural 20's in a row, well, maybe that first roll becomes a 19, and he's not slain outright... Still too brutal?
In the 20+ years I've been DM'ing games, I can actually count the PC deaths(off the top of my head) in my games on one hand. Might need an extra finger or two if I think way, way back and try, but my point is, just playing the game from a default state, death doesn't happen "arbitrarily" very often.
Also, if you're playing a PF game, and your character happens to die to a trap or random encounter, that is the default of the game. That is not a playstyle, that's the game as written. Traps are supposed to hurt/kill. Monsters are trying to kill/capture/etc your PC. The degree of lethality is dependent on several factors(group class make up, level variances, current HP/resources, etc), but in the default of Pathfinder, this is how the game is played. All I'm saying is that I try to play the game at a base, default level.
I think the problem with wording it quite that way is that people are going to read your saying "default" as "correct" (and just because you don't intend it that way, it doesn't mean someone else will not read it that way) and see it as you trying to tell them they're doing it wrong. Using "RAW" or "strictly by the rulebook" might be a better term to use to avoid conflict. Otherwise it can be read to imply there's only one valid style of playing, and anything else is somehow less than Pathfinder. However, I do get the point you're making :)
By the way, there's only one RPG I've ever bought where the manufacturer informed me I ought to play it strictly by the rules in the rulebook and not to houserule things that felt wrong for my group because they (the manufacturer) felt it far better if everyone across the world played it the same way. It's one of the reasons that particular game earned a check in the "no" column from me, as I don't spend money on an RPG just to be told how I have to play it by the very people I just paid ;) It was kinda like how people get on the forums when they feel another player is telling them how to play, but turned up by a factor of ten as I just paid them for the privilege.
Also, if you're playing a PF game, and your character happens to die to a trap or random encounter, that is the default of the game. That is not a playstyle, that's the game as written. Traps are supposed to hurt/kill. Monsters are trying to kill/capture/etc your PC. The degree of lethality is dependent on several factors(group class make up, level variances, current HP/resources, etc), but in the default of Pathfinder, this is how the game is played. All I'm saying is that I try to play the game at a base, default level.
I think the problem with wording it quite that way is that people are going to read your saying "default" as "correct" (and just because you don't intend it that way, it doesn't mean someone else will not read it that way) and see it as you trying to tell them they're doing it wrong. Using "RAW" or "strictly by the rulebook" might be a better term to use to avoid conflict. Otherwise it can be read to imply there's only one valid style of playing, and anything else is somehow less than Pathfinder. However, I do get the point you're making :)
By the way, there's only one RPG I've ever bought where the manufacturer informed me I ought to play it strictly by the rules in the rulebook and not to houserule things that felt wrong for my group because they (the manufacturer) felt it far better if everyone across the world played it the same way. It's one of the reasons that particular game earned a check in the "no" column from me, as I don't spend money on an RPG just to be told how I have to play it by the very people I just paid ;) It was kinda like how people get on the forums when they feel another player is telling them how to play, but turned up by a factor of ten as I just paid them for the privilege.
Did the game come with Ninja Lawyers to enforce that rule or what? Because that just seems really silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you're playing a PF game, and your character happens to die to a trap or random encounter, that is the default of the game. That is not a playstyle, that's the game as written. Traps are supposed to hurt/kill. Monsters are trying to kill/capture/etc your PC. The degree of lethality is dependent on several factors(group class make up, level variances, current HP/resources, etc), but in the default of Pathfinder, this is how the game is played. All I'm saying is that I try to play the game at a base, default level.
I think the problem with wording it quite that way is that people are going to read your saying "default" as "correct" (and just because you don't intend it that way, it doesn't mean someone else will not read it that way) and see it as you trying to tell them they're doing it wrong. Using "RAW" or "strictly by the rulebook" might be a better term to use to avoid conflict. Otherwise it can be read to imply there's only one valid style of playing, and anything else is somehow less than Pathfinder. However, I do get the point you're making :)
By the way, there's only one RPG I've ever bought where the manufacturer informed me I ought to play it strictly by the rules in the rulebook and not to houserule things that felt wrong for my group because they (the manufacturer) felt it far better if everyone across the world played it the same way. It's one of the reasons that particular game earned a check in the "no" column from me, as I don't spend money on an RPG just to be told how I have to play it by the very people I just paid ;) It was kinda like how people get on the forums when they feel another player is telling them how to play, but turned up by a factor of ten as I just paid them for the privilege.
Good point, I can see people reading it like I said that, but I didn't say that. "Default" and "correct" can be two very different things. All the default is, is just the numbers and game mechanics that have been playtested, edited, and printed. The assumed standard of play.
The only "correct" way to play the game, any game really, is however your group has fun with it. If a group has no use for traps or random encounters, then that's perfectly fine for them. The PF CRB even encourages changing anything and everything so that your group has fun with it.
All I've been saying, this whole time, is just explaining how I, personally, prefer to play, and why. That's it. That's really, really it.
All I've been saying, this whole time, is just explaining how I, personally, prefer to play, and why. That's it. That's really, really it.
Yeah :) I've just seen so many threads descend into madness due to two peoples interpretation of a single term recently, and an alarm bell started ringing in my head :) Hope you don't think I was poking my nose in too much!
I like to change up playstyles once in a while anyway, just to get some variation. Sometimes we'll go for a Diablo-esque dungeon run as we spend most of our time in an urban or wilderness setting, and we'll make up multiple characters knowing full well there'll be TPK after TPK (I even make sure to have them find their previous character's corpses - often staked out and burned or half-eaten by the monsters - if I'm GMing, it's fun!) It's a lot different when you're approaching the game as a one-off and know full well you're not expecting to survive, I just wouldn't want to play that way in our long-term campaign.
It helps to keep the game fresh for us, and for me personally I value being able to experience things from other people's viewpoints. I'd feel kinda weird writing anything for publication if I only knew how I personally would play through it, as it'd probably come out reading like that "Thou shalt play it this way!" game I mentioned earlier.
All I've been saying, this whole time, is just explaining how I, personally, prefer to play, and why. That's it. That's really, really it.Yeah :) I've just seen so many threads descend into madness due to two peoples interpretation of a single term recently, and an alarm bell started ringing in my head :) Hope you don't think I was poking my nose in too much!
I like to change up playstyles once in a while anyway, just to get some variation. Sometimes we'll go for a Diablo-esque dungeon run as we spend most of our time in an urban or wilderness setting, and we'll make up multiple characters knowing full well there'll be TPK after TPK (I even make sure to have them find their previous character's corpses - often staked out and burned or half-eaten by the monsters - if I'm GMing, it's fun!) It's a lot different when you're approaching the game as a one-off and know full well you're not expecting to survive, I just wouldn't want to play that way in our long-term campaign.
It helps to keep the game fresh for us, and for me personally I value being able to experience things from other people's viewpoints. I'd feel kinda weird writing anything for publication if I only knew how I personally would play through it, as it'd probably come out reading like that "Thou shalt play it this way!" game I mentioned earlier.
Ain't that the truth. If two people have a different definition of a single term, madness ensues.
I like to play different styles of games as well, but most typically have the same level of lethality, and go mostly from the default game. I like to vary settings, eras, technology, etc, moreover than how dangerous things are. I've played plenty of games that had no real "dungeons," and I've also spent many, many sessions(and characters) in the World's Largest Dungeon. Variety is the spice of gaming.
I am not a "killer DM." I do not kill PC's "arbitrarily." I simply run the game as written, and whatever happens, happens.
Unless you only play in society games, then as a GM you are choosing what to include and what not to. Even if you are running an AP, the GM still has a lot of leeway on things. Basically, I would hate to see the GM running the game equivalent of a player running a CN rogue who steals from the rest of the party who claims, "I'm just playing my character, it is what he would do."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a "killer DM." I do not kill PC's "arbitrarily." I simply run the game as written, and whatever happens, happens.Unless you only play in society games, then as a GM you are choosing what to include and what not to. Even if you are running an AP, the GM still has a lot of leeway on things. Basically, I would hate to see the GM running the game equivalent of a player running a CN rogue who steals from the rest of the party who claims, "I'm just playing my character, it is what he would do."
Dude, I give up. *flips table*
Dude, I give up. *flips table*I am not a "killer DM." I do not kill PC's "arbitrarily." I simply run the game as written, and whatever happens, happens.Unless you only play in society games, then as a GM you are choosing what to include and what not to. Even if you are running an AP, the GM still has a lot of leeway on things. Basically, I would hate to see the GM running the game equivalent of a player running a CN rogue who steals from the rest of the party who claims, "I'm just playing my character, it is what he would do."
If it helps I don't think he's calling you personally a killer GM. Just noting that a GM really does have quiet a bit of control over what happens. The game wasn't meant to be run as written(to an extent) if I remember correctly, as oddly as that sounds.
Actually, I'd argue the only way for a GM to be "responsible for a players death" is for them to change up the rules/guidelines. The books have guidelines even for home games on what makes CR appropriate encounters.GM fudging rule or ignoring guidelines = Responsible for deaths.
GM playing by RAW = Just playing the game.^_^
I'd agree with you 100% there, if the game were more akin to GW's Advanced Heroquest (or the later Warhammer Quest), and was responsible for deciding which of those encounters came next, and how long the party had before encountering the next one.
The moment you make the GM responsible for throwing those encounters in, though, and deciding which monster is going to attack which PC during combat, then you're also handing them the reins of responsibility.
However, you're right to a degree. The GM that doesn't mind fudging a rule or ignoring guidelines is responsible for deaths, in that they have a way to avoid those deaths if they think it is appropriate to do so. If a group finds that way more fun than letting the rules and dice decide everything, that's how they should play.
Of relevance but from another game.
So I was playing an mp gave of shogun 2 with a friend. The Hattori clan was going well (me), but Shimazu were running into a lot of trouble (my pal). This guy got a lot of land, but his enemies rocked up and started taking it back. He hadn't lost his best provinces or his home provinces in the south, but the north was being lost bit by bit.
It ended up coming down to a major battle of my pal vs the computer. Now he almost won, but ended up with a brutal loss that greatly damaged the enemy army.
He now wanted to quit. He wanted to throw in the towel, "please let me do it again", "let's restart", "I can do it better without losing any of my generals" "I can win if I make them attack me".
This went on, for some time.
This despite the guy agreeing that whatever happened we were going to continue, the player had real trouble accepting a loss and moving on with it. It took a long time for him to continue with the game as it turned out, and before that happened there was a lot of begging, attempts at bribing me to go back to the last save and general sniveling and complaints at losing in an entirely fair match up.
This player had great trouble accepting some loss and moving on. He rage quit with many provinces and armies still under his command.
When I eventually got him back to the game, he then had a series of wins. His reserves and new units arrived and he took back the land and after a few more rough battles, emerged on top. All he had to do was stick it out, keep trying, bring in new generals and troops and make a fight of it. Giving in or going back to the past save was easier, so this player wanted to do that.
I don't like seeing this in players, but it has become very common (maybe it was always common, I don't know). At the first sign of a major loss they want to call backsies, or throw in the towel, or beg and whine to get their way.
Truly a shameful display.