First, the second paragraph is on pathfinder and games which don't have built-in negative effect for...My players do the same thing over and over again with some variation here and there. They did this in every version of D&D and PF2 or any RPGs ever made. It's not a new thing. Kill the enemy your fighting in the way you've built your character to do it is not some bad aspect of the game, it's a built in feature. It's expected. I don't know why anyone would bring this up as some kind of negative aspect of a RPG of any kind.
It's that way in pen and paper RPGs. Video game RPGs like WoW. And even single player RPGs. It's never been any other way as long as I've played any of these mediums.
Blades in the Dark, a narrative driven game about criminals in a haunted city, makes your life very hard if you kill someone: you gain +2 Heat (how much attention your crew draws, in the bad way), the Spirit Wardens (corpses destroyers which use crows which circles around dead bodies) might appear, and if they don't destroy the body, a ghost will hunt the players down for revenge.
You can always add complications for killing creatures: their organization and loved ones will seek revenge, they will return from tbe dead and so on. I agree that combat being so centric aspect of the system creates problems, but there several solutions - although they are very lacking, so you don't really have some :(
Not even sure what point your trying to make. A narrative driven game? You mean the DM or whoever runs the game makes it up as you go with no system in place to decide combat other than DM whim?
Even in a narrative driven game, characters would have limitations and a schtick. Characters aren't able to do everything and anything.
So what is your point? You don't really have some? What does that mean?
You can alter the narrative in any RPG game where a live DM runs it causing players to adapt.
Why would want a built in negative effect for killing in a game like PF with so much combat involvement? I wouldn't even want that. The location as determined by the GM decides the negative effect of killing. It shouldn't be some hard-coded idea in the game given all the variable options. The DM should push the penalties if they exist by circumstance. If a PC cleric or paladin worships a goddess like Sarenrae, then loss of favor with your deity for wrongful killing is the consequence. If the PCs are in a law abiding city doing random murder hobo things, then getting hunted down by the guards is the consequence. Why precisely would I want a hard-coded effect for killing given the huge number of circumstances in a PF or most game worlds where that would not fit?
Roles are roles. They exist in every RPG. You can simulate that type of play in PF or D&D of any edition depending on how much work you want to put in. If you watch shows like Critical Role where a DM like Matt Mercer plays with voice actors, you can literally see what is amounts to narrative driven play with dice rolls actively affecting the narrative but real actors ad libbing the real world consequences of the dice rolls.
Most regular gamers aren't actors who practice improvisation on that level, so you wont often see such interesting improvisation in a game. But you can do it if your people are capable.
Some games are better at certain things than others. But you can do almost anything in any game if you feel like adjusting the rules for it and your players and DM are willing.
Double post.
Double post.
Just use the "Delete" button
...First, the second paragraph is on pathfinder and games which don't haveMy players do the same thing over and over again with some variation here and there. They did this in every version of D&D and PF2 or any RPGs ever made. It's not a new thing. Kill the enemy your fighting in the way you've built your character to do it is not some bad aspect of the game, it's a built in feature. It's expected. I don't know why anyone would bring this up as some kind of negative aspect of a RPG of any kind.
It's that way in pen and paper RPGs. Video game RPGs like WoW. And even single player RPGs. It's never been any other way as long as I've played any of these mediums.
Blades in the Dark, a narrative driven game about criminals in a haunted city, makes your life very hard if you kill someone: you gain +2 Heat (how much attention your crew draws, in the bad way), the Spirit Wardens (corpses destroyers which use crows which circles around dead bodies) might appear, and if they don't destroy the body, a ghost will hunt the players down for revenge.
You can always add complications for killing creatures: their organization and loved ones will seek revenge, they will return from tbe dead and so on. I agree that combat being so centric aspect of the system creates problems, but there several solutions - although they are very lacking, so you don't really have some :(
Not even sure what point your trying to make. A narrative driven game? You mean the DM or whoever runs the game makes it up as you go with no system in place to decide combat other than DM whim?
Even in a narrative driven game, characters would have limitations and a schtick. Characters aren't able to do everything and anything.
So what is your point? You don't really have some? What does that mean?
You can alter the narrative in any RPG game where a live DM runs it causing players to adapt.
I have watched Critical Role until I don't understand why I do it... (as much as I appreciate the cast, they aren't my favorite players and GMs - yes, I am not a Critter).
My point about adding consequences to combat is weak. After thinking of it, I have one take on it: sometimes, players (and GMs) of combat centric systems tend to jump to combat whenever a conflict they can't solve by a dice roll or two - or when they fail - appears before them. Consequences can solve this, but many times if we don't think of them beforehand we forget they can accure later.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quotations have always been auto-shortened like that as far as I remember... it makes sense to reduce bloat from long quote chains, but its a strange decision to have it cut out the most recent post in the quotation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I apologize for my post cutting off part of your post there ... I have no idea why they've been doing that lately.
If the quote is too long it does it automatically. You can cut quotes from a post by just deleting unwanted ones when you reply.