General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I like the way the game Prey handled death, and I think it could be adapted to pen-and-paper, after a fashion. In Prey, the main character, Thomas, has the power to see and move through the spirit world. When he dies, he goes into a dreamy mini-game, in which he must shoot flying spirits with a bow to regain his health and spirit energy. At the end of a short time limit, he is resurrected on the spot with whatever health and spirit energy he could gather. In a PnP game, you could follow a TPK with a short adventure, in which the dead heroes must fight their way out of the underworld. In D&D, you could balance it out by having the players fight enough encounters to earn a resurrection's worth of treasure.
Only time my group ever "restores from a save" is after a TPK.
[sarcasm]
If at least one PC survives an encounter, s/he clearly is a superior player and the others must be punished with creating a new character, but if its a TPK, then obviously the DM cheated and we deserve a restore.
[/sarcasm]
When a PC dies, typically the new PC doesn't come in at 1st level. ((Yes, yes, I know some people play this way, but, I think it's fair to say that most don't.)) You don't really come in at the beginning, you simply come with a new character that joins the group in progress.
This, of course, doesn't work if you have a TPK.
Secondly, most CRPG's don't have a mechanic for someone else to cast Raise Dead on you. You die in an MMORPG and start back at your home town. You die in most CRPG's and you just die. There's no way for someone else to save you if you die. In PnP RPG's, particularly D&D, being Raised is not terribly difficult beyond about 5th level.
Again, ignoring TPK's. And, to me, the threat of a TPK is one of the few ways you can truly "lose" in D&D. Otherwise, you come back with a new PC or get Raised. I don't mind having a fairly (hopefully) rare lose condition in the game. It makes success that much better.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
What is it about P&P games that causes this difference?
Well many things. Start with a video game is usually a single player game. When all your characters die, the story ends. You do have the choice of restarting in the beginning such as the oldest of ggames prior to save points, but then you have lost all those quarters you put in trying to get your high score.
Also if you just can "load" a game at the last place in a PnP game then what real threat is there? What story is there?
In a video game you pay $60 these days for a scripted story that you can follow some of several ways, or just one story. You pay the money for the game to see the whole story and fight all the things along the way. Having to start all over there would be a loss of money.
When you play a PnP game, there is no real loss. You character dies, and you can continue with a new one.
Red Wizard has died, Red Valkyrie has joined.
You haven't really lost anything because most tiems you are brought in the game with similar abilities relater to where you left off.
The biggest thing is the story doesn't need Mario to complete the story in a PnP game because the NPC scripts are not finite, the animations do not require it to be the same person, and all those other things that a computer requires to be programmed and scripted in advance based on that one character that saves and reloads.
Quote:
is it the DM aspect?
Not at all.
Quote:
Do you accept the "save point" more in a computer game because the computer can't come up with "consequences" on the fly? Or because the computer can't handle another adventurer joining the game, and taking on a "new" adventure based on the old?
Not really. I accept it because the amount of money I paid for the video game to see the story told with those characters. Some times the character or even a member of his party dies and cannot be brought back. (see Aeris)
These are the stories I paid for and want to see even if there was a way to bring them back to life in the original Japanese version.
Other adventurers can join based on the old, or for many other reasons.
It is the two ways the stories are presented that is the driving force mostly.
PnP offers you to create the story while most video games are really just visual novels you get to push buttons to get through the story and act out the combats yourself rather than actually decide what story you want as you go like PnP games.
Quote:
Or is it something else?
Um... I might have alreayd answered this part....
Quote:
Does anyone out there use an idea like "save points" in their P&P D&D game?
Not a snowballs chance in hell would I play in a D&D game with "save points". If I screw up and get my character killed...c'est la vie!
I brought that one into the world and I can make another one that looks just like him, and better.
Last edited by justanobody; 28th November 2008 at 04:23 AM..
Reason: not
Now a snowballs chance in hell would I play in a D&D game with "save points". If I screw up and get my character killed...c'est la vie!
I brought that one into the world and I can make another one that looks just like him, and better.
I take it that you're only objecting to the idea of reversing time to a point before character death? After all, rituals and spells like raise dead, clone and resurrection function very much like "save points" without the time reverse aspect, as does the play convention of "the character's twin brother shows up" or "the character's even better twin brother shows up".
I take it that you're only objecting to the idea of reversing time to a point before character death? After all, rituals and spells like raise dead, clone and resurrection function very much like "save points" without the time reverse aspect, as does the play convention of "the character's twin brother shows up" or "the character's even better twin brother shows up".
Just like a video game. Save right before the big boss fight and enter the next room and die, then reload, and gear up a bit differently or go somewhere else and get supplies, and come back more prepared, etc save and try again to die, wash, rinse, repeat.
No memory card exists to allow for that. If there is some way to see the future, then it bypasses, the "save point" aspect, as well does something that takes a single user or worse player, back in time.
It is the players knowing what happened the first time, that presents the problem. Somehow that seems to translate to the character actions because of player knowledge, and it is boring to offer mulligans/do-overs on things like entire encounters.
You screw up some diplomacy check, because the player got tongue tied or couldn't find the right word, you can try again with the same concept; but a battle just don't cut it, and you must take you "mulligan" prior to the resolution of the attempt.
"Is this your final answer?" kind of thing, and then you take what you get from it.
So no "save point" from "I walk in the door what do I see?" Then the DM says you fall down a pit and you want to back up. No "save point" for you! Your actions do carry weight, and offering do-overs just removes the chance to make a mistake or fail at anything.
So I was playing Dead Space last night for a bit, and I died. (Booo.)
The game as lots of (all?) computer games do started from the last point I saved at. It wasn't a far point behind where I died, so I liked my ego wounds and moved on...
But then it made me think...
I'm pretty used to that idea in computer games. If I die, I don't end up having to restart from the very begining, or make a new guy, or choose some other path in the adventure. I just restart from the last save point and move on. I don't think twice about it. I don't think I ever really thought twice about it in the very first few computer games that had save points in them. I just restarted, this time with a renewed energy to beat the jerk that killed me...
But in a Pen and Paper game, this idea just seems wrong. I died... There's no restarting the adventure from the last "save" point... You make a new guy, or you end up "failing" at the adventure and suffering the consequences.
What is it about P&P games that causes this difference?
is it the DM aspect?
Do you accept the "save point" more in a computer game because the computer can't come up with "consequences" on the fly? Or because the computer can't handle another adventurer joining the game, and taking on a "new" adventure based on the old?
Or is it something else??
I suspect the difference is that, for many, RPGs are essentially a highly-structured storytelling activity. The game-like aspects may be more important than the story-like aspects but, ultimately, the appeal is the story--the opportunity to inhabit an alternative person and live an alternative life. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be playing an RPG. Because that's the one thing that an RPG brings to the table (no pun intended) that no other sort of game does: the freedom to tell that story and live out that other life.
Computer games, no matter how good, so far can't provide the freedom to make storytelling a viable part of their experience. You can experience a story that someone else has crafted--they might've even crafted multiple stories and you can choose amongst them. But you can't tell your own. And stories (barring a few more fantastical ones) have a causal narrative that involves consequences--"do overs" violate that causality. So, when you play a computer game, the appeal is that of either a very complex game with really nifty visuals, or of experiencing an existing story, not of creating your own story.
In short, they're really two different activities that have converged to a certain degree on the surface. But their fundamental appeals are very different. This has been masked not only by their surface similarities, but also by the crossover appeal--a lot of people that like one like the other, perhaps because of the surface similarities, perhaps for different reasons--differences that they might not even themselves be aware of, depending largely on whether or not they've ever bothered to think about why they like them. But, IMHO, they're no more alike than orcas and sharks.
Though the fact that there are other people involved who'd have to replay, rather than just computer-controlled NPCs (there's a computer-game-specific term for this, isn't there?), may also contribute--i hadn't thought of that part, specifically, before.
__________________ woodelf not necessarily on behalf of
The Impossible Dream <http://www.tiltingatwindmills.net>
I never done it in an RPG, but my first LARP used Save-Points, but it was a very special scenario
It was classic Fantasy but we died in the first scene, then we were picked up by the Death-God who said that the Underworld has some problems and if we fix them then we will be returned to life. Our main problem was time since we only had till Dawn (the game played from Dusk till Dawn) to do it.
Since we were already dead he offered us a limited number of "Saves" where we could reset to, our Items and Lifepoints would also reset to this point but we would keep our memories so we could work out new strategies. The thing was that the scenarios were very hard and the time was quite short (we didn't make it to the end) and we even had to save after players died (=permanent death, I was the first victim ) since we couldn't afford to do the scenario again. Also we had less saves than scenarios so we would sometimes really lose MUCH time to reset.
So it was very fun and shows that Saves can work, at least in such unusual scenarios,...
To me it comes down to having different expectations from those games.
When I play a PC game I want some quick, fun encounters or missions (depending on the genre) and as PC game will always be very limiting on what you can do it doesn't matter to me that versimilitude goes the way of the dodo.
On the other hand when I play an PnP RPG I want heavy immersion and the feel like the world is real and living. Savepoints and other gameist ideas don't fit with that.
__________________ Everything about RPGs is subjective, so everything I say about them is I my opinion and not hard facts
Having a backstory is good. Using this backstory in game is better. And for that you need background skills.
4E, the game where you play HSMFOS
Heroic
Only good, or at least unaligned adventurers are supported and no monster you can fight is good aligned.
Super-
The PCs become masters in any skill automatically and it is impossible for them to be bad at a mundane task
Mutants
Compared to NPCs of the same strength, PCs poses a ungodly amount of HP and can withstand huge mountains of punishment. That or they can spontaneously regenerate wounds.
From Outer Space
Yet despite no matter how powerful the PCs become, they can never do anything special what the "natives" (=NPCs) can do like animating a skeleton.
Another way of looking at it, stolen from serials.
If you have a TPK, rout, disaster, but don't want to start over....
Start the next session as a "This is how they got out of it" like in all the old Pulp serials - have the cliffhanger where the main character appears dead at the end of one, and the explanation of why he really isn't at the start of the next.
I think that could work well as a restart point without completely destroying immersion.
__________________ I'm one of the lucky ones. I married a "gamer-girl."
"Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer." - firesnakearies
In general our group doesn't use save points, but on occasion they will get a completely wild and outrageous idea that has no chance of succeeding (and they know it) but would be a complete blast to play, so they ask for a save game. What we effectively do is play out the idea as a "dream sequence"; but even if they succeed they wake back up at the save point.
Typically we do this when the party is facing such overwhelming odds that they know they should run, but want to see exactly how long they would last, or if they have some insane idea that would give them a one-in-a-million chance at defeating a vastly superior foe. I don't mind doing this, as it gives me a chance to open up fully against the party with no chance of any hard feelings, and it frequently gives the party a large amount of respect (or at least fear) for the foes in question.
As far as in-game narrative, we usually describe it as:
Overconfident PC: "A dragon? We eat dragons for dinner! So what if it is as big as my village, it is only one dragon! We have nothing to fear! FIREBALL!!!"
< cue shimmery transition to dream sequence as PC imagines how the battle would play out >
Dragon: "Mmm! Snacks!"
< Dragon demonstrates why 5th level characters shouldn't taunt great wyrm dragons >
< cue shimmery transition back to reality >
Overconfident PC: "On the other hand, why don't we rest in this cave for a little while, then return to face this dragon when we are accompanied by a suitable band of bards to record the epic combat. It shouldn't take us more than a decade or two to gather such a band of bards..."
Personally, I've discovered that finding the previous bodies of your own characters after a TPK is incredibly fun. Especially if they're now undead! "I HACK OFF MY PREVIOUS SELF'S HEAD! THIS IS FOR FAILING YOUR SAVING THROW!"
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Death is the biggest consequence of D&D. Sure, getting raised circumvents this, but it makes death a PITA. A TPK, though, is the ultimate consequence.
Take the consequence completely from death, and the game feels cheapened. "Success" is no longer measured by "we beat them", but "we were stubborn enough to keep fighting even though we died a bunch of times." Your PC is no longer worried about surviving if you know that no matter what you do, you'll just repeat it again.
(Yes I know, there are some gamers out there in EnWorld who have taken death out of the game, and still find it enjoyable and have tension, but I think I speak for the vast majority of players when I say the above.)
I also think that at least to me, a save point would be really disappointing in an RPG. I like death, in that it lets me play a new character. Or in the case of a TPK, it offers the potential to do something really different, to play with the story a different way. It opens up new opportunities, like seeing the consequences of your party failing, or adding an extra wrinkle.
The notion of save points is interesting, actually. When you think of old games, that made you restart from the beginning, many of those games also wanted you to spend a lot of quarters. Or expected you to sit in front of the screen from start to finish (which was a very, very long time).
Here is actually an article on the history of death in video games.
Some video games however do vary it up. For instance, Bioshock has saves, yes. But, throughout a level there are these giant tubes. When you die, your body actually re-materializes in one of these tubes in real-time. So if you died right outside the tube, then the enemy is still out there and will eat your face as soon as you step out. Otherwise, you have to run back to where you were killed before. The aforementioned Prey is another good example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbran
I would expect that for most computer game players, the primary motivation is playing the game. The story behind the game, and the playing of the role, are secondary in comparison to the pushing of buttons and the working of strategies.
Depends on the game. After all, I think the major motivation for "playing a video game" to the end is: 1) Wanting to see the full story/the ending/experience everything, and 2) the satisfaction of "beating" the game.
Button mashing and strategum is just how you achieve the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
On the other hand, games with save points can pull more moments of pure surprise on players, that is, they can use challenges that really aren't meant to be solved the first life through. Part of the fun of software games is really just gussied-up trial-and-error. Die and restart until you solve the challenge.
On the contrary, I really, really despise games that not only expect you to do trial and error, but they design the situation so that is the only way to succeed.
The various "Grand Theft Auto" games are a great example of this. Take for instance a mission that's a car race. During the race, someone at a pre-designated point jumps out in your path, and you crash your car, and lose. The only way to "beat" this is that you have to remember every little pitfall and eventually run the entire mission "perfect". You must master the entire situation from start to finish.
That is extremely frustrating from my point of view. Especially when each go-around is long or tedious.
There is some wiggle room. Megaman is an example - the strategy to "beat" the various bosses is to memorize their pattern, and to discover their weaknesses versus various other powers you achieve when beating another boss. That process of learning and then exploiting the pattern is enjoyable for me. The problem comes when, if you die, you have to go through a long stage just to get back to that boss.
Personally, I've discovered that finding the previous bodies of your own characters after a TPK is incredibly fun. Especially if they're now undead! "I HACK OFF MY PREVIOUS SELF'S HEAD! THIS IS FOR FAILING YOUR SAVING THROW!"
Depends on the game. After all, I think the major motivation for "playing a video game" to the end is: 1) Wanting to see the full story/the ending/experience everything, and 2) the satisfaction of "beating" the game.
Button mashing and strategum is just how you achieve the above.
Any game I buy with a story I intend to see it all for my money! I use any cheat device to get every last scene. It is the story I am buying after all, so I second this idea.
If I want button smashing, I break out Twisted Metal.
Personally, I've discovered that finding the previous bodies of your own characters after a TPK is incredibly fun. Especially if they're now undead! "I HACK OFF MY PREVIOUS SELF'S HEAD! THIS IS FOR FAILING YOUR SAVING THROW!"
That's AWESOME. I gotta use that. Now I just gotta kill all my PC's.
A TPK is the only failure in my games to be honest. I use Action Points (3e) to mitigate any killing attack (spend all remaining AP's and you stabilize at -9). A TPK, however, is still possible.
I guess I just like to have it both ways. A chance of total failure, but, a lesser chance of partial failure. It really depends on the game you are running though. In a plot heavy campaign where the PC's actually matter to the plot (one PC is the heir to the throne for example) this is a fairly good system IMO. In a more open style campaign where the given PC isn't really important, such as a sandbox exploration game, I wouldn't use this.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
) since we couldn't afford to do the scenario again. Also we had less saves than scenarios so we would sometimes really lose MUCH time to reset.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
