+ Log in or register to post
Results 111 to 120 of 339
Friday, 12th March, 2004, 10:47 PM #111
Defender (Lvl 8)
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
Now, if you've got a rule that says "if your PC dies, you (the player) are out of the group!" -- now that's interesting!
(tongue in cheek here...)
Seriously, though, what happens after PC death in your "ideal" game? (I'm curious -- I'm running a game where one of the PCs could very well die soon, and there's no real easy solution like raise dead IMC. I'd like to hear what my options are when that happens...)
Friday, 12th March, 2004, 10:51 PM #112
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
But if the player can just roll up a new character...?
Friday, 12th March, 2004, 11:24 PM #113
Defender (Lvl 8)
Again, though, it doesn't necessarily follow that low-magic or grim/gritty instantly equals more deaths -- in some ways IMC it's harder to just outright die without going through a couple of different stages of disability ("injured", "disabled" or "staggered", "unconscious", "dying", etc.).
But you're right -- some players would rather stick to one character for as long as possible. Which of course is the motivation that presumably makes them more careful with their characters. Unfortunately, sometimes players who are being too careful end up bored -- avoiding everything, less motivation to explore the unknown/dangerous, etc... It's a hard balance, and certainly not for everyone...
Friday, 12th March, 2004, 11:36 PM #114
Hydra (Lvl 25)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Read 1 Reviews
ø Block I'm A Banana
Divination, by the default rules of the setting, is the "trump." Nothing can be hidden that cannot be revealed through a higher form of divination, short of DM fiat.
You posited that there is no fear of the unknown. Even when the PC's can ask their god "Is there something looming in the dark?" "Is it dangerous?" "Can we rest safely here tonight?" "What is the alignment of King Steve?" "Is that approaching dragon real?", that doesn't dispel the unknown. At most, they know there *is* something in the dark, that king steve *is* strongly chaotic evil, that they *cannot* rest safely here tonight......that's plenty scary. There is still fear of the unknown, because the known is never, ever complete.
Commune is the act of petitioning the gods directly for the answer to any question-- and the knowledge that whatever action is suggested is the right action. (And if not-- atonement.)
Commune only answers yes or no questions, man. And even if it did provide a 'trump card divination,' you don't need to change to a low magic setting just because you don't like one spell, or even a handful of spells.
And it can still be an alignment detector...("Is McBaine Evil?")
You posited that there was no moral uncertainty. I'm saying that's patently untrue because even if you know what is right, what is good, what is wrong, what is evil, the circumstances that the players are in will dictate their actions. Even if harming King Steve in any way is the most vile act you could comit, if he comes at you swinging a flail, the character has two choices -- die or sin. This is very much morally challenging.
I think you got that backwards. It is impossible to "make the adventure the journey" when the journey is accomplished by teleport and is over in the blink of an eye. That's not much of an adventure.
Imagine Lord of the Rings with a Helm of Teleportation.
And you make the adventure the journey by making the goal something to be accomplished on the way. "Getting from Point A to Point B" is a very simplistic plot idea, and it works for the low levels. After that, especially in going back to places where you've already been, it's just annoying. But if the Epic Gewgaw lay lost somewhere near the Mount of Evil, all the teleporting in the world won't help you to *find* it. And when you do find it, using it is a quest in and of itself. Or heck, if you have it in your hands immediately, and have even been to Mount of Evil before, Teleport is still unreliable....methinks the fate of the free world is a bit too much to risk on a potential mishap with the Epic Gewgaw. And if it's the PC's that are doin' it, and they still arive on target, they should still have enough fire elementals, orcs, and goblins to keep them busy on their way up the mount.
Mordor in LotR was about one character's struggle with the burden of evil. Combat was avoided because it was deadly. If LotR met D&D it would've been a different story, but it wouldn't have removed all the arduous journey out of it.
Tackling the dragon when you know there's no coming back is a sacrifice. Tackling the dragon knowing you, personally, might just decide, "Ahh, I'm tired, screw it, I'll stay dead." is not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is giving yourself over to things beyond your control.
You posited that there was no noble sacrifice. Gold, XP, time, and your friends, are plenty of things to sacrifice. And you still sacrifice your life, if but for a day or two, in order to further the cause, to ensure your friends escape, etc. You give up a lot, and make your party give up a lot, every time you die -- it's not something to be considered lightly just because it can be done.
So you're saying you are forced to redefine what the spells say they do, in order to make the story do what you want it to do.
I kinda think that's what the low-magic DMs are doing, too.
Leaving the spells in your game and then completely nerfing them through DM fiat is no better than just removing them in the first place.
Divinations do not remove fear of the unknown, because knowing, say, 20 things doesn't make you know it all. Commune doesn't equal no moral ambiguity, because the tasks you must accomplish are sometimes at cross-purposes to what you believe. Teleportation doesn't negate arduous journeys, because new places still must be journeyed to, and epic gewgaws are far too important to trust to a roll of the dice. Raising the dead does not negate noble sacrifice, because you still make the sacrifice in terms not measured in life, and it's still for a 'greater cause.' I'm not re-defining the spells, I'm simply applying the rules as they are written. As they are written, the rules allow anyone to use the unknown, moral ambiguity, arduous journeys, and noble sacrifice in their campiaign without changing a word.
And if you can't wrap your brain around a noble sacrifice that you can come back to life from, you don't need to overhaul the spell system -- just alter or remove the spells you have a problem with. That's making a mountain out of a molehill.
Now, if you don't like the feel of a lot of magic or an impermanent death in general, now we're in territory I can cede.[RIGHT]Jacob J. Driscoll [B][I]Astral Plane Campaign[/I][/B]: Take [URL="http://www.dmsguild.com/product/193314/Hereos-of-the-Eternal-Classes-of-the-Astral-Plane"]your heroes[/URL] and [URL="http://www.dmsguild.com/product/190331/People-of-the-Eternal-Races-of-the-Astral-Plane"]your people[/URL] and come to [URL="http://www.dmsguild.com/product/198238/The-Athar-Citadel"][B]The Athar Citadel[/B][/URL], where those who reject the gods learn to wield divine magic! [/RIGHT]
Friday, 12th March, 2004, 11:52 PM #115
Novice (Lvl 1)
Saturday, 13th March, 2004, 12:02 AM #116
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Saturday, 13th March, 2004, 12:20 AM #117
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
When the game is more of an arms race instead of a vehicle for interactive story making, it comes to feel as if the rules have lost their place in the scheme of things, becoming the reason to play instead being the tool by which play is possible. When that happens, I (and I'm going to assume others) begin to loose their interest in playing at all, and GMing and campaign design go from being a labor of love to a laborous chore you try to get out of along with taking out the trash.
Saturday, 13th March, 2004, 12:26 AM #118
I'm quite enjoying this thread...
Role Playing is an act of imagination...I think everybody agrees on that. What I'm seeing in this thread is a basic break down into two different TYPES of imagination.
Group one -- who's imagination focusses on their role in the world...and playing the part of a character with exceptional (and sometimes magical) powers, in a world otherwise based around the same assumptions as ours.
Group two -- who'se imagination focusses insteas around the changing the assumptions of the world...whose PC's/NPC's are seemless parts of a world, the entire context of which is changed from our own.
It's not splitting hairs, when you think of it. Group one, while willing to suspend disbelief about many things (the existence of magic & monsters) expects the rules (and the DM's interpretation of them) to uphold certain preconceptions of reality (e.g. that each time you get with a sword, there should be a chance of serious injury or death). Group number two are willing to do away with the notion of reality which they feel bogs down the cinematic escapism of playing...therefore group two would tend not to favour grim & gritty playing (and would probably, more often than not prefer high magic)
Perhaps the difference can best be analogised to those whose imagination tends towards reflecting historical dramas, to those whose imagination reflects many cartoons. There are many shades of gray, and one approach is no better than the other.
Sorry to get esoteric on you here. I just think, on many of these debates, what is often overlooked is the role of personality. There is a real continium of the kind of escape people desire from roleplaying...and fascilitating this escape, more than anything else, is the deciding factor on the kind of rules players prefer.
On a totally unrelated point...
IF you work from the premise that grim & gritty means a higher danger level (i.e. risk of character death) from mundane encounters, then I'd reccomend Bastion's Press's 'Torn Asumder' book...which adds tremendous 'gritty' impact through the critical hit mechanic...
I've done up a little ditty that ties this mechanic to the instant death mechanics in UA. Haven't tried it in a game yet. But am itching to.
thanks for providing the entertaining read, folks
Saturday, 13th March, 2004, 12:42 AM #119
Originally Posted by nothing to see here
Saturday, 13th March, 2004, 12:45 AM #120
Novice (Lvl 1)
Originally Posted by Bendris Noulg
So why not just play at low levels? It is perfectly acceptable to not give out as much experience and keep the game at the low levels that you seem to prefer. When players advance to higher levels they gain more powers. If they can't use those powers, what did they really gain? If you squik the powers of clerics and mages are you also taking away great cleave and power attack from the fighters? If your not, does that seem fair to you?
I can definitly appreciate you comments on the rock paper scissors nature of high level gaming. However, I've played in great games that stayed at low levels and avoided this. My awful experiences with GnG have come in games where the GM wanted to act like they were playing high level D&D, without actually dealing with these issues.
By Goodsport in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media LoungeReplies: 16Last Post: Thursday, 5th August, 2010, 12:24 PM
By Dragonblade in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 68Last Post: Wednesday, 9th January, 2008, 07:23 PM
By Tor L'Tha in forum Talking the TalkReplies: 0Last Post: Monday, 29th November, 2004, 08:19 PM