See @Quickleaf 's post on stakes a few posts above yours for a page of possible answers to that question:But let me ask you about the combat in your games. What purpose does it have?
Loading…
www.enworld.org
See @Quickleaf 's post on stakes a few posts above yours for a page of possible answers to that question:But let me ask you about the combat in your games. What purpose does it have?
I know the quesiton wasn't for me but:Doesn’t knowing that you are not going to die without your agreement reduce any sense of verisimilitude and achievement your guy’s adventure has?
8th level fighter looking at 9 feet muscle bound but hunched moss green brute with tree trunk sized club: Yep, i can take that sucker.Well they are often right to be nuts about it. In 3E/PF1/2. losing your gear is often a significant reduction in offense and defense.
Do you HAVE data on what proportion of players select either easy or hard mode? I'm thinking you're guessing. But your preference for an "honor mode" when the game definitely allows reload by default just underscores the nature of it being a personal preference thing that games should enable.
I do see where you are coming from. But let me ask you about the combat in your games. What purpose does it have?
I have been summoned. One example I recall from my 4e homebrew game was the PCs traversing the Shiver Moors, where will-o-wisps and harpies basically tried to make them get lost / separated. If the monsters had succeeded (they didn't), possibly death would be on the table, but the big picture was trying to delay the PCs so this evil elf "Alder King" could accomplish something before the PCs crossed the Shiver Moors and reached him.See @Quickleaf 's post on stakes a few posts above yours for a page of possible answers to that question:
Loading…
www.enworld.org
Sure players won't be less motivated to win if a game is se to Easy Immortal Type. Though in the Easy Type game the players have already Won the Game and are just playing the game to see how they won.. I also dont think players will be any less motivated to win any battles if they knew there isnt any "real danger" of dying, people pretty much want to be successful in any circumstance. I guess im just not too happy with just starting off a campaign with a TPK on a medium difficulty encounter, lol. im interested to hear what people think, would you want to play in a game like that or would it take away from your enjoyment?
A question for those who say they have to have character death or it spoils the game: How do 5E's death saves affect your feelings about it?
It's a lot harder to be insta-dead in 5E than in some earlier editions. Usually there's an in-between state where you're down and making death saves but not actually dead. Is the risk of that enough to add spice to your combat, or would you get more out of the game with instadeath?
Yes it does. For novels, TV and movies. Knowing all the main characters have Plot Armor is boring. It makes all fights and conflict useless and pointless to watch. This ruins most fiction.Doesn't knowing that the characters of a novel aren't going to die without the author getting a good story out of it reduce any sense of verisimilitude and satisfaction from reading a story?
So, no, it really doesn't..
Because some people enjoy that. Why do the vast majority of gamers not use it? Because it isn't interesting to them. Look at the Steam achievement stats. They show that many, many people have played. They show that very, very few have completed Honor mode. Why? Because most people aren't into that level of grind or difficulty. They have lives and families and friends who want to play other games (because dear Lord, multiplayer BG3 takes forever.) Maybe they can play at most a couple hours a day, a few days a week. Call it 4-6. Even if you aren't trying to explore every nook and cranny, BG3 is a 40+ hour game. That's multiple months of gaming for someone like this.Why do we have honour mode in BG3?
Uh...actually the VAST majority of people do play on normal or easy difficulty. According to Steam, only 3.1% of all players have beaten the game on Tactician mode. Even when normalized for the number of players who have beaten the game in general (19.1%) on Steam, that's still (0.031/0.191 = 0.16, so less than a sixth of all people. According to Larian a few months ago, only 34,000 people had even attempted Honor Mode, out of the millions of people who have played—and only ~500 had beaten it, less than 0.1% of players.Why do so few people run the games on total easy mode where every combat is a landslide victory for the PCs?
Then don't do that. I am not interested in discussing "you took away all consequences" because that is a trivial straw man. I would much rather discuss, y'know, the massive space of possibilities that aren't "take away all the consequences and leave the players just observers," and are instead examining...literally anything else about the topic.When a DM takes away consequences
None of this applies to my game. At all. My players are deeply invested in the story, because they know I do respect their choices. They take combat quite seriously—indeed, they often worry far more than they ever need to! And we've been playing for almost six years (April 2018). One of my players who had to leave for IRL personal reasons even explicitly told me that, of all the several tabletop games he was in, mine was the only one that was actually hard to depart, which was a very touching compliment.You'll tend to find players taking less interest in story elements (because the DM will give them the answer eventually if they miss a clue), they act more silly in combat across the board (because the combat has no real stakes you must have humor to keep it interesting), and the campaigns tend to end earlier.
Then let me ask you point blank, since apparently my previous effort failed:Your assumptions are partially wrong, partially right, and fail to consider what I have actually said.
DURING THE GAME - I strive to be an impartial judge. This is done to let the decisions of the players matter. It is essential to giving their actions meaning that they ... you know ... matter. If I save them from their decisions, they do not matter.
Then don't! Don't "protect" them! You can offer solutions or build new directions that don't do that.I have explained repeatedly why it is a big deal that the players not feel like I am protecting them in session.
I have never, not once, said otherwise.So if the players wander into a no win situation - they are in a no win situation. I do not intentionally create such situations, but if they run into a dragon's lair unprepared and announce their presence - giving it time to set up an ambush: That is a bad mistake and they'll suffer the consequences. Their actions have consequences.
And I keep telling you...here, let's use font support.This is the same old argument against coddling kids, participation trophies, etc... If we treat everyone the same regardless of what they do, then everyone is treated fairly ... but it is boring as %@#.
By definition, if a character is dead and never coming back, their story is done. Permanently. Other people's story may continue, and they may care or not care. But that character is done, forever. They experience no further consequences. They suffer no further setbacks, face no further agonizing decisions, feel no further emotions, face no further dangers. They no longer exist. They have ceased to be. They have expired and gone to meet their makers. They're all stiffs; bereft of life, they rest in peace. They are ex-characters. (To appropriate from Monty Python.)Again, no. I have addressed this recently - I believe higher in this thread. When a PC dies in my game, their story doesn't end. They have a backstory and involvement in ongoing storylines - and those continue to develop with them being absent. Their PC, even when gone and not returning, matters.
Two examples. One from my current game. The other from a game where I was a player.Please consider - this is something I have performed, experienced, and observed for over 40 years now. This isn't a debate. This is an explanation.
When I used a demonstrative example that reinforced my point, you called it obvious stretch. I disagree, and I pushed it back and forth across that slippery slope line to demonstrate the challenges. It was INTENTIONALLY designed to not b an obvious stretch, but to be something on that border. Regardless, let's call it a flawed example and turn to you to give the example. You keep putting words in my mouth to tell me what I am arguing. Instead, use your words to tell me the scenario that you think is a good decision by the DM that gives the PCs consequences, but allows them to avoid a death they'd have experienced had they been allowed to fully fail by an impartial DM. I'll walk you through it and explain how my views relate to the example.
Ah yes, we've seen how that never actually works for telling a story, because the point of a story is to see an arc pay off, not to get folks ultra invested and then kill off the focus character.Yes it does. For novels, TV and movies. Knowing all the main characters have Plot Armor is boring. It makes all fights and conflict useless and pointless to watch. This ruins most fiction.
But sure it's popular, the vast majority of people just love to turn their brains off and be on the edge of their seat not thinking and pretending their favorite fictional character MIGHT ever die.