Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
character death?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9257177" data-attributes="member: 2629"><p>Why do we have honour mode in BG3? Why do people brag about not having to reload those CRPG games? Why don't we just reload the second the first thing goes wrong in them? Why do we still try to pull it out until it is absolutely lost? Why do so few people run the games on total easy mode where every combat is a landslide victory for the PCs?</p><p></p><p>It is because we place a value on consequences. We want to have something at risk. We want our capabilities to mean something.</p><p></p><p>When a DM takes away consequences after the fact to protect the PCs and players, it robs the game of that value - and it reduces the importance of player decisions. As you properly note - a DM can still put in consequences if the players have a failing. If the DM gives them an easy way to raise the dead, they might do it by forcing them to retreat and give the enemy more time to prepare. However, if the PCs believe that upon their return, if the enemy gets the jump on them again and the DM will save them again ... it just becomes a slog to finally get to the next story beat. there is no thrill of victory. The players feel punished to have to repeat (or with whatever other consequence the DM set) while the story eventually continues along the narrow railroad. </p><p></p><p>Plenty of games run this way. When I would rank the games I have played from top to bottom in terms of enjoyment, the ones where this takes place fall much lower on the spectrum. 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. Few of the games that ran to the highest level took this approach as it becomes doubly worrisome when the PCs gain abilities that give them more options ... as those options are meant to drive the game, but the players feel tend to feel that they're meaningless.Your assumptions are partially wrong, partially right, and fail to consider what I have actually said. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>BEFORE THE GAME - I set things up to provide them with the opportunities to create fun situations. When I introduce a BBEG, the plan they set in motion is designed to create a fun challenge for the players to overcome with their PCs. </p><p></p><p>I have explained repeatedly why it is a big deal that the players not feel like I am protecting them in session. </p><p></p><p>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. If they get to beat the dragon regardless of their tactics (and luck), then their tactics (and luck)9 are meaningless and <em>they</em> didn't beat the dragon. I just told them a story about how their PCs beat a dragon.</p><p>Again, I have addressed this and you did not listen. I <em>do</em> strive to be impartial. I do let the chips fall where they may. That is the goal. If the situation has been set up and enforcing the rules will result in a TPK - then TPK it is. </p><p></p><p>And that is not robbing the players of their enjoyment: It is enabling it. If they can fail, then they can enjoy success. If they are protected from failing, then success is meaningless. </p><p></p><p>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 %@#. 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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. <em>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.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9257177, member: 2629"] Why do we have honour mode in BG3? Why do people brag about not having to reload those CRPG games? Why don't we just reload the second the first thing goes wrong in them? Why do we still try to pull it out until it is absolutely lost? Why do so few people run the games on total easy mode where every combat is a landslide victory for the PCs? It is because we place a value on consequences. We want to have something at risk. We want our capabilities to mean something. When a DM takes away consequences after the fact to protect the PCs and players, it robs the game of that value - and it reduces the importance of player decisions. As you properly note - a DM can still put in consequences if the players have a failing. If the DM gives them an easy way to raise the dead, they might do it by forcing them to retreat and give the enemy more time to prepare. However, if the PCs believe that upon their return, if the enemy gets the jump on them again and the DM will save them again ... it just becomes a slog to finally get to the next story beat. there is no thrill of victory. The players feel punished to have to repeat (or with whatever other consequence the DM set) while the story eventually continues along the narrow railroad. Plenty of games run this way. When I would rank the games I have played from top to bottom in terms of enjoyment, the ones where this takes place fall much lower on the spectrum. 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. Few of the games that ran to the highest level took this approach as it becomes doubly worrisome when the PCs gain abilities that give them more options ... as those options are meant to drive the game, but the players feel tend to feel that they're meaningless.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. BEFORE THE GAME - I set things up to provide them with the opportunities to create fun situations. When I introduce a BBEG, the plan they set in motion is designed to create a fun challenge for the players to overcome with their PCs. I have explained repeatedly why it is a big deal that the players not feel like I am protecting them in session. 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. If they get to beat the dragon regardless of their tactics (and luck), then their tactics (and luck)9 are meaningless and [I]they[/I] didn't beat the dragon. I just told them a story about how their PCs beat a dragon. Again, I have addressed this and you did not listen. I [I]do[/I] strive to be impartial. I do let the chips fall where they may. That is the goal. If the situation has been set up and enforcing the rules will result in a TPK - then TPK it is. And that is not robbing the players of their enjoyment: It is enabling it. If they can fail, then they can enjoy success. If they are protected from failing, then success is meaningless. 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 %@#. 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. 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. [i]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.[/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
character death?
Top