D&D 4E Hitting "reset": A counterpoint to "gritty" 4e

[Jhulae]

For me the most disturbing thing posted by the OP was the comment by one of his players that if I die I'm done playing. As a DM I would definetly be put off by such a statement. Without the context of knowing the person or your group as a whole its hard to know how I would react, but from an outside POV its unlikely I would tolerate what stinks of some sort of tantrum or blackmail.

It's true that you can't know the full story without the full context. I haven't specifically stated "If my character dies, I'm done" to my DM, but the thought has crossed my mind much more than a few times recently.

Why? Because it gets very tiring having a character die because the rest of the party provides no support (such as one of our frontline fighters standing back and plinking with a repeating crossbow instead of getting into melee. He's totally geared to be a giant killer dwarf with tons of anti giant feats and anti giant weapons, yet reluctant to actually get into melee with them).

I'm also tired of when our group works together and uses *perfect* tactics (rare enough), then having our dice completely shaft us while the DM keeps rolling crits and can't miss a single attack. I like challenge, but it gets aggrivating when a fight turns completely one sided and all your hard work just disappears. (As an aside, it's also annoying when a challenging encounter for us is way too easy because the DM can't roll to save his life and we can't miss a shot. It's.. unsatisfying.)

After a while, it becomes.. well... just not fun when it happens consistently.

 

[FireLance]

Climbing a mountain is at least in part about both personal challenge and getting to the top, and as such is the closest thing to gaming that you listed, IMO. There's certainly a drive to "get to the end of the story" in an RPG, and the reset mechanic supports that. However, it's still subject to the phenomenon with which Wyrmshadows expressed discontent. Some people want D&D to be more like other tabletop games, in which there are winners and losers. Others are perfectly happy with the sense of achievement that videogames give you, and recognize that the existence of a save point doesn't destroy the excitement. YMMV.

I have no problem with different play styles. What I don't agree with is the idea that a reset button "guarantees success", or robs the PCs of "real achievement". That is why I sought clarification on the difference between a retry provided by a "reset button" in an RPG, and a retry that is allowed for in any other field of human endeavor.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, I think a reset sorta does guarantee success (eventually), but it *doesn't* "rob the PCs of real achievement." That's an interesting distinction, actually; I know I'm excited when I Finally. Beat. That. Damn. Dragonforce. Song. on Guitar Hero 3, but it was also a fact that I eventually either would get there or just give up in frustration.

That said, there are several reasons why I prefer action/glory points to resetting. One is simply that the PCs can actually, irrevocably fail; they can even throw the world into utter ruin. I want that chance of failure to be there, *while at the same time protecting the PCs from arbitrary death,* because I want them either to triumph at a cost (spending all those hard-won glory points) or to actually witness their failure rather than get killed off in some random dungeon by a flail snail searching for Part Two out of Six of the MacGuffin that could have stopped it all. Even if APs guarantee character immunity (which they usually don't, anyway, but that's another story), they don't guarantee success in the adventure.

Plus, there's that whole suspension of disbelief thing. It's pretty rare in any fictional medium for characters to die, then suddenly wake up back where they were and start all over again, and it just doesn't feel very "real" to me. Whereas, the concept of a hero somehow dodging the inevitable death blow, or grabbing onto the side of a cliff with his fingernails just in time to avoid falling, is very common.

 

[Li Shenron]

After much discussion on ways avoid PC death, but yet not make it seem like we have plot immunity, we hit upon a solution. The next time a PC dies, our DM will let us hit "reset" like we were playing a video game. We will be able to rewind back to before that battle and replay it again (or perhaps even run away this time). This might be much too metagamey for some groups taste, but it seems like it would work out well for our group.

It's not the first time I hear this, and in all honesty I really really really hate it. It is possibly one of the very few things which would prevent me to even try to play with that gaming group.

I have played with players who requested their characters to be death-proof, or at least who wanted death to require their own approval before being permanent. In our case, they were emotional players (heavy on the roleplay side), and that is why they didn't like to play in a game where their beloved character could have died without prior notice. I actually respect that kind of players, even if I'm not - I'm rather the type that wants to try different characters pretty often, so death for me is an opportunity for renewed fun.

So far, the ideas which I like most to spare those kinds of players from death is to replace death (at least THEIR deaths) with a permanent disadvantage; not as big as crippling their PC after a single death, but anyway something that cannot be overcome in any way. This way, the player is very much motivated not to die anyway, and the PC gets worse and worse if the player lets her die multiple times; but even if this happens, the player at least has all the time to realize when it's getting too far and the PC is shifting towards unplayability, and during this time she can "plan" her character's retirement or why not real death.

 

[Lanefan]

In any game, there comes the odd occasion when the set-up allows for a hidden reset button...only the big difference between this and what the OP is suggesting is the players don't know there is a reset. Dream adventures and time-repeat settings work best, though neither should be overused; illusions and the occasion stray uber-wish can also serve.

What this does is allow the DM a chance to stop caring about the story or characters for a session and just give 'er...really stretch the party beyond its maximum capabilities, and see how they do; or just watch 'em die.

If nothing else, doing this once in a while gives you a good idea of what your party *can* handle, for designing later adventures.

That all said, I can't see myself ever wanting to play in a game with do-overs as standard operating procedure when things went wrong.

Lanefan

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Actually, even with a reset mechanism, success is not guaranteed. The only guarantee is that you can try again. If the possibility of retrying means that there is no achievement, does that mean that all activities where people can keep retrying until they succeed - driving tests, obtaining college degrees, running a marathon, mountain climbing, etc. - are not real achievements? If not, what is the difference?

You have to be able to see the difference between someone retaking a driving test and let's say a police officer entering a house containing armed criminals. In the former the "reset" button is in taking a new test, its the same test when it comes to the questions and required answers, but time didn't rewind itself in order to provide the opportunity to retake the test.

In the situation of the police officer, which is more analogous to D&D characters entering the lair of their enemy. In this case, the odds are good that someone isn't getting out alive or at least without injury. If our hypothetical police officer gets shot, allowing the bad guys an opportunity to escape he can't just restart the encounter at the doorway in the hope it will go his way next time. After recovering from the gunshot, the police officer will likely get the oportunity to take down another set of bad guys, or even the bad guys that shot him however the situation will never be the same as it was before.

Reset buttons in an RPG are turning back time, not retaking an exam you failed. Reset allows one to replay the exact same event again. Retaking a test allows one to take a new test at a later date. A reset requires a SOD destroying temporal loop.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I have no problem with different play styles. What I don't agree with is the idea that a reset button "guarantees success", or robs the PCs of "real achievement". That is why I sought clarification on the difference between a retry provided by a "reset button" in an RPG, and a retry that is allowed for in any other field of human endeavor.

Though fantasy is by its nature somewhat fantastic, there is one striking similarity between reality and fantasy fiction and that is people die and, sometimes at least, death is permanent. With death or any other sort of unique situation (read: every encounter) that involves serious repercussions for PC success or failure there is, as in real life, no do-overs.

Do-overs only exist in artificial situations such as in taking certain kinds of tests. If you can demonstrate a do-over that takes place in the real world or in fantasy fiction (without magic) where someone is killed and fails in their mission and can just restart the situation at the beginning I will rethink my position.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Fenes]

I'd never play with people who can't see any other risk/consequence of failure than death. People who don't consider having your character deal with being branded an outlaw, lose his honor, fall from grace, lose his freedom, lose his family, see his church split, see his home country get conquered, lose his reputation etc. as being a risk won't fit my game at all.

For those who do consider risk, and consequences for failure to be the core of D&D - what's harder, rolling up a new character, even 1 level lower, with all the expected wealth by level, or rebuilding one character's gear, reputation, station, fame and family?

Edit: I am asking this since I do feel all the scoff and scorn at people who don't play with character death is misplaced. Back in 2E, when our 4/5th level party was beaten in a fight with bandits, and then bungled their escape attempt due to a string of fumbles, we ended up sold as slaves to the south, and then had to first escape, then get new gear while being on the run. We had lost a couple of magic items, and had to scrounge for basic gear for a month. If we'd all have rolled up new characters, then we'd have had it far easier.

 

[RigaMortus2]

First of all, save or Die spells do NOT constitute a 'gritty' game. Not by a long shot. Furthermore, in no version of dnd were pc's EVER in danger in a bar brawl; since bar patrons are usually 0-1 level npc's.

That makes no sense. NPC level has nothing to do with if the PCs are going to live or die. A bar of 10 NPCs commoners vs. a party of 4 level 1 PCs. If a fight broke out, all it takes is a d8 longsword to take out most first level PCs. Even an NPC commoner can hit on a nat 20.

Tell me, how does a lvl 1 Wizard survive 8 points of damage, should an NPC commoner hit him with a longsword during a bar fight?

Unless you are assuming everyone is fighting unarmed, which may not be the case at all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No one, especially those who get emotionally attached to a character, want to lose a beloved and long lived character. My players feel the same way about resurrection/raise dead depending on the context of the death in question. Usually IME players are cool with the honorable death of a PC. Sh*t happens sometimes in a heroic fantasy (or sci-fi or horror) game. Sometimes heroes die.

Actually I am not certain that it's a probem with emotional attachment, but more a problem with the _lack_ of emotional attachment. You can't really attach yourself to a character if you get to play him for only 2 sessions and he then dies some random ugly death.
In fact, if you ever had such emotional attachment, you learn to avoid it, since it does you "no good".
Instead, the game risks turning into more hack & slash, and you detach yourself from your character as far as possible. He is just a set of stats that are most effective as what you want him to do (combat, spellcasting, social encounters), but that's all.

I think it's something that sometimes happens in the really gritty game (Call of Cthulhu) far too often, and D&D can be at risk of it, too. You can end up with every CoC investigator being armed to teeth, regardless of how "unrealistic" it is and how bad it actually works for the intentend style of play for the game.
Some players can live fine with such adaptations. But others will question is, because that's ultimately not what they expect from their game, and I think that's exactly the type we're talking about in this case. The player wants character attachments, but he can't "risk" it because he knows his character will probably die soon anyway. So, what can he really do? Constantly ressourection is just another way of removing attachment, because it cheapens the impact of death to a person.

Unfortunately, I don't have much to offer. I am not even convinced that the "Save Point" mechanic will work. I think action points might work better, because they strain suspension of disbeliev a bit less.