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

[Lanefan]

As an aside, this thread has given me an idea that I plan to try out in the next campaign I run. At the start of every adventure in the campaign, the PCs will all experience a recurring dream in which they fight some terrible monster. Most likely, at the lower levels, this will result in all of them being slaughtererd, at which point they will wake up and proceed with the adventure du jour. Slowly, as they gain levels, get better equipment, and discover more about the monster's tactics and weaknesses through the repeated battles, they will do better and better until they finally manage to beat it. At that point, they will face the monster in real life, in the next adventure.

A fascinating idea, provided your players don't get tired of it after the first ten tries or so...

Losing to a monster even once in a dream prior to (maybe *much* later) facing it for real is a brilliant idea, however. Consider it stolen.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Think of me as that player Shadeydm, and here's the deal.

I invest effort and time to make and play my character, and playing that character is my source of fun.

OK, right there I see a disconnect. For me, the game *as a whole* is the source of fun; my character(s) are just part of it.

When that character is gone, all my effort is wiped and I'm left without my source of fun.

That just tells me the rest of the game can't be much good, if there's no other fun to be found in it.

Should I make up a new character? Why bother? I might pour more effort just to have it wiped, and wiped depressingly easy.

The game as a whole is - and should be...nay, *must* be - bigger than any one character. If my character(s) die(s), I can still be entertained by the antics of the survivors, or the story's progress. The other players will merely be deprived of any entertainment my character(s) might have provided...and sometimes, this might be a Good Thing.

3E kills PCs. I want to play 3E with my PC. I don't want to play another PC. Please don't kill my PC, because I want to play 3E. This can manifest as some agreement to always raise the dead or to pull punches just before death.

All editions kill PCs; 3e is not solely to blame here. That said, if someone in my game looked like they were going to get this attached to a character my response as DM would be to want to kill it sooner rather than later, to remind them a) it is only a game, and b) there's also fun to be had in trying different concepts.

I have no problem with resurrection magic etc., provided the 1e chance of failure is still there.

 

[Fenes]

I have no problem with resurrection magic etc., provided the 1e chance of failure is still there.

That's about as much a house rule (and a change to the D&D game concept) as postulating "PCs do not really die, they just get left for dead". All death in D&D RAW is past the low levels is a temporary set back, and a money drain.

 

[Lanefan]

That's about as much a house rule (and a change to the D&D game concept) as postulating "PCs do not really die, they just get left for dead". All death in D&D RAW is past the low levels is a temporary set back, and a money drain.

Er...how is it a houserule? The 1e RAW does have the resurrection survival roll; I've always thought it one of the most elegant mechanics to come out of that system and were I ever to run 3e it'd be one of the first changes I'd make. *Then* it'd be a houserule.

I don't like the auto-success on resurrection in 3e, as it really *does* feel like a reset-with-penalty.

Lanefan

 

[Fenes]

I thought we were talking about the current edition, which is what the majority plays and refers to, and what we usually compare 4E to.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

OK, right there I see a disconnect. For me, the game *as a whole* is the source of fun; my character(s) are just part of it. That just tells me the rest of the game can't be much good, if there's no other fun to be found in it. The game as a whole is - and should be...nay, *must* be - bigger than any one character. If my character(s) die(s), I can still be entertained by the antics of the survivors, or the story's progress.

What if the story/adventure path just isn't that good? But my character is cool, interesting, or whatever?
What if the story/adventure is strongly focused on the current characters and is what makes it so interesting?

Sorry, there are a lot of different ways to play a game, a lot of different stories told in the game, a lot of different player types around. For some, common character death is just not entertaining.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

OK, right there I see a disconnect. For me, the game *as a whole* is the source of fun; my character(s) are just part of it.

That just tells me the rest of the game can't be much good, if there's no other fun to be found in it.

The game as a whole is - and should be...nay, *must* be - bigger than any one character. If my character(s) die(s), I can still be entertained by the antics of the survivors, or the story's progress. The other players will merely be deprived of any entertainment my character(s) might have provided...and sometimes, this might be a Good Thing.

The PC is the crucial element that allows a (non-DMing) player to access the game. Cut this component and the player is cut from the game, except as an interested observer. Observing is no where as much fun as participating.

The game is bigger than a character, except when you are the player of said character. There is a reciprocal relationship occurring here, the game is bigger than any one character and yet every character is a crucial element of said 'bigger game'. Care and attention needs to be shown by all to maintain this relationship in harmony.

All editions kill PCs; 3e is not solely to blame here. That said, if someone in my game looked like they were going to get this attached to a character my response as DM would be to want to kill it sooner rather than later, to remind them a) it is only a game, and b) there's also fun to be had in trying different concepts.

Yep, agreed, all editions...

Goodness, would you really do such a thing as DM? I know I'd be swiftly kicked out of the DM chair if I dared to do such things.

'Just a game' can easily and reasonably be turned around 180 degrees. I.e. it's just a game so why can't we each find a way to just enjoy it? Likewise, a player may prefer not to play other concepts. Who are we to deny them?

****

It occurred to me that I have not fully answered the original post. Our approach involves resurrection, and in the case of a TPK, resurrection by an ally. The problem we have is that we agreed on core rules only back at character creation and this is the best solution we've got.

I think the best solution would be an action point system, as resetting will impact suspension of disbelief and may feel like a grind in actual play. Then again, this is mere speculation.

 

[Fenes]

That said, if someone in my game looked like they were going to get this attached to a character my response as DM would be to want to kill it sooner rather than later, to remind them a) it is only a game, and b) there's also fun to be had in trying different concepts.

Apart from the questionable view that people should be forced to try different concepts to have fun, there's a rather large contradiction in this statement: The less attachement one has to a character, the less impact and meaning character death has. If people are expected to change characters often, why should they care about death at all?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Er...how is it a houserule? The 1e RAW does have the resurrection survival roll; I've always thought it one of the most elegant mechanics to come out of that system and were I ever to run 3e it'd be one of the first changes I'd make. *Then* it'd be a houserule.

An arbitrary chance of your character dying permanently is an "elegant" mechanic? But then again, your campaign style also supports level drain and this:

That said, if someone in my game looked like they were going to get this attached to a character my response as DM would be to want to kill it sooner rather than later, to remind them a) it is only a game, and b) there's also fun to be had in trying different concepts.

...so I guess your style clearly varies from mine.