Your character died. Big deal.

[Mallus]

So, basically, if the group understands death-lite you can use it, and if they do not understand death-lite you should not.

Yes. Though "understand" is the wrong word to use here... "agree to" and "prefer" are better choices.

This is different from SoD how?

I have no idea what you mean.

Death-lite means facing the game's challenges using the same character (or, implicitly, the character of the players choosing).

Death-standard (hey, I coined a new term) means creating a new character each time a character fails a certain kind of in-game challenge.

Both approaches have advantages. Both have drawbacks. They are not, however, identical.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Death-lite means facing the game's challenges using the same character, or character of the players choosing

Death-standard (hey, I coined a new term) means creating a new character each time a character fails a certain kind of in-game challenge.

Both approaches have advantages. Both have drawbacks. They are not, however, identical.

This we agree with, although I wouldn't call a game with SoD effects in it "death-standard". "Death-possible", maybe, is a better term. And, of course, "death-possible" games don't need SoD effects in them to kill PCs.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD is as much "death-possible" as "SoD", depending upon whether or not the decision points along the way represent real decisions or not.




EDIT: Oh, and both styles allow for "facing the game's challenges using the same character, or character of the players choosing".....unless your DM forces pregenerated characters on you. In a "death-possible" game, though, the player (not the GM or game system) is responsible for ensuring a continued ability to face the game's challenges using the same character, if that is what is desired.

Maybe "guaranteed survival" and "non-guaranteed survival" are better terms overall than "death-lite" or "death-whatever-you-wanna-call-it-but-it-can-happen".

 

[Mallus]

This we agree with, although I wouldn't call a game with SoD effects in it "death-standard".

Cool. We agree.

"Death-possible", maybe, is a better term.

Fine.

And, of course, "death-possible" games don't need SoD effects in them to kill PCs.

Never said they did. Actually, SoD (and it's even more consonant-ful variants) are irrelevant to my position.

EDIT: Oh, and both styles allow for "facing the game's challenges using the same character, or character of the players choosing".....unless your DM forces pregenerated characters on you.

Fine, fine... that's not what I meant.

In a "death-possible" game, though, the player (not the GM or game system) is responsible for ensuring a continued ability to face the game's challenges using the same character, if that is what is desired.

Unless, of course, the player's dice go cold at the wrong time.

Maybe "guaranteed survival" and "non-guaranteed survival" are better terms overall than "death-lite" or "death-whatever-you-wanna-call-it-but-it-can-happen".

We could use a term for a kind of game were survival isn't the priority. Perhaps "role-playing"?

 

[malraux]

How, exactly, does one keep a baskilisk, a boadak, or a medusa, without anyone knowing it, and without leaving any sign of its existence?

What evidence would be apparent if the BBEG's number 2 were a medusa? Hats of disguise are relatively cheap, giving a base medusa a +21 to disguise. So its entirely reasonable that most of the BBEGs henchmen have no idea about it. Statues, like other bodies, would be removed from hallways and such. What evidence would you say there would be in such a situation?

 

[Umbran]

So, IOW, if a system allows for SoD, one set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it, and if a system does not allow for SoD, then another set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it? Because, if this is the case, then I don't see how the game having/not having SoD is, in fact, the problem.

Well, in the sense that RPGs have a long history of house rules, you are correct, of course.

But remember that the logic applies to everything you might like or dislike in your game. If you are going to dismiss the complaint because it can be done away with by house rules, then you have to dismiss all complaints in the future, including your own.

It is always best to have a tool designed to do what you want it to do. If it fails to do the job, it makes sense to discuss how and why it fails. If you are led to believe that the tool was supposed to do the job, and fails, it is not irrational to think the fault may lie in the tool's design.

You should also consider whether it was a fault in the hands of the tool-user, of course.

But if you make hammers, and the heads frequently fall off, don't be surprised if many people don't accept that the problem is that they are bad hammer-users.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We could use a term for a kind of game were survival isn't the priority. Perhaps "role-playing"?

Sure. D&D (as originally conceived) was a role-playing adventure game.

An adventure is an activity that comprises risky, dangerous and uncertain experiences. The term is more popularly used in reference to physical activities that have some potential for danger, such as skydiving, mountain climbing, sex with multiple partners and extreme sports. The term is broad enough to refer to any enterprise that is potentially fraught with risk, such as a business venture or a major life undertaking. An adventurer is a person who bases their lifestyle or their fortunes on adventurous acts. (Adventure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)​

or

The adventure genre, in the context of a narrative, is typically applied to works in which the protagonist or other major characters are consistently placed in dangerous situations, and a fictional character who lives by their wits and their skills is often called an adventurer. (Adventure (genre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia))​

Role-playing games do not have to be adventure games. They do not have to include dangerous situations or the potential for harm. Players may or may not want to feel the thrill of risk associated with (fictional) dangerous conditions. Some who desire to feel the thrill of risk might be content with the "safety net" of having a fictional character take the risks; others are not comfortable with this level of risk (although they want to feel that they are experiencing risk), and want authorial control not only of the fictional character's actions but (to varying degrees) the outcomes of those actions as well.

You can have a role-playing game about folks sitting around playing role-playing games if you want, a role-playing game about deciding what to watch on TV, a role-playing game about mercantile trade with little real risk (many early Traveller games I was in were like this), or a role-playing game where the point is to enter dangerous areas and face dangerous foes...and to have the danger be "real" insofar as it can be when using a fictional character as a surrogate.

Role-playing has nothing to do with the level of risk involved, one way or the other. I would hate to see that term co-opted to mean a game where risk levels must remain below the threshold of death.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

What evidence would be apparent if the BBEG's number 2 were a medusa? Hats of disguise are relatively cheap, giving a base medusa a +21 to disguise. So its entirely reasonable that most of the BBEGs henchmen have no idea about it. Statues, like other bodies, would be removed from hallways and such. What evidence would you say there would be in such a situation?

"Hats of disguise are relatively cheap" is an example of how the 3e design team made changes without understanding why things were as they had been.

But, if you really want me to answer your question, you need to supply more information. In this world, where do medusae come from? Why do they turn things into statues? What do they eat? What do they want, and how do they go about getting it? Who is the BBEG? What does he want, and how does he go about getting it? Why does he have a medusa as his #2? How does he protect himself from her? Why is she willing to be his #2? What does she get out of it?

Answer those questions, and I can easily come up with plenty of ways to clue the PCs in long before any actual confrontation. Anticipation of the encounter is the spice that makes the encounter worthwhile, after all.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

IMHO, swimming in lava is doD.

Of course it is.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with including doD situations in a game.

My question to you was: given that a good DM always provides clues that a SoD effect is upcoming, why even give the characters saves at all? If they ignore the warnings, they're dead. Simple as that.

 

[Fifth Element]

Role-playing has nothing to do with the level of risk involved, one way or the other. I would hate to see that term co-opted to mean a game where risk levels must remain below the threshold of death.

On this we agree. High-death games do not preclude roleplaying any more than low-death games preclude risk and excitement.

 

[Fifth Element]

It seems to me that 4e is an answer to complaints about 3e. Grappling too tough for you? Now you don't have to worry about whether your target is incorporeal or not! Don't like Vancian casting? We can get rid of that by making melee classes more Vancian! Yuck.

I agree with this to a degree. However, we're addressing a specific point here (SoD), so the overall changes to 4E are hardly relevant.

Even if all other changes made in 4E were bad, that does not mean the changes to SoD were bad.