Your character died. Big deal.

[Fifth Element]

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.

What about random encounters? Are DMs expected to come up with so much detail on a random encounter? How does your "good DMs prevent SoD from sucking by providing information" mesh with random encounter rules?

 

[Scribble]

Here's another question: Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?

HPs assume the character is doing everything in his/her power to not die. If the lava does not kill a PC it doesn't mean the PC can survive bathing in lava. It means the character did something to somehow avoid actually ending up bathing in the lava... (Maybe he ducked and covered...)

If a player decides to sit in the lava bathtub style, he's essentially choosing to not attempt to not die. It would be the same as a player saying "I kill myself" or "I fail my save."

 

[Nyaricus]

Frodo died. Big Deal.

----------------
Now playing: Belphegor - Justine: Soaked in Blood
via FoxyTunes

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Um.....Not what I was saying at all.

I dismissed the complaint because it relies upon the idea that "SoD" is a bad tool, and then assumes that based upon a playstyle preference. What I was attempting to do is demonstrate the faults in the logic that lead to "SoD = bad tool" in the first place.

If you go back upthread, you will see that I have been willing to concede from the begining that "survival-guaranteed" games are completely fine by me, so long as you don't attempt to take away my "survival-not-guaranteed" game to get what you want.

I am arguing that there is nothing inherently problematical in character death, not that some people don't like it.

I think RC examines his encounters and adds fluff and explanation for how things got there.

I do not think every DM does this.

<snip>

Now maybe DM's should do this due dilligence, but 3e already had GMs complaining about workload, so it's understandable how details get skimped on.

I note that there is a difference between "statblock workload" (which 3e has in spades) and "setting up the fluff" workload, which, IMHO, must be completed in order to run a good game.....even if you are able to complete it and hold it in your head.

When people complain about the workload of 3e, I don't think that they are complaining about how hard it is to think about the circumstances that lead to their adventure setting being the way it is. In fact, doing so drastically decreases the actual workload you must do.

Stop right there, Mr. Slippery-Slope. Death-lite means not having to change your in-game avatar (if you don't want to). That's all.

It has nothing to do with more technical critiques of play elements.

There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed. It is, IMHO, a slippery slope, and one that 4e is sliding down.

I'll agree that there are a multitude of ways the PCs might be informed. The issue is that there is no guarantee that the PCs will be informed. SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around and a bad DM will relish. But they are also the kind of thing less experienced DM can easily screw up.

Rather than saying SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around, I would say that SoD provide a toolset for a skilled DM that, when removed, damages the game. As I said upthread, at greater length & with examples.

You know I was arguing from a logical standpoint. Each rule change must be judged, you can't say "I think 80% of the changes are bad, therefore all of the changes are bad." It doesn't hold any weight in an argument.

Agreed. Nor do I think 100% of the changes are bad.

Of course...and this same suspension of disbelief works for the players in a death-lite game.

It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk.

Insert the word "serial" before the words "adventure fiction". And stop being so literal. You know I'm right about this...

Even in serial adventure fiction, major characters can die.

And, as has been pointed out upthread, the game format means that the stories are what arises from setup + decisions + outcomes of those decisions. We are not writing fiction. You can write fiction about your game, and you can game within a fictitious environment, but the minute you begin to plan the outcome prior to the decisions that lead there, you enter a zone where it is questionable whether or not what you are doing is actually a game, or rather some other form of recreational activity.

Frodo died. Big Deal.

Good to see you, Nyaricus!

Frodo dying in the novel would have been a big deal. Frodo dying in an rpg? Not so much. I think most people agree that a DM who bases the whole campaign upon the decisions and/or survival of one out of nine PCs (or eight PCs if you say Gandalf was an NPC) needs some serious retraining.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

What about random encounters? Are DMs expected to come up with so much detail on a random encounter? How does your "good DMs prevent SoD from sucking by providing information" mesh with random encounter rules?

Remember that the tables in the 1e DMG were intended as aids to stocking dungeons, and as aids for devising appropriate random encounter tables for specific locations. If you place a medusa in your encounter table, it is a creature who is in the area. It might have a lair, be known to other monsters, have left some orc statues about, etc., that are part of the design of the complex itself.

HPs assume the character is doing everything in his/her power to not die. If the lava does not kill a PC it doesn't mean the PC can survive bathing in lava. It means the character did something to somehow avoid actually ending up bathing in the lava... (Maybe he ducked and covered...)

If a player decides to sit in the lava bathtub style, he's essentially choosing to not attempt to not die. It would be the same as a player saying "I kill myself" or "I fail my save."

I agree. Exactly the same difference between trying to dodge a knife thrust (1d4 hp) and intentionally cramming a knife in your guts (coup de grace, if you are lucky). However, a game that would allow the character to do these things and automatically survive unless the player decided otherwise is, frankly, too far out there for me.


RC

 

[Scribble]

I agree. Exactly the same difference between trying to dodge a knife thrust (1d4 hp) and intentionally cramming a knife in your guts (coup de grace, if you are lucky). However, a game that would allow the character to do these things and automatically survive unless the [iplayer[/i] decided otherwise is, frankly, too far out there for me.

Well in a way D&D then has always been too far out there for you.

The difference in this case is only in how you narrate what you're doing.

 

[Mallus]

There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed.

So you don't recognize the difference between a) the character being temporarily impaired and b) the character being removed from the game and replaced with another character? Okay.

Hint: in the case of a) the player gets to keep playing the same character!

It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk.

Don't try to cloud the issue with nonsense sentences, RC. In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience pretends that Bond is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger. In a death-lite campaign, a player pretends their character is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger.

Even in serial adventure fiction, major characters can die.

The point is they usually don't.

You can write fiction about your game, and you can game within a fictitious environment, but the minute you begin to plan the outcome prior to the decisions that lead there, you enter a zone where it is questionable whether or not what you are doing is actually a game, or rather some other form of recreational activity.

Survival is only one kind of victory condition. So long as other victory conditions exists (with the possibility of failure, contingent on player action/skills ) then you're still playing a game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well in a way D&D then has always been too far out there for you.

Not so. D&D, thankfully, hasn't embraced "death flag" mechanics.

So you don't recognize the difference between a) the character being temporarily impaired and b) the character being removed from the game and replaced with another character? Okay.

"There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed" =/= "There is, IMHO, no difference between survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed."

Don't try to cloud the issue with nonsense sentences, RC.

Don't try to cloud the issue with ad hominem attacks.

In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience pretends that Bond is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger. In a death-lite campaign, a player pretends their character is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger.

In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience cannot predetermine the outcome, and is not in control of Bond's actions. The audience knows that there is a limit to what can happen to Bond. The audience doesn't, however, want to believe that Bond knows that he is in no real danger. The fact that the audience cannot control Bond's actions heightens the experience -- the script can highlight dangers we can see but Bond cannot, so that we can anticipate future problems for our hero.

Now, let us say that you are in an RPG where you are playing Bond. The risks you are likely to take are based not only upon what you know of Bond's fictional world (where the dangers are real), but also upon the mechanics of the game you are playing. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are real, then it is easy to suspend disbelief. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take. It becomes inherently harder to suspend disbelief, because "good play" within the context of the game rules doesn't support your doing so.

It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk. That isn't a nonsense statement. That is tautological fact.

Survival is only one kind of victory condition. So long as other victory conditions exists (with the possibility of failure, contingent on player action/skills ) then you're still playing a game.

Sure. Potentially even one with almost the same level of risk (risk being inversely proportionate to how much the outcome is preplanned). Just not one with the same risks.


RC

 

[Lacyon]

There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed. It is, IMHO, a slippery slope, and one that 4e is sliding down.

Well, there's the difference that people actually have a preference for it, for one.

There's also the fact that 'survival-guaranteed' isn't even really the default in 4E. If we are on that slippery slope, somebody's poured syrup all over it.

 

[Lacyon]

Now, let us say that you are in an RPG where you are playing Bond. The risks you are likely to take are based not only upon what you know of Bond's fictional world (where the dangers are real), but also upon the mechanics of the game you are playing. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are real, then it is easy to suspend disbelief. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take. It becomes inherently harder to suspend disbelief, because "good play" within the context of the game rules doesn't support your doing so.

Dubious. You're talking about James Bond. If the game does anything at all well, it ought to be encouraging me to take risks. Otherwise, I'm failing to take risks that I otherwise would take, because I'm frikkin' James Bond.