Ressurection and Drama "Don't worry, we'll rez you after this"

[DrunkonDuty]

Treebore wrote:
So for 99% of the population, it is still a miracle. Its only diminished for the rich elite.

True. And this could be a good lead into a social unrest/revolution plot line too. Especially if there is a karmic balance angle as well. Something like 'Sure, the Duke gets ressurected. But the unholy blight that is then let lose upon land devours OUR sons and daughters.' It could drive ressurection underground in more politically sensitive times.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It's a game.

While the personal factors involved are more mutible thanks to the presence of a human GM, it's still a game.

I don't protest at Guild Wars when I'm brought back.

The decesion to be raised or not depends on the funds and willingness of the players.

For the NPCs, unless I've really written myself into some strange corner that requires some NPC to be there, they gone. Their work is done. They've moved onto another life.

Does it solve the problem from the player perspective of rez? Not necessarily but at the same time, if the guy doing the rez gets whacked... or the whole party... well, then it becomes another ball game.

I see no reason to punish the players for using the game as its designed even as I see no reason to punish the players who don't want res and would rather make a new character. Then again I'm generous compared to some I've heard in that the new PC starts at the same level with appropriate equipment.

 

[Cassander]

From when I first started running D&D as a kid, I honestly never even considered using Raise Dead/Resurrection. I always thought of them like level limits and such... something that's technically in the rulebook but would never work in play.

In 4e, when my character died, I was given the choice of whether I wanted my character resurrected or not. I found the choice odd, but I opted for "no". I really can't imagine taking seriously a setting that has such spells available. But I've found that I take game settings more seriously than many others, so that could have something to do with it. Do you see it as a world or a game, perhaps is the question.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's a game.

While the personal factors involved are more mutible thanks to the presence of a human GM, it's still a game.

I don't protest at Guild Wars when I'm brought back.

That's nice, but fantasy tabletop roleplaying != Guild Wars, and - funnily enough - vice versa.

I see no reason to punish the players for using the game as its designed even as I see no reason to punish the players who don't want res and would rather make a new character. Then again I'm generous compared to some I've heard in that the new PC starts at the same level with appropriate equipment.

That is a very skewed angle on the whole thing, to put it mildly, and it certainly doesn't hold true as some kind of overall characterisation of gamers referred to.

Example: I can be DM or player, depending what day or week it is, and in both cases I don't like having this easy 'rez' type stuff available. It's nothing to do with punishing anyone in any way, regardless of who is on either side of the DM screen at the time.

Some people simply prefer things that way, because it adds to the excitement, the immersion, or however else it might be phrased.

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's nice, but fantasy tabletop roleplaying != Guild Wars, and - funnily enough - vice versa.

And yet many of the mechanics and base assumptions for the POV characters are pretty much the same.

That is a very skewed angle on the whole thing, to put it mildly, and it certainly doesn't hold true as some kind of overall characterisation of gamers referred to.

So allowing players to use the spells as written in the game or make new characters doesn't hold true as some kind of overall characterisation of gamers?

Example: I can be DM or player, depending what day or week it is, and in both cases I don't like having this easy 'rez' type stuff available. It's nothing to do with punishing anyone in any way, regardless of who is on either side of the DM screen at the time.

Uh, if your preference as a gamer prevents another gamer who does like that core mechanic from using it is punishing the other player. Otherwise when you're a player you should probably just accept that your character, let the rest of the world has decided his own soul has moved on and isn't available for res and like I initially noted, make another character.

Some people simply prefer things that way, because it adds to the excitement, the immersion, or however else it might be phrased.

Sure. That's not a problem. It's certainly not a 'wrong' way to play the gam.e

But it's not a core rule assumption. Core rule assumption is that it's available.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Uh, if your preference as a gamer prevents another gamer who does like that core mechanic from using it is punishing the other player. Otherwise when you're a player you should probably just accept that your character, let the rest of the world has decided his own soul has moved on and isn't available for res and like I initially noted, make another character.

Sure, in the same way that any house rule, ever, punishes someone who wanted or liked what the house rule changed. For instance, I banned Bloodclaw Weapons (before errata) in my game, so was I punishing the melee min-maxer who would have taken it? If yes, then it's hard to take your diction of "punishing" seriously as it applies to resurrection. But, like you said it is not a wrong way to play the game, so I'm thinking we're thinking of different definitions if you think house-rules are punishments and that punishments are not a wrong way to play.

For someone who sees resurrection as a balance issue, there really is no difference between the two.

 

[wotmaniac]

something that I have done in my games is to put a limit on how many times a character can get brought back. Such as a character can only be brought back a # of times equal to 1+con mod (minimum one).

Something else I've seen done is to make it a % chance -- something like: 50 + (character level) - (# of previous resurrections/raises).

While it still make those spells part of the game, it also makes death something that is more that just a mere temporary inconvenience.

 

[Trihelios]

Imagine for a moment, that you are a devout priest, so faithful and dedicated that your god has literally granted you the authority over life and death. The power to bring anyone back from the dead into the world. Would you treat this awesome responsibility lightly or as a simple mercantile transaction?

Would you even let anyone know that you possessed such a power? Imagine how many people would constantly beg of you to return their parent/spouse/child/friend to the world of the living.

How would you choose who deserves to live?

I think its questions like this that restore the drama to death and resurrection. If your mighty hero fell on the battlefield, only to be brought back by the party cleric, how would he feel looking across a field of corpses who weren't granted the same miraculous intervention?

There be drama aplenty in those hills.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

So, tell me fellow ENWorlders, do you think resurrection is an enemy to human drama, verisimilitude, or some such aspect of your game you view as important? Why or why not? If yes, have you taken any steps to fix the problem?

Here's a quote from Gary Gygax that I feel is relevant to this discussion:

"Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user prefession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)" -- Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide, page 39.​

I think it's important to remember that sixth level was considered to be an unthinkably high level to the creator of the game. With that in mind, characters capable of casting resurrection would and should be extremely rare. That's why I'm a fan of E6 for 3.5, even though I don't cap the game at sixth level (see my sig for a link to a discussion concerning it). And, when characters appear that are capable of resurrection or raise dead arise, it should be a campaign shaking and world changing event. Characters of unthinkably high level (defined, according to Gygax, as sixth level or higher should be rare, in my opinion.

 

[Treebore]

And, when characters appear that are capable of resurrection or raise dead arise, it should be a campaign shaking and world changing event. Characters of unthinkably high level (defined, according to Gygax, as sixth level or higher should be rare, in my opinion.

It is, when you have a game of that level with access to all those spells rest assured things are shaking and changing. I find many other spells far more game breaking than Raise Dead/Ressurection/True Ressurection. Teleport, Meteor Swarm, Limited Wish, Wish, Shapechange, Polymorphing, etc... have been far more of a head ache and game breaker for me then something as simple as being brought back from the dead.