Do you "save" the PCs?

[The Shaman]

I don't think you're saying it to be rude or mean, but telling me to go play a different game can be construed that way.

I'm not telling anyone to do anything, Janx. I'm suggesting that if you find the rules of a game produce outcomes that you don't want, you might try a game more likely to produce the outcomes you do want.

For example, when I was thinking about running a 17th century swashbucklers game, I considered using AD&D and the supplement A Mighty Fortress, but this system does a poor job of emulating fencing; I was better served by choosing Flashing Blades instead, which did what I wanted it to do straight out of the box.

Again, I'm not sure how this could be controversial, unless you really, really want it to be, of course.

D&D is a very versatile ruleset. it can support a variety of play styles, usually with a shift in what the DM decides happens next, rather than specific arbitrary rules.

I think D&D is an excellent game for playing D&D, and I prefer to keep a lighter hand on the controls than other referees.

I like D&D. I like the rules overall. I like that I already own the books. I'm not going to jump systems when the effect I want is manageable by the GM.

And if I need a torque wrench and all I have in my tool box is a hammer, I'd rather go buy or borrow a torque wrench. Right tool, right job, yadda-yadda.

If you're playing a dungeon crawl, where the challenge is really for the player, then PC death is just a setback, roll up a new one and get back in there.

If you're playing a story-driven game (and I cringe to see how some people interpret that), your PC is the vehicle, and if it dies, so does the story in many ways.

No comment.

It's a valid way to play the game, which is why 2e seems to espouse it, and it came as recognition of that play style evolved in the 1e era.

That's an interesting interpretation. Another is that there was a convergence between what was published as adventures and the fiction divisions of the gaming companies; the same writers who were writing the modules were also writing novels for the game, and so gamers entering the hobby around the time of its peak were conditioned to think that modules = stories.

Is it truly a game, maybe not, but then the forward in the 2e PH says as much.

Never played 2e, so I couldn't say, but I would agree telling a story is not playing a game.

Anyway, I find suggesting somebody is playing the wrong game to be a bit off.

I think I've already addressed this, and I think you're wide of the mark.

I've been playing my way for 20 years. overall, I'm happy with the product.

Which puts your right smack dab in that group of gamers conditioned to think gaming = storytelling.

And before you raise your hackles further, no, I'm not in any way suggesting that's a bad thing. I just find, more often than not, it explains a lot about gamers' assumptions to know when they entered the hobby.

 

[The Shaman]

What about the guidelines in the DMG's that acknowledge the opposite is also allowed?

Could you give me an example?

That just because "the rules" say your charcter is dead, it doesn't necessarily have to be so.

Unless you're playing by the rules, of course.

If the rules don't 100% support your playstyle, it's not necessary to change systems. If the disparity is too great, then maybe, but still not necessary.

Necessary, no, but perhaps advisable.

All systems are capable of supporting multiple playstyles, and no system supports any playstyle in a perfect manner.

But some do a better job than others. In my experience, if you're throwing out outcomes because they don't produce the results you want, either there's a problem with your expectations or a problem with the rules meeting those expectations. If it's the latter, what's the harm is trying something else?

Sometimes, the system which one wants simply doesn't exist, in which case the only choices are to play them as is, or change them until the system is what you want. Systems are rules, and rules are simply tools to facilitate that which you (and the group) desire out of a game. No game rules are completely rigid unless you want them to be. Malleability of game rules is a plus, not a negative, that can be taken or left alone as one desires.

I house rule pretty extensively, but what I don't do is abandon or substitute for large swaths of significant rules which lie at the heart of the game. If I have to do that, I'm playing the wrong game, in my experience.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Which puts your right smack dab in that group of gamers conditioned to think gaming = storytelling.

It's much older than that.

D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who
want to play the game as a game and those who want to
play it as a fantasy novel

- Lew Pulsipher, White Dwarf #1, 1977

 

[The Shaman]

It's much older than that.

Marc Miller also wrote about fudging the dice in Traveller in 1977, but in terms of products published for games which pushed the adventure = story theme, it didn't really start showing up extensively until the early to mid-Eighties, in my recollection.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you're playing a story-driven game (and I cringe to see how some people interpret that), your PC is the vehicle, and if it dies, so does the story in many ways.

Why does that have to be the case? If your campaign is the story of your adventures then the death of a hero and the introduction of a new hero are just chapters in that story.

If the story is being driven to a pre-defined end then there really isn't a game taking place at all.

 

[Umbran]

Why does that have to be the case? If your campaign is the story of your adventures then the death of a hero and the introduction of a new hero are just chapters in that story.

That depends on who is being referred to by the possessive pronoun, "your". If it refers to the player, or the group as a whole, then perhaps. If it refers to the individual character, then not death does pretty much end that story. You get to start a new one, but that old one's done.

If the story is being driven to a pre-defined end then there really isn't a game taking place at all.

Does not seem to follow. Not dying does not equate to "driven to pre-defined end".

 

[Janx]

That's an interesting interpretation. Another is that there was a convergence between what was published as adventures and the fiction divisions of the gaming companies; the same writers who were writing the modules were also writing novels for the game, and so gamers entering the hobby around the time of its peak were conditioned to think that modules = stories.Never played 2e, so I couldn't say, but I would agree telling a story is not playing a game.I think I've already addressed this, and I think you're wide of the mark.Which puts your right smack dab in that group of gamers conditioned to think gaming = storytelling.

And before you raise your hackles further, no, I'm not in any way suggesting that's a bad thing. I just find, more often than not, it explains a lot about gamers' assumptions to know when they entered the hobby.

And in the same token, before the 2e era, there are a group of gamers who were conditioned to think role playing != storytelling.

If I want to play a game, it would not be an RPG. An RPG is not a game. It's biased because of the reliance on a GM to both arbitrate and define and control the opposition. Just because it has the word game in it, RPG is not necessarily a game.

None of this doesn't mean folks weren't having fun doing it in any era in either style.

BTW, I find it HIGHLY improbable that somebody wasn't storytelling with D&D in the 1E era. That pattern is so inherently obvious to play the game that way that some group of players did it that way.

I ain't gonna change my ruleset. That costs money. I'm not the OP, I don't have a problem with killing or not killing PCs in my game. But then, me and my players also don't tend to wake up wishing we had better fencing or sailing rules for our swashbuckling nautical campaign.

I just don't see this as a ruleset problem. It's more of a GM execution problem.


Now, oddly enough if I was complaining about wanting better rules for sailing or swashbuckling, then suggestions for other rulesets would be very spot on.

I think we beat that horse, and it ain't about saving the PCs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That depends on who is being referred to by the possessive pronoun, "your". If it refers to the player, or the group as a whole, then perhaps. If it refers to the individual character, then not death does pretty much end that story. You get to start a new one, but that old one's done.

If the story is about that character, you are correct.

Does not seem to follow. Not dying does not equate to "driven to pre-defined end".

If one is playing a game in which situation X can happen and anytime X does indeed happen the results that produced X are changed or discarded then it has been decided that result X will not be a possibility.

If we say that result X = character death and result Y= the party survives and we eliminate possibility X then we are left with a predetermined situation Y, the party survives.

We don't know all the events that will take place but we do know that the party will make it through alive. That is predefinition of a kind.

 

[Janx]

That depends on who is being referred to by the possessive pronoun, "your". If it refers to the player, or the group as a whole, then perhaps. If it refers to the individual character, then not death does pretty much end that story. You get to start a new one, but that old one's done.



Does not seem to follow. Not dying does not equate to "driven to pre-defined end".

I should give out XP for this. You hit it on the head.

I use this subjectively, but a good storytelling campaign is in about the PCs. If one dies, the story is over for that PC, and the player of that PC.

Players are people. People are self-focused by nature, partly because they view the world in 1st person. A PC is the expression of that 1st person perspective in the game space. If the PC dies, so does my investment in that game space. As a person who cares about more than myself, I have some emotional investment and concern on that which is not my PC.

Another thing to clarify, I identify the story as being the story of my PC. As the player of Aragorn in LotR, my investment is earning my birthright, my relationship with Arwen, and getting those hobbits safely to their destination. Sure, I care that Frodo makes it to the volcano, but I got my own worries.

See the difference? For the player of Aragorn, the story isn't about the ring and Sauron. It's about HIM.

However, in none of this, does it invalidate or give guidance on whether Aragorn should die in an encounter gone bad.

It might have made a good ending for him to die at Helmsdeep, or the big battle. Certainly the player of Boromir would have thought so, but then, he got to bring in a new PC, the brother named Faramir, but he didn't have as much story built up.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If I want to play a game, it would not be an RPG. An RPG is not a game. It's biased because of the reliance on a GM to both arbitrate and define and control the opposition. Just because it has the word game in it, RPG is not necessarily a game.

None of this doesn't mean folks weren't having fun doing it in any era in either style.

BTW, I find it HIGHLY improbable that somebody wasn't storytelling with D&D in the 1E era. That pattern is so inherently obvious to play the game that way that some group of players did it that way.

[Bold emphasis mine]

Are you serious? Because you choose not to play it as a game then it cannot be a game?

You would be quite correct about the DM bias if the game were a competitive one between the DM and players. Such a game would be very unfair.

The competition is one of players vs game environment (and possibly other players for those who like that). The DM is not part of that competition. A character death is not victory for the DM but it is a defeat for the player. A successful adventure is a victory for all participants but the DM doesn't lose.

It is easy to see how it can easily be a game without being a competitive one. It is also easy to use the game's framework as a story telling vehicle without playing an actual game.

So the rules themselves do not determine if the activity is a game or not, the participants are responsible for that.