Weak Deaths

[Hussar]

So long as the player understands that the buffer is temporary, or that the ASP are limited, and the decision to play with padded weapons is in their court, I am fine with that.

The important thing here is to teach that player decisions matter within the context of actually playing the game.

Hours of character gen might interest old hands, who are used to a system or who want to explore its intricacies. As a way to interest potential new players, though, that's an extremely obvious epic fail.

Hours of character gen, followed by making no decisions while having that character gen undone, followed by the prospect of more hours of character gen, is an even more obvious epic fail.

Who in their right mind, I wonder, would start a new player in media res, in a combat that has the potential to kill that player's PC before the player can act, in the first place?

That seems like a failure of the DM, to me.


RC

Missed this the first time around.

ROTF. RC, you know this story, so, pretending that you don't is pretty disengenious. The game wasn't started in the middle of a fight, again, as you well know. It's just that the first fight the PC's ran into, the bad guys killed the newbie in the first round before he even got a chance to act.

Funny how the finger pointing starts though. "Hrm, my system couldn't possibly give bad results, any failure must be on YOU!"

It couldn't possibly be that because, in the 3e system, any creature of an equivalent CR can kill a PC in a single round. It's not likely, true, but, it's entirely possible.

Starting an entirely new campaign for this guy wasn't an option, he was joining half way through.

Could I have done different things? Probably. But, then again, it would have taken NOTHING away from the game to simply not kill his character at this point in time.

Then again, I don't play in games where chargen is 15 minutes of creating meaningless ciphers with no background, no personality and no story. That might work for some DM's, but, I like a little more depth in my game.

------------------

Sigh. Why I get dragged into this morass of Raven Crowking yet again trying to prove the superiority of his one true way is beyond me.

------------------

Look, in case this wasn't clear, I am NOT saying that you should never have death in the game. I never said that at all. You can and should have death in any number of games. I almost always do play where death is on the table (sometimes right up front and sometimes a bit mitigated by things like Fate points or whatnot).

But, what I was originally responding to was claims that if you take death off the table, an RPG becomes a pointless, meaningless exercise. Celebrim claims we shouldn't bother to roll for anything if we take death off the table. Others have claimed that it's boring and pointless.

My point is, you don't have to play RPG's this way. This is not the only way to play. You can play in games where death is not a consequence and still have a very enjoyable, meaningful game. It will be different than a more traditional game, but still loads of fun.

There are a number of systems that work this way - 3:16, Sufficiently Advanced, Seven Leagues (a system I really, really want to try) just to name three.

So, yes, death as a consequence is certainly fun. Most definitely. But, it's not the only way to play. I urge anyone to expand upon their gaming experience and try new things. It is always good to broaden your horizons.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Really? Straw man?

Yes, really.

Several posters, Celebrim included, have stated that removing death from the game makes the game either boring, or flat out not even a role playing game anymore (Celebrim states, why should we bother rolling for anything if death is not on the table?). How is that not stating pretty spefically that death=failure is the only important consequence?

The straw man is that death and only death = failure. RC explained quite clearly that what some of us object to is removing death from the "menu" of failure.

Please, if you're going to misrepresent my arguments, at least try to be in the same ballpark.

Annoying, isn't it?

 

[The Shaman]

If you made people roll per the rules every time they jumped in water then even olympic class swimmers would accidentally roll a couple 1's in a row and die for a stupid reason.

Two words: Fran Crippen.

But the fact is that an adventurer with equivalent skill and ability is a likely candidate for a 'take 10' except in the most demanding conditions anyway - and a failed skill check or three under those conditions isn't at all unreasonable.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I have a strong aversion to "scripted RPGs". For starters, they are not RPGs at all. "Story games" is what, funnily enough, many of their creators and players actually call them, and I think that is quite appropriate.

Ah yes. PC Death. Well, see above.

 

[Raven Crowking]

ROTF. RC, you know this story, so, pretending that you don't is pretty disengenious. The game wasn't started in the middle of a fight, again, as you well know. It's just that the first fight the PC's ran into, the bad guys killed the newbie in the first round before he even got a chance to act.

Do I know this story?

I assumed that what you presented in your post was accurate -- hours of chargen, no actions, please gen again. Now, apparently, there were actions. Just not combat actions. How is one to know that?

Funny how the finger pointing starts though. "Hrm, my system couldn't possibly give bad results, any failure must be on YOU!"

It couldn't possibly be that because, in the 3e system, any creature of an equivalent CR can kill a PC in a single round. It's not likely, true, but, it's entirely possible.

Now you're just making things up. ANY system can give good results, if used well, just as ANY system can give bad results if used poorly. Having aired enough criticisms about 3e on EN World in the past, I certainly agree that it is a system that can be used poorly. And it isn't rocket science to realize that intricate chargen is of interest to those who already know the system, because they can take advantage of it and play it as a mini-game. If you prefer a system with intricate chargen, it is best to use pregens for a new player, let them learn the system, and then let them learn chargen once they are capable of making informed choices about something they are already invested in. That has nothing to do with System A being better than System B. It has to do with understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the system you are using.

Even though ANY SYSTEM might fight you if you want to obtain certain results, a good GM realizes this and understands it. It is a poor workman who blames his tools. This is true even if his tools are flawed....if for no reason than that all tools are, to some degree or another, flawed.

I was also pretty clear about what I consider the best way to introduce a potential new player for the game. One does not have to start "an entirely new campaign" -- one should be willing to play a few seperate sessions to teach the game before throwing the player to the wolves.

(Assuming, of course, that retaining the player is a desired outcome. If not, throw away, and get the results you got! )

Just one more thing worth looking at:

Then again, I don't play in games where chargen is 15 minutes of creating meaningless ciphers with no background, no personality and no story. That might work for some DM's, but, I like a little more depth in my game.

Slow or fast chargen has nothing to do with whether or not the character is a "meaningless cipher" or if there is "depth" in the game. Indeed, we have examined your "more depth" claim on several occasions, and you have been unable to demonstrate any extra depth your game has over those who do things like (1) allow character deaths, (2) have faster character generation, of (3) have longer-lasting campaigns.

OTOH, you have posted that you are a lazy DM, you don't like to do background work, you don't trust other DMs, and that you seldom game with the same people for long. These things make me conclude that there is something Hussar-related about Hussar's problems.

Despite your lamenting my "one true way" (although I'd be curious to hear what you think that way is), I am a big proponent of the following:

(1) As a GM, if you can get players to play, then you can run whatever you want, however you want.

(Which also means, even if there is something Hussar-related about Hussar's problems, so long as you can draw players, you should still run what you like. But, if you find players leaving after their first try to be a problem, you should also consider what Hussar can do about that.)

(2) As a player or GM, if you don't like a game, don't play it. Life is too short for bad games.

If that's the "one true way" you mean when you say "this morass of Raven Crowking yet again trying to prove the superiority of his one true way", then Guilty as Charged. I do, deeply and truly, believe that spending time with any entertainment you don't like is foolish. At best.


RC

 

[Hussar]

No, Raven Crowking, the morass I'm talking about is the fact that in a couple of posts you managed to dredge up pretty much every conversation (and I use that term somewhat loosely) that we've had in the past year or so, from bloody rust monsters to gotcha monsters.

Yet, you suddenly develop amnesia when making cheap shots about my abilities as a DM and claim not to remember stories when, otherwise, you would spend signficant time cross linking from threads three years old.

Ok, fair enough, you win.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, really.

The straw man is that death and only death = failure. RC explained quite clearly that what some of us object to is removing death from the "menu" of failure.

Annoying, isn't it?

When removing a single element is described as completely destroying the game, making the game pointless, boring, and no fun, is it really that much of a stretch to say that this single element is of extreme importance to some people?

If we remove, say, equipment destruction, does that still change the game from an RPG to a "story game"? ((Ok, perhaps for Raven Crowking it does, but, for those of us who actually want to carry on a discussion, what do you think?))

My point is, you can play a fun RPG that does remove character death or greatly mitigates it to the point where it's pretty much player choice if the character dies or not.

Is it a traditional game? Nope. It's focusing on elements that a traditional RPG, like D&D, doesn't mechanically focus on. In Seven Leagues, for example, you play a fairy tale character, a la Brother's Grimm or whatnot. And, as such, you cannot die, since the protagonists in those stories never do. (Or at least very rarely do, for the overly pedantic out there)

The game is fascinating and something I really want to try out someday. And, it does remove death from the table. Is it for everyone? No, certainly not. But, again, the point I was responding to was the one that was being made several times - that removing death makes the game pointless and meaningless.

That's only true if death of the PC is very important in your game. If you shift the import away from that PC's survival to other elements in the game - such as NPC's for example, you can have a game where the PC is pretty much invincible, just like Jack Harkness, yet still capable of failure.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Missed this the first time around.

ROTF. RC, you know this story, so, pretending that you don't is pretty disengenious. The game wasn't started in the middle of a fight, again, as you well know. It's just that the first fight the PC's ran into, the bad guys killed the newbie in the first round before he even got a chance to act.

This is exactly why I said there wasn't enough information to judge player reaction.

When removing a single element is described as completely destroying the game, making the game pointless, boring, and no fun, is it really that much of a stretch to say that this single element is of extreme importance to some people?

What "destroys" the game is not so much taking death off the table: I'll play Toon if I feel silly (Paranoia if darkly silly), so much as the GM d**cking me around to keep my character alive to save his "story". My character's life is not that important to the story as a whole, his life is only part of the story.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, Raven Crowking, the morass I'm talking about is the fact that in a couple of posts you managed to dredge up pretty much every conversation (and I use that term somewhat loosely) that we've had in the past year or so, from bloody rust monsters to gotcha monsters.

I assume the term you are using loosely is "dredge up pretty much every"? Or is it "morass"?

And really....."from bloody rust monsters to gotcha monsters"? That wide of a spread, eh?

Yet, you suddenly develop amnesia when making cheap shots about my abilities as a DM and claim not to remember stories when, otherwise, you would spend signficant time cross linking from threads three years old.

It isn't amnesia to not know that Incident A = Incident B, if you identify the two differently. What I am guilty of was (wrongly, it seems) assuming that what you said in your post is, in fact, what happened. If you describe two incidents as having different properties, how is anyone to know that they are the same incident? I think you protest too much.

And cheap shots? Post after post, thread after thread, you bring up something that is someone else's problem, or the system's problem, yet always seems to happen to you. It doesn't take Einstein to realize what the common element is. Nor am I the first person to point this out to you.

OTOH, it isn't about your abilities as a DM.....it is about what you want out of a game. The more esoteric what you want out of a game is, the harder it is going to be to find GMs who can supply it, or players who will want it over the long haul.

That doesn't mean that you are a "bad GM" or that you should not pursue what you want. My two rules imply exactly the opposite:

(1) As a GM, if you can get players to play, then you can run whatever you want, however you want.

(2) As a player or GM, if you don't like a game, don't play it. Life is too short for bad games.​

What it does imply, though, is that you should at least recognize that what you want in a game may be atypical. And because of that, at least some of the problems you are having are related to trying to meet those desires. I.e., rather than blaming others, consider what you really want, and take the steps needed to get that thing. ALL systems are better at meeting some sets of needs over other sets.

Moreover, you know as a fact that, confronted by a system that seems more in line (to me) with what you seem to desire in a system/have more experience with (again, to me), I will ask your advice. You know this as a fact, because I have done so.

But you would probably be better off realizing that, say, because B/X doesn't meet your needs, it doesn't follow that the problem is with B/X. Just as, because 4e doesn't meet my needs, it doesn't follow that the problem is with 4e.

Throwing a new player into mid-level 3.5, with an experienced group, without giving that player any chance to gain experience in the basics of the system, and without adjusting difficulty for that player, is a mistake. You should know that it is a mistake; you lament the results. What you seem unable (or unwilling) to do is to place the blame where it should fall.

Making a mistake doesn't make one a bad GM. Being unable or unwilling to do so might, however. Blaming everything but the person who actually made the decisions involved? Well, I'll leave others to judge on that.


RC

 

[Nagol]

When removing a single element is described as completely destroying the game, making the game pointless, boring, and no fun, is it really that much of a stretch to say that this single element is of extreme importance to some people?

If we remove, say, equipment destruction, does that still change the game from an RPG to a "story game"? ((Ok, perhaps for Raven Crowking it does, but, for those of us who actually want to carry on a discussion, what do you think?))

My point is, you can play a fun RPG that does remove character death or greatly mitigates it to the point where it's pretty much player choice if the character dies or not.

Is it a traditional game? Nope. It's focusing on elements that a traditional RPG, like D&D, doesn't mechanically focus on. In Seven Leagues, for example, you play a fairy tale character, a la Brother's Grimm or whatnot. And, as such, you cannot die, since the protagonists in those stories never do. (Or at least very rarely do, for the overly pedantic out there)

The game is fascinating and something I really want to try out someday. And, it does remove death from the table. Is it for everyone? No, certainly not. But, again, the point I was responding to was the one that was being made several times - that removing death makes the game pointless and meaningless.

That's only true if death of the PC is very important in your game. If you shift the import away from that PC's survival to other elements in the game - such as NPC's for example, you can have a game where the PC is pretty much invincible, just like Jack Harkness, yet still capable of failure.

I play such games. The first that comes to mind is Teenagers from Outer Space where even injury is off the table. (Damage is rated in terms of "bonk". Each point of bonk in excess of your total capacity causes you to lose a round of action. Then the character is fine.)

However, in games where injury and death are appropriate genre considerations, removing them changes the game to the point where I find it is better to play a game such expectations are part of the rule set and a automatic understanding of the players. For me, a death could only be considered 'weak' if the character dies despite the game rules instead of because of them.

Can a character be defeated short of death? Sure. Anytime the character doesn't achieve his goals -- exernally applied or internally set, the character suffers some form of defeat.

I've had players that have revelled in angst and drama. Their children died? Great, more grist for the mill! Their beloved betrayed them? About time! Presenting character defeat to these players just gives the player more ways to engage the world on his preferred terms.

I've had players that hate to engage in a drama-filled world and will flee to calmer waters at every opportunity. The king has been killed and a civil war is brewing? Pack up the valuables and move to the next country! The system worlds are politically unstable and we may lose our cargo? Jump to the next system! The barmaid is being assaulted? What was her name anyway? Nevermind, let's move on. Presenting character defeat to these players can often produce no result at all as those players simply disengage and/or focus on recovering from their loss and often do not consider effects to NPCs.

In short, can a player lose short of character death or the equivalent? That depends entirely upon the player and what his goals are. All players, however, are defeated by forcible removal of their characters.