Would you quit a game if....

[prosfilaes]

If a player can accept a Healing Potion, then he shouldn't have trouble accepting Fate Points in a game where there are no Healing Potions.

You're missing my point. A healing potion is a physical object in world. The character takes it, opens it, and drinks it. Fate points aren't in-world; they aren't the character doing something.

This is a side thread, about your statement that RPGs are people playing characters. Fate points are not people playing characters; they're people directing the fate of the characters.

 

[Water Bob]

This is a side thread, about your statement that RPGs are people playing characters. Fate points are not people playing characters; they're people directing the fate of the characters.

I see what you're saying. I just don't think your point is worthy. If a player can play a character and get more HP, it's pretty close to being the same thing when the character uses a Fate Point.

In both cases, character death is a real threat.

 

[Elf Witch]

Like hit points and Fate Points, those things help keep your character alive, not ensure it.

In my games, you couldn't just hit the local cleric in town like you were stopping at a medical clinic. Many times, the spell was not available. If it was, then I'd consider the particular religion and how that applies to the character.







The game is called Dungeons & Dragons, not Demigods & Immortals.

So basically you are saying that the DM controls who lives and dies by controlling that availability of divine magic? So it is a DM choice. Even though in the rules there is nothing written about it being the god's choice.

It is basically a house rule to say the Herineous clerics won't raise a follower of another god.

Now I do that all the time in my campaigns but I do recognize that is a house rule campaign thing.

But the game allows you to play demigods and immortals if you want to. That is what is so great about it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It is basically a house rule to say the Herineous clerics won't raise a follower of another god.

Well, it would only be a house rule if the rules say that those clerics would do so. As far as I know, they're silent on the matter, but I'm not familiar with every system.

But the game allows you to play demigods and immortals if you want to. That is what is so great about it.

Yep, this is very true. You can play either way (or any of another thousand ways) and have a lot of fun. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

The point is, a request to not die coming from YOU, an experienced player would carry more weight at my table than coming from Bob's New Guy who has never taken the time to actually try it the MAJORITY's way.

That's why everybody is jumping on the "this is why death is so important" bandwagon. You can't just show up and try to change the GM's game. That takes time, tact and knowing whether it's something the GM is open to consider.

Like I mentioned 20 pages ago, it is a new guy mistake to ever bring up "that's not how we did it at my old job" or "We should do it this way because it will be better" Groups do not like to hear that crap, and that's how you get on the wrong side of the group.

Still don't buy that it is any way wrong for a player to talk to his DM about an aspect of the game he does not enjoy.

Would it be better if the player just sits there and says nothing then has his character die and leaves the game leaving the DM stunned over it because it blind sighted him?

At least this way the player has communicated with the DM the DM knows that if he kills this character there is a good possibility that the player is going to leave the game. He can now make what ever choice he wants in what to do.

For some reason people are getting this attitude about how dare the player feel this way and tell his DM about it. That some how he is just doing it all wrong.

If he does not enjoy having a character die that is his right to feel that way and if he would prefer to play in a game that limits death that is right too. I think he should have talked to the DM ahead of time if he knew he felt this way before sitting down and playing. Being on the same page from the beginning would solve a lot o these DM/player conflicts we read so much about.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If he does not enjoy having a character die that is his right to feel that way and if he would prefer to play in a game that limits death that is right too. I think he should have talked to the DM ahead of time if he knew he felt this way before sitting down and playing. Being on the same page from the beginning would solve a lot o these DM/player conflicts we read so much about.

I agree about open communication of gaming tastes, even if you're new to the group. It might mean you're better off not playing, but if you won't enjoy the game, why play it? Like I try to say frequently: play what you like

 

[Water Bob]

But the game allows you to play demigods and immortals if you want to. That is what is so great about it.

It is true that there is no wrongbadfun when playing RPGs. If you want to play invincible 1st level heroes, then I hope you have fun.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, it would only be a house rule if the rules say that those clerics would do so. As far as I know, they're silent on the matter, but I'm not familiar with every system.


Yep, this is very true. You can play either way (or any of another thousand ways) and have a lot of fun. As always, play what you like

If you read the rules for raise dead all it says is you need a the component, a cleric who can cast 5 level spells and a soul willing to come back.

Anything else is up to the DM which is how I think it should be.

If you wanted to you rule that a cleric can only cast spells even healing on followers of his god or of the same alignment.

The point is the game has a mechanic for dealing with death and not making death a permanent thing so this whole argument that if you just take death out of the game then some how you are really not playing DnD as it was meant to be played just seems silly to me.

The other argument that if you can't die then there is no tension in combat that it is an automatic win kinds of loses its strength if you have a cleric in the party high enough to cast raise dead and you party has the wealth to do it.

I don't understand how there is really any difference between the two because at that point death is in no way permanent.

 

[Elf Witch]

I agree about open communication of gaming tastes, even if you're new to the group. It might mean you're better off not playing, but if you won't enjoy the game, why play it? Like I try to say frequently: play what you like

I can answer the why play it from my own experience some times you just want to play and you tell yourself that not playing is worse. Or it is a social thing and you want to play because it is what your friends are doing.

Sometimes it is fine and sometimes you are miserable.

I have learned the hard way that not playing is far better than playing in a game that you don't enjoy.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you read the rules for raise dead all it says is you need a the component, a cleric who can cast 5 level spells and a soul willing to come back.

Anything else is up to the DM which is how I think it should be.

Right, but as far as I know, a house rule is actually changing or omitting a mechanical rule. I don't think saying a cleric of Heironeous wouldn't be willing to raise a follower of Nerull is a house rule, just a ruling in an area where rules are silent.

The other argument that if you can't die then there is no tension in combat that it is an automatic win kinds of loses its strength if you have a cleric in the party high enough to cast raise dead and you party has the wealth to do it.

I don't understand how there is really any difference between the two because at that point death is in no way permanent.

I think there definitely is a lot of tension lost when the party can regularly raise people, but the stress might come in other areas. The Cleric can raise you, but he's missing 25,000 gp (or you are) that could be spent building roads, upgrading a temple, reinforcing your castle, hiring mercenaries, etc. But, this is just a consequence other than death, which -as other have pointed out- can add to the game just as death can.

But, if you do consider that many (most?) games take place at the lower levels where raising the dead isn't the normal option in the party (nor has the funds to do so, necessarily), I think that there might be a big difference between a "you can die" style of game and a "you can't, but you can lose" style of game.

Neither are right or wrong. It's just a matter of taste. But, like I said, I do agree with the player bringing it to the GM's attention. I support the GM in staying with his preferred style, but I think it was the right call from the player to express what he likes in a game.

I have learned the hard way that not playing is far better than playing in a game that you don't enjoy.

Yep, that's usually true. As always, play what you like