No you don't. Not really deep down you feel it is the wrong way to play.
Everything you have posted up to this point from the example of the little league trophies to the comment that DnD is not Demigods and Immortals says something different.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Would you quit a game if....
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
No you don't. Not really deep down you feel it is the wrong way to play.
Everything you have posted up to this point from the example of the little league trophies to the comment that DnD is not Demigods and Immortals says something different.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Probably best to have neither side say what the other side really feels, and just get to back a discussion on the upsides to their method, or agreeing to disagree. I'm not sure how productive the "have fun with that" and "you don't mean that" comments actually are, as of this point.
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.
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.
Yep, that's usually true. As always, play what you like
Maybe house rule was the wrong word. I am just saying there is no official rule on how to handle it. Which is how I like it. It should be campaign specific.
It is true that clerics don't get raise dead until ninth level. But I played in many a game where someone of lower level has died and the DM has handled by allowing them to find a cleric of high enough level. In one campaign my third level character died we had a scroll of rise dead. The third level cleric had to make a spellcraft check to be able to use the scroll which he did and I was raised.
The entire point I am making is that the game has mechanics built in to make death non permanent the DM can choose how to allow it. Which is why I don't understand why it seems some people find it such a stretch to take death out completely and replace it with some other consequence.
From reading this thread I have gotten the feeling that deep down people who don't understand it also feel that some how it makes the players who enjoy this type of campaign as whiny childish babies who get over attached to their characters.
That some how they are not true DnD players and worse have not earned the right to enjoy the game the way they do.
For the record I have death in my current campaign I have things in place to make it hard to die. I would not quit a campaign if my character died and there was no way to bring it back. I play Shadowrun and death is permanent. I will no longer play in a DnD game where the DM has taken out all raise dead magic unless he put in things to help make death rare.
Barring some HRing, the things that let your PCs come back from the dead are neither common nor cheap, thus are not always available. There is always the risk your PC may not come back. Doing away with death from the get-go changes the way you play; you gamble differently.
This is why I brought up poker many pages ago. If you play poker with your own money, you pay close attention to your fellow players, the statistics of drawing what you need for your hand to be a winner, and the pot odds. If you play online with the discounted "fake" money, you will see players call with utterly abysmal odds of winning. Routinely.
Playing D&D with PC death included is like playing poker with cash. This is YOUR PC that you took all that time to create, and if he dies, he may be gone forever.
Without that, it's like playing poker with monopoly money.
And besides, those "other consequences?" Well, they exist in games with or without PC death, so that's really not a solid basis for distinction. As i recall, someone upthread proposed a scenario that contemplated wiping rock & roll from history as being an equal substitute for PC death. Great- that certainly is a consequence of note.
Now imagine that scenario PLUS PC death. It's easy if you try. Go to hell below you. Above you, the other guys. Imagine all thë NPCs...vandalizing your grave. Woo hooooooo ooh ooh ooh.
Last edited:
A couple of you seem to be developing a habit of butting heads. If I may make a suggestion - you might want to look into using the Ignore List feature. That is not a Moderator Order. Just a reminder that we give you some ways to avoid folks you just don't get along with.
Take questions to PM or e-mail. Thanks.
Take questions to PM or e-mail. Thanks.
You just may start screaming... or have a lot of fun. Did you pick gooooood or eviiiiiil... Or is this the Neutral One?
Imagine all your items... Walkin' Cross the sand... That stupid rogue, just laughing... Using your Mage's Hand... And then the Cleric wants to, try to perform a raise?
Youuuuu may looooose a level, but you're not the only one... Or did you drain Constitution... Because you borked at level 1?
Slainte,
-Loonook.
Danny I do understand what you are saying.
I get that for a lot of people having the threat of death makes the game more real and exciting. I will play in a game like that. But to be honest I prefer a game with things in place to make it hard to die. I have never enjoyed losing a character in a stupid way or because some other player make a really stupid decision.
What makes the game fun for me is what impact my character has on the world so for me failing at combat even if I live is has an impact and makes that combat exciting for me.
In real life we can die at any time there is no fairness in at all. It does not matter if you are a hero, shlub or villain. It doesn't matter if you have something important to offer the world or not.
I worked in the medical field mainly in the NICU and saw the unfairness up close. A drug addicted baby whose mother was in jail and little future would live but a baby who was very much wanted by its parents who had everything to offer would die.
I game as way to have fun and escape I don't want real life in my games I want fantasy and adventure. I want my character to be like the characters I read about.
If I lose a character at first level or even second or third I am okay and its like oh well lets try this idea. But once I start playing a character a long time I get invested in it. I don't enjoy it when that character dies. It is not fun it is not exciting.
Which is why I prefer games that have a way out of death like DnD or rules that take death out like 7 Seas and Superhero games. In Shadowrun we play with Karma points which can be used to save your life.
This is the way I really enjoy gaming and get the fullest pleasure out of it. I am lucky because I have found a group that likes the same thing.
Your example of poker is a good one you see I hate any kind of gambling. The idea of taking my money and throwing it away makes me sick to my stomach. That is not enjoyable to me at all. I know some people enjoy it and to them win or lose they have had fun. Maybe I am this way because my mother had a gambling addiction and I watched what it did to my family.
The point I am trying to make is what you see as fun and necessary for your full enjoyment of the game it not necessarily the same as what I find fun.
We all make compromises at the table so I accept a lot of players and DM want the specter of death hanging over the characters. I am willing to compromise and play that kind of game. It will be the least favorite part of the game for me and does nothing to make the game more enjoyable. I have learned to draw the line I know that if it is going to be a game that the DM expects a lot of death and characters are dropping like flies then I say no thank you.
Our Age of Worms is played in a traditional way the DM runs the material as written. If you don't play smart it is a meat grinder. We have been lucky we have had only one PC death and we are now level 12. We have a cleric who can now cast raise dead and before that we had access to reincarnation which comes with the chance of ending up a different race. I enjoy the game more now that we have reached the ability not to have death necessarily be permanent.
As Jameson says very wisely, I might add , as always play what you like.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Completely agree
I'm sure this is a pretty normal experience, too.
I think that ruling out what is traditional and fairly broadly used in RPGs in general is jarring to many people.
As an outside observer, I can see how you'd get that feeling. I don't think it's the case, generally, the people think you're a whiny childish baby, however. It might be a case of blunt disagreement with little tone being conveyed in this thread, and taking the blunt disagreement a little too personally.
Cool. I run a very gritty game where death is a real possibility in basically every combat, but combats are more rare. Death is basically permanent, but you could conceivably resurrect someone if you traveled to their soul and transported it back into their body, which would probably last years at best.
My point: while our styles probably crash, that's cool. I could probably have fun in a death-light game, and the real important part is that we both have fun playing with our groups. Because, as always, play what you like
We all find excitement in different ways. My joy isn't necessarily yours.
But to me, the very reasons you cite there for wanting PC death excluded are the reasons I want it kept in. That risk of loss helps me keep things in perspective...helps me think more like the character. As much as I want to keep my PC alive, the more I play my PC like a being with a sense of self-preservation. The choices I make for my PC will be more internally consistent with the PC's own perspective.
I love Supers games. But death is still part of the equation if you're playing "Iron Age" as opposed to "Golden Age" stuff- the stories of Wolverine vs early JLA.
I'm not saying death should always be a part of every RPG- just that I don't like changing the underlying assumptions of the genre. Death will be a part of nearly any FRPG campaign I run. Ditto Cyberpunk. Supers games depend on which era I'm going for: my Supers 1990 game was straight 4 Color...death was highly unlikely.
A fallen PC, Esmerelda of Waterdeep, died recently in the final battle against the BBEG, Naarash, in the adventure Heathen. I described Naarash's great fist punching down and smashing her ribs, into her chest. I was a bit surprised when the player told me he thought the damage was too extensive for raise dead to be possible, and kinda implied that I was cheating a bit by allowing Esme to be raised! I got the impression he really didn't like his PC dying, even with raise dead possible, and fairly common in the Forgotten Realms setting.
