Would you quit a game if....

[prosfilaes]

Just because a thing is affordable in the books does not make it available or affordable in-game. ...
As for PCs, not every party has that powerful a Cleric. Our 13th level 3.5Ed group, for instance, only has one because I retired myPC when the only guys playing divine casters of any note- neither of whom played a cleric- moved away from town.

I don't find this a productive line of argument. One could argue anything about D&D along those lines; trolls are unkillable since PCs won't necessarily have access to acid or sufficiently damaging fire. One could claim that a creature with high SR is overpowerful since a party may not have any fighters in it. You said "Barring some HRing", but I think D&D 3 RAW and AAW (adventures as written) assumes that you have a cleric with caster level close to that of the party.

And, I don't respect munchkin gamers, power gamers, and non-roleplayers.

Frankly, I hope you understand the word "respect" differently than I do. I find that level of disrespect problematic.

 

[prosfilaes]

Oh, make no bones about it. I do think that it's the wrong way to play.

...

But, hey, it's his game. If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him. I'm not going to tell him that he can't do it, but I'm also not going to act as if I sympathize with that type of play (because I don't).

That doesn't make any sense to me; it doesn't strike me as a coherent statement to say that something is wrong, then say "If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him."

 

[Water Bob]

That doesn't make any sense to me; it doesn't strike me as a coherent statement to say that something is wrong, then say "If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him."

It's the difference between personal preference and imposing that preference on others.

For example, I may only purchase and drive American made cars (I don't--I drive a Mitusbishi, but this is an example). That would be my preference. But, I wouldn't vote for a law that made everyone buy only American made cars.

Another example. Let's say I'm a health nut (which I'm not--again, this is an example), and I look down on all those poor slobs out there that can't check their weight or manage to get their butts into a gym. This person may not respect someone who does not make time to take care of themselves in the gym.

But, at the same time, this health nut wouldn't impose his will on the world to make them all eat right and work out. That's up to them.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yep.



1) While I've never seen a slippery slope of PC death in 35 years in the hobby, I'm sure it's possible.

2) I haven't sat out more than part of a game session since 1991, because I've used the base concept of the character tree (introduced that year in Dark Sun in every game since then. Essentially, I have multiple fully statted out PCs ready to go in any campaign*. All they need to go is level-appropriate gear and DM intro.

3) while I sit out sans PC, I make myself useful by helping the DM run combats. Sometimes I do this when my PC becomes severely incapacitated (stable but in negative HP, turned to stone, etc.).

So essentially, I'm never sitting out so long that I'm not having fun in some way.












* minimum two, sometimes more if I'm expecting the game to be a slaughter feat.**



** Paranoia and CoC are exceptions, of course.

It wouldn't have mattered if I had a stated character ready to go they were on a small boat and they were the only ones on it so it would have been impossible to add a new character right then and there,

My new character joined them almost as soon as they came to shore. Most of the next sessions were heavy role playing, information gathering, sneaking around and spying. So there was not anything I could help the DM with. The few combats he let me run an NPC but for the majority of the time I was just reading a book I brought along.

Most of the games are very heavy role playing and the whole you look trusty worthy join us can be problematic. So new characters have to be introduced in a way that makes sense to the story. My new character background made her a family member of the paladin and she had been searching for him for months and finally she had found him.

What bugged me the most about this was not that I died but I died twice back to back.

I saw this in my one campaign before I added action and fate points. A PC died he got raised and then the dice were just killing him in the very next session. I could see the frustration on his face so I fudged the HP on my one bad guy so he could be taken down faster and the bard could get to him and heal him before he bled out. Afterwards he said I don't know if you fudged anything but if you did thank you. I was not looking to dying twice in a row.

This player is usually fine with character death but I guess he was not finding dying in back to back session enjoyable. After that is when I added action points that renew every session and one thing they do is let you spend one to stabilize.

Anyway I think I am done with this conversation it is going in circles.

There are a dozen ways to play the game there is no right or wrong way. What one person finds fun another may not.

I know that I don't need death to make me care more about my character or to feel that combat means more if that is the consequence of losing. I know that for other players it is a vital part of the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

Oh, make no bones about it. I do think that it's the wrong way to play.

But, again, that's my opinion. If it were not my preference, I'd play that way.

On another thread, this dude posted his stats where he said he rolled all 17's and 18's for his character, with one 16 as his lowest score. I call BS on that, and I don't respect that kind of play (because I don't believe he rolled it on what I would call a "fair" system).

But, hey, it's his game. If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him. I'm not going to tell him that he can't do it, but I'm also not going to act as if I sympathize with that type of play (because I don't).

I would like to point out that because you feel it is a wrong way to play it shows in your posts and makes it hard to discuss things like this because no one likes to be told they are playing the game wrong. The whole wrongbadfun vibe comes across.

I have seen a player roll that well before it is very rare but it sometimes happens and I say enjoy it. Those of us who roll take a chance on having some real low stats in the hope that one day we might get lucky and roll a really awesome character.

I don't think people expect sympathy just a little respect and acceptance that there are different ways to play the game.

 

[Water Bob]

I would like to point out that because you feel it is a wrong way to play it shows in your posts and makes it hard to discuss things like this because no one likes to be told they are playing the game wrong. The whole wrongbadfun vibe comes across.

Sorry you feel that way. I really don't respect players who play that way, so that lack of respect for their game is probably the "vibe" you're getting.

Of course, that's a generall feeling I have.

If that way of play were deliberate to the campaign, I wouldn't feel that way. For example, if the GM were running a game set in the Highlander immortal universe, that type of play would make sense to me. Or, maybe the GM set the game where all the PCs were demigods. I would get it.




I've got two friends that, when they play video games, they play them in such a way that I don't respect, too.

I remember looking at my friend's Baldur's Gate game, where he had gone in and set the difficultly to the lowest setting so that he could just crush everything in his path.

Yeah, he's my friend to this day, but when it comes to how he plays games, I don't respect his play at all.

Another friend of mine, more recently, was playing Oblivion before Skyrim came out. In that game, your Athletics skill goes up the more you run and jump. Well, my friend turned his character to face a wall, then pressed the autorun button and kept it down with some folded paper. Then, he went to bed. He did this to get his Athletics up to 100 as fast as he could. I decided not to tell him that he went about that the hard way--he could have just used the command prompts to give all his stats 100 if he wanted. Plus, there are tons of mods that would allow him to jump a house, if he wanted.

I don't know why people would play this way, but some do. It feels like a "cheat" to me.

I'm not going to tell them that they can't do it, but I don't have to respect it, either.

I have seen a player roll that well before it is very rare but it sometimes happens and I say enjoy it.

Do you have any idea of the odds of rolling that way? You could play D&D for 30 years, using the default 4d6, drop lowest, take highest three, and never get stats like that (I think it was something like one 16, two 18's, and three 17's.

Pretty steep odds.

Those of us who roll take a chance on having some real low stats in the hope that one day we might get lucky and roll a really awesome character.

My game is all about rolling. I use the default 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste, for PCs and major NPCs. I use 3d6, arrage to taste for all other characters.

I always found it strange that every PC that I come across doesn't have any negative modifiers on attributes. All people are above average in all six major areas? Some--many--are not strong in one area and weak in another?

I don't think people expect sympathy just a little respect and acceptance that there are different ways to play the game.

I do respect that there are different ways to play the game. But, respect has to be earned, and the guy that says he rolled all 17's and 18's for all six stats using a "fair" dice mechanic doesn't earn mine.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I have seen a player roll that well before it is very rare but it sometimes happens and I say enjoy it. Those of us who roll take a chance on having some real low stats in the hope that one day we might get lucky and roll a really awesome character.

I was one of those players, rolled right in front of the GM. She saw every single one of those natural 10s I was rolling for stats in Mekton.

 

[S'mon]

Yes we are and we are at liberty to call people on it too. I know Broken Druid and let me tell you she is one of the least judgmental people I know. Her whole philosophy of life is live and let live.

But she has one or two buttons that are easy to push one is hypocrisy especially when it looks hidden in a passive aggressive posting style.

She does not post a lot. But I asked her to read the thread because I wanted her opinion on one or two things. I guess some of it got under her skin.

I know a lot has gotten under mine.

Like I think Umbran said, you both seem to be reading stuff more negatively than intended.

I mean, I don't respect Water Bob's Illusionist GMing style. I'm more a kill-the-PCs kind of guy; as GM I like the threat to be real. To me, you're both very soft-hearted GMs. OTOH as a player I suspect I'd very much enjoy both your games. Is that hypocrisy? Who cares?

 

[S'mon]

And there are ways to minimize these risks.

You play a character for 11 levels almost a year and half of play. You lose your character in a way that makes it impossible to come back. But it is part of the game you accept it and move on and make a new character.

You sit out most of the game where you died and then another entire episode while the DM gets the group together with the new character. Less then ten minutes into the next session the new character dies because of another players actions.

So now you get to sit the rest of that session. And because of what is going on in the game it made it impossible to get to a cleric who could raise dead. So now you sit out three sessions.

So in total you sit out five sessions and now you are two levels behind the rest of the party. Because DM has a rule that all new character come in a level lower than the lowest member. So when my new character died the rule has you come in one level lower.

I don't think these kind of risks make the game more fun and I am not sure it was what the game designers had in mind.

This is poor game management by the GM. You should not be sitting out all that time. And in a high-death game he should have pregens ready for you to play for the rest of that session.

 

[S'mon]

Frankly, I hope you understand the word "respect" differently than I do. I find that level of disrespect problematic.

I find your problematising a lack of respect for munchkins to be... problematic.

I think I'm right that this stuff about "must respect" and "problematic" is taught to US high school students and college students? I didn't get any of this back in the day, and any indoctrination efforts in contemporary British schools seem remarkably inefficient.