Search results

Everyone I know in 35 years of roleplaying together is looking for those things, yeah. There are other joys to be had too, but they are often better served in board games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc. Jonathan Hickman apparently has (or had) a rule in his 13th Age game that...

Sure, we can rp characters staying at home. Good game!

No, this is wrong. It's not that character death isn't on the table; just that it shouldn't happen because of one failed check climbing a cliff. That's super lame. As for the rest...maybe? It's all quite separate from the sunk cost of investing in a character. Assuming I stayed in such a...

My definition comes from an academic, peer-reviewed source. It's not wrong.

"You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to...

All the time, huh? With 5% chance of dying every time? Or every 30 feet? I don't really believe you, but whatever.

"Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand." Italicized point is what makes it a fallacy.

1) Sure, a series of them...like in combat. Of course, even then, players can decide to retreat; I can't decide to not fall. 2) Any game involving dice will have randomness, sure...but to take a player out of the game based on one roll is something even board games don't do anymore. 3) Sort...

No, that's not quite right; it's a fallacy when one appeals to an authority that lacks expertise in the matter being discussed...like when Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about biology when he's an astrophysicist. (Although his mistakes are still likely to be closer to the truth than the average...

For sure. My first post indicated that I am sure there are players that love it when their characters die this way.

Still more than 1 in 100 though...which is pretty high, considering the character dies otherwise. In the real world, would you engage in a particular activity for money (gold in the RPG) if you knew you had a 3% chance to die by doing so? It's just weird to me that the G matters somewhere...

Character death due to arbitrary roll is not high-stakes, though; it's random crap. In fact, character death is the least imaginative of stakes to be high.

Why do you offer a save?

I mean, I know GMs used to be that way back in the day, but...if a bad roll or two is all it takes to wipe out months of investing in a character's story, actually engaging with the world, then what the hell are we doing? If it's that disposable, then it's better suited to a board game. It's...

So, with my 4 free hours of game time available per month, I have invested in this character, and rolling a 1 trying to scale the cliff causes her to die, because other people in the real world have done so. You would seriously rule it that way? Because if so, what a bloody waste of time it's...

True. My bad.

No chance someone who works at the prison gets drunk at the tavern and mentions it?

...are you being serious?

For sure. Some players like it when their characters fail a climbing check and then fall to their deaths.

13th Age has a similar "Fail Forward" philosophy: "...outside of battle, true failure tends to slow action down rather than move the action along. A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character...