Search results

Except it is...so I guess the problem is with those people's perception.

Yeah, I loved reading it...but if it were a supers game and I was a player? Yeah, no.

Would having SoS spells be subject to hp gatekeeping resolve the issue somewhat? 13thAge does this; you can paralyze someone, but you need to beat them down a bit first.

I sympathize with the whole of your post, but this part right here? This is what made us switch game systems. I was converting all my awesome 2e Al-Qadim stuff to 5e, and for a while it was good, but...the main enemies tend to be spellcasters, and 2 of the PCs had counterspell. That was that...

Sure! In fact, here it is again, with some bolded parts to help you understand it wasn't an absolute truth. "Yes, actually. Those priorities, though, I have found, are better served through video games like Baldur's Gate, or campaign games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc...

...where am I dressing it up as objective fact?

So that's similar to what was called "competitive play" back in the day.

Yes, actually. Those priorities, though, I have found, are better served through video games like Baldur's Gate, or campaign games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc. When I made the board game comment above, it wasn't as a perjorative.* What RPGs can do that can't be replicated...

Of course it's tragic in the real world; no idea what you're trying to do by pointing out something so obvious, but sure, yeah, ok. In a game/movie/novel, it is comedic/lame precisely because it's the decision taken by a human being to have that conclusion happen when any of an infinite number...

Retreating from combat: still engaging with the game and the story. Avoiding any activity that has a 1 in 20 chance of instant death: Smart and cautious...but not engaging with the game and story.

In the scenario I describe above? Where the paladin rolls a 1 and as a result determined by his GM, he falls to his death? Yeah, I'd like to see that described as something other than comedy too.

This is strawman crap.

There's probably a discussion to be had about that, sure, but the scenario I described above? Makes sense in a kind of comedic, 3-Stooges kind of way, but not really any other.

No, we can let him die and ressurrect him later. Your words.

It's over for the paladin...and in very lame fashion.

Those are what I am talking about, unfortunately.

Sure, if it's a CoC-type game, where people going nuts/dying is part of the genre, fine. Players approach the genre with genre expectations. Thing is, even within that genre, the character death from insanity is meaningful in the genre; it's radically different from rolling a 1 while climbing...

They can choose to retreat. They may or may not be successful, but they can choose it. I can't choose to not roll a 1.

You are no longer arguing the same thing. The argument was about death through a random roll, not player choice. I said myself that even though combat is a series of rolls, players can always choose to retreat. P.S. The way you phrased your response was fairly illuminating, and explained...

Sure. Some play games with death by a random dice roll. Fun!