Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6085700" data-attributes="member: 42582">Not really. There's a big difference - in mechanical terms, in story terms, in experience at the table - between "I didn't die" and "I died but was raised." Here's an <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?324018-Wizard-PC-dies-returns-as-Invoker" target="_blank">actual play</a> example from my own game.From my point of view, that's getting things exactly the opposite way round from what I see as the 4e default: it's treating "death" (ie being dropped to zero hp) as largely meaningless in the story but as a penalty at the metagame level (because you miss out on XP); whereas the 4e default, which is also how the OP seems to be handling it, is that PC death is not a metagame penalty, but has the potential to carry quite a bit of story significance.Fudging, and the theory of unlimited GM force that goes with it, is a highly contentious technique. My own preference is closer to   [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s above - ie I'm strongly against it.I know that others like it, but I am curious - how do you reconcile your apparent insistence (upthread, at least) on the significance of challenge and failure, with your advocacy of unlimited GM force? If the ultimate story outcome is always a funcion of GM force (including GM force used to negate contrary mechanical outcomes) than in what sense are the players challenged, or able to fail? It looks more like they're just along for the GM's ride.I find the idea of "plot failures" similar - that implies that someone (presumably the GM) has already plotted the game. (Also, if the GM has unilimted force, and has already plotted what will happen, why would there be "plot failure"? The GM would just make sure that action resolution produces whatever the outcome is that the plot requires. In this sort of play I would see the players as adding a bit of colour and PC characterisation.)As I read the OP, the GM has a plan for a situation to set up and run - "You learn a mystical ritual from an illicit source that may bring your friend back to life, but may have other consequences too! How do you proceed?". That doesn't look to me like "searching around for a way to negate a result". That looks more like "The ingame situation has evolved to this point, and given where it's at this would be an interesting and enjoyable way to push things along". From my point of view, that's not hassle, but rather is about 90% of the creative side of GMing! (For more on this approach, you can check out S'mon's "Pemertonian scene framing" thread.)That doesn't really answer my question, though. Are you saying that if a player has his/her PC die s/he must drop out of the campaign?That would be one way to play, I guess - it would give D&D a sort of competitive dimension, with the early stages of a campaign something like the round-robin heats before non-finalists and then non-winners suffer elimination. But it doesn't seem very viable for the more recreational approach to RPGing that I suspect is closer to the norm.</blockquote>

Verification