Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
One silent tear as I rip thier character sheet in half...that's what I game for.
Do we coddle new Players?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
apesamongus
First Post
S'mon said:
Familiar with and detest strongly. I have no desire to play a narrativist game, nor do I have a problem with challenging players. The gamist nature of D&D (in my opinion it is one of the few well designed gamist games) is the only reason I'm currently playing it. I've just never found any difficulty in challenging players without the threat of character death.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
If you are going to ignore the dice you might as well just get rid of 'em I say. What is the point of rolling them if you aren't going to abide by the results?
Kelleris
Explorer
I don't think anyone here's suggesting ignoring the dice. For my part, I get the effect I want by having a very generous disabled/dying range - you're disabled from 0 to the negative of your Con score and dead 10 points after that. I'm considering making it dead 10 + level after, though.
And, as I said, the dice help determine when the PCs need to retreat/get knocked out/have to stop for the time being/require assistance. And I don't do dungeon crawls of the sort where you can make sorties into the place until you clear it, so those are all serious penalties for bad luck or bad tactics.
I'm really likin' this thread.
I'm recanting of all those years of not killing people now, which was something I'd always felt a little ashamed of. I like the idea of making sure the sort of failure that usually ends in death has some other plot- or character-based penalty.
After all, isn't that really what they're going after with the level/gp costs of being brought back from the dead? And this is the more refined campaign-specific counterpart to that basic idea...
And, as I said, the dice help determine when the PCs need to retreat/get knocked out/have to stop for the time being/require assistance. And I don't do dungeon crawls of the sort where you can make sorties into the place until you clear it, so those are all serious penalties for bad luck or bad tactics.
I'm really likin' this thread.
I'm recanting of all those years of not killing people now, which was something I'd always felt a little ashamed of. I like the idea of making sure the sort of failure that usually ends in death has some other plot- or character-based penalty.After all, isn't that really what they're going after with the level/gp costs of being brought back from the dead? And this is the more refined campaign-specific counterpart to that basic idea...
Last edited:
You know, way back when when I started playing, we lost a lot of characters too. See, now the difference is, for me anyway, I can plan a character concept and I want to see how it turns out at later levels. As compared to the past where I rolled 3d6 in order and played whatever the fates gave me (Woohoo! 16 in Str, I bet this one can be a Fighter!). Now there is so much more emphasis placed on choosing a class and race rather than rolling and finding out what your class (and subsequently race as they were the same when I started) were based on the numbers that you got for the six ability scores.
Back then, if my generic fighter "Borg" died, I rolled a new character in a few minutes and the party gave me items, often times whatever "Borg" died with. Now if my character died I would spend literally hours considering the party makeup, deciding if I want to try a scout vs a rogue, carefully buying items with my GP limit at party level -1, considering feats, where to place my ability scores and bonuses... So it is coddling if a player spends hours of time and researches through umpteen different allowed sources for classes, PrCs, magic items etc, to cut him some slack if you rolled to natural 20s for a crit and massive damage if you fudge? Or is it just a sense of, "Damn, If that were me and I just spent 3 hours between sessions rolling a new character so meticulously only to have it pasted in the first 10 minutes of the next session, I would be pissed. Maybe I'll cut him some slack."
Back then, if my generic fighter "Borg" died, I rolled a new character in a few minutes and the party gave me items, often times whatever "Borg" died with. Now if my character died I would spend literally hours considering the party makeup, deciding if I want to try a scout vs a rogue, carefully buying items with my GP limit at party level -1, considering feats, where to place my ability scores and bonuses... So it is coddling if a player spends hours of time and researches through umpteen different allowed sources for classes, PrCs, magic items etc, to cut him some slack if you rolled to natural 20s for a crit and massive damage if you fudge? Or is it just a sense of, "Damn, If that were me and I just spent 3 hours between sessions rolling a new character so meticulously only to have it pasted in the first 10 minutes of the next session, I would be pissed. Maybe I'll cut him some slack."
apesamongus
First Post
Flexor the Mighty! said:
Who has suggested ignoring the dice?
Disclaimer - I have yet to play 3e.
I am heavily into character development (it's the actor and storyteller in me), but I think it is good to teach new players that characters die, it's not a big deal, it gives them the chance to try something new. Of course, I have been known to be attached to a character or two. Now, this is fairly easy in, say, Paranoia. Well, was about 18 years old, not sure anymore. But character creation was short and easy and you had 6 clones. With D&D (basic, 1e and 2e anyway), it was a little more detailed but not too much. At first I would let them finish making a character, tell them they died a terrible death and to roll up another. Then I decided this lacked imagination and instead put them into an impossible situation and described their deaths to them. I decided this was also kind of puppeteerish, so my latest strategy is to put them into a few somewhat difficult situations and play it straight and see how they do. Sometimes they greet death with open arms anyway (when I taught my gf's younger brother to play, he made a lvl 1 dwarven fighter, walked into the first bar he found, started making threats, then took a swing at the bartender with his axe when he thought he was being ignored. He rolled a 2. We still have jokes about that dwarf that attacked the bar stool.). Anyway, I try to teach them that death is part of the game and if the situation says they die, I generally let it stand. Maybe it's my old age, but I usually take the time to explain some basic things to new players before they get themselves killed.
Aaron Blair
Foren Star
I am heavily into character development (it's the actor and storyteller in me), but I think it is good to teach new players that characters die, it's not a big deal, it gives them the chance to try something new. Of course, I have been known to be attached to a character or two. Now, this is fairly easy in, say, Paranoia. Well, was about 18 years old, not sure anymore. But character creation was short and easy and you had 6 clones. With D&D (basic, 1e and 2e anyway), it was a little more detailed but not too much. At first I would let them finish making a character, tell them they died a terrible death and to roll up another. Then I decided this lacked imagination and instead put them into an impossible situation and described their deaths to them. I decided this was also kind of puppeteerish, so my latest strategy is to put them into a few somewhat difficult situations and play it straight and see how they do. Sometimes they greet death with open arms anyway (when I taught my gf's younger brother to play, he made a lvl 1 dwarven fighter, walked into the first bar he found, started making threats, then took a swing at the bartender with his axe when he thought he was being ignored. He rolled a 2. We still have jokes about that dwarf that attacked the bar stool.). Anyway, I try to teach them that death is part of the game and if the situation says they die, I generally let it stand. Maybe it's my old age, but I usually take the time to explain some basic things to new players before they get themselves killed.
Aaron Blair
Foren Star
Quasqueton said:
My experience was just the opposite. Even in the 1980s, we coddled players. We very, very seldom had PC deaths.
Consequently, I think we (my group) ended up being a lot lazier. You don't have to think as carefully about your next action when you feel pretty confident the DM isn't going to let you die. You don't tend to run from combat as quickly when you know you have a 10 point buffer between unconscious & dead. (Which, despite how it was worded, is how we played it.) You don't have to be as careful when you know the DM avoids save or die even when appropriate & doesn't let undead drain levels.
When my kids are old enough, I'm going to try hard not to go easy on them. Instead, I'll make sure we do a post mortem & discuss what they could've done differently.
Though, I'll probably start them out on something like B1 instead of B2. That amount of coddling I'm all for.
RFisher said:
Actually:
"When any creature is brought to 0 hp (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0) it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies."
1e AD&D DMG pg 82.
You were playing it exactly as per the RAW. 3e as written is far more lethal than 1e as written, IMO.
Similar Threads
