Dragon Article: To Live Defeated

[LostSoul]

No, the DM says "Yes, of course you can, but it'll take a ritual costing 500/5000/50000 Gp to pull him out of there before the Demiplane is ready to spit him out."

No actual mechanical effect and the same is true of the villian. At least that's my way of looking at it.

That is a very clever solution. I wonder if there are more things that you can have your PCs do and tie those things into the currency of the game using Raise Dead's mechanics?

 

[Unwise]

I was glad to hear other people find that article objectionable. I am new to D&D and would quit my subscription to Insider if that was the type of dross they regularly produced.

I feel as if I just read some guys slashfic torture porn. If he wants to sit in his bedroom running through sick revenge fantasies, that is his business, but why did he think he should share this?

Did anyone get something out of that article? Did we really need an article pointing out that it is possible to do other things to a person other than kill them? Did any of us not know this?

Next week in Dragon magazine, a detailed article on exactly what those orcish slavers (and/or cultists) do to their captives, stay tuned!

 

[Derren]

I haven't read the article, but the high amount of magic makes dealing with prisoners rather complicated.

Lets look at some historical ways to deal with them.

1. Imprisonment
Problem: Requires a prison (depending on how detailed the setting is can pose a problem to find and mantain one). And most of the time the PCs have no way to get to a prison in a reasonable amount of time. And as they are only 5 people guarding several prisoners during a long march is problematic

2. Ransom
Problem. See imprisonment. In addition to that only when the enemy is part of an organization (includes family) someone would be willing to pay.

3. Slavery
Problem: Not really good and it most of the time goes against what the PCs stand for. Also the transport is again a problem.

4. Kill them
Problem: Killing prisoners doesn't sit well with many DMs or players

5. Cripple them
Problem: The easy access to healing magic makes crippling them only a temporary measure.

6. Demand parole
Problem: Requires a law abiding enemy. Not something the PCs usually fight

I have a crazy idea.
Simply tie them up and leave them somewhere and when you completed the dungeon you release them.
PCs will nearly never go to the same dungeon twice and their levels will outgrew the challenge of the captured enemies rather fast. So when they are released it is unlikely that they will pose any problem for the PCs in the future (unless the DM adds some levels and gets back on the PCs).
Problem: Wont sit well with the PCs from a RP point of view

 

[pemerton]

I haven't read the article, but based on Little Raven's summary I'm not sure I get the problem. A lot of that stuff doesn't seem worse than killing someone.

And if the players at your table don't graphically describe how they disembowel their foes with their fullblades or burn them to death with their fireballs, why would they start giving tasteless descriptions when they opt instead for magical imprisonment, petrification or blinding?

 

[Scribble]

The DM says no (because he should, it breaks the game) and then players realize that they can only do the things that the rules say they can. They obsess over mechanics because colour has no influence on resolution.

For some this is definitely true- I've met gamers that are like that, so I won't say my thoughts are universal, just my preferred playing style.

I've also met gamers (and I think the majority of the people I've routinely gamed with over the years) that don't have this issue.

IMO good mechanics, when tied to the world, can make this type of inconsistency (this only works when I do it to villains??) and passive denial (on the DM's part) unnecessary. For me, some of these punishments shouldn't be attainable just through description in heroic tier... and a few even seem like they would be soleley punishments only epic heroes should have the power to meet out. A good rules framework is what I want so that I can implement my own ideas... not ideas that I have tofigure out how to implement mechanically.

If that's your style that's your style. I won't try to change it... It's just not my style.

Games that try to do too much with rules tend to feel really bogged down to me.

Others enjoy it though- so to each his/her own.

And that is great for your personal home game... but honestly... "ideas" are a dime a dozen, IMO. It is the "good" implementation of ideas into the rules set that most pay for. If your answer is just handwave it... well you can decide to do that regardless of whether there are actual rules or not... I dont think the WotC rules police will force you to use things you don't want to. However, having to create a rules structure for "ideas" that I paid for is not something I, or I would bet many other older gamers, have time for.

I think if the underlying rules system is solid enough, the ability to "hand wave it" is one of the highlights of tabletop games.

What I've noticed is if there is a concrete rule for something people get way more upset when you break that rule then when there is only a general idea and you implement your own idea for specifics.

Well taking this logic to an extreme... you really don't need rules at all... the DM can just adjudicate everything... But again I don't think most people want to pay for ideas without implementation.

Yeah! When you take things to the extreme they tend to not work out...

Taken to the extreme UV gives me cancer.
Taken to the extreme alcohol gives me sirrosis.
Taken to the extreme fat gives me a heart attack...

So I don't take any of these to the extreme and they all reduce my stress and I live longer.

So- taken to the extreme, too many rules suck. Taken to the extreme too few rules sucks.

I like a happy medium.

[qoute]So we don't give them enough credit... yet we have an article of ideas that most of us could've thought up when we were like 12... and no mechanical implementation. That's the hard part, not imagining or stealing from media punishments for villains, but figuring out a way to implement it into the game in a balanced and fair way.[/QUOTE]

Shrug- Some of the ideas weren't that original sure... But my main point still stands- that I don't always need mechanics attached to the ideas in an article for it to be a good article.

Hey- maybe you and I have diametrically opposed gaming styles or something.


Also I think you again took this comment a bit out of context- it was in response to the idea that ideas without rules would be too confusing for new players. THAT is the idea that I thought was not giving them enough credit.

 

[Klaus]

"Mutilation" sounds extreme, but isn't unheard of in several media.

In the Gates of Fire book by Steven Pressfield (focusing on the Thermopylae), the main character dreams of joining the Spartan hoplites, but is beaten by marauders early on and loses the ability to hold a spear with any accuracy. He thinks of ending his life, until a vision of Apollo inspires him to become an archer.

In the Batman comics, Batman has more than once cracked a few fingers so the criminals lose the ability to wield guns.

I think the main thing to encourage non-killing measures is for the DM to encourage and reward such behaviour. Spared enemies mend their ways, foes that surrender honor their vow never to return, PCs with prisoners come across a patrol that escorts the prisoners to a nearby castle for judging, etc.

 

[Imaro]

If that's your style that's your style. I won't try to change it... It's just not my style.

Games that try to do too much with rules tend to feel really bogged down to me.

Others enjoy it though- so to each his/her own.

So then, like they did with curses, use an exsisting system in the game to model these ideas... otherwise, if this is impossible for some reason, I feel a new rules system should be introduced... I mean honestly if it was an article of truly original and innovative ideas I might feel the article was a "good" article... however a quick (and free) google search would turn up a ton of ways to do in enemies without killing them from books, comics, movies, etc.... with no mechanics. So what, in your opinion, makes this article any better than that?

I think if the underlying rules system is solid enough, the ability to "hand wave it" is one of the highlights of tabletop games.

What I've noticed is if there is a concrete rule for something people get way more upset when you break that rule then when there is only a general idea and you implement your own idea for specifics.

This feeds into exactly what I am commenting on above, if the underlying rules system is solid...there should be an already exsisting set of rules that can cover these ideas in a mechanical fashion...

I also think since, for better or worse, D&D 4e has tied Dragon and Dungeon magazines to official play... they have a bit of a responsibility to not just throw ideas out there but should also be giving guidance/rules for their official use.

Yeah! When you take things to the extreme they tend to not work out...

Taken to the extreme UV gives me cancer.
Taken to the extreme alcohol gives me sirrosis.
Taken to the extreme fat gives me a heart attack...

So I don't take any of these to the extreme and they all reduce my stress and I live longer.

So- taken to the extreme, too many rules suck. Taken to the extreme too few rules sucks.

I like a happy medium.

Point taken, and mostly agreed with...the great thing is that you get to choose what you do and don't use... now if there's nothing to choose to use... it kinda makes it one sided... doesn't it?

Shrug- Some of the ideas weren't that original sure... But my main point still stands- that I don't always need mechanics attached to the ideas in an article for it to be a good article.

I would go so far as to say... most of the suggestions weren't original.... now I am curious, what exactly makes this group of ideas... a "good" article in your opinion?

Hey- maybe you and I have diametrically opposed gaming styles or something.

I think it's more likely we have different expectations on what we should be paying for as far as DDI is concerned... though I guess it could be both.

Also I think you again took this comment a bit out of context- it was in response to the idea that ideas without rules would be too confusing for new players. THAT is the idea that I thought was not giving them enough credit.

I don't feel it was out of context at all. My thoughts are if you go down this line of reasoning, the whole article should be examined from that point of view... and IMO, it comes up short on alot of fronts. YMMV of course.

 

[Ryujin]

As an unaligned party, we actually did this at one point. While questioning someone our Fighter/Barbarian decided that it would be a good idea to show him what he was risking, in failing to answer us, by cutting off his hand. Ultimately we released him, when he came through with the information.

The DM made us pay for it, for 15 levels, by making the guy one of our primary enemies. The NPC went off and bound himself to an Aberration in order to get his hand back, plus the power to take us down.

 

[Scribble]

So then, like they did with curses, use an exsisting system in the game to model these ideas... otherwise, if this is impossible for some reason, I feel a new rules system should be introduced... I mean honestly if it was an article of truly original and innovative ideas I might feel the article was a "good" article... however a quick (and free) google search would turn up a ton of ways to do in enemies without killing them from books, comics, movies, etc.... with no mechanics. So what, in your opinion, makes this article any better than that?

They could do this sure. In fact if it's something like curses that might come up more often, I'd say go with more rules, like you're suggesting.

But, I also appreciate just ideas in general. Especially when dealing with things that will probably be used as "one offs" most likely at my table. (IE stuff like this will probably only come up in connection to larger villains... not like every orc they fight...)

Sometimes it's also nice to read something in connection to another interest, even if that thing is somewhat basic.

Sometimes people get stuck in "ruts" in what they do in whatever hobby they're doing, that it takes an article with other ideas (again even if basic) to sort of snap them out of it and say- oh yeah.

I appreciate both ideas. If you don't so be it. It's a personal thing man.

This feeds into exactly what I am commenting on above, if the underlying rules system is solid...there should be an already exsisting set of rules that can cover these ideas in a mechanical fashion...

Sure- if the sequence needs rules I can tap into them. I just don't agree that articles always need rules attached.

I also think since, for better or worse, D&D 4e has tied Dragon and Dungeon magazines to official play... they have a bit of a responsibility to not just throw ideas out there but should also be giving guidance/rules for their official use.

Maybe- I guess I don't think they need to have this as a responsibility.

I like ideas.

But sure, I guess in that context then they should have rules... Guess I'm happy they seem to be getting less strict on that.

Point taken, and mostly agreed with...the great thing is that you get to choose what you do and don't use... now if there's nothing to choose to use... it kinda makes it one sided... doesn't it?

Not really- you can choose to use the article in any way you want- including not at all.

I get that that's kind of annoying to have an article you don't plan to use... That happens a lot in the magazines though.

I would go so far as to say... most of the suggestions weren't original.... now I am curious, what exactly makes this group of ideas... a "good" article in your opinion?

My argument was actually that lack of rules linked to the article doesn't make it bad by default.

Aside from that, I enjoyed reading it, so yay?

I'm not trying to argue it's the best thing since Tacos... Just that the idea behind it/lack of rules isn't a bad thing, nor does it automatically = a bad article.

I think you might be reading a bit more into my feelings on the article then are actually there...

I think it's more likely we have different expectations on what we should be paying for as far as DDI is concerned... though I guess it could be both.

Maybe- I think it is both at this point. Are/were you a Rolemaster fan?

I don't feel it was out of context at all. My thoughts are if you go down this line of reasoning, the whole article should be examined from that point of view... and IMO, it comes up short on alot of fronts. YMMV of course.

The context was the comment that new players would get confused by lack of rules- even though we didn't. It's that last part that I was saying isn't giving them credit. The idea that even though we did it, and can do it, for some reason the NEW newbies can't...

It wasn't speaking to the idea that making up rules is hard or easy. Only to one group not being able to do it, even though people have in the past.

That's why I said it was out of context- that's all.

In any case happy gaming!

 

[Almacov]

But my main point still stands- that I don't always need mechanics attached to the ideas in an article for it to be a good article.

Absolutely. My problem with this article personally is that mechanics were attached, and they sucked. (Well, that and the writing within the article was a lot less useful than it could have been.)

I'm going to provide a two-sentence excerpt from the first page that rang sourest to me, and sums up the core of how the author seems to intend these ideas be implemented. (If I step over a line by quoting this, mods, please by all means remove this post.)

"In terms of appearance, these serve as finishing
moves for the heroes. As one of the characters
drops an enemy to 0 hit points, he finishes the
enemy with a slash across the face, or gains the
arcane advantage to weave wards about him, or
intones a final prayer, or summons a potent spirit
to curse the enemy—all before moving on to the
next foe."

The idea of condemning one foe to eternal torment, then taking a move action to the next one, burning an action point, and tearing them out of history... maybe that's to some peoples' liking. Okay.

I just find it sad that there are no recommendations on implementation beyond. "Look! Now when you press the button they're petrified rather than dead!" <-(Not actual quote this time.)

It cheapens it to me.
I'd rather have an exploration or discussion, or... advice, than a list.

I'd rather mechanics be excluded than included thoughtlessly.

...

At this point, I get what he was going for, and it's actually admirable he went for it. I just wish he'd done so with more care, or worked through the problem in a less opaque way.

*sigh*

Now I feel stupid for arguing my points. I'm sure someone likes this implementation - more power to them. It's just not for me.

I need to remember to roleplay well and implement dying states sometimes, and I've got what I need I guess.

Aye, good gaming and happy holidays to all!