Voss said:
Oh. Was that the point? I thought you were making snide comments about people being unable to tell that they were playing a game, for no apparent reason. But still. 'You can change the rules!' doesn't make me want to buy into a ruleset.
Nobody said anything about changing the rules, hasty misinterpretations notwithstanding. Nothing in the list of things I produced has anything to do with the rules as they are written. They are entirely to do with the informal interaction between DM and players, you know, that pretending-to-be-elves stuff that is often called "roleplaying".
But none of the rest really addresses the point that if the character sticks his head in the hole, nothing particularly bad will happen to him.
Nothing bad will happen to him... once.
He'll take some damage, and the damage will then be healed. And the party moves on to the next action shot. None of adds up to dire consequences if the player knows he will take a handful of d6s worth of damage, and it can't actually kill him, because it would have to do 150% of his hit points in damage.
It is called arithmetic. One shot does 40%, the next does 50%, the next does 60%.... lo and behold, we have 150%. Arranging events so that the character is liable to take three shots in a row is an exercise left for the reader (hint: 3 rounds of combat may be necessary).
Sorry, why is this an issue? I've mentioned not being a fan of save or dies three times now. And it is quite hard to create an atmosphere of foreboding when the PCs know that nothing bad will happen to them, because mechanically, it can't.
1. Oh, you mean like how the character in the article didn't die? I guess death is only a state of mind.
2. Nothing bad happening to them does not rule out nothing bad happening to other people. They survive everything the dungeon throws at them, but because they were too slow, the evil priest has succeeded in reading the scroll of ULTIMATE DQQM and epic crap hits the fan. They force the evil warlock to flee, but they were sucked in by his cunning plan and while they were distracted, his minions have turned their loved ones into brain-eating zombies. And so on. The THIRD crudest tool for producing a perception of risk is to focus on the characters alone, while ignoring their links to the world around them.
I'd be worried facing a gunman. I'd be pretty casual about facing a gunman armed only with blanks.
No, this should have been a generic food metaphor. Here, I'll add it in for you: you wanted tomato sauce, but instead you got peanut butter.
Yes. Is meaningful damage better? HP damage that isn't just tidied up with a per encounter power and negative effects that last beyond the end of the encounter.
What, so damage that can kill you within the one encounter isn't meaningful now?
Possible? Yes. But its also possible that someone will drive their car through my patio door and run me over while I sit at this computer. Neither seems likely right now.
This is because your perception of risk is faulty.
