Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Scribble]

No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to ignoring that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing.

It' not devoted to ignoring anything. It accepts that while RC does not consider dying in D&D loosing, dying in D&D does not equate to simply going to jail or paying the banker in Monopoly. It's a much larger consequence then the above.

There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can make a new character.

Yes by traveling to a large city, and paying 5,450gp to a priest willing to cast Raise Dead. It's a SIGNIFICANT hurdle.

It's a large chunck of your money/time that needs to be allocated towards other resources.

Such a significant hurde it seems most people forgo it (at least until higher levels) and instead opt to roll up a new character.

If your goal is to take a character from level 1 - X dying ends that goal.

If your goal is to win the game of monopoly, drawing the you loose card ends that goal. Going to jail does not.

If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived. And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.

Personal preference is great. Everyone has their own. Some like super deadly D&D some don't. Some like spicey food, some don't. Some people get attached to their PCs some don't. But the point isn't about being attached, or any sort of personal preference.

The point is about the two consequences of two games not being equivalent. One is a much bigger burden on the player then the other.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A possible houserule:
* Going below your bloodied value - you can't heal above bloodied with healing surges until after an extended rest or magical healing has been aplied.
*going below 0 HP - You can't heal to more than the bloodied value (or 1/4 total HP?) until after a total of 5 (pick a number, any number or roll a d20) extended rests, or applications of magical healing.

Add wands of cure light wounds to the campaign, and you're practically playing 3.5e again...

But me personally i don't care and find the 4e system to be good enough.

Rules Change: You recover 1 quarter (minimum 1) of your healing surges per extended rest.

New Ritual

Heal (Heal)
Level: 1
Casting Time: 1 hour
Duration: Instantenous
Component Cost: 10 gp
You cast this spell on up to 6 creatures, including yourself. At the end of the casting time, the creatures regain all hit points.
Special: You can cast this ritual as part of an extended rest. It does not affect creatures that have been under it effects in the past 12 hours.

Nearly the same end effect as in 4E, as long as you have at least one person capable of casting the ritual. (Which can even be the Wizard!). But "flavour" of 3E - you use magic at the end of each day to bring you up to full health.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It' not devoted to ignoring anything. It accepts that while RC does not consider dying in D&D loosing, dying in D&D does not equate to simply going to jail or paying the banker in Monopoly. It's a much larger consequence then the above.

How long does an average game of Monopoly last? How long an average game of D&D? If you were playing a Monopoly "campaign", then I would agree with you.

Such a significant hurde it seems most people forgo it (at least until higher levels) and instead opt to roll up a new character.

If your goal is to take a character from level 1 - X dying ends that goal.

Not everyone thinks that failing to meet a goal damages the game. Indeed, I am of the opinion that if you cannot fail to meet a goal, that inability damages the game -- and strips the meaning from any goal you do achieve. YMMV.

That you can fail, or even die, doesn't make the gaem "super deadly D&D".



RC

 

[Scribble]

How long does an average game of Monopoly last? How long an average game of D&D? If you were playing a Monopoly "campaign", then I would agree with you.

Too long.

Really to make a fair comparison you would have to either compaire D&D to a monopoly tournement, or compaire a signle shot adventure to a game of monopoly.

Not everyone thinks that failing to meet a goal damages the game. Indeed, I am of the opinion that if you cannot fail to meet a goal, that inability damages the game -- and strips the meaning from any goal you do achieve. YMMV.

I'm not arguing for or against the ability to die. My comment was only regarding the level of consequences being compaired.

The more consequences something has to the player, the more something that can bring it about needs to be considered.

That you can fail, or even die, doesn't make the gaem "super deadly D&D".

Not in my opinion, no. I was only stating that some people have different opinions about what they like, and what they don't like. Not about what makes something super deadly D&D.

 

[GlaziusF]

I don't have inflexible upper and lower boundaries.

So there's no random outcome you don't think is too outlandish to be implicitly accepted by sitting down to play, and no chance however small that you don't think people will consider it?

Cognitive research puts lie to the second one in a big way. Tversky's work on human perception of probability, for example.

Nor do I consider death by hangnail an obvious potential consequence. But our fighter, going into dark and dangerous places, damn well ought to consider the possibility of there being more than an orc to deal with.

So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?

 

[Delta]

So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?

You know, the people I played 3E with were bothered at the prospect of ever not being able to kill someone with one blow. They demanded we use the DMG "Variant: Instant Kill" rule (20-20-hit = autodeath; about 1:800 chance on any attack I figure).

It did memorably save the PCs from a TPK once.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, the people I played 3E with were bothered at the prospect of ever not being able to kill someone with one blow. They demanded we use the DMG "Variant: Instant Kill" rule (20-20-hit = autodeath; about 1:800 chance on any attack I figure).

It did memorably save the PCs from a TPK once.

What works well with NPCs doesn't always work on PCs.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Seems easy enough to make that rule apply only to NPCs/monsters, though.

If you're comfortable with "PCs get special treatment", of course, although I'd argue that because PCs are the only characters who have a player driving them, by definition they're already a special case, so no biggie.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

All pemerton is saying is "if fast healing bothers you, play a different way'... Presumably because the default (unbelievable) healing rules bother you?... Yes. The players and DM agree that it takes more time to heal the PC's. This could come in the form of a house rule, a whole new homebrewed severe injury system, or a simple agreement between the players. In the end they amount to the same thing... Going below 0 HP seems an obvious choice... So agree to play differently. It seems easy to fix.

I would prefer just sucking it up, thinking "oh well, the rule does not make complete sense" and move on rather than trying to house rule a ruleset that my group is still getting used to. Generally, I prefer to run games in "rules as written" mode - I don't want to have to worry about weird unforeseen consequences of my fiddling with a ruleset. I mean sure, of course I can house rule things, I just wish I did not have to. I just wish that they had have picked a mechanic that achieved it's aim without sacrificing some of the flavour in the process.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[MerricB]

I would prefer just sucking it up, thinking "oh well, the rule does not make complete sense" and move on rather than trying to house rule a ruleset that my group is still getting used to. Generally, I prefer to run games in "rules as written" mode - I don't want to have to worry about weird unforeseen consequences of my fiddling with a ruleset. I mean sure, of course I can house rule things, I just wish I did not have to. I just wish that they had have picked a mechanic that achieved it's aim without sacrificing some of the flavour in the process.

The funny thing is that it's something you only notice if you don't have a cleric or warlord in the group. Without a source of actual healing, getting back all of your healing surges just seems wrong.

Cheers!