How do we really want combat to be?

[Pielorinho]

I run the game Tellerve plays in, and it tends to be fairly low-combat; because the focus is on mysteries, politics, and intrigue, it's uncommon to have a single day with multiple combats in them. For this reason, I'm already having a very difficult time designing encounters that showcase the non-spellcasters. Generally the spellcasters feel comfortable unloading their entire arsenal in a single combat, making them far eclipse the warrior-types in every situation, even situations I'm sure are going to be clean-ups for the warrior-types.

Save-or-die spells haven't really appeared much, because of a truce I've struck with players: they don't use them, and neither do the bad guys. However, baleful polymorph is showing up more and more, and so I may end up using save-or-die spells myself.

Personally I don't like them much. I want combats to advance the story, and death due to one die roll rarely feels storylike to me. But I can easily see another style of play making them much more palatable; like everything else, it comes down to a matter of aesthetics.

I do want to take issue with one thing, though: Cyraneth wrote:

this hints at players and DMs being addicted to safety.

Dude, we're sitting around my living room rolling dice. How much safer can you get?

The point is, this is a leisure activity involving fantasy. Bringing words like "addiction" into it is silly: the only reasonable criterion is whether the participants are having fun. Unless people are freebasing safety in your group, you may want to choose some different words.

Daniel

 

[swrushing]

"Isn't the greatest danger instantaneous and irrevocable death? "

Not hardly! usually possession or even severe maiming/transformation is worse. Go for the pain, not the kill.

In a slightly more serious vein, i find PC death to be non-dramatic. if it is irrevocable, it is the end of the story. You may get a good wake and some good roleplaying from the morners, but that character's story has ended.

Thats anti-drama.

In my games, i like to use the "go to -1d6 hp" rule for all instant death events such as finger of death and massive damage and such. This turns those failed saves into a moment of drama. You have no clue how long they have to live so, can you save them.

I find this promotes drama when those spells and effects succeed, rather than simply removing resources.

YMMV

 

[Cyraneth]

"Isn't the greatest danger instantaneous and irrevocable death? "

Not hardly! usually possession or even severe maiming/transformation is worse. Go for the pain, not the kill.

In a slightly more serious vein, i find PC death to be non-dramatic. if it is irrevocable, it is the end of the story. You may get a good wake and some good roleplaying from the morners, but that character's story has ended.

Thats anti-drama.

In my games, i like to use the "go to -1d6 hp" rule for all instant death events such as finger of death and massive damage and such. This turns those failed saves into a moment of drama. You have no clue how long they have to live so, can you save them.

I find this promotes drama when those spells and effects succeed, rather than simply removing resources.

YMMV

I get your point, but instantaneous and irrevocable maiming or otherwise irrevocably rendering a character unplayable is kinda the same as death, so that doesn't really prove anything. Whether you're paining or killing the PC is irrelevant. He's no fun anymore.

What I meant with that irrevocable thing was what PCs should fear. If they know a lich, catoblepas, or banshee can kill with an instant, they'll fear them. If you soften everything up (by reducing death effects to near-death effects), they don't fear those creatures as much. If everything gets softened up to the point where the fighter just shrugs after meeting a vampire, saying: "Ah, those 6 negative levels go away tomorrow anyway," and the rogue sighs a breath of relief, remembering that his rogue's just unconscious 'cause the DM didn't feel like having finger of death spells kill PCs or threaten their lives so severely, we've reached the point where there's no real consequences to adventuring. If you want to be heroic, you need to face real dangers. Instant death, demonic possessions, the deaths of loved ones, the risk of failure always being a possibility. If DMs and players don't feel like facing real dangers, "because that might kill their character too fast", something wrong. If the players face a lich, they know they're wading into the arms of danger. If they didn't want to meet a creature capable of causing instant death, they shouldn't have faced it.

Be consistent: A death effect kills. Otherwise it isn't a death effect. Nobody's afraid of a might-possibly-if-you're-really-unlucky-kill-you effect. And a softened-up-'cause-the-DM's-a-wuss-who's-afraid-of-killing-players simulating-death effect isn't scary either.

No offense intended, swrushing, but you do see what I mean, right?

- Cyraneth

 

[Philip]

Death spells are a perfect tool for drama, and if it is removes from play, the gaming world will, most likely, turn less dramatic. - Cyraneth

What books have you read, what movies did you see? I have hardly ever seen any hero dying a 'dramatic' death within 6 seconds/a single action. The real drama comes from drawing out the moment of death, it comes from the hero or his allies having multiple chances to avert his death, it comes from foreshadowing his death. Not from a single die roll that decides all.

 

[Cyraneth]

What books have you read, what movies did you see? I have hardly ever seen any hero dying a 'dramatic' death within 6 seconds/a single action. The real drama comes from drawing out the moment of death, it comes from the hero or his allies having multiple chances to avert his death, it comes from foreshadowing his death. Not from a single die roll that decides all.

Or by having a loved one killed by a surprise finger of death or assassin's death attack and going berserk on the bad guy in a vengeful fit of rage. Or when the party is demoralized as the bad guy kills one of them just like that, but they then steel themselves, knowing they have to win this fight to save the kingdom/princess/world/whatever. Death effects are a tool for drama... Just use it the right way.

- Cyraneth

 

[eryndel]

we've reached the point where there's no real consequences to adventuring. If you want to be heroic, you need to face real dangers.

So are you saying that death-effects are the only real consequences to adventuring or is this argument by hyperbole?

Instant death, demonic possessions, the deaths of loved ones, the risk of failure always being a possibility.

I'll heartily agree with the last two. Demonic posession doesn't come up all that often in my game. Death (not necessarily instant) is a very real consequence in my game. Death of loved ones happen all the time as does failure. You can have the last two easily without instant death effects. Obviously you recognize that instant death isn't the only form of consequence so I'll assume the first quote was just blustering.

In the end, Cyraneth, there are a number of consequences that can be imposed for a PC's actions. Instant death is just one of many. (as you seem to imply above). I personally don't choose to use it in my games because:

1) It either removed the character unneccesarily from the story or
1.5) The resorting to raise deads cheapen the effect of death (instant of otherwise) on the story
2) I have so many other motivations to draw on.

I personally hate Raise Dead and its ilk. So I make a deal with my players, I limit Raise Dead type magic and I refrain from insta-kills. If I kill a character, they hve several rounds (at least) to recognize that.

Guess that makes me one of those

DM's-a-wuss-who's-afraid-of-killing-players

Werner

 

[Black Omega]

Or by having a loved one killed by a surprise finger of death or assassin's death attack and going berserk on the bad guy in a vengeful fit of rage.

Is an excellent use of killing an NPC to motivate the party, as long as it's not overdone.

Death effects are a tool for drama... Just use it the right way.

Frankly, depends on the group. Both I and the group I GM for dislike Death Effects. For a grim and gritty type of game, I might use them, since death should be sudden, random and every encounter is dangerous in that type of game.

Isn't the greatest danger instantaneous and irrevocable death?

Depends. For many of my characters, the greatest danger would be dishonor, death's nothing to be scared of.

 

[eryndel]

Or by having a loved one killed by a surprise finger of death or assassin's death attack and going berserk on the bad guy in a vengeful fit of rage. Or when the party is demoralized as the bad guy kills one of them just like that, but they then steel themselves, knowing they have to win this fight to save the kingdom/princess/world/whatever. Death effects are a tool for drama... Just use it the right way.

- Cyraneth

I'll agree with you on the first one. This is what I save my death effects for, terror-strikes on those close to the PCs. Friends, family, allies and the occasional NPC are all affectionally know as "DM -me tools" I'll kill these guys off, whether its in front of them or behind the scenes, with relative impunity to put fear into them. However, the same story tricks don't work the same for the PCs simply becase this story is about them. I, as a DM, have much more freedom to slay NPCs simply because they aren't much more then complex window dressing. Mileage varies, as we all know, but my stories flow much smoother if I save the quick exits for the NPCs.

Werner

 

[Cyraneth]

I'll agree with you on the first one. This is what I save my death effects for, terror-strikes on those close to the PCs. Friends, family, allies and the occasional NPC are all affectionally know as "DM -me tools" I'll kill these guys off, whether its in front of them or behind the scenes, with relative impunity to put fear into them. However, the same story tricks don't work the same for the PCs simply becase this story is about them. I, as a DM, have much more freedom to slay NPCs simply because they aren't much more then complex window dressing. Mileage varies, as we all know, but my stories flow much smoother if I save the quick exits for the NPCs.

Werner

I'm happy you agree, but I want to take that extra step you're apparently afraid of, 'cause you think it might demoralize players. (I'm sorry if I'm assuming too much here.) Most death effects cannot be countered by a raise dead, requiring the higher-level resurrection. This means death will be a hindrance to all but the highest-level characters, and they will use any means to avoid it. If you "cheapen" death by tossing scrolls of resurrection left and right, I see your problem.

But lower-level characters can still be brought back, thereby not necessitating the end of a great character concept or storyline. Just have the local high-level cleric require a quest in return. And if you don't feel like leaving the dead PC out of the quest, just resurrect him before it and have him accept a geas/quest spell. Or don't use a geas/quest and let the cleric trust them, branding them betrayers of the faith if they abandon their promise.

But if you also keep the players from being the targets of death effects, you're clearly favoring them. No wonder they become the heroes of your story. Don't heroes become heroes 'cause they prevailed where everyone else failed? Including death effects? Or overcoming a failed save against a death effect by paying the price of coming back to life?

If you don't like the "gritty" version of death, just view death as a more severe kind of curse. It takes more than a remove curse to "cure" but also restricts the player more severely. On the other hand, it also takes more than a bestow curse to cause it, and when players meet that kind of enemies, they should have the resources to "counter" it, sooner or later.

While death from damage is easier to regulate (and thus more popular among DMs fearful of single rounds being too consequencial), it is in reality just a row of dice rolls than in the end result in either party's demise. A finger of death spell speeds this up, so to speak. Instead of many rolls, it's just one roll, but about the same. If the players plan an excellent strategy and use every tactical advantage, they'll still fail if every roll's a failure, which will most likely result in their deaths. So, theoretically, you could call it a combat resolver used during the resolution of combat... And don't worry about monsters being too tough 'cause of this ability to "resolve combat quickly." It has been calculated into their CR.

- Cyraneth

 

[Deset Gled]

Or by having a loved one killed by a surprise finger of death or assassin's death attack and going berserk on the bad guy in a vengeful fit of rage.

As much as you may like this kind of effect as a DM, it is my experience that players do not like to die. Thus, if players were exposed to tactics like this, they would learn to put a lot of effort into not being affected by such tactics.

You mentioned in another thread that it seems PCs always have extremely high saves, and that it is very hard for spellcasters for spell casters to affect them. After hearing you talk about your DM style, I believe it is likely that your characters often put a lot of effort into raising saves as a reaction to your tactics. More than is common in other people's campaigns

This isn't necessarilly a good or bad thing, but is not something you should punish characters for. Instead, play off of it. Perhaps start having other NPCs of high power notice their resillience, and use it as a reason for them to be chosen for quests. Most importantly, though, I would recemmend that you don't fight it. If players want to focus on something (in this case, pure power of surviving), it's generally not a good idea to nerf it to the point of negating it's effects. Instead, play on the other weaknesses they may have.