Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9537564" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I can tell I was tired, I completely neglected to actually respond to the latter.Whether the GM makes them doesn't help the argument. That just turns it into being given a pre-gen to replace your existing character, which is worse because now you aren't even getting to decide what kind of character you play.Your first point is the one that is in error. You have done what so many others have done in conversations like this: taken what I actually said, and inflated it into something grotesque and horrible, and then complained about how grotesque and horrible it is as a result.Death is not off the table entirely just because one very specific form (random AND irrevocable AND permanent) is. If it really were genuinely true that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING the players do will ever result in death no matter what, no matter how irrational and bizarre and stupid the deus ex machina required, then yes, of course that automatically leads to degenerate play.Consider a game where characters can die because:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They took on a serious threat, explicitly knowing it was a serious threat, at an important time, etc.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They blatantly ignored explicit warnings that they were taking openly lethal risks</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They make a desperate last stand or take on a suicidal task so others can flee/escape/succeed</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The party has the resources and time to resurrect the character "soon" (meaning, within a session or two)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The player would prefer that any death that character faces won't be reversed or undone</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM is doing something with any deaths that do in fact occur</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The player is leaving without plan to return</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Various other possibilities</li> </ol>In other words, a game where the only cause of death that is guaranteed nixed is one where all of the following are true:A. Character(s) died solely because of $#!+ luck, impossible-to-predict results, or similarly empty, "out of the blue" causesB. The player(s) would prefer to continue exploring the stories they had been (of the character(s) and their interactions with the party etc.), rather than moving on to something else (new char, new game, whatever)C. There is no viable mechanism by which the PC(s) might be restored to life, whether by PC action (=revocable) or not (=non-permanent), within a reasonable time frame of say a couple sessions (no more than 4, that's a month's absence for most groups)Both in theory and IME, this does not lead to a degenerate state of play, where players exploit the GM's generosity with idiotic, suicidal behavior because they "know" the GM will save them from the reasonable consequences of their actions. Instead, it leads to cautious, shy players (aka, players like the ones I generally have) actually being willing to take any risks at all, rather than turtling up, freezing up, or just quietly following whatever the rest of the group wants to do. If a player does in fact treat this as an exploitable resource, they'd trigger valid death clause #2: "they blatantly ignored explicit warnings that they were taking openly lethal risks." Because that isn't a random death anymore. The player knew they were risking death, knew the danger, and blithely pushed past it because they were so supremely confident that they could exploit the GM's good will for their benefit.I refuse to be used by others as a convenience, especially when I'm trying to be generous and meet them halfway or even more than halfway. Doing that is an extremely efficient means to piss me off royally, and I won't hesitate to serve up a steaming helping of "find out" for such a player.</blockquote>

Verification