Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[Geron Raveneye]

It's funny how both analogies end up making the same point, isn't it?

It's equally funny how both analogies are limping on both legs so badly that I'm not sure they really help making a point in the first place.

Points of view, hm?

 

[Mallus]

It's funny how both analogies end up making the same point, isn't it?

Yes, yes it is.

 

[Mallus]

Because, in D&D, your character is not the mini. If you were fighting using a battlemat, and the DM swapped your mini for another, that would be analagous to swapping the hat for the shoe in Monopoly.

I can has clarity!

D&D is like a game of Monopoly where, when a player goes bankrupt, they get to keep playing using a different piece. Or the same piece, even.

Since you always get to keep playing, what does it matter if you use the same avatar? Why are you a tough guy if you re-enter the game with the dog instead of the shoe? Why are you a wuss if you prefer to keep the shoe?

K?

 

[shilsen]

And then there's actually people who try to explain their point of view on a topic, and how they arrived there, to their fellow gamers in order to create an exchange of opinions instead of simply mocking those with a different opinion than their own.

As noted by Mallus and Dr. Awkward above, I'm not simply mocking. I'm making a point and trying to do so by analogy. Admittedly it falls short on the scale of inclusiveness, as analogy usually does, but then it isn't reams and reams of rehashing the same argument, which most of these discussions seem to devolve into.

Plus it was funny, or at least funny to some. And a thread which seriously discusses whether an edition of the game that hasn't even been released yet is actually 'softer' because its methods of killing off someone's imaginary character have changed is a thread that seriously needs to get its sense of humor back.

 

[Anthtriel]

It's equally funny how both analogies are limping on both legs so badly that I'm not sure they really help making a point in the first place.

Points of view, hm?

How so? If the player has no investment in the character whatsoever, you kill the character off, he grumbles a bit because of the inconvenience and rolls up the next one (probably already prepared, if you have a high fatality rate.

If the player is very attached to the character, and has fleshed it out, drawn a potrait, wrote a lengthy (and preferably actually good) storyline, and you then kill the character off, then he is going to get very annoyed, grumble loudly, consider you an ass, and won't get as invested in the next character.


Death in RPGs is perfect when it never actually happens, but if there is the credible illusion that it lurks right around the corner. Just like in movies, books or pretty much any entertainment out there.

Exemptions can be made for good death scenes (which don't have to be heroic, depending on the character and player), or if the player made a string of really bad decisions, and agrees himself that they were bad. Note how this usually doesn't apply to rolling a 1 on your Fortitude save.

Otherwise, you only end up bothering or angering your players. And given that the whole thing is a game, and a DM is not supposed to be the opponent, but more like the ally, the guide, of the players, that is pretty much the worst thing you can do.

DM's who enjoy seeing "their" monsters kill the players would usually be better off as players themselves. Not necessarily in all groups (I won't go that far), but in the group that is usually assumed in DM guides.

 

[Jhulae]

As noted by Mallus and Dr. Awkward above, I'm not simply mocking. I'm making a point and trying to do so by analogy. Admittedly it falls short on the scale of inclusiveness, as analogy usually does, but then it isn't reams and reams of rehashing the same argument, which most of these discussions seem to devolve into.

Plus it was funny, or at least funny to some. And a thread which seriously discusses whether an edition of the game that hasn't even been released yet is actually 'softer' because its methods of killing off someone's imaginary character have changed is a thread that seriously needs to get its sense of humor back.

I thought it was a great analogy.

Of course, nobody has yet to address my thoughts about how SoD spells can really shaft a player posted a few pages back. (Here specifically.) But, hey... I guess "real players" don't mind sitting around doing nothing for a whole evening because of failing one save...

 

[Anthtriel]

I thought it was a great analogy.

Of course, nobody has yet to address my thoughts about how SoD spells can really shaft a player posted a few pages back. But, hey... I guess "real players" don't mind sitting around doing nothing for a whole evening because of failing one save...

Well, you would need to be incredibly stupid or crazy to consider getting killed by SoD fun in any way. Even the strongest proponents probably realize that it simply sucks to get killed that way.

That's why (correct me if I'm wrong) all credible proponents of SoD won't actually let PCs die by SoD unless they act really stupid.


Also note how the "real players" all seem to be DMs who never actually suffer from SoD.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Of course, nobody has yet to address my thoughts about how SoD spells can really shaft a player posted a few pages back.

I didn't reply to it because I thought it was a good point. Only squeaky wheels get the grease.

In 3e games where death is a real threat and rez not always possible, I've come to realise (sadly only recently) that every player needs a backup PC or two written up and ready to go. I'll definitely be doing this next time I play. Either that or they have to be so proficient with the system that they can generate a decent character in 10 mins.

I'd recommend the DM fudging things massively to get the new PC into the action ASAP, no matter how implausible it is. There is nothing worse in roleplaying than giving up your valuable time and not getting a game. Nothing.

The other possibility is to play an NPC or cohort though these are rare/non-existent in our games. This ain't 1e where parties consist of about two dozen people.

Given the fairly high likelihood of death in 3e, there really should be more on this important issue in the DMG. Can't recall seeing anything on getting players back into the game ASAP. It's kind of the same as the need for a 'warning label' on the bodak. Energy drain really suxxorz too. Arguably a lot more than dying by RAW. Spectres, vampires etc need a really big warning label. Course if they did people would complain about how D&D was being dumbed down. Ya can't win.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm a big fan of SoD as I've said. Tell me what you think of my use of it. Over 16 sessions, players have had to make at least 8 saves versus petrification or death. One failed. I use action points (only cause it's Eberron, I don't particularly like them) which mitigates SoD substantially.

Dr Fear's cockatrice. The level 4 PCs heard rumours that this crime boss could turn his victims to stone and even found a statue. One PC was bitten twice by the albino's pet in the final battle but made the (easy) save both times. At this level there was really no defence or recourse if a PC had been stoned.

A medusa assassin ambushed the PCs in retaliation for their operations against Daask. There was no warning whatsoever, just a hard spot check to see through the disguise. Three (out of four) had to save. The one who failed didn't get to take a single action. Stone to Flesh is a level 6 spell and hence unavailable in Eberron, though Stone Salve can be purchased. The group paid the 4000gp for it, but the PC failed his system shock and died. The player, understandably a bit hacked off, elected to make up a new PC at that point.

A (deceased) wizard's library, guarded by a logic puzzle. The wizard's programmed image warned of severe consequences for any mistakes. A floating black skull with a black gem in its forehead cast Finger of Death if the wrong answer was given. It fired once for a single error, and twice at the PC trying to prise the gem out (old skool!). All saves passed.

 

[Reynard]

Given the fairly high likelihood of death in 3e, there really should be more on this important issue in the DMG. Can't recall seeing anything on getting players back into the game ASAP. It's kind of the same as the need for a 'warning label' on the bodak. Energy drain really suxxorz too. Arguably a lot more than dying by RAW. Spectres, vampires etc need a really big warning label. Course if they did people would complain about how D&D was being dumbed down. Ya can't win.

I agree wholeheartedly. it is worth takinga few paragraphs to explain the real world, at the table consequences of Save or Die. Or, for that matter, any game effect that relies heavily on uncertainty, good or bad. Talking about how to use uncertainty to the adavantage of the game, and how different levels of uncertainty are preferable to different players and different groups is also important. Far better to do it this way, I think, than to simply call it "unfun" and excise it from the game.

One of the amazing things about the 1E DMG is that, since it was written 2 years after people actually started playing 1E for all intents and purposes, it covered a lot of issues that had actually come up in the game -- and come to the fore because of letters to the Dragon forum -- and the advice, although of a certain style based on the author, generally leaned towards, "Do what youw ant, but think about the consequences to game balance and fun first."

(Since I am actually running both a 1E game -- ToEE, woot! -- and a 3.5 game -- MWP's DL, woot! -- right now, I get to see the differences and similarities between the two on a regular basis, and the latter are much more common than the former.)