molonel said:
Resurrection is certainly a fantasy element. Because it is fantasy. It's not reality. It happens in fantasy stories, and you can argue how much or how little or how often or at what level, but it happens and we've provided examples of that. You just keep reshaping the question and cooking the books until you get the answer you want and your answer sounds like the only right one.
Just because somethings unreal does not make it apart of traditional fantasy. So now you're backing away from your argument that resurrection is an element in fantasy medium to "it's fantasy because its unrealistic?". If this is the case I look forward to Batman, Dorothy and the rescue rangers to show up in your traditional fantasy dungeons and dragons game real soon. Just because it can't happen in real life does not mean it belongs in fantasy.
You are nitpicking, and it's only mildly annoying. I'll joke as I please, because the whole idea that you've discovered some better, purer form of gaming simply because you use Fudging Method A rather than Fudging Method B when we're all sitting around a table acting like we're dwarves and elves is so silly that I can't entirely take this discussion seriously.
I don't think pointing out flaws in your argument is nitpicking. There was no ressurection on SG1. It's apart of the mythos. The sarcophguses had incredible healing properties. The great thing about SG1 is that it often tried to answer everything "fantastic" with science.
You're going to keep asking for other examples until you've eliminated the pool of any contenders, and then stand victorious.
SAdly, you've yet to provide an example. The strongest thing you said you had was SG1, a scifi show that within its own mythos has stated that there's nothing resurrection about the sarcophagus. If you put a dead body in one, its going to stay dead. If you had a strong example, I couldn't take it apart. Anything. You can't even name me a book, with all the books on the market, that have an example of what you're talking about. It's not about winning.
The primary reason most stories don't need resurrections is because the characters will never die until the author says so. You obviously prefer GM/DM fiat to an available mechanic that allows story continuity. I can respect that, and it's a valid form of gaming. But I'm also glad the game is adaptable enough to allow for your style of gaming but not pandering to it, because the way that characters can be brought back from the dead in D&D right now works, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Ah, so even within the span of this single entry, you have flip flopped from
1. Ressurection is fantasy because its unreal
2. It is in traditional fantasy, i just can't find any
3. The writers don't do it because they have ultimate control.
They don't do it because its shoddy and crappy writing. It's too unbelievable and opens up far too many cans of worms.
And your comments have me wondering if there is a missing broomstick somewhere on this forum. I have a pretty good idea where it is, too. Get over yourself.
Fudging is cheating. You are cheating death. Your charater, or your players's characters, should die. Multiple times. They are going through circumstances that would kill ANY human being, and rather than emerging shattered, with pulverized bones and staring at the wall, and requiring a nursemaid to feed them through a straw 3 times a day and change their bedpan, or instead of holding funeral services, they spring up fresh as a daisy and ready to do battle again.
I understand your mechanics perfectly well, and I've used them. I call them cheating because they are cheating. I also call resurrection cheating death, because it does. Both are acceptable forms of cheating that allow story continuity. Both are extremely unrealistic. Neither is superior to the other. One is chocolate ice cream, and the other is strawberry ice cream. But they are both ice cream. Or rather, fudge.
Eh, you're not going to stop calling it cheating, either way i guess, so I fail to see a reason that i should reexplain what a mechanic is and what fudging actually is. All I can say is stick to your day job and don't ge a job as a game designer because your naivity of game terms is fairly apparent. Feel free to call a lot of other people on these boards cheaters and Im sure they remarks will be much harsher than mine.
As for your argument,m they are both mechanics which I've said. HOwever, there is nothing unrealistic from a fantasy point of view for a hero to do an amazing maneuver to avoid death. Now, when I say "realistic" I am comparing it to the example of the hundreds of fantasy mediums where heroes defy the odds. This is realism in a fantasy setting. This is as opposed to the resurrection spell mechanic which no fantasy medium uses. It is unrealistic in a fantasy setting. D and D came about by wanting to recreate those great fantasy stories you see and read. When we talk about realism, we talk about trying to get as close to that as possible. Since there is no repeat ressurection in these mediums, it is safe to say that it does not belong.
This shows no lack of understanding on my part. It is a device that allows the plot to move along when it was otherwise stop with the death of a character. Yes, it has other uses. But this is one of its uses, and you are nitpicking to avoid the obvious.
Again this shows a lack of understanding of literary and game terms. Annoying to say the least. Before you use a word, know its meaning first. A plot device is something that is needed to move the plot along. Meaning, if you take it out, you can not go anywhere with the story. This comes from story,plot, adventure and campaign design and has little relvanace on the campaign. If your game is going to fold because one PC is dead, whether its resurrection or action cards you're going to have a flaw. I've never given an action card or forced an action card use on players. I've had players whom have forfeited any heroic acts. The game continued on. The action cards are designed to recreate extrodinary actions, not to steer a plot one way or another.
D&D is a realistic world? Since when?
I go for adventure! Swinging swords and blowing things up. I go for lots of things - story, time with my buds drinking Mt. Dew and scarfing down cold pizza - but realism? No. Not a chance. Verisimilitude is important, but I couldn't care less about realism.
I don't go to D&D for realism!
And Scene. Yup 2 pages before this argument came up. Realistic Fantasy World. Not realistic world. See my above comment. This is why people began to play the game. Sure spending times with friends is as important, but the emmersion factor is the reason for the game.
Most of the DMs I play with do NOT hand-wave requirements for Raise Dead, and I've seen plenty of permanent deaths in D&D. They can be dramatic, and prior to 9th level (halfway through non-epic) it usually means starting over with your character. That's not always fun, but it flies in the face of your analysis that it's cheap, easy and unrealistic. By the book, 9th level clerics do not grow on trees.
Death is not a problem in D&D. It's a reality, and the game allows expensive and costly mechanics to bring characters back as the game grows and your investment in the character grows.
Again, the problems with ressurection is not from a PC perspective its fro ma world perspective. Too many whys and too many ways to demean epic battles with good vs. evil.
Like I said, you prefer your brand of unrealism and unreality to mine. That's awesome. Rock on with your badass self. You sidle back and forth between "It's too easy!" and "It's so unrealistic because the components are so hard to find so that the DM has to fiat finding them!" depending on what suits your argument at the moment. You feel that your method is cheaper, easier and allows for less downtime. I prefer games where death is a real, ever-present threat and the possibility of losing your character for a large portion of the game is there. You say to-MA-toe, I saw to-MAH-toe.
And now we have the "I don't really care" ending.
Odd, we both like the same thing, but your way really doesn't achieve that effectively. Not my opinion, but a fact considering no other medium uses resurrection to symbolize heroic acts. How much of a threat is death when I can go to the corner store temple and buy a resurrection fairly cheap, by traditional treasure standards. You say this is a tomato/tomato evidence, but outside of the argument "they both can't really happen", you fail to really prove it.
I respect your opinion, but don't knock other peoples opinions when yours has far too many flaws.
