Is RAISE DEAD (etc.) too readily available in most D&D campaigns?

[molonel]

Cool, then. As long as we can agree that the core rules ain't necessarily broke, then I can accept your preference to play in a game where death is a more dramatic rare event that people don't come back from, and you can (probably?) accept my preference to play in a game where death is a common adventuring danger that has an expensive and painful way to recover from.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Hussar]

Not sure that last counts as a resurrection. More like create undead or some type of possession.


Book wise, Endemion and Rise of Endemion use it as a means of space travel. High g's during travel crush you, and a small organic cross reconstitues you. Then again, the books Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion put the known universe through hell to get that ability.

Not too sure how in works in the first Endimeon, but in Hyperion those who were brought back weren't as complete as they were before death. Chunks of memories missing, slight variance in genetics. Those that went through it too often were little more than immortal primates. You could look at it a Raise Dead taken to an extreme conclusion, maybe taking Int instead of Con.

Or, instead, looking at it as exactly as written and losing your memories = losing experience. Makes sense to me. Although I have not read the books, so I cannot really comment beyond what you've written.

 

[iwatt]

Or, instead, looking at it as exactly as written and losing your memories = losing experience.

That's nice. I think I'll use it.

Is there any other kind?

Heh. I just realized I forgot to put a smiley in my post. I wasn't trying to start anything.

 

[DonTadow]

It is an official WotC campaign world. So is Living Greyhawk, which is older:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/welcome

So is Living Death:

http://www.livingdeath.org/

So is Eberron.

You are required to use none of these. None is the default.

Agreed

No. Storyteller is arguing "This is the baseline, this is the default, this is the way the game nearly always is."

I'm saying that there are a variety of means and factors that affect the game. Okay, you succeed in using magic to successfully preserve the body and travel overland days or weeks to find a city. That's not a McCleric. That's work.

Yes, and I"m saying that this diviates from typical dungeons found in typical dungeon settings. True, you can make whatever you want. You can do whatever you want. But its poor world design if there's no reasoning behind it. Tossing a dungeon into the middle of an exotic never before touched, 10 days away with any possible known means of transportation place just to make it harder on your players because its in your notes is ironically the kind of dm fiat that you say you don't like.

Sooner or later, teleport can come into play. That makes it easier if you memorize the city on the same plane to which you will always travel for Raise Dead spells. This is not a trick. This is not a revelation. This is upper level play. This also happens about half of the way to 20th level, which is the the upper limit of non-epic play.

Upper level like 8th or 9th? A smart party researches every dungeon and at least can get 2nd hand knowledge about adungeon making easier teleports. They can also find way points making the journey eiser. But of course, we're not talking about on the way to the dungeon, we're talkinga bout on the way back, places they already know and have enteracted with. I"m also thinking of lesser teleports which can be used for hopping long distances a day.

I'm not fiatting anything. I'm simply saying everything is not cheap and easy.

Erok. Making a world with no reasoning for things other than it doesnt fit into your plans. Sounds like fiatting to me.

And I've done so very effectively.

You've yet to prove that resurrection is difficult to cast. What you have proven is that you're the dm you can do what you want. Which no one is discounting. But you've yet to convince anyone that rampant availability to ressurection is not poor world design if it does not play a factor in the creation of the world.

You keep wanting to make your way sound superior, no matter how you argue. The difference between us is that I'm not trying to do that. I'm saying we use different means to achieve the same end

I can ride a bike or I can drive a corvette. The point of this thread is is ressurection in campaigns too easy, to which the answer is yes. But ressurection spells do not compare to fate points which have little to do in bringing acharacter back from death. The two don't compare.
Ressurection = Character has to be dead
Fate points = Character is never dead
Ressurection = to find, cast, and pay for, one use
Fate points = easier and usually used on performing extrodinary abilities
Ressurection = (rampantly found in none to few medium) medium that it is found in usually epic
Fate points= heroic unexplained acts are well documented historically, fictionaally and bibically. I

The two things couldn't be miles apart.

So it's not that your way involves less DM fiat, because I'm not employing DM fiat to override the rules. I'm playing well within the rules. You're playing a wider variant, but you're within the rules, too. Hopefully, all of us are having fun.

Fiat technically is the rules. So no ones arguing if you're not playing within the rules or not. HOwever, what you are doing is fiatting for selfish purposes.

Okay, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you cannot imagine why players shouldn't be around the corner from a major metropolis and a Starbucks - oops, I mean a high temple - at every step of the game.

I'm saying 10 days by normal travel. And even then, why there is no other form of transportation. Perhaps at levels 1 to 5 but surely not after that. Sounds like your players go through these extraordinarily long 11 day journeys so you can show how "epic" the dungeon is, despite the unbelievability of world design.

Do you give them unlimited gold, too? Or can you simply not think of a reason not to?

Sounds like you use one problem to fix another. Railroading to make your adventure epic instead of letting it be strong enough to be epic all on its own.

Or I can imagine a game where the DM has to invent tools like "heroic luck" to explain why people never die. Ever. Never ever.

Yeah, I can make fun of that, too.

Again, this shows a lack of understanding of the mechanic. I can say I've played in resurrection and action point campaigns. Action points have very little relevance on actual death. What it does do is take down the lucky one or two die deaths that bog down the game. Of course, I didn't event this system, you probably want to talk to Monte, Skip and other talented d and d designers who all have version of an action/fate system in their games.

Death and resurrection have never been treated that way in my games, and unless you were floating in the ethereal plane while we gamed, you are clearly stepping outside the boundaries of what it is possible for you to know.


So kindly step back into reality, and talk about your own experiences. Because I am the only acknowledged expert present in this discussion about my experiences. And when you talk about them, you will always be wrong unless you agree with me.

Caricatures notwithstanding.

You want resurrection to happen perhaps once or twice in a campaign. Rock on. Enjoy yourself. But if death is going to be a threat in any way, then you will compensate in other ways to prevent it.

Unless, of course, you're playing d20 My Little Pony, and combat is never lethal.

By world design, that is how you describe it. YOur players don't see the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Mine would. Its no shot at you, but my players expect a higher caliber of world design than handwaving stuff because its "fantasy" (jazz hands).

Death does not have to be compensated. Its real, its horrible and its permanent. It's not to be played with. If a hero is beat for 45 points of damage, there's no way of getting around dying, action card or resurrection. There is no balance. Players who want to play a game see ressurection as a balance to death. Players who want to create their own fantasy story see ressurection as an amazing n cheat to the natural order of things.

And here is where we reach the point where we part ways. It is not a flaw. It works in my world, it is not a problem, and I put a lot of thought into my world design to figure out how everything fits.

If you see it as a flaw, that is certainly your right to view it in that way. But when you speak for everyone else, and we know that we've made it work, your argument has committed suicide because we know you are mistaken.

Again, anything can make sense if you never touch on it. Perhaps I am the nerdy student preaching about proper game design. I can't tell you how many conventions I dm at and i hear the stories that players don't tell their DM's. This doesn't make sense and this doesn't make sense. eh. If your players are happy fine. I'm all about helping them reach the nirvana of gaming every time. Which means no plot holes, no world holes. Perhaps my expectations are too high.

I grabbed no straws. You just prefer to caricature this or that point instead of admitting that someone maturely, intelligently and imaginatively disagrees with you.

I don't doubt that you are mature, intelligent and imaginative. And i dont doubt that your players like your game. Yet you have yet to argue a logical point to this ressurection thing other than I am the DM and I can make it however I want.YOu've yet to even prove the OP's question. You seem to come from a PCs point of view. Yet world design consists of the whole world. Yeah the pcs are far and away in whatever land that can't reach a temple in 10 days by any means. But what about the clerics, priests and kings. The nobles. The rich people. The evil guys. I'm back to my Original point that it makes it unbelievable. Action poitns, only heroes get them. THey are the things that make the difference between the main protagonists and the side character.

Why can't you be mature enough to do the same thing with the way in which I choose to game?

Why is your position so vulnerable, and so weak, and so easily threatened that it must be the ONLY right way in order for you to play and enjoy it?

My position is weak and vuneralble
REssurection and Raise Dead too cheap to cast ::checK::
REssurection and Raise Dead is too easy to find ::check::
REssurection and Raise Dead makes for some unexplainable world design ::check::

I'm sorry, thats my point in a nutshell. And you've yet to disprove a single one. Other than the fact that you are the dm and you make it so, which opens a c aviate of other world design problems.

Again, you have yet to argue a good point you simply go into the uh huh and you're a meanie argument. I"m not saying your game is not good, its cute and i'm sure the players play because their friends and they like hanging out with you. But I play with a different caliber of players. A lot of DMs on enworld do. I take pride in logical game design. When I see a local DM like you, try to argue that somethingobvious isn't that bad, i kinda chuckle because these players come to my table and begin to tell me how they hate this and that about their DM. Most of the time its something simple, something that can easily be explained or fixed.

Inthe beginning of this discussion I said my peace. It was not until you attempting to compare unrelatable game terms that I cringe.

 

[molonel]

Yes, and I"m saying that this diviates from typical dungeons found in typical dungeon settings. True, you can make whatever you want. You can do whatever you want. But its poor world design if there's no reasoning behind it. Tossing a dungeon into the middle of an exotic never before touched, 10 days away with any possible known means of transportation place just to make it harder on your players because its in your notes is ironically the kind of dm fiat that you say you don't like.

]

Typical dungeons in typical dungeon settings? No such animal.

Your assumption, and the reason I'm arguing with you, is that anyone who doesn't design YOUR way is doing poor world design, or doesn't have sufficient reasons for what they do.

How could they? They disagree with you!

You say that I simply MUST have dungeons 10 days or less from a major city. Why? Damned if I know. The books don't demand it. Nothing in the DMG says so. I want to have my characters visiting exotic locations in the desert, under the sea, in the deep arctic, in the outer planes, in the mountains, but oh no! That's just too radical for you. I have to have a REASON for letting them be farther than 10 days from a major city.

Is having fun enough reason?

Upper level like 8th or 9th? A smart party researches every dungeon and at least can get 2nd hand knowledge about adungeon making easier teleports. They can also find way points making the journey eiser. But of course, we're not talking about on the way to the dungeon, we're talkinga bout on the way back, places they already know and have enteracted with. I"m also thinking of lesser teleports which can be used for hopping long distances a day.

8th or 9th level is mid-level play. But there are break points in the game where play style changes. When your characters get ahold of Teleport and Raise Dead, the nature of the game changes, and the challenges have to change in order to keep the game interesting.

Having people just sitting around researching dungeons and teleporting to the entrance sounds like an extremely boring adventure to me. YMMV.

Erok. Making a world with no reasoning for things other than it doesnt fit into your plans. Sounds like fiatting to me.

You've made one assumption that seems curious to me: that my decisions have no reason. Wouldn't it be better to ask me what my reasons are, instead of assuming that there aren't any?

Or would that just be too generous and open-minded on your part?

You've yet to prove that resurrection is difficult to cast. What you have proven is that you're the dm you can do what you want. Which no one is discounting. But you've yet to convince anyone that rampant availability to ressurection is not poor world design if it does not play a factor in the creation of the world.

Difficult to cast?

It's no more difficult to cast than any other spell. If you have the spell component and a sufficient level caster, you cast the spell. It can be difficult to cast if you have an insufficient level caster attempting to cast it from a scroll.

And I've shown that it's neither poor world design, nor is the availability "rampant." You simply assume these things without reason, and then attempt to place the onus to me to disprove what you've never proven. It's not an enormously effective debate tactic, but it is evidently your favorite.

I can ride a bike or I can drive a corvette. The point of this thread is is ressurection in campaigns too easy, to which the answer is yes. But ressurection spells do not compare to fate points which have little to do in bringing acharacter back from death. The two don't compare.
Ressurection = Character has to be dead
Fate points = Character is never dead
Ressurection = to find, cast, and pay for, one use
Fate points = easier and usually used on performing extrodinary abilities
Ressurection = (rampantly found in none to few medium) medium that it is found in usually epic
Fate points= heroic unexplained acts are well documented historically, fictionaally and bibically.

Too easy TO YOU.

What I've said, and what you continue to deny, is that your methods are simply no better, no more imaginative, no superior solution and nothing that is inherently more interesting than my methods, or the present game.

You fudge your way. I fudge mine. You evidently want to think your fudge is tastier and more delicious than mine. Cool. Enjoy your fudge. But if you're going to argue with me, I'm going to tell you that you're eating fudge.

Fate points and heroic luck are simply resurrection by another means. Your character should be dead, and isn't. It's part of a spectrum of choices a DM or the rules allows to keep the story going.

The two things couldn't be miles apart.

I disagree.

Fiat technically is the rules. So no ones arguing if you're not playing within the rules or not. HOwever, what you are doing is fiatting for selfish purposes.

Hahahahahaha!!!!

So now I'm selfish, eh?

I suppose I kick puppies, and push little old ladies down on the street, too?

Is there no dastardly deed that people who disagree with you are capable of? No character flaw too awful for us?

Woe is me! I disagreed with DonTadow!

I'm saying 10 days by normal travel. And even then, why there is no other form of transportation. Perhaps at levels 1 to 5 but surely not after that. Sounds like your players go through these extraordinarily long 11 day journeys so you can show how "epic" the dungeon is, despite the unbelievability of world design.

You crack me up, man.

My players journey through deserts and snow-capped mountain peaks, and underwater, and to outer planes, and they have thought it was COOL to do these things.

I'll have to remind them, from now on, that they MUST stay within 10 days of a major city, and if I catch them coming in after 10 PM, there is going to be hell to pay!

Sounds like you use one problem to fix another. Railroading to make your adventure epic instead of letting it be strong enough to be epic all on its own.

So now I'm selfish, fiatting and railroading because I don't create the same caricature of the game that is necessary for your argument that it's bad game design?

I'm curious. Are you a gymnist? Because I couldn't do this many backflips and contortions in real life.

Do you see how hard you are working to insult me? Insult my game? Insult my world design? Insinuate that there are deep, inherent flaws in the way I game?

It doesn't bother me. In fact, I appreciate it. The practice reflects badly on you and your position. You are your own worst enemy in this discussion.

By contrast, I freely allow that your method of gaming is legitimate, probably quite imaginative and I'm sure quite fun.

There is a vast difference between the way you and I approach other people's gaming practices. The only thing superior about my approach is that I allow other people to play differently than me, and admit that there is nothing wrong with that.

Again, this shows a lack of understanding of the mechanic. I can say I've played in resurrection and action point campaigns. Action points have very little relevance on actual death. What it does do is take down the lucky one or two die deaths that bog down the game. Of course, I didn't event this system, you probably want to talk to Monte, Skip and other talented d and d designers who all have version of an action/fate system in their games.

I've run games with action points. In fact, I'm running two of them right now: one online, one FTF. I don't have to talk to Monte Cook, although I've spoken by email and interacted with both him and Sean K. Reynolds on their forums.

As it relates to this discussion, action points are simply another means to deal with character death. It is fudging. It is cheating death. It is allowing characters to continue in the story who would otherwise be stone-cold dead.

Both games I'm running are d20 Modern. There is no resurrection in the game. It doesn't fit the flavor and setting, which is the contemporary world. So I'm using a variant fate point mechanic from Conan d20, and the default action points which are in the d20 Modern game system.

And that is why I say, with complete and thorough understanding, that I know what you're saying, and you're wrong. I'm using the mechanics you describe INSTEAD OF Raise Dead, or Resurrection or True Resurrection, and the effect on the game and the story is EXACTLY the same.

By world design, that is how you describe it. YOur players don't see the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Mine would. Its no shot at you, but my players expect a higher caliber of world design than handwaving stuff because its "fantasy" (jazz hands).

See, this is the type of pompous elitism that is the reason you and I are arguing. There is no problem in my game. There is nothing wrong with my imagination, or my gaming style. Your players are no better or more imaginative than mine. They are not more insightful. They, and you, simply prefer another STYLE of gaming. No better, no worse.

Again, anything can make sense if you never touch on it. Perhaps I am the nerdy student preaching about proper game design. I can't tell you how many conventions I dm at and i hear the stories that players don't tell their DM's. This doesn't make sense and this doesn't make sense. eh. If your players are happy fine. I'm all about helping them reach the nirvana of gaming every time. Which means no plot holes, no world holes. Perhaps my expectations are too high.

No, you are neither preacher nor insightful game designer reaching Nirvana. You're just someone on the internet who thinks he is completely right, and everyone else is completely wrong.

This may shock you, but you are not a special snowflake. People like you are a dime a dozen on the internet.

I don't doubt that you are mature, intelligent and imaginative. And i dont doubt that your players like your game. Yet you have yet to argue a logical point to this ressurection thing other than I am the DM and I can make it however I want.YOu've yet to even prove the OP's question. You seem to come from a PCs point of view. Yet world design consists of the whole world. Yeah the pcs are far and away in whatever land that can't reach a temple in 10 days by any means. But what about the clerics, priests and kings. The nobles. The rich people. The evil guys. I'm back to my Original point that it makes it unbelievable. Action poitns, only heroes get them. THey are the things that make the difference between the main protagonists and the side character.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but if you are the DM, then you CAN do whatever you want. That is precisely the point. And I need go no farther than that. Resurrection, Raise Dead and True Resurrection are too common in a baseline game for you. So you change it. Kick ass. You feel your reasons are valid. Awesome. You feel that it achieves GAMING NIRVANA. Go you!

You want me to believe that your system of gaming is infinitely superior, and better?

That's a higher bar to reach than patting yourself on the back as much as you do. Trust me.

My position is weak and vuneralble
REssurection and Raise Dead too cheap to cast ::checK::
REssurection and Raise Dead is too easy to find ::check::
REssurection and Raise Dead makes for some unexplainable world design ::check::

To you. Check.
To you. Check.
To you. Check.

I'm sorry, thats my point in a nutshell. And you've yet to disprove a single one. Other than the fact that you are the dm and you make it so, which opens a c aviate of other world design problems.

I can't disprove anything that you wish to believe, no matter what. And, in fact, I don't need to. I simply spend time jawing about gaming on this forum, and you're the flavor of the week for me. I could be talking about the intracies of TWF, or the breakpoints in a spell. Or arguing about miniatures (my last big topic).

In the sense that your ideas aren't so for everyone, I've kicked them to the curb numerous times, now.

Again, you have yet to argue a good point you simply go into the uh huh and you're a meanie argument. I"m not saying your game is not good, its cute and i'm sure the players play because their friends and they like hanging out with you. But I play with a different caliber of players. A lot of DMs on enworld do. I take pride in logical game design. When I see a local DM like you, try to argue that somethingobvious isn't that bad, i kinda chuckle because these players come to my table and begin to tell me how they hate this and that about their DM. Most of the time its something simple, something that can easily be explained or fixed.

Okay, Special Snowflake. You play with a superior breed of gamer. Your infinite wisdom and game design are simply going over my head. You view me as "local" and you can chuckle in your superior wisdom. And players are secretly coming to your table and telling you how bad everyone else is, and how awesome you are.

I've demonstrated on every single point that Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection are not cheap and easy to obtain. When I show this, you gasp in shock because I'm not playing the caricature you describe as base D&D. Surely I'm fiatting, or railroading, or kicking puppies while I cackle maniacally and bend the rules to my evil will, right? No. I'm just playing the game.

You're not a meanie. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to comment on the game and its structure instead of commenting on you, personally (whom I've never met); nor on your game (which I've never played); nor your ideas (which I feel are valid).

You are the one who has attacked me, personally, and attempted to condescend in the most amusing fashion. I don't have to do that, though, because I confident in what I do, and the game I play.

You obviously aren't confident in what you do. Otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to put other people down who disagree with you.

Inthe beginning of this discussion I said my peace. It was not until you attempting to compare unrelatable game terms that I cringe.

And I'm going to continue to do so. To quote the Man in Black, "Get used to disappointment."

 

[I'm A Banana]

Wasn't my intention to tell y'all what's what. I have no problem with others using raise, or manipulating it if another DM makes it available. Just reacted badly to criticism.

Hey, you're talking to one of ENWorld's more stubborn posters, here. It's the internet. These things happen.

Like....

REssurection and Raise Dead too cheap to cast ::checK::
REssurection and Raise Dead is too easy to find ::check::
REssurection and Raise Dead makes for some unexplainable world design ::check::

I'ma try this again: these are subjective opinions not objective facts. If it's difficult for you to envision a world where people come back from the dead with some reliability at a high price, that's not something wrong with the game for anyone except you, nessecarily (and, probably, the other people who voted YES to the poll. ).

 

[iwatt]

I'ma try this again: these are subjective opinions not objective facts.

Good luck getting that thought through.

 

[DonTadow]

]

Typical dungeons in typical dungeon settings? No such animal.

Your assumption, and the reason I'm arguing with you, is that anyone who doesn't design YOUR way is doing poor world design, or doesn't have sufficient reasons for what they do.

My way is one way. Logic is another. Your design is illogical. There's no arguing with common sense. Worlds with every dungeon 10 or more days away is plausable, but should bare an impact on the society. If all your worlds are like this, you are Fiatting so that you don't have to deal with othrer problems.

The great thing about logic is its straight forward. My logic is based on world building advice from Gary to Monte to Skip to some great DM's I've had the chance to sit down at the table with. Yours comes from fiat. AGain, because you want to. And no ones arguing that you can't do what you want to do.

You say that I simply MUST have dungeons 10 days or less from a major city. Why? Damned if I know. The books don't demand it. Nothing in the DMG says so. I want to have my characters visiting exotic locations in the desert, under the sea, in the deep arctic, in the outer planes, in the mountains, but oh no! That's just too radical for you. I have to have a REASON for letting them be farther than 10 days from a major city.

Put your dungeons where you want to, but have a reason behind it. IN a typical world even the most desolute place is usually not more than 10 days travel if you know where you're going, and again, we're talking on the way back. Everyplace you just listed, an experience party can get back to a city in 10 days from there with the proper preperations.

Is having fun enough reason?

8th or 9th level is mid-level play. But there are break points in the game where play style changes. When your characters get ahold of Teleport and Raise Dead, the nature of the game changes, and the challenges have to change in order to keep the game interesting.

Ah what do you do just move the dungeons farther away?

Having people just sitting around researching dungeons and teleporting to the entrance sounds like an extremely boring adventure to me. YMMV.

The difference in styles and games. My players know my games are deadly. They won't just go to the temple of bahamut without probably running through some adventures to figure out its exact location and any other information in side. Of course, this probably proves my point too. Your players really don't care considering they know its a resurrection around the corner if things get dicey.

You've made one assumption that seems curious to me: that my decisions have no reason. Wouldn't it be better to ask me what my reasons are, instead of assuming that there aren't any?

Or would that just be too generous and open-minded on your part?

I'd ask, but you've already said all of your worlds are designed similiarly, which leads me to believe that at some point you're just inventing reasons to spread out your dungeons because you don't want to deal with the effects. But you also said you didn't need any reasons for it. This is just the way you design your worlds. And thats fine. But its not the typical way and by typical i mean equal to published settings by wotc and other professional publishers.

Difficult to cast?

It's no more difficult to cast than any other spell. If you have the spell component and a sufficient level caster, you cast the spell. It can be difficult to cast if you have an insufficient level caster attempting to cast it from a scroll.

By difficult to cast I mean difficult to get to and perform a cleric. YOu're right its pretty easy to.

And I've shown that it's neither poor world design, nor is the availability "rampant." You simply assume these things without reason, and then attempt to place the onus to me to disprove what you've never proven. It's not an enormously effective debate tactic, but it is evidently your favorite.

I can only deduct from what you tell me. You seem to disagree with me, and i said its poor world design if there is no real reason for it and if every dungeon seems to be this way. YOu disagreed with this statement. The direct opposite of this is that there needs to be no reason.

Too easy TO YOU.

And anyone else who likes a rich game world.

What I've said, and what you continue to deny, is that your methods are simply no better, no more imaginative, no superior solution and nothing that is inherently more interesting than my methods, or the present game.

Luckily your word is probably not as important as the professional game designers I know and talk to on a regular basis who have invented and used the mechanics. Feel free to have an opinion but an opinion is only strengthen by the people who back it.

You fudge your way. I fudge mine. You evidently want to think your fudge is tastier and more delicious than mine. Cool. Enjoy your fudge. But if you're going to argue with me, I'm going to tell you that you're eating fudge.[

Fate points and heroic luck are simply resurrection by another means. Your character should be dead, and isn't. It's part of a spectrum of choices a DM or the rules allows to keep the story going./QUOTE] Because its not fudging. But its hard to explain game mechanics to a novice whom doesnt understand its finer elements. YOu're still usuing the word fudge, to which neither are.

I disagree.

Hahahahahaha!!!!

So now I'm selfish, eh?

I suppose I kick puppies, and push little old ladies down on the street, too?

Is there no dastardly deed that people who disagree with you are capable of? No character flaw too awful for us?

Woe is me! I disagreed with DonTadow!



You crack me up, man.

Smart tactic, don't even offer reasons for your disagreements anymore because you've run out of straw to pull from. You've already agreed with my point. YOu need a reason to design a world with resurrection and weird dungeon placement.

My players journey through deserts and snow-capped mountain peaks, and underwater, and to outer planes, and they have thought it was COOL to do these things.

I'll have to remind them, from now on, that they MUST stay within 10 days of a major city, and if I catch them coming in after 10 PM, there is going to be hell to pay!

You pull punches, i don't . So my players are going tothink things out a little more because they know death is very real and around the corner.

So now I'm selfish, fiatting and railroading because I don't create the same caricature of the game that is necessary for your argument that it's bad game design?

I can only go by the way you design your game and world design. You are tone one toting "I will do what i want to do in my games.". Fiatting and railroading contineiously because you want to event an unrealistic travel experience for a pc sounds silly. Then again, I"m betting, and i could be wrong, but I'm betting that your home worlds probably don't have detailed maps that distinguish distances between places. I am sure it makes it easier to change up things when theres no reference.

Do you see how hard you are working to insult me? Insult my game? Insult my world design? Insinuate that there are deep, inherent flaws in the way I game?

INsult is something someone else determine about themself, not something someone can do. If you are insulted look within oneself.

It doesn't bother me. In fact, I appreciate it. The practice reflects badly on you and your position. You are your own worst enemy in this discussion.

Again, easy way to sideswipe my comments with smarmy comments. BTW, you're the one who is brash and smarmy.

By contrast, I freely allow that your method of gaming is legitimate, probably quite imaginative and I'm sure quite fun.

There is a vast difference between the way you and I approach other people's gaming practices. The only thing superior about my approach is that I allow other people to play differently than me, and admit that there is nothing wrong with that.

It sounds like you change up the laws of your world to fit your players play style. Unfortuantely if you ever get new players you'll learn that you can't please every playstyle. I bet 1 or 2 of your players are there because they like the friends. Whereas my playstyle creates a world sound enough to hold up to any playstyle, unchanging, dangerious and unrelenting. Players do have to change the way they play whenthey cometo my table if they are used to games of constant ressurection and DM Fiat.


I'

ve run games with action points. In fact, I'm running two of them right now: one online, one FTF. I don't have to talk to Monte Cook, although I've spoken by email and interacted with both him and Sean K. Reynolds on their forums.

As it relates to this discussion, action points are simply another means to deal with character death. It is fudging. It is cheating death. It is allowing characters to continue in the story who would otherwise be stone-cold dead.

Both games I'm running are d20 Modern. There is no resurrection in the game. It doesn't fit the flavor and setting, which is the contemporary world. So I'm using a variant fate point mechanic from Conan d20, and the default action points which are in the d20 Modern game system.

And that is why I say, with complete and thorough understanding, that I know what you're saying, and you're wrong. I'm using the mechanics you describe INSTEAD OF Raise Dead, or Resurrection or True Resurrection, and the effect on the game and the story is EXACTLY the same.

Eh doesnt sound like you understand it if you're labeling it fudging. When you use a word wrong it makes you sound ignorant of the meaning of the word, thus make sure you use words correctly in a debate.

See, this is the type of pompous elitism that is the reason you and I are arguing. There is no problem in my game. There is nothing wrong with my imagination, or my gaming style. Your players are no better or more imaginative than mine. They are not more insightful. They, and you, simply prefer another STYLE of gaming. No better, no worse.

Ther4e's always a problem in your game, some choose to ignore it and some choose to constantly tweak their style and game to achieve these problems.

No, you are neither preacher nor insightful game designer reaching Nirvana. You're just someone on the internet who thinks he is completely right, and everyone else is completely wrong.

That and I"M someone with experience, awards and paychecks for dm'n trying to offer you some advice about world design. You appear to be an arrogant homebrew dm so content on his style and methods that he doesn't see that he doesnt know as much about the game as he thinks.
This may shock you, but you are not a special snowflake. People like you are a dime a dozen on the internet.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but if you are the DM, then you CAN do whatever you want. That is precisely the point. And I need go no farther than that. Resurrection, Raise Dead and True Resurrection are too common in a baseline game for you. So you change it. Kick ass. You feel your reasons are valid. Awesome. You feel that it achieves GAMING NIRVANA. Go you!

Again, a very arrogant DM style. I probably could do whatever i want to do as a DM, but I don't. Not because I would loose players, but because this type of thinking makes bad DM's.

Okay, Special Snowflake. You play with a superior breed of gamer. Your infinite wisdom and game design are simply going over my head. You view me as "local" and you can chuckle in your superior wisdom. And players are secretly coming to your table and telling you how bad everyone else is, and how awesome you are.

I've demonstrated on every single point that Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection are not cheap and easy to obtain. When I show this, you gasp in shock because I'm not playing the caricature you describe as base D&D. Surely I'm fiatting, or railroading, or kicking puppies while I cackle maniacally and bend the rules to my evil will, right? No. I'm just playing the game.

Eh, maybe I am. But i'm notthe only dm/player whom enjoy flushed out worlds where things make sense. You don't haveto be the great iron dm to have solid world design techniques. However, if you become situated in your same old ways that has worked for 30 years, you'll never improve your craft.

 

[Quasqueton]

Amazingly funny, this argument.

There are inumerable core ways to die in this game, including many, many magical ways, from low levels to high levels.

There are just three* core ways to come back to life, and they all require a mid- to high-level cleric, 5,000, 10,000, or 25,000 gold pieces worth of a specific component. And the "cheapest" requires the intact body and a level loss. Yet people consider this too easy?

Jeez. I've made raise dead as readily available to the PCs as I possibly can, and there are still a score of dead PCs through 3 campaigns. My current campaign started at 9th level and is now 11th level, and there have been 2 permanent PC deaths (0 raises).

D&D3 actually makes raise dead much more expensive than previous editions of the game. So I am totally stunned and slapped silly that people are saying that raise dead is too readily available. I'm finding revivication not readily available enough.

* Four if you count reincarnate, but that doesn't actually bring the body back to life; and it still costs 1,000 gold pieces and a level loss.

Quasqueton

 

[molonel]

The great thing about logic is its straight forward. My logic is based on world building advice from Gary to Monte to Skip to some great DM's I've had the chance to sit down at the table with. Yours comes from fiat. AGain, because you want to. And no ones arguing that you can't do what you want to do.

I regularly read Monte Cook's columns, and I have interacted personally with him, Sean K. Reynolds and many others that nobody would know because I meet them at cons, or in pick-up games. My decisions come as the result of deep thought, imaginative storytelling, immersive roleplaying, and most importantly - more importantly than any big names I can toss out (and there are plenty more I could say, but why bother?) - my players continue to enrich my game, and my experience, and my life, and my imagination.

You may comfort yourself with the warm, snuggly blanket of how awesome you are, but I have no need of that security blanket. I love my game, and I have an awesome time, and when you denigrate it, I might knock of a few posts instead of talking about politics on my normal forum, but ultimately, I am the best judge of my own rules and my own game.

I do not play by fiat. I make decisions, and run a kick-ass game.

You are wrong in every respect when you describe me, and the fact that you have to run me down says more about you than it does about me.

I'm going to keep hitting that point, so get used to it.

The Put your dungeons where you want to, but have a reason behind it. IN a typical world even the most desolute place is usually not more than 10 days travel if you know where you're going, and again, we're talking on the way back. Everyplace you just listed, an experience party can get back to a city in 10 days from there with the proper preperations. Is having fun enough reason?

I have reasons for everything I do. I also have a sense of humor, which is a trait noticeably lacking in your posts.

The Ah what do you do just move the dungeons farther away?

Have you read Monte Cook's Beyond Countless Doorways? Evidently not, since you're too busy bragging about hanging out with him all the time.

Part of good game design is challenging players. It involves exposing them to new environments where they have to think creatively. You describe a D&D game where people research dungeons, teleport there and then run back to the city.

(Nevermind that this is almost impossible prior to 9th level.)

Both before and after 9th level, I put ADVENTURES all over my world. All over the multiverse, in fact. D&D is not a series of dungeon crawls for me. A party might be sent into the mountains to enter a portal that opens into the Chapel of Agony for a single day every year. Or they might be sent into the far reaches of the desert, where nobody ever travels, accompanied only by a single crazy ranger who says he's been there.

After 9th level, if they have teleport - which not everyone does - then that is useful device for traversing long distances. It is certainly easier to use than traversing on horseback, and I'm grateful of that both as a player and as a DM.

But 9th level is also where plane-hopping spells open up whole new aspects of the game.

Teleport does not across planes. And foreknowledge is required. You can't scry a place. Only a being.

The The difference in styles and games. My players know my games are deadly. They won't just go to the temple of bahamut without probably running through some adventures to figure out its exact location and any other information in side. Of course, this probably proves my point too. Your players really don't care considering they know its a resurrection around the corner if things get dicey.

Again, you speak about my game as if you have played in it. You haven't. By default, everything you say about my game that disagrees with me is wrong. There is one expert here on my game, and how it runs. That person is me. You assume, without evidence, that simply because I disagree with you, I run an inferior game.

And, considering I'm presently running two games where resurrection is not an option, and said so in my last post, even when I tell you what to think, you can't listen.

The I'd ask, but you've already said all of your worlds are designed similiarly, which leads me to believe that at some point you're just inventing reasons to spread out your dungeons because you don't want to deal with the effects. But you also said you didn't need any reasons for it. This is just the way you design your worlds. And thats fine. But its not the typical way and by typical i mean equal to published settings by wotc and other professional publishers.

I've never said all of my worlds were designed similarly. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in my last post. So either you just want to argue, or you can't listen, or both.

The reason I spread things throughout my world is because I want a realistic, immersive, deep setting with all kinds of terrain and adventures. My players think that rocks. That is the reason. It is a more interesting, more rich, more deep, more vivid world that way. Randomized city size charts may be useful for some folks, but they are not necessary, and I don't need them.

Being fun is enough. But every decision I make in my games is well thought out, creative and intelligent. You think this is impossible, since I disagree with you, but you are wrong.

The By difficult to cast I mean difficult to get to and perform a cleric. YOu're right its pretty easy to.

Then your fuzzy language should reflect that. And no, I've said it's neither easy nor painless. Your habit of trying to make it sound like I agree with you is cute. For a 6th grader.

The I can only deduct from what you tell me. You seem to disagree with me, and i said its poor world design if there is no real reason for it and if every dungeon seems to be this way. YOu disagreed with this statement. The direct opposite of this is that there needs to be no reason.

I said that being fun is reason enough. I never said that was my only reason for it.

The And anyone else who likes a rich game world.

I love a rich gaming world. I also like it when people share their creativity, instead of bragging about it. Show me how creative you are. Telling is easy, and cheap.

Luckily your word is probably not as important as the professional game designers I know and talk to on a regular basis who have invented and used the mechanics. Feel free to have an opinion but an opinion is only strengthen by the people who back it.

You're a namedropper. That's different from being an expert.

The Smart tactic, don't even offer reasons for your disagreements anymore because you've run out of straw to pull from. You've already agreed with my point. YOu need a reason to design a world with resurrection and weird dungeon placement.

And I have demonstrated, time and again, that resurrections have imaginative precadent and fulfill a necessary game mechanic function. "Weird dungeon placement" is funny, because I haven't found anything in the DMG that requires me to do what you describe.

You do realize that there are places in the real world more than 50 miles from a major city, right? I guess I made the assumption that everyone knows that. Perhaps you don't.

The You pull punches, i don't . So my players are going tothink things out a little more because they know death is very real and around the corner.

I pull no punches at all. And my players are among the most creative, most intelligent and most interesting I've had in a long time. It just gets better and better.

I will not denigrate your players, either. Some lines, I don't cross.

The I can only go by the way you design your game and world design. You are tone one toting "I will do what i want to do in my games.". Fiatting and railroading contineiously because you want to event an unrealistic travel experience for a pc sounds silly. Then again, I"m betting, and i could be wrong, but I'm betting that your home worlds probably don't have detailed maps that distinguish distances between places. I am sure it makes it easier to change up things when theres no reference.

I absolutely WILL do what I want in my games. So will you. And you're wrong about my world. Again.

Shock!

I sometimes deliver decisions because I am the DM. So do you. I do not railroad, in fact. Nor do I substitute Rule 0 for clear thinking and imagination.

The INsult is something someone else determine about themself, not something someone can do. If you are insulted look within oneself.

Nice dodge, but completely untrue. You have insulted and belittled me several times in this conversation. You aren't very good at hiding it, either, and your bad Yoda-speak does nothing to add layers of complexity or concealment to your rather flaccid muscle-flexing.

Again, easy way to sideswipe my comments with smarmy comments. BTW, you're the one who is brash and smarmy.

Nope.

It sounds like you change up the laws of your world to fit your players play style. Unfortuantely if you ever get new players you'll learn that you can't please every playstyle. I bet 1 or 2 of your players are there because they like the friends. Whereas my playstyle creates a world sound enough to hold up to any playstyle, unchanging, dangerious and unrelenting. Players do have to change the way they play whenthey cometo my table if they are used to games of constant ressurection and DM Fiat.

I play with dozens of new players on a regular basis, thanks. I make decisions on what will make the most fun for my games, and based upon my own imaginative vision. Some like it, some don't. I've never had a player leave my table, and many have described me as the best DM they've ever had. I've had dozens of short stories written about characters and campaign events in my games, and a waiting list to get in.

I'm glad that you are a good DM.

But I rock the house, and none of this posturing impresses me.

Eh doesnt sound like you understand it if you're labeling it fudging. When you use a word wrong it makes you sound ignorant of the meaning of the word, thus make sure you use words correctly in a debate.

I'm using the word with precision and absolute correctness. Heroic luck, fate points and action points are fudging. Just like Resurrection. They accomplish the same end in roleplaying: keeping characters alive for the purpose of story continuity.

There's always a problem in your game, some choose to ignore it and some choose to constantly tweak their style and game to achieve these problems.

That would be me. I run a very different game that I did four years ago. My style constantly evolves based upon new material.

That and I"M someone with experience, awards and paychecks for dm'n trying to offer you some advice about world design. You appear to be an arrogant homebrew dm so content on his style and methods that he doesn't see that he doesnt know as much about the game as he thinks. This may shock you, but you are not a special snowflake. People like you are a dime a dozen on the internet.

That's nice. I'm someone with experience, awards and paychecks as well. I don't need your advice about world design.

The fact that your only reply to my observation is a rather lame attempt to cop my line shows me that I found purchase.

I'm a DM. Some of what I do is homebrew, so is from professional designers, some is from creative folks like the ones I find here.

You may be very creative, but you have nothing to teach because you're too busy talking about yourself, rather than the game.

And actually, there are thousands of people like me on the internet. Enworld is a gathering place for them. I'd hardly call them a dime a dozen, but given your continued condescension I'm not surprised to see you spit on them in such a fashion.

Again, a very arrogant DM style. I probably could do whatever i want to do as a DM, but I don't. Not because I would loose players, but because this type of thinking makes bad DM's.

Arrogant? No, I simply don't cave because some anonymous guy on the internet says I should.

Eh, maybe I am. But i'm notthe only dm/player whom enjoy flushed out worlds where things make sense. You don't haveto be the great iron dm to have solid world design techniques. However, if you become situated in your same old ways that has worked for 30 years, you'll never improve your craft.

I know you're not the only person who enjoys flushing out worlds where things make sense. I do, too. I simply reach different conclusions from you.

I couldn't give a rip that you're "the great iron dm." Right now, you're just a guy with too much time on his hands, and nothing better to do than describe yourself in post after post. Get a girlfriend, man. Seriously.

If this is all you've got to offer, I've got maybe one or two posts left in me for this discussion, so I'm announcing my intent to depart for greener and more interesting pastures, shortly.

Is there anything else you need to say?