Magic deadly to the caster and allies

[Bullgrit]

You're setting up a false dichotomy here.

I don't think so. The idea given was that no one minded a character dying to spell side effects because creating a new one was so quick and easy. If you create a new character at the same level as the dead one, and honestly just didn't care if a character lived or died, then I can see that. If you created a new character and had to work back up in levels, then regardless of how quick and easy character generation was, it still took long effort to get back to where your previous one died.

If having a PC die on you is so easy and even fun, why do we all work so hard to keep our PCs alive? Why aren't we playing like Paranoia, and working to see what cool and fun ways we can get our PCs killed?

But we don't work to kill our PCs. We all seem to work pretty darn hard to stay alive and see what's in the next room. To finish the adventure. Because, honestly, succeeding is more fun that failing, even if the failure is a big nova blast of cool. And I would think dying to a spell side effect isn't as cool and fun as killing the monsters with the spell.

Bullgrit

 

[Storminator]

I don't think so. The idea given was that no one minded a character dying to spell side effects because creating a new one was so quick and easy. If you create a new character at the same level as the dead one, and honestly just didn't care if a character lived or died, then I can see that. If you created a new character and had to work back up in levels, then regardless of how quick and easy character generation was, it still took long effort to get back to where your previous one died.

We could never imagine starting a PC at higher than 1st level. But we never had a problem with losing PCs (we did it all the time!). We had half a dozen parties going at once, and if your main PC died, you promoted the next guy to the varsity team. We used to say our current party stands atop the pyramid of death.

PS

 

[Herschel]

No, not to a piece of paper. To the character that you've played for a year to get him to 10th level. I'm not saying you'd (or I'd) cry over the dead character, but if I'd just spent a year playing the character up to name level, I'd have some attachment to it. I think even you would have a reaction at least a notch above, "oh well, hand me 4d6."

I had a 1E Fighter I built from first level to late ninth level. I loved that character. How did he die? A freak teleport accident "riding" with his buddy the Mage trying to circumvent a guard post right in to 60' of solid stone.

It was "$%#$&$#, that really sucks! Hand me 4d6." and a good story/joke to this day. Sure, my new character started w/ 3/4 XP of the lowest party member, but them's the breaks. I did "resurrect" him later as an NPC in a campaign.

 

[Herschel]

I don't think so. The idea given was that no one minded a character dying to spell side effects because creating a new one was so quick and easy.

This isn't quite worded correctly. Character creation being quick and easy made it fast to get back to the fun. Creation isn't cause, but it limited "dead time". As I posted above, we always came back/created new with 3/4 of the XP of the lowest party member alive. This was VERY big incentive to protect the party and keep members alive without turning new characters essentially in to henchmen/hirelings.

In 3E, the game session is basically over if a character of moderate level dies, at least for that player. In earlier editions, you could have a base one ready by the next good pick-up point.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Managing risk is inherently more "fun" than point and click abilities. Even when you as the player aren't consciously aware of it.

 

[nightwyrm]

This isn't quite worded correctly. Character creation being quick and easy made it fast to get back to the fun. Creation isn't cause, but it limited "dead time". As I posted above, we always came back/created new with 3/4 of the XP of the lowest party member alive. This was VERY big incentive to protect the party and keep members alive without turning new characters essentially in to henchmen/hirelings.

In 3E, the game session is basically over if a character of moderate level dies, at least for that player. In earlier editions, you could have a base one ready by the next good pick-up point.

I was gonna write the same thing, but you put it better.

Just because characters are easy to makes, doesn't mean you don't have attachment to it. That's a strawman. However, if characters are easy and quick to make, the player can get back into the game sooner if his old one died in a freak accident.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

If having a PC die on you is so easy and even fun, why do we all work so hard to keep our PCs alive? Why aren't we playing like Paranoia, and working to see what cool and fun ways we can get our PCs killed?

But we don't work to kill our PCs. We all seem to work pretty darn hard to stay alive and see what's in the next room. To finish the adventure. Because, honestly, succeeding is more fun that failing, even if the failure is a big nova blast of cool. And I would think dying to a spell side effect isn't as cool and fun as killing the monsters with the spell.

I don't think that perspective really applies to all gamers. We don't all run our characters to avoid death. I run my characters to see over the next horizon, to explore character ideas, and other such fun times, and if they die humorously in the process, all the better! The very fact that most of us send these made up people into dangerous situations tells me that many gamers are looking for an element of vicarious thrill. To me, random disastrous spell effects add to that vicarious thrill, and safe, reliable magic injures that thrill.

 

[I'm A Banana]

HT has my experience summed up nicely. Someone give that dude some XP or something, this is insightful.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think that perspective really applies to all gamers. We don't all run our characters to avoid death. I run my characters to see over the next horizon, to explore character ideas, and other such fun times, and if they die humorously in the process, all the better! The very fact that most of us send these made up people into dangerous situations tells me that many gamers are looking for an element of vicarious thrill. To me, random disastrous spell effects add to that vicarious thrill, and safe, reliable magic injures that thrill.

Exploration along a road of broken corpses, eh?

I guess I'm with Bullgrit. I don't like running PCs who are meat-snack avatars with as little meaning or sentimentality as a monopoly shoe. I hate meat-grinders, and I REALLY hate deathtraps where PCs have a distinct disadvantage at survival (glares at Tomb of Horrors). I want challenge, risk, and excitement, but I want my Pc to have a reasonable chance at surviving it. Reasonable chance, not a "gimmie", not an easy win, but a even (or slightly unfavorable) chance.

I guess it comes from a more 2nd edition "follow the story" motif. We (me and many of the people I played with of a similar age) made characters with the expectation of seeing them through to the end. We didn't throw random PCs generated in minutes to the slaughter to win a war of attrition against a dungeon, we wanted "Remathilis the thief" to see the end of the adventure as much as "Ian the player."

Sure, sometimes we died. The dice are a cruel mistress and it happens. However, it was rare enough that the character who died was usually remembered for his deeds, not his death.

It lead to a game style that (from what I read) is distinctly opposite 1e's playstyle; structure story vs. sandbox, Pcs who were planned in advance with strong ongoing story elements vs. quickly generated "replacement" avatars, and a strong sense of "balance" that meant PCs weren't more powerful than each other (or start strong and fade fast) and could survive most reasonable challenges that a DM would use against an appropriate level party (such as a reasonable chance to defeat a foe of a CR = party level).

Its my personal badwrongfun, and I'm sticking to it!

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Exploration along a road of broken corpses, eh?

I guess I'm with Bullgrit. I don't like running PCs who are meat-snack avatars with as little meaning or sentimentality as a monopoly shoe. I hate meat-grinders, and I REALLY hate deathtraps where PCs have a distinct disadvantage at survival (glares at Tomb of Horrors).

Oh, I don't like cookie-cutter characters run through a meat-grinder, either. I prefer to have strongly formed characters with an identity all their own, and I also like to see bad things happen to them to see how they'll react. The awful consequences make the struggle meaningful.

Maybe this isn't a universal experience, but when I watch a TV drama with action and danger, I want to see main characters that I really like die from time to time. It makes the action real to me. Battlestar Galactica is awesome, but it would be double-plus awesome if a cylon had blown Lee Adama's head off in season two. Not that I dislike Lee as a character, but having a troupe of danger-seekers (like spaceship fighter pilots) who never die makes each subsequent danger they face seem less dramatic. When Gaeta lost his leg, that really added to the character, and made the world feel dangerous and real again (musical numbers notwithstanding ).

But that's really a personal preference thing, and nothing against people who want to see a character reach max level. Almost no one stays dead in the Marvel universe, for instance, and scream as I might whenever they resurrect Xavier or Aunt May, I keep reading...