Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8956729" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=6684958]@bloodtide[/USER]My response to your most recent post is similar to [USER=16760]@The Shadow[/USER]'s - I can't really work out what you have in mind.In particular, I can't work out what it is that you are contrasting with a fairly traditional approach to Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain or whatever you are thinking of as &quot;the adventure&quot; that gets played through. You refer to a &quot;play style&quot; but it's not one I'm familiar with - you clearly don't adopt it, I don't know of anyone else who adopts it, so where is it found other than in your imagination?I think I'm one of the few posters in this thread to have actually referenced a particular RPG which has as a concrete principle that PC death is not normally an important part of play, namely, Prince Valiant. (The Shadow referenced Fate.) But in Prince Valiant adverse consequences in conflicts - which are mechanically expressed as depletions of one's dice pool - are carefully tracked, and there is no such thing as &quot;agreeing that the PCs can't fail&quot;. Upthread I posted <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/prince-valiant-rpging.690321/" target="_blank">this link</a> to a session in which the PCs failed - those who were pursuing a kidnapper failed to catch him; the one who was leading the defence of a castle against a siege failed in his leadership, and the castle fell to its besiegers; and then when all the PCs were trying to withdraw to their friendly castle, their enemies caught up to them just outside its walls.Whether or not PC death is a typical possibility in play simply has on bearing on what was at stake in these various conflicts, whether or not they were exciting (I can report that to me they seemed to be), and whether or not the PCs succeeded at them (as I've already posted and reiterated, they didn't).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8956729, member: 42582"] [USER=6684958]@bloodtide[/USER] My response to your most recent post is similar to [USER=16760]@The Shadow[/USER]'s - I can't really work out what you have in mind. In particular, I can't work out what it is that you are contrasting with a fairly traditional approach to Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain or whatever you are thinking of as "the adventure" that gets played through. You refer to a "play style" but it's not one I'm familiar with - you clearly don't adopt it, I don't know of anyone else who adopts it, so where is it found other than in your imagination? I think I'm one of the few posters in this thread to have actually referenced a particular RPG which has as a concrete principle that [i]PC death is not normally an important part of play[/i], namely, Prince Valiant. (The Shadow referenced Fate.) But in Prince Valiant adverse consequences in conflicts - which are mechanically expressed as depletions of one's dice pool - are carefully tracked, and there is no such thing as "agreeing that the PCs can't fail". Upthread I posted [url=https://www.enworld.org/threads/prince-valiant-rpging.690321/]this link[/url] to a session in which the PCs failed - those who were pursuing a kidnapper failed to catch him; the one who was leading the defence of a castle against a siege failed in his leadership, and the castle fell to its besiegers; and then when all the PCs were trying to withdraw to their friendly castle, their enemies caught up to them just outside its walls. Whether or not PC death is a typical possibility in play simply has on bearing on what was at stake in these various conflicts, whether or not they were exciting (I can report that to me they seemed to be), and whether or not the PCs succeeded at them (as I've already posted and reiterated, they didn't). [/QUOTE]

Verification