On the Importance of Mortality

[Fenes]

Of course it is. That's implicit. As such, poitning it out isn't much of an argument or discussion.

I beg to differ. It is not implicit. The wording - "this is patently untrue" - is very much not alluding to "in my opinion". If someone says something without any "I think" or "In my opinion" qualifier, then it is by default meant as a statement of fact, not an opinion.

 

[shilsen]

I don't quite understand how this statement conflicts with what DYA wrote or how what he wrote implies a "high kill ratio".

If I'm reading accurately (please correct me if I'm wrong, FreeTheSlaves), FreeTheSlaves created his character with full intention and knowledge that the character would be a hero. DestroyYouAlot's post claimed that D&D must have uncertainty about whether the PC concerned will be a hero or not. I see a significant conflict between the two. I do not, however, see anything in DestroyYouAlot's post that implies a high kill ratio. Though admittedly his poster name does

Of course it is. That's implicit. As such, poitning it out isn't much of an argument or discussion.

Again, I beg to differ. I don't think the fact that he's essentially talking purely about his tastes is at all implicit in DestroyYouAlot's post. When a post says that other people's observations about the game are "patently untrue, and misses the point," it reads to me as if someone is making a 'this is what the game is and you're wrong if you don't see it' comment.

*Beaten to it! FEEEEEENNNNNEEEES!*

 

[Reynard]

If someone says something without any "I think" or "In my opinion" qualifier, then it is by default meant as a statement of fact, not an opinion.

I think maintaining this position, especially in regards to internet discussion forums, will cause you more stress than assuming the reverse.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I've heard several people make the observation that D&D is a game about being a hero. This is patently untrue, and misses the point.

PHB, v3.5: have a look under 'Introduction', on page 4.

For the upcoming edition of D&D, what's the first tier of play called, again? The one that extends from level 1 to level 10? Ah, yes.


Anyway - FWIW - as a DM and as a player, I prefer that mortality is present as part of a PC's reality, assuming they are indeed mortal beings. I generally prefer it not to be emphasised too greatly, at the expense of other important elements. But yes, I like it to be there. I am also in favour of rules symmetry, as it happens (i.e., the rules that apply to PCs should apply to NPCs should apply to 'monsters' of similar types, and so forth.)

Colour me somewhat simulationist, or something along those lines.

 

[Fenes]

I think maintaining this position, especially in regards to internet discussion forums, will cause you more stress than assuming the reverse.

Not really. Assuming motives, for better or worse, contrary to clear and precise written statements is much more of a problem for discussions. It leads to people not discussing posts anymore, but what they assume the posts mean, and that's a slipperly slope that leads quickly down to flamewars, especially given the tendency of people to assume the worst of "opponents", and the best of "allies".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not talking about the 'possibility' of PC death. I'm talking about PC death. Itself.

If a PC dies (and isn't Raised), no more consequences can befall that character.

Permanent death ends a PC's story. Ergo, no further consequences from that PC's POV.

If the character lives, they can suffer other consequences and pursue new goals. For instance, revenge.

Clearer, yes?

Sure.

If you examine my story hours (woefully non-updated, I know) in my .sig, you'll see that I disagree. IMC, things can still happen to you after you die. Moreover, I hold that it is the player's perspective that is important, not the character's, and that with an extended PC pool (as I previously described) all those other goals are still possible, even if they are pursued through other PCs. Bob dies. His brother/son/lover seeks to avenge him. Easy.

RC

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

My present character is a hero.

He was at level 4, and he remains so at level 12. Death and mortality are two occasional adversaries he battles. Corruption and pride are continuous foes that have managed to defeat him twice, but then he has risen twice afterwards.

I decided that was the character I was going to play at character creation time. The dm didn't have much input into this decision except to confirm that it was an appropriate character for the campaign we're playing.

A hero is much more than just a character with a high kill ratio.

A hero is, at the very least, someone who risks much to gain all. Since, from what you're saying here, death was not on the table, what was?

This is your opinion, not a fact. Not everyone shares it either.

Of course it is. That's implicit. As such, poitning it out isn't much of an argument or discussion.

Yes, that's a "Hey - the sky is blue!!!" statement, there.

I think maintaining this position, especially in regards to internet discussion forums, will cause you more stress than assuming the reverse.

Yeah, I don't have a "THAT'S JUST MY OPINION AND YOURS IS EQUALLY IF NOT MORE VALID DISCLAIMER LOCK" key on my keyboard, so you'll just have to assume good faith, I'm afraid.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

For the upcoming edition of D&D, what's the first tier of play called, again? The one that extends from level 1 to level 10? Ah, yes.

"World 1-1"

But we're not here to discuss editions, yes?

 

[Fenes]

Yeah, I don't have a "THAT'S JUST MY OPINION AND YOURS IS EQUALLY IF NOT MORE VALID DISCLAIMER LOCK" key on my keyboard, so you'll just have to assume good faith, I'm afraid.

I won't assume good faith, or bad faith. I'll simply treat your posts as meaning what they say, not what I think you want to say.

 

[Shadeydm]

As a person who borrowed Shil's idea about using action points to stabilize dying characters I have a couple observations/opinions on this topic.

Despite using what has been described as a "death-lite mechanic" it has never been my intention to remove the threat of death from my campaign, nor do I think this has been the result. Rather my intent has been to make permanent death much less likely than what the default rules implication seems to be. Especially at lower levels when getting raised etc is an expensive proposition generally out of the financial means of lower level parties.

This doesn't mean that the BBEG cannot kill off a captured PC after a nasty fight. OTOH it does allow for a BBEG to decide to hold onto that PC to bait the party into a difficult or dangerous encounter at a time and place of BBEG's choosing.

I like AP stabilization mechanic, I believe it empowers the PCs to take some extra chances/risks that they might otherwise shy away from, and hopefully leads to a more heroic game and increasing the chance that the PCs will live to experience higher level play and even greater threats and dangers.

I agree death is an important aspect of the game but I don't think it has to happen very often for this to be true.