Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JesterPoet" data-source="post: 2074182" data-attributes="member: 138">There's a lot to reply to here, so I'm going to take it a bit at a time.&nbsp; Removing the possibility of death does remove a major setting element.&nbsp; Yet, reducing the likelyhood of PC death does not inherently do so.&nbsp; I'm not sure what your gaming group is like, but in my group, I have a number of gamers who are able to keep the fear of death in their PCs through solid roleplaying, while not needing the fear of character death OOC to motivate such strategies.&nbsp; I don't believe that IC and OOC fear of death have to be the same thing.&nbsp; I would even go so far as to say that, IMO, the requirement that the two be linked is a sign of poor roleplaying.&nbsp; The players can suffer other punishments as well, so it becomes even less of an issue for us when you take that into consideration.&nbsp; It is possible that I didn't make this completely clear.&nbsp; He has not asked for an exception.&nbsp; He has simply made his feelings about the uselessness of character death clear to me, and has backed it up substantially with good arguments.&nbsp; He wouldn't ask for an exception.&nbsp; If it was that important to him, he simply wouldn't play. What is at stake, then, is that I know he's not having as much fun as he could be, due to this issue, and that's something I don't like at my table.&nbsp; I could solve that by making his character invulnerable to harm.&nbsp; I could even do that without pissing off the other players (we stick pretty solidly to the rules of &quot;Don't let the rules get in the way of the game&quot;... we've played too much Mutants &amp; Masterminds not to have learned that rule).&nbsp; But I don't want to do that.&nbsp; I want to find a compromise, and I know there's one out there.&nbsp; So far, the Fate Points idea has seemed like a really good one.</blockquote>That's the thing that I think a lot of people aren't understanding, though.&nbsp; I think a good game is built around giving the characters other things to lose than just their lives.&nbsp; I also think that is central to the Midnight campaign setting... much more so than PC death.&nbsp; In a world filled with darkness and despair, where your best reward may be making sure that a friend or fellow conspirator, or lover, or family member has something to eat, or lives one more day, there is a lot more work that needs to go into building the &quot;feel&quot; of the game.&nbsp; It doesn't have to be a matter of, &quot;I die, or I loot the corpse and get cool stuff.&quot;&nbsp; For this player in particular, &quot;Not being able to rescue the child from the legates who have captured her in order to draw him out&quot; would be a significantly more serious consequence for inaction or failure.&nbsp; That's not the case for every player, but it is for him.&nbsp; Doesn't it make sense, then, that I can build a more rewarding game by catering to that for him, and catering to what the other individuals need for their gaming experience?[/quote]Don't get me wrong... I'm by no means afraid to say, &quot;no&quot; when the need arises.&nbsp; But I don't think that &quot;no&quot; is the correct answer here.&nbsp; I think &quot;no&quot; would hurt my game.&nbsp; Just as you said... I'm responsible for all the players' fun.&nbsp; SIDE NOTE - Last night, on the way to poker, one of my players reminded me that we did experience a character death.&nbsp; His character died the first night.&nbsp; For those of you who have run CoS... he opened something he shouldn't have.&nbsp; And didn't check it for traps first.&nbsp; And was the party's rogue.&nbsp; I don't feel too guilty.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="JesterPoet, post: 2074182, member: 138"] There's a lot to reply to here, so I'm going to take it a bit at a time. Removing the possibility of death [i]does[/i] remove a major setting element. Yet, reducing the likelyhood of PC death does not inherently do so. I'm not sure what your gaming group is like, but in my group, I have a number of gamers who are able to keep the fear of death in their PCs through solid roleplaying, while not needing the fear of character death OOC to motivate such strategies. I don't believe that IC and OOC fear of death have to be the same thing. I would even go so far as to say that, IMO, the [i]requirement[/i] that the two be linked is a sign of poor roleplaying. The players can suffer other punishments as well, so it becomes even less of an issue for us when you take that into consideration. It is possible that I didn't make this completely clear. He has not asked for an exception. He has simply made his feelings about the uselessness of character death clear to me, and has backed it up substantially with good arguments. He wouldn't ask for an exception. If it was that important to him, he simply wouldn't play. What is at stake, then, is that I know he's not having as much fun as he could be, due to this issue, and that's something I don't like at my table. I could solve that by making his character invulnerable to harm. I could even do that without pissing off the other players (we stick pretty solidly to the rules of "Don't let the rules get in the way of the game"... we've played too much Mutants & Masterminds not to have learned that rule). But I don't want to do that. I want to find a compromise, and I know there's one out there. So far, the Fate Points idea has seemed like a really good one.[/quote] That's the thing that I think a lot of people aren't understanding, though. I think a good game is built around giving the characters other things to lose than just their lives. I also think [i]that[/i] is central to the Midnight campaign setting... much more so than PC death. In a world filled with darkness and despair, where your best reward may be making sure that a friend or fellow conspirator, or lover, or family member has something to eat, or lives one more day, there is a lot more work that needs to go into building the "feel" of the game. It doesn't have to be a matter of, "I die, or I loot the corpse and get cool stuff." For this player in particular, "Not being able to rescue the child from the legates who have captured her in order to draw him out" would be a significantly more serious consequence for inaction or failure. That's not the case for every player, but it is for him. Doesn't it make sense, then, that I can build a more rewarding game by catering to that for him, and catering to what the other individuals need for their gaming experience? [/quote] Don't get me wrong... I'm by no means afraid to say, "no" when the need arises. But I don't think that "no" is the correct answer here. I think "no" would hurt my game. Just as you said... I'm responsible for [i]all[/i] the players' fun. [b]SIDE NOTE[/b] - Last night, on the way to poker, one of my players reminded me that we did experience a character death. His character died the first night. For those of you who have run CoS... he opened something he shouldn't have. And didn't check it for traps first. And was the party's rogue. I don't feel too guilty. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification