Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5061301" data-attributes="member: 2067">In D&D, at least for 3e and still for 4e, I absolutely don't mind this. Resurrection in 3e is a "known quantity" by default (that is, it's rare, but you can find it somewhere in the world, and it's been known to happen, for the Heroes). In 4e, this is a bit less true, but it's still an assumed character resource ("once a day, when you die..."). I really don't mind PC death, even if it might be permanent. Though I would be very interested in seeing ways to keep the player contributing after the character bites it (player boredom sucks infinitely more than character death), characters that die are not an inherent problem to me.Now, Resurrection isn't something that is going to make an individual combat less swingy in either edition. It's a way to counteract some of the swing after the fact. I don't think this HAS to be true, it just has been true due mostly to legacy issues. And without resurrection, character death would be much harder to stomach ("Joe can't have fun anymore" isn't a desirable way to penalize). It makes the game as a whole less swingy, though, since the PC's have many ways of returning back to their starting point, even after catastrophic failure (and the monsters usually don't -- though sometimes the true villains do). It keeps the tension of death and failure (and even raises the specter of permanent demise if you're eaten by a Terrasque or something), but gives the PC's a way to bounce back. Generally speaking, I prefer a combat that is "back and forth" rather than "slow, steady progression." That kind of shifting of tactics round-to-round is appealing to me, because it reflects the drama that should be inherent in a life-or-death struggle. Binary results aren't usually the best ("save or die"/"save or suck" is just a Don't-Have-Fun Button), but swingy results that aren't totally binary ("save or be down for a round"/"take tremendous damage and force healing") are exciting, because it demands that each turn you have, you have to do something different. Combat becomes fluid.For instance, I am trying to make FFZ combat sort of "flip-floppy," in that the party that attacks in this round is forced to defend in the next round, and then switch back to attacking in the third, if they don't want to loose. Against enemies of equal or greater power, you NEED to pull out new tricks and stunts to win, or you will slowly be whittled down. Ideally, every player's turn will be spent carefully choosing which of these tricks to use in this specific scenario, because if they choose wrong, they could fail utterly, and rather quickly. I think a swingy (but not binary) combat gives a lot of narrative tension. Essentially, it makes each choice really matter, which is ideal, I think. It's not always realistic, but it's always pretty exciting.</blockquote>

Verification