Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8706229" data-attributes="member: 6704184">So, what some people are trying to explain, I think, (and your replies come across fairly rude, IMO, especially in a + thread wherein these folks are trying to engage with the OP) is that it isn’t necessary to change any rules to accommodate a lack of death as an option, and why. “Other consequences” answers are a direct answer to this specific question. The point of those mechanics is to have mechanics for when someone is knocked out and when they cannot be brought back into the fight by simple healing. I think it’s important to note here that most folks I know, at least, who play this way don’t see the DM primarily as a referee. The roll is made because something still happens when a PC fails 3 death saves. Not trying to be mean or anything, but again…these questions are what people are replying to and answering, that you’re them telling them you aren’t asking what they’re answering. You explicitly did ask. Repeatedly, in several different particular context. For my friends who play this way:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Satisfying gameplay over the long term for people who see old school gameplay as “basically playing Dark Souls with permadeath” (to quote a friend) when they want to play Dragon Age. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More dramatically and emotionally impactful character deaths, when they do happen, because they only happen with the player’s consent. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Surprise character development based on what happens when a character drops and faces dire consequences like a loved one taking the arrow for you, or losing a limb, or having to spend long enough convalescing that you lose out on something important, or whatever. It opens up more avenues for the emergent story to develop along. </li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification