Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[small pumpkin man]

I suspected as much. I tried to point that out, too, but I was ignored (this seems to happen a lot. Is it because I have a low post count or something?).

I think it's more that rational non-objectionable discourse doesn't get immediately replied to, which means it doesn't show up 7 times in quotes and people forget to read it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think it's more that rational non-objectionable discourse doesn't get immediately replied to, which means it doesn't show up 7 times in quotes and people forget to read it.

Which can be aggravating since those posts can lead to really fun debates and discussion.

 

[Baron Opal]

How would a simulationist approach Raise Dead then? I am anxious to see how Raise Dead works in the real world.

Come to my hospital and I'll show you. There are several material components, some of them are entertaining to use. And it costs a hell of a lot more than a nice diamond. Three months ago we brought back someone who was completely exsanguinated for 15 minutes. That was pretty tricky, I admit, but we did it.

 

[hong]

I can't say that I favor the change in flavor because I don't really see a significant difference. DM decides whether or not NPC gets raised in either case. In 4e, he doesn't have an unfinished destiny and can't be raised. In 3.5, he was satisfied with being in the afterlife and didn't want to come back and can't be raised.

I may prefer the 3.5 flavor actually because then it's about the choice of the character rather than cosmic fiat. And if you've finally arrived in whatever heaven your religion espouses... why would you want to go back to the world where you died a violent death anyway? That's why I've always considered raisings rare.

Whereas I like how 4E spins it, not just because it's basically how I spin it already, but also because the concept of people being able to choose whether to come back from the dead and rejecting the opportunity is not something that crops up at all in any real-world cultural tradition I'm aware of.

 

[pukunui]

I think it's more that rational non-objectionable discourse doesn't get immediately replied to, which means it doesn't show up 7 times in quotes and people forget to read it.

LOL. You're probably right.

 

[Derren]

How would a simulationist approach Raise Dead then? I am anxious to see how Raise Dead works in the real world.

Where you are wrong:
Simulationist doesn't mean "like in the real world"


How to deal with Raise Dead (3E) in a simulationist way:

A) -- The creative approach
Craft a world where Raise Dead is simply part of the society. Nobles and wealthy individuals simply do not stay dead unless they are killed in a special way and they don't have a good standing with the local churches. Assassinations are more of a warning or temporary distraction, the possession of diamonds is heavily regulated by the nobles and diamond mines are among the most fought over places in the world.

B) -- The rule 0 way
Either the DM disallows Raise Dead (&Co) completely or makes it harder to pull of which means requiring hard to get spell components. But if the PCs use it to raise some NPC instead of sayving it for personal (group) use then it works and the plot progresses accordingly

C) -- The lazy way (not really simulationist)
Ignore it and hope that the PCs don't ask questions.

Not surprisingly I favor approach A.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I love this explanation. I always felt Raise Dead was just cheating, so most of the times I just didn't allow it at all, but this way I could see it working.

My problem was always that a character who just made this heroic stand against a pursuing dragon and gave his life to give his companions time to escape from the collapsing ruins, shouldn't be brought back simply because you can cast Raise Dead so many times as a 15th level cleric.
According to this new rule, saving his companions would have been his destiny and now that it is fulfilled, he won't be coming back anymore. That's exactly the kind of narrative I wanted to be able to add to my game...

 

[Wormwood]

Hasn't this always been part of the assumption?

Yes it has.

Nice to see it codified.

 

[shilsen]

Where you are wrong:
Simulationist doesn't mean "like in the real world"

Most of the time simulationist means "What the person currently using it wants it to mean." Kinda like "gamist" and "narrativist" and all of that other garbage.

How to deal with Raise Dead (3E) in a simulationist way:

A) -- The creative approach
Craft a world where Raise Dead is simply part of the society. Nobles and wealthy individuals simply do not stay dead unless they are killed in a special way and they don't have a good standing with the local churches. Assassinations are more of a warning or temporary distraction, the possession of diamonds is heavily regulated by the nobles and diamond mines are among the most fought over places in the world.

B) -- The rule 0 way
Either the DM disallows Raise Dead (&Co) completely or makes it harder to pull of which means requiring hard to get spell components. But if the PCs use it to raise some NPC instead of sayving it for personal (group) use then it works and the plot progresses accordingly

C) -- The lazy way (not really simulationist)
Ignore it and hope that the PCs don't ask questions.

Not surprisingly I favor approach A.

Hey, whatever works for you. Personally, I think there are all kinds of ways to be simulationist. It just depends on what it is that you're trying to simulate. For me, 4e's approach to Raise Dead works well for simulating mythology. One of the standard tropes in myth, whether you look at Greek or Teutonic or Indian or Celtic or most others is that some people play by completely different rules to others. And who these people are is usually heavily arbitrary, depending mainly on whether they are the protagonists of the given tales or myth cycles. This kind of approach to Raise Dead fits perfectly with that attitude. I've always maintained that D&D in play is much closer to mythology than to most fantasy, and 4e in many ways is more explicitly hewing to that standard.

Of course, there's one other way I know this is a great rule. I've been using it for years now. And if D&D ever uses a rule I've been using for a long time, that means it's a great rule. Simple

 

[Revinor]

According to this new rule, saving his companions would have been his destiny and now that it is fulfilled, he won't be coming back anymore. That's exactly the kind of narrative I wanted to be able to add to my game...

So, basically, you will penalize him for heroic efforts? If somebody dies because of stupidity, he can be ressed. If somebody plays a hero, he foregos his chance for ressurection ?

Always look at the rules not only from the point 'are they elegant' (anyway, this one is not), but also 'what kind of behaviors do they encourage'. In this case, if we assume that players like to play their characters (safe assumption I think if they have reached 15th level), you encourage not-fulfilling their desitinies/being heroic.

It goes even further. Reasonable PC should let his lifetime villain escape, instead of killing him - by killing your archfoe, you give up chances for raise dead.