Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[Cergorach]

When I read this news yesterday on the frontpage, I actually thought "This is the last straw, I'm going to rewrite 3.5E and I'll go my own way!", then I come across the whole Pathfinder RPG OGL thing and someone beat me to it ;-)

I really hate the idea of making characters have an actual destiny, I'm sure some of my (former) players hate this idea as well. It 'forces' you to play a certain type of character, it makes you special beyond your abilities, it makes you a different species and sets you apart from society. Next thing we know we'll have Detect Destiny spells, they finally stopped using the whole Good/Evil thing and now they come up with this! It's just an easy way out!

Raise Dead is a 5th Level spell, requires a 9th Level Cleric, and the material components are 5,000gp. The cost of 'buying' a Raise Dead spell is going fall outside the budget of 95% of the population. Leaving only those Rich enough to afford it and in good graces with someone who can cast it. A good church isn't gooing to raise a slum lord, an evil church isn't going to raise a paladin. The spell reuires you to have the body, no body, No Raise Dead. Thus dying in a large fire or being eaten by wild animals still leaves you with a problem. Young folks die of heart attack all the time (it's not common, but also not super rare), I would say that falls under 'old age'. Then we come to the good parts, rich people have lots of enemies and generally those that hire professionals to solve problems. A missing head or no heart is going to rain on your Raise Dead spell and easily done by most thugs, spells with death effects are for the higher paid assassins.

Next comes Ressurrection, that's a 7th Level spell, requiring a 13th Level Cleric to cast. Those are quite rare, but that still leaves 'old age' as a killer that you can't be saved from (heart attack!). It wouldn't be farfetched that certain Assassin guilds have an understanding with the clerigy "You start Ressurrecting our victims and we'll murder every highly placed (13th+ Level) Priest of your church in the vacinity!". Not to mention that kidnapping and imprisonment is now a better tactic then murder, there are places under the city were folks like Jimmy Hoffa are kept (alive). We also have Spells like Trap the Soul that make sure that a soul is trapped somewhere else.

That is from the top of my head, and there are many roleplaying ideas in there for adventure.

 

[HeinorNY]

I really hate the idea of making characters have an actual destiny, I'm sure some of my (former) players hate this idea as well.

It reminded me of the Simulationist's Manifesto:

"We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."

 

[Lurker37]

One point worth noting - we know almost nothing about how destinies are handled in 4E.

None of the sample characters from DDXP had a Destiny entry on their character sheet, but that could have been a deliberate omission to keep the introduction simple. Or, as previously speculated, it could be that PCs do not earn any significant destiny until higher levels. So it really doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

The possibilities range from "Well, you were able to be resurrected, so obviously the universe isn't finished with you yet - I wonder why?" all the way through to "I'll get you next time, Nemesis McNasty! It's my destiny to kill you"

It's entirely possible that destinies have no presence in game other than as fluff to explain why not everyone can get resurrected. That they are both unknown to those having them and bereft of any game mechanic other than making resurrection possible.

As for the other barriers to raise dead and the plot hooks they can provide - there's no indication that they are not still in game. And as I said, this change seems to have been designed to add plot hooks, not remove them.

In short, until we know more, it's too soon to be getting upset.

 

[Mephistopheles]

My idea of a simulationist approach to things that don't exist in the real world is that you run a bit of a thought experiment to see how things from a real world perspective would change if it were possible. So with the examples of monarchs you start with the premise that monarchs can arrange to be brought back from the dead and ask things like i) What measures would monarchs take to have themselves brought back? ii) What measures would other parties take to prevent the monarch being brought back if it is in their interest for the monarch to stay dead? iii) What measures would need to be taken in trying to assassinate a monarch or usurp a throne when the aggressors know that the monarch likely has measures in place to be brought back?, iv) What kind of impact on laws and economics are caused by the reagents that are required to work the magic to bring someone back from the dead (eg/ diamonds become contraband for anyone but the nobility, and so on), v) How powerful are religious organizations when monarchs or nobles will rely on them to carry through with having them brought back from the dead?, etc. It's a fun but time consuming process if you're trying to do that for everything that would have this sort of impact.

What Keith has said they've done in 4E with resurrection magic is neither for nor against a simulationist approach, it simply changes the thing being simulated. It is a nice short cut around having to explain how these things affect a world or why they don't, so it makes approaching it from a simulationist perspective much easier because it's more narrowly focused. I would prefer they keep this as an option in the DMG but the change does seem to be true to their stated goal of making things easier for DMs. I've played in a few games in previous editions where the DMs took this kind of approach to things like resurrection magic and it was fine in the context of their games.

It will mean more work for religious organizations, though. They'll have to start up destiny insurance departments with priests who go around trying to raise everyone who dies to be sure there wasn't some unsettled destiny their deity had planned for them.

 

[Cergorach]

It reminded me of the Simulationist's Manifesto:

"We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."

I can actually find myself in that statement, but saying that I'm a Simulationist, I don't like. It would mean I'm part of a group *makes cross to ward off group people* ;-)

I actually like the mechanic of Action dice, Karma, and Luck points. Because it lets the player influences the outcome of an action the character is making for dramatic effect. The problem I have with this change is that it's not a mechanical rule, it's a dramatic change on how the 'D&D' universe works. It creates the impression that the only 'real' people in the D&D world are those with Destiny, everything else are just cardboard props there for the benefit and entertainment of those that matter in the eyes of Destiny. I'm of course not opposed to the idea of destiny, but i like it as a story device that is used on a very rare occassion, and not on scores of villains and other heroes the characters/players will meet.

 

[Celebrim]

Many people would do anything, literally anything to bring a loved one back to life. Peasants in the real world rioted over poor working conditions. You don't think it would be worse if people knew that with enough money, you could bring people back to life?!

Which on the other hand is exactly the sort of story that I'm interested in telling.

For example, there is a confederation of small princedoms on my homebrew where politics are dominated by the fact that certain wealthy families know the secret of eternal life and can manufacture potions of longevity. I want to address interesting questions like, 'What would it be like if your life expectancy was directly related to your income?' What if ruling families went on ruling for centuries? What if you ruler was the same as your great-great-grandfathers ruler? Would the peasants be only envious? Or would some of them be in awe? What happens when that social stability is taken away?

That's precisely the sort of interesting question that you can address in fantasy. Even if ultimately such ideas serve as little more than window dressing for your world, and the adventure can procede just fine without them, I think having that sort of thing be part of the story greatly enriches it.

If realism was really my first priority, then I wouldn't use a fantasy setting at all.

But the reversal of death as a purchasable commodity that the wealthy can afford but the poor can't? That's a much thornier problem. Since it's under the control of mortals, some people would inevitably try to change it. And following the repercussions of whatever decisions you make through the whole of society...

It makes my brain hurt.

Yes, but that's part of the fun.

 

[Lackhand]

So, here's what I'm missing. For everyone who says "No, this rule about needing destinies to be resurrected, it is all bunkum and badness!" -- for any individual example you have where being resurrected would be interesting to the plot and worth pursuing, it is obvious that the dead individual still has a destiny to pursue.

Badabing, badabang, done. This rule is in no way in your way, ever. Whenever it looks like it's in your way, it gets out of the way, because it's really very accommodating that way.

However, in the case where resurrection is silly/would reshape society (in a way the DM doesn't wish to deal with)/destroys your campaign, you actually have an excuse to prevent this negative occurrence, other than economics and recalcitrant ghosts.

Sure, 5,000 gp is out of the price range of your average yokel. But it's not out of reach for any given community of reasonable size, and especially not of any modestly successful noble. This means that each and every campaign world had to somehow explain away death for a large amount of its on-screen characters, or just hope nobody looked too closely.

So, needless to say, I like this.

 

[VannATLC]

It reminded me of the Simulationist's Manifesto:

"We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."

How do you justify an story or an adventure hook? How do you actually say "I'm normal"

Are people like (Godwinned!) Hitler, or Idi Amin, or Martin Luther King, or Gandhi or Columbus, or Cook, or Cortez, or Richard Branson, or Bill Gates, are normal?

Do you think, I mean, you personally, think that anybody in their shoes would have done as well?

Because I don't. And I think a PC in a RPG reflects the essence that some people are 'different' than others. They can utilize it to great personal gain, inflict the depredations of their success upon thousands, they can benefit many. They can coast along, maximising their gain, minimising their negative impacts.

Most people, most NPCs, are sheep. The PCs (And in most cases, the players, for a variety of reasons) are not.


EDIT: WRT to the OP..

As the above, I think people do or do not have what it takes to be great. I think there is a spark, genetic, maybe, who knows? That is worked upon by the environs they are raised in. sometimes it fades out. Sometimes it fans into life. When it does? The strength of will, to be who they are, to be different and great? That is what I interprete as 'Destiny'
Somebody who will not easily bend to fate. Somebody who has the strength of soul to resist the pull of the Raven Queen, and whatever lies beyond her. They are the people you can bring back.

By defination, PCs and important NPC's are that kind of person. I would, it is true, concede that any King via conquest, or other forms of 'merit' (loosely used, thank you.) would also be that kind of person.

Certainly how I will run it in my campaigns, and generally already have.

 

[robertliguori]

How do you justify an story or an adventure hook? How do you actually say "I'm normal"

Are people like (Godwinned!) Hitler, or Idi Amin, or Martin Luther King, or Gandhi or Columbus, or Cook, or Cortez, or Richard Branson, or Bill Gates, are normal?

Do you think, I mean, you personally, think that anybody in their shoes would have done as well?

Because I don't. And I think a PC in a RPG reflects the essence that some people are 'different' than others. They can utilize it to great personal gain, inflict the depredations of their success upon thousands, they can benefit many. They can coast along, maximising their gain, minimising their negative impacts.

Most people, most NPCs, are sheep. The PCs (And in most cases, the players, for a variety of reasons) are not.


EDIT: WRT to the OP..

As the above, I think people do or do not have what it takes to be great. I think there is a spark, genetic, maybe, who knows? That is worked upon by the environs they are raised in. sometimes it fades out. Sometimes it fans into life. When it does? The strength of will, to be who they are, to be different and great? That is what I interprete as 'Destiny'
Somebody who will not easily bend to fate. Somebody who has the strength of soul to resist the pull of the Raven Queen, and whatever lies beyond her. They are the people you can bring back.

By defination, PCs and important NPC's are that kind of person. I would, it is true, concede that any King via conquest, or other forms of 'merit' (loosely used, thank you.) would also be that kind of person.

Certainly how I will run it in my campaigns, and generally already have.

In order:
To simulationists, the story is what happens. Sometimes, the story is the story of The Adventurers Who Hung Out In A Tavern While A Mystery Happened To Someone Else. Sometimes, it's The Adventurers Who Got Ambushed and Died In Their Second Random Encounter.

As for your list of people, there is a large amount of difference between exceptional and different. Simulationist adventuring would hold that if you substituted someone with comparable desires and abilities into Bill Gate's life at the important points, you'd have a good shot of getting another Bill Gates. What makes the people on this list special is not that their natures were qualitatively different than humanity; it was their choices, and their actions.

Because, when you start to look at the closely-detailed bits of history, you start noticing that people are pretty much people, and that not only do heroes and villains both have their human sides, but there are veritable loads of people just as heroic and villainous who failed and were forgotten. I think that most people choose not to attempt great things, but those who do choose only buy themselves the chance of success by their decision, and those that do not can always choose differently. To the simulationists, the difference between Bilbo and Frodo Baggins was not their protagonist status, or their elven heritage, or the fact that Eru hand-designed their souls to be adventure-capable; it was that they chose to leave the Shire. Choice, not inherent characteristics, makes heroes heroes.

 

[VannATLC]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think you miss part of what I'm trying to say, mostly likely because I'm not saying it well.

What enables choice? Why do some chose other ways?

You'll get no arguement, from me, that it is the decision to branch out and try. The strength of will required to carry out a decision.
But that, in and of itself, is the key point.

As for the original counterpoint.
The adventures who hang out in a tavern? Why are you modelling that with DnD? I mean, it will do a passable job, but then you're applying a framework over something that doesn't need it.

Surely the point of DND is to enable the character actors, the players, to model actions they are incapable of in real life?

After all, if you could do it, why wouldn't you?
Thats not tongue in cheek. I'm utterly serious.