The ethics of ... death

[Umbran]

Can you drop this phrasing? Not all of us are from Yorkshire and know what "blag the DM" means. Is it really that difficult for you to just say divinations, etc. rely on DM fiat?

Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.

But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat". The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game). The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, to be honest, it cannot be *too* unreasonable - there's a limit where death is too common to make the game fun.

Of course. I'm certainly not trying to state the contrary (that arbitrarily high lethality is desirable). Only that a particular subclass of abilities that contribute to that level of lethalty are, to reference the thread title, within the limits of "ethical" gaming.

 

[Balesir]

Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.

But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat". The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game). The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.

Right - or, perhaps more commonly in RPGs, taking a situation where no rules exist and finagling things such that the new rules the GM invents on the spot (as they are obliged and empowered to do) suit your purposes.

Of course. I'm certainly not trying to state the contrary (that arbitrarily high lethality is desirable). Only that a particular subclass of abilities that contribute to that level of lethalty are, to reference the thread title, within the limits of "ethical" gaming.

That wasn't where the discussion with me came from - indeed, it's a bit of a diversion from the original thread topic - because if it was we would have no difference of opinion, here.

My original post made it quite clear (I thought) that I don't regard SoD as "unethical", or even as undesirable, in itself. I just don't think it fits well in a game of D&D, given the type of game that I come to D&D for. You then claimed that the D&D SoD don't count/aren't what I meant/somehow get a pass - specifically for 3e D&D, as far as I can make out - so SoD in D&D must be OK. My position is that you haven't convinced me one whit away from my original opinion - which was that I don't particularly like SoD in D&D because I think it clashes with what the rest of the game offers to me. Others, obviously, may differ.

For other games - which don't have other D&D mechanisms such as hit points and classes and levels - SoD-type instances can work just fine.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My original post made it quite clear (I thought) that I don't regard SoD as "unethical", or even as undesirable, in itself. I just don't think it fits well in a game of D&D, given the type of game that I come to D&D for. You then claimed that the D&D SoD don't count/aren't what I meant/somehow get a pass - specifically for 3e D&D, as far as I can make out - so SoD in D&D must be OK.

AFAICT, what you were doing (or extending from other posters) is evaluating SoD in a thought experiment (one in which the characters are easily exposed to it and unable to counter it), rather than in a reasonable example of play, thus distorting its impact on the game.

My position is that you haven't convinced me one whit away from my original opinion - which was that I don't particularly like SoD in D&D because I think it clashes with what the rest of the game offers to me.

I don't know that it clashes that much with the overall level of lethality in D&D (3e and earlier). A wizard can easily be dropped to negatives and potentially killed by even mediocre opponents for several levels. A high damage character can kill opponents in one swing (let alone one round) through most of the game. Many of the SoD monsters are D&D classics. If you're saying it doesn't fit in 4e, that's probably true, or with your own experiences and preferences, which is fair enough. I can certainly imagine someone not liking, and even being downright averse to it.

For other games - which don't have other D&D mechanisms such as hit points and classes and levels - SoD-type instances can work just fine.

Okay.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.

But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat". The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game). The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.

Thanks for the clarification!

As for knowing the GM's trends, well, that almost never hurts. There are guys in my group who, when they GM, I don't invest much in all those Familiar/Animal Companion/Paladin Mount/etc. combst tricks, because that is the quickest path to getting that critter killed. For some of them, I won't even play a PC that has one.

 

[LostSoul]

My own experience here fits with what Umbran says. A system that makes information, and similar strategic considerations, the key to success in action resolution, can very easily lead to a playstyle in which play bogs down into divination, and then using the right suite of buffs to make the actual encounter a cakewalk. I have encountered this particularly in high level (ie level 10+) Rolemaster.

This is why I make sure my dungeon design incorporates information into its room structure as a matter of course. In order to gain information about the dungeon you must explore the dungeon. In that way, the game isn't bogging down into divination/information gathering - you simply explore the dungeon (that is, play the game) and learn about it.

I guess it's similar to a "3 clue rule" - if there's something deadly in the dungeon, provide some clues about it. The more dangerous, the more clues you should provide. If there's a banshee but she's not automatically hostile you might only need one clue; if she is, then you probably need more.

 

[pemerton]

3 bites from a deadly venom and I'm still expecting to die

This is the bit that, if I understand him right, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is querying (and also [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]?).

If I am a high level fighter I can take a "hit" from a fire giant and survive. However, given that even as a high level fighter I remain a mortal hero, a literal hit from a fire giant would kill me. It follows, therefore, that a "hit" from a fire giant isn't in the literal sense a hit - it is a blow that I narrowly dodge, or that send me flying rather than cutting me in two, or something similar (as per Gygax's essays on hit points).

Parallel logic suggests that 3 "hits" from a poisonous snake aren't literally bites that inject venom. Yet, by the rules, each requires me to make a poison save or die. That is the perceived inconsistency of SoD poison with the broader attack and damage mechanics - SoD poison implies that snakes and spiders pose a type of threat, or attack with a degree of accuracy, that fire giants lack. Which makes little sense within the fiction.

I would add - even if you regard hit points as meat, the oddity remains, because hit points are a type of meat that can survive being peppered by arrows or cut in two by a giant, but that can't survive a bite from a snake or spider. Very fickle meat!

 

[Umbran]

I guess it's similar to a "3 clue rule" - if there's something deadly in the dungeon, provide some clues about it. The more dangerous, the more clues you should provide. If there's a banshee but she's not automatically hostile you might only need one clue; if she is, then you probably need more.

"Aye, there's a bodak in there alright, matey! And nobody who goes in ever comes out!"
"Right. So how do you know it's a bodak, if nobody's come back to tell you?"
"Err... "

 

[LostSoul]

"Aye, there's a bodak in there alright, matey! And nobody who goes in ever comes out!"
"Right. So how do you know it's a bodak, if nobody's come back to tell you?"
"Err... "

Bodaks are difficult because they don't leave corpses and don't produce that Unnatural Aura that some undead have (so canaries are of no use). But there should be something we can use! The first thing that springs to mind is a peephole covered by a painting that looks into the bodak's lair. So you do the regular D&D thing - explore the room - and find out, crap, bodak.

Actually the bodak would leave corpses, just as long as they aren't humanoid. Though there wouldn't be any information about its method of death, other than being punched to death. You could put some other monsters (not necessarily hostile ones) in the dungeon - like a gargoyle - who has seen the bodak, and the two avoid each other.

There are probably other things you could do.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Oh, sorry - though I'm pretty sure it's far from confined to Yorkshire - I'll explain and try to use a different word in future:

If I see a friend of mine in the pub and "blag" a beer off him, it means I used some technique - ranging from friendly persuasion and/or promises to outright confidence trickery - to get him to buy me a beer. Much the same sort of thing is often tried on GMs. Is the word really that unknown? I had no idea.

Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.

But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat". The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game). The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.

Right - or, perhaps more commonly in RPGs, taking a situation where no rules exist and finagling things such that the new rules the GM invents on the spot (as they are obliged and empowered to do) suit your purposes.

Thanks. That's a word I haven't heard before here in Minnesota. Or on other message boards, for that matter!