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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steverooo" data-source="post: 1430755" data-attributes="member: 9410">"No consequences" and "No unneccessary deaths" are two different things...  In the wandering in the desert example, I would have used the fatigue rules, and applied them until the PCs reached the point where they should have died of thirst, or starved to death...  Then, if I wanted the campaign to continue, I would have had a wandering tribe of dervishes come along and find the dying PCs, pick them up, cart them off to their camp, relieve them of the weight of their gear, and then tell the players that they wake up, many days later, weak, thinner, without X, Y, and Z, and in too poor a shape to do much about it...Death?  No.  Consequences?  Yes!  See the difference?So your PC managed to trap a jackrabbit, in the desert?  Cool!  He is no longer fatigued!  When the Dervishes come by, he is the only PC still up and about, and manages to save MOST of the other PCs' gear (and, of course, all of his own)!  Thanks to him, the consequences of the party's wandering into the desert are lessened.So you can drive really well?  Great, if you ever find a working vehicle to operate!  You will succeed at tasks where others fail.  If you intentionally plow your car into a brick wall doing 98 mph, you will still take the appropriate damage, and possibly die (if it's enough to kill you).  If you take 50+ HP, I'll also call for a save vs. Massive Damage, and "kill" you on a failure...On the other hand, if you're trying to take a tight corner at 98 mph in order to cause the security droids to crash into the wall, and you roll a "1" and fail, crash into the wall, and take enough damage to "kill" you (for doing something that wasn't stupid, in my opinion), then you'd be more likely to wake up in a hospital bed, with a major medical bill to pay off, and discover that the traffic 'droid reported your crash to the Hospital Computer, which dispatched the Medibots to pull your flaming carcass out of the burning wreck, and they managed to patch you back together!Consequences?  You lost your vehicle.  You lost your gear.  You owe the hospital a lot of money.  You lost a lot of game time...  Now if you wanted, you could roll up a new PC, and join the group.  If you were attached to THIS character, however, you could continue to play him/her/it.Many people seem to find creating new PCs fun... and that's fine with me.  More power to them!Me, I like to see character development!  I long for level 10+ PCs, and loathe starting at level one.  "Okay, this is your NEW PC's very first-ever adventure!"  BORRRRING!!!I like real-world versimilitude in a game, and the truth is, the Human race survives because we HELP each other.  So when a PC is supposed to die, I don't find it unreasonable to have someone help them...  Like the wandering dervishes, or the medibots (built for the job).  This is not the "Your actions don't matter" free-ride that you're talking about, in your previous post...In D&D, at level one, you die at -10 HP, and have from 1 (Wizard with a 5 or lower CON) to 18 (Barbarian with an 18 CON and a race with +2 CON Bonus) HP.  A sword critical can kill the uninjured Wiz pretty easily.  It is unlikely to hurt the Barbarian.As levels go up, though, the damage/round increases, more than the HPs.  Would it be so bad to allow PCs to die at -10 or negative HPs, whichever is higher?For gamers who think a good chance of dieing is neccessary, yes, it would be bad.  For many others, going unconscious at 0 HPs would be bad enough, and the extra time required to regain consciousness would be penalty enough...  Not to mention the possibility of bleeding to death, without help, still exists.  The PCs (and NPCs) would just have longer to stabilize.I think this would work better.  D&D seems more geared for people who like quick, clean deaths, so maybe it's the wrong game for me.</blockquote>

Verification