silentspace
First Post
Nice post, med stud. I agree 
What good are insta-kill spells and monsters ?
- Thread starter Rashak Mani
- Start date
This is something my friends and I have been grappling with for awhile.
In the big bad "Since beginning of 3E" Campaign, I tended to overestimate party power and make monsters that were too powerful -- and then pull my punches in the fight. They felt annoyed, justifiably. So in our next campaign, I told them that I was creating an organic world (to use someone else's term), a world where the monsters were going to be at whatever level they were at, and I would not pull punches.
The party promptly wandered into a 6th-level situation at 2nd level and got TPKd.
So now we're doing some cinematic one-shots while we try to figure out what to do next. Instead of a series, we're doing a movie.
And I think that the idea of "what is the game to you" is a great one. If I watch a series, I know that the main characters are going to live in almost all situations -- and even people who die can come back somehow (thanks, Joss). If I watch a movie, I know that anybody could die at any time. And if I play a game, I know that I have the power to win and the opportunity to lose. I like all three forms of entertainment. However, if I die in NeverWinter Nights because of a trap, I don't reload the game and then walk right into the trap again because "My character wouldn't know about it." I go into Search mode.
Heck, even if I don't die, but if I hear from somebody that there's a trap by this one entrance, I don't walk into it on purpose. I search.
On the other hand, if my character doesn't know something in a D&D game, I don't use my knowledge to save him.
So what does that say about me? I think it says that I get more into my character in a D&D game than I do in a computer game, enough to make deliberately detrimental roleplaying decisions. As a reward for doing that, I want to know that I won't die every time I make one of those decisions, because if I do die every time I make one of those decisions, then the only "freedom" I have in the game is the "freedom" to make a cowardly, utterly non-heroic character who saves his skin at all costs and never does anything even remotely risky (like go explore dungeons) -- unless I want to die over and over again.
(Example: Current game I'm playing. I started with a Monk3/Paladin2, which is not any kind of minmax with 25 point buy. He was fun. He was a great character. He died because the DM was running a module that did not support "fun, not terribly powerful" characters. I am now running a dwarven Clr2/Ftr4 with a +14 grapple check and armored spikes that do 1d6+6 damage. He will run away without hesitation and he pretty much just tackles spellcasters, which is safe but not terribly heroic.)
Capricious DM stuff is hard. It's a continuum, and it's a matter of trust. In our one-shot games, I roll out in the open. In our long-running campaigns in the future, I'm more liable to a) house-rule things into more cinematic modes (ie, a bodak's gaze does 1 point of Con damage per round for 30 rounds (Fort15 resists each round, or until Remove Curse, Heal, Negative Energy Protection, or some similar spell is cast upon the victim), b) Make enemies that are weaker to begin with, a lot weaker, and use my vaunted flavor-text to make them seem more powerful.
In the big bad "Since beginning of 3E" Campaign, I tended to overestimate party power and make monsters that were too powerful -- and then pull my punches in the fight. They felt annoyed, justifiably. So in our next campaign, I told them that I was creating an organic world (to use someone else's term), a world where the monsters were going to be at whatever level they were at, and I would not pull punches.
The party promptly wandered into a 6th-level situation at 2nd level and got TPKd.
So now we're doing some cinematic one-shots while we try to figure out what to do next. Instead of a series, we're doing a movie.
And I think that the idea of "what is the game to you" is a great one. If I watch a series, I know that the main characters are going to live in almost all situations -- and even people who die can come back somehow (thanks, Joss). If I watch a movie, I know that anybody could die at any time. And if I play a game, I know that I have the power to win and the opportunity to lose. I like all three forms of entertainment. However, if I die in NeverWinter Nights because of a trap, I don't reload the game and then walk right into the trap again because "My character wouldn't know about it." I go into Search mode.
Heck, even if I don't die, but if I hear from somebody that there's a trap by this one entrance, I don't walk into it on purpose. I search.
On the other hand, if my character doesn't know something in a D&D game, I don't use my knowledge to save him.
So what does that say about me? I think it says that I get more into my character in a D&D game than I do in a computer game, enough to make deliberately detrimental roleplaying decisions. As a reward for doing that, I want to know that I won't die every time I make one of those decisions, because if I do die every time I make one of those decisions, then the only "freedom" I have in the game is the "freedom" to make a cowardly, utterly non-heroic character who saves his skin at all costs and never does anything even remotely risky (like go explore dungeons) -- unless I want to die over and over again.
(Example: Current game I'm playing. I started with a Monk3/Paladin2, which is not any kind of minmax with 25 point buy. He was fun. He was a great character. He died because the DM was running a module that did not support "fun, not terribly powerful" characters. I am now running a dwarven Clr2/Ftr4 with a +14 grapple check and armored spikes that do 1d6+6 damage. He will run away without hesitation and he pretty much just tackles spellcasters, which is safe but not terribly heroic.)
Capricious DM stuff is hard. It's a continuum, and it's a matter of trust. In our one-shot games, I roll out in the open. In our long-running campaigns in the future, I'm more liable to a) house-rule things into more cinematic modes (ie, a bodak's gaze does 1 point of Con damage per round for 30 rounds (Fort15 resists each round, or until Remove Curse, Heal, Negative Energy Protection, or some similar spell is cast upon the victim), b) Make enemies that are weaker to begin with, a lot weaker, and use my vaunted flavor-text to make them seem more powerful.
Deadguy
First Post
I've been following this thread with some interest, since I am in the position of playing (albeit not all D&D) with several groups, and they treat this exact point in a variety of ways.
One group, where we play both Mage: the Sorcerers Crusade and Shadowrun, the focus is very much on character development, interaction, and exploring character history. As such we operate under a rule that effectively says: so long as you behave as though your character might die at any time, the DM won't kill you! I know some people would find this very strange, and artificial. Certainly when we had a new person join the group, he had great difficulty coming to terms with the mindset. But it really does allow the players to behave 'in character' without fearing that the DM will punish them for doing so. And as more than one story has demonstrated, there are far worse things than dying!
On the other hand, I am also in a group playing D&D, where the dice fall as they will. So far we have had one character death, due to poor tactical planning (and some bad luck: two AoO's from the orcs, two criticals for near max damage!). The DM has admitted he's fudged the dice once, when an encounter turned out to be far nastier than intended. But we've had the suggested range of encounters from the DMG, meeting things that were pushovers to deal with, through to things that took good planning and play to flee from.
Now for me, I enjoy both. But I admit that I feel closer to the characters I play in the first group. I can afford to expand on personality quirks, and make 'poor' choices, making the character feel far more rounded. Then again, in M:tSC our aim is not to produce adventurers, but Mages, with all the strange consequences of being different, set against a backdrop of a pseudo-Renaissance version of Earth. I enjoy the character in the second game, but knowing that he might die keeps me from investing too much effort and emotional energy getting deeply under his skin.
Ah well, horses for courses! Thank goodness I have a variety of choices of play.
One group, where we play both Mage: the Sorcerers Crusade and Shadowrun, the focus is very much on character development, interaction, and exploring character history. As such we operate under a rule that effectively says: so long as you behave as though your character might die at any time, the DM won't kill you! I know some people would find this very strange, and artificial. Certainly when we had a new person join the group, he had great difficulty coming to terms with the mindset. But it really does allow the players to behave 'in character' without fearing that the DM will punish them for doing so. And as more than one story has demonstrated, there are far worse things than dying!
On the other hand, I am also in a group playing D&D, where the dice fall as they will. So far we have had one character death, due to poor tactical planning (and some bad luck: two AoO's from the orcs, two criticals for near max damage!). The DM has admitted he's fudged the dice once, when an encounter turned out to be far nastier than intended. But we've had the suggested range of encounters from the DMG, meeting things that were pushovers to deal with, through to things that took good planning and play to flee from.
Now for me, I enjoy both. But I admit that I feel closer to the characters I play in the first group. I can afford to expand on personality quirks, and make 'poor' choices, making the character feel far more rounded. Then again, in M:tSC our aim is not to produce adventurers, but Mages, with all the strange consequences of being different, set against a backdrop of a pseudo-Renaissance version of Earth. I enjoy the character in the second game, but knowing that he might die keeps me from investing too much effort and emotional energy getting deeply under his skin.
Ah well, horses for courses! Thank goodness I have a variety of choices of play.
fourthmensch
First Post
In my experience, this question is not much of an issue as long as all the people in the relevant group see eye to eye. That being said, players/Dms hardly ever see eye to eye, particularly on this question.
Personally, I like playing with unique characters, histories and all. I detest min/maxing (just a personal preference...) and would rather have a weak character than one who is boring. This gets me into a lot of trouble in my group because everyone else is firmly in the powergaming camp. Since I am not "optimized" I am weaker than everyone else, though I'm still happy since I beat them in pure coolness.
Personally, I don't mind dying. I like the threat. I like the danger. I like the randomness, and even having put a lot of work into characters I would prefer unpredictability to a steady progression to god-like power. Everyone else disagrees with me. They do not want to die, and sometimes pout when that happens.
The problem arises not with either philosophy (or any point along the continuum, if you prefer), but when DMs and players are operating according to a different set of unwritten rules.
Personally, I like playing with unique characters, histories and all. I detest min/maxing (just a personal preference...) and would rather have a weak character than one who is boring. This gets me into a lot of trouble in my group because everyone else is firmly in the powergaming camp. Since I am not "optimized" I am weaker than everyone else, though I'm still happy since I beat them in pure coolness.
Personally, I don't mind dying. I like the threat. I like the danger. I like the randomness, and even having put a lot of work into characters I would prefer unpredictability to a steady progression to god-like power. Everyone else disagrees with me. They do not want to die, and sometimes pout when that happens.
The problem arises not with either philosophy (or any point along the continuum, if you prefer), but when DMs and players are operating according to a different set of unwritten rules.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Tom said:
Your example is completely absurd.
Everyone knows pacifiers are bludgeoning weapons.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
takyris said:
Heh.
I'm starting a new game this weekend (finally!) under the guy who DM'd my first 3E game.
In the last campaign, I played a multiclassed halfling cleric/rogue, and an plate-armored dwarven diviner with Still Spell.
The game was fun, but those two characters were almost anti-powergamed; the caster level hit in both cases meant that they were always overshadowed by the greatsword barbarian and the archer twink.
Well, not this time... I'm bringing a triptastic spiked chain munchkin out to play.
Fun and efficiency don't have to be mutually exclusive.
-Hyp.
I have always disliked instakill spells in either NPCs or PCs hands that is just me.
This debate seems to crop up as much as the debate on paladins. I enjoy having a chance to really develop my character I put a lot of work into it I write game journals and try to make decisions based on role playing.
Now I don't mind having the possiability of death hanging over my head but I do mind playing in such a lethal game that the PCs are dropping like flies. It is not fun to have to have a new character every other session.
I think TPKs are the worst I have never been in a game where it did not completely derail the campaign. I will not play with a DM who rolls in the open and believes in letting the dice fall where they may. It is no fun when the party dies because they just can't get a break on the dice rolls.
This debate seems to crop up as much as the debate on paladins. I enjoy having a chance to really develop my character I put a lot of work into it I write game journals and try to make decisions based on role playing.
Now I don't mind having the possiability of death hanging over my head but I do mind playing in such a lethal game that the PCs are dropping like flies. It is not fun to have to have a new character every other session.
I think TPKs are the worst I have never been in a game where it did not completely derail the campaign. I will not play with a DM who rolls in the open and believes in letting the dice fall where they may. It is no fun when the party dies because they just can't get a break on the dice rolls.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Now that is an awesome mechanic. I really really like that one. Although I'd make it 1 pt of con damage per round until gotten rid of, or the target dies, but that's just me.takyris said:
In fact I like that one so much, I'd like to apply it to some other instakill abilities:
Petrification does the same, but with dex not con, and with the result of being a statue when it's all done
What else?
It would power down hold person (the 3.0 version)
Disintegrate? Doesn't really fit the idea of someone vanishing in a flash, but if they fade out...
Charm and dominate (although targeting wisdom)
Wonderful, just wonderful...
Rashak Mani said:
Couple of things-
I agree that it sucks. There is so much story that can be told without killing PCs using inst-kill spells/abilities. Hell I am known for having NPCs just for that reason- insta-kill some an NPC that has been around for a few levels and people might pay attention.
At some point D&D becomes this- "save or die," world (not looking forward to that), and its bound to happen.
If you use it, expect it to come back and bite you in the can.
d4
First Post
no, actually, i wasn't agreeing with you. that "exactly" was a lame attempt at being snarky.diaglo said:if you are agreeing with me. you'd best reread my earlier posts to understand what you are agreeing with.
if there is no sense of death...there is no fun...
i can play CRPGs and use the save or cheat codes if i don't want my character to die.
my biggest complaint about the players of today.
for me, if there is a looming sense of death...there is no fun...
i can play FPSs if i want my character to die over and over again.
the idea that you can't have a good game without scores of dead PCs is my biggest complaint about older players. interestingly though, of the dozens of different RPGs i've played over the years with numerous different groups, it's only in D&D that i've seen this attitude crop up.
(and i'm an old gamer myself -- i've been gaming for over 20 years now. i guess i'm atypical of my generation, though.)
Last edited:
