Would you quit a game if....

[Elf Witch]

We're all at liberty to look down our nose at whoever we like. The important thing is that if their preferences are non-harmful, we should tolerate them in good humour. Don't try to force people to respect your preference.

Yes we are and we are at liberty to call people on it too. I know Broken Druid and let me tell you she is one of the least judgmental people I know. Her whole philosophy of life is live and let live.

But she has one or two buttons that are easy to push one is hypocrisy especially when it looks hidden in a passive aggressive posting style.

She does not post a lot. But I asked her to read the thread because I wanted her opinion on one or two things. I guess some of it got under her skin.

I know a lot has gotten under mine.

 

[Water Bob]

Speaking of my job being "invisible"...here's a good example.

Last game session, the PCs found a necklace with a symbol on it that matched the clan's symbol. It's extremely old. When they get back to their village, nobody will know what it is...all will wonder at it. Is it just a silver necklace made generations ago by an ancestor clansman? Or, is it something more?

Magic in Conan's universe is low, but it exists. I keep sorcerous items scarce, and like this necklace, many times, a player won't know what he's got. It could very well be just a silver necklace. Or....it could be something...more.

In a way, it's a "hook" I've put into the game.



Now...behind the GM's curtain...

I placed this in the game without knowing what I would do with it. I do this a lot. If I never come up with an idea, it becomes a cool roleplaying item--a necklace with the clan symbol froma warrior that lived many generations ago--and that's it.

But, I've left myself an "out" with it. I can add a power to it anytime I see fit, and from the players' perspective, they'll think that the necklace was put into the game for whatever reason related to the power I give it.

Today, right now, the necklace is specifically nothing, magically speaking. But, had the demon and his undead starting getting the better of the two barely-alive PCs (see my post above), THEN, one of my contingency plans would have been to give the necklace power.

"Just as the undead move in....as you stand back to back with your clansman and brother, weapons at the ready...the sky parts with a bright beam of light. Although it's hours past midnight, the heavens open as if the sun has come out prematurely. A quick look tells you that it is not the sun, but the moon that sheds this light.

"Is your eye playing tricks on you? The moon is full, bright in the sky. The overcast clouds have parted to allow it to shine uniquely on you, in a circumfrence around you. In the shadows on the moon....the shapes....is that the symbol of your clan you see on the moon?

"The walking dead repel from this light. The demon throws its arms up to cover its eyes.

"In a moment, they're gone. The undead and the demon.

"And so is the light from the moon.

"The thunderstorm continues to drench you and your brother. Lightning flashes across the sky.

"What do you want to do?"



You see...this would have seemed like GM intervention had I not put the necklace in the game in a previous game session.

The player just think that the circumstances somehow activated the sorcerery in the necklace.

For real...I don't really know what I'm going to do with this necklace. It may have a completely different power the next time I need it for a contingency plan. And, the possiblty is still strong that it will never become anything in the game but an old, cool, ancient silver necklace.

The longer the necklace is in the game, the less likely it will seem to the players that the GM is saving their butts in a rather deadly game (that is not near as deadly as the Players perceive).

Even if I had done what I said above, with the moon and what not, I've still got a pretty mysterious magic item on my hands--in a low magic game world, where magic, when it does exist, is usually pretty powerful.

So, I can take what I did and then make some rules for the necklace, slowly allowing the Players to figure out how the thing works.

It's just a GMing technique.

 

[Water Bob]

Yes we are and we are at liberty to call people on it too. I know Broken Druid and let me tell you she is one of the least judgmental people I know. Her whole philosophy of life is live and let live.

But she has one or two buttons that are easy to push one is hypocrisy especially when it looks hidden in a passive aggressive posting style.

She does not post a lot. But I asked her to read the thread because I wanted her opinion on one or two things. I guess some of it got under her skin.

I know a lot has gotten under mine.

LOL! You want to call people on it? OK, I call BS on what you say about calling in Broken Druid.

You're so good at telling me my true motivations. Here's one for you: You called her here because you were getting frustrated at not being in the majority opinion on this thread--not havng enough people agree with your comments--that you called in an ally!

C'mon. You know it's the truth!

The truth! Ahhhhh! THE TRUTH!





"You want answers?"

"I think I'm entitled to."

"You want answers!"

"I want the truth!"

"You can't handle the truth!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Standing at the bridge while the party escapes is a noble way to die and was your choice. I have sacrificed characters to save others in the game. To me that kind of death is not the same as losing your character because your dice are rolling 1s and the DM is rolling 20s. Death in situations like that lack meaning and feel like punishment. Especially if your plan was a sound one and you didn't do anything stupid.

Having your character die because you did something colossally stupid is one thing having your character die because another player did is also not fun.

Except, unlike you, I accept that the fates may be brutally unkind once or twice a decade, or that another's mistake may cost me a PC. It's all part of the risks involved in the game.

 

[Water Bob]

It is one thing to talk about why you like death in game it is another to say you don't respect people who play differently.

Not really. I don't respect men who don't open the car door for their wives. I don't respect people who argue but really know nothing about that which they are arguing. I don't respect gamblers who cheat at cards. I don't respect (a lot of things that would close down this thread for becoming too political).

And, I don't respect munchkin gamers, power gamers, and non-roleplayers.

But, just because I don't respect them doesn't mean that we can go around and shoot them in---a'hem. I mean it doesn't mean that they don't have a right to play their games the way they want to!



In Stuey's voice...

"Hey, mon, it's not as if I'm the RPG police of something."

 

[Elf Witch]

LOL! You want to call people on it? OK, I call BS on what you say about calling in Broken Druid.

You're so good at telling me my true motivations. Here's one for you: You called her here because you were getting frustrated at not being in the majority opinion on this thread--not havng enough people agree with your comments--that you called in an ally!

C'mon. You know it's the truth!

The truth! Ahhhhh! THE TRUTH!





"You want answers?"

"I think I'm entitled to."

"You want answers!"

"I want the truth!"

"You can't handle the truth!"

You are half right I was getting frustrated. Not because my opinion is not he majority though I was not alone in pointing out that there are other ways to challenge a party besides death. I have been playing since 1977 and been here since 2002 I am very aware that my opinion on this is in the minority.

I was getting frustrated over the fact that I felt that some posters you being one of them were making arguments not for why you like to play the way you do but how those of who don't were some how wrong.

Using examples like little league trophies for all the kiddies and comments like DnD is not Demigods and Immortals.

When Jamesoncourage said he could understand why I was feeling that way but he thought I might be taking it personally. So I asked her to read the thread. BTW she is not like me she has no issue with death in the game. Her game is run without action points, fate points and she often roles in the open.

 

[Elf Witch]

Except, unlike you, I accept that the fates may be brutally unkind once or twice a decade, or that another's mistake may cost me a PC. It's all part of the risks involved in the game.

And there are ways to minimize these risks.

You play a character for 11 levels almost a year and half of play. You lose your character in a way that makes it impossible to come back. But it is part of the game you accept it and move on and make a new character.

You sit out most of the game where you died and then another entire episode while the DM gets the group together with the new character. Less then ten minutes into the next session the new character dies because of another players actions.

So now you get to sit the rest of that session. And because of what is going on in the game it made it impossible to get to a cleric who could raise dead. So now you sit out three sessions.

So in total you sit out five sessions and now you are two levels behind the rest of the party. Because DM has a rule that all new character come in a level lower than the lowest member. So when my new character died the rule has you come in one level lower.

I don't think these kind of risks make the game more fun and I am not sure it was what the game designers had in mind.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You play a character for 11 levels almost a year and half of play. You lose your character in a way that makes it impossible to come back. But it is part of the game you accept it and move on and make a new character.

Yep.

You sit out most of the game where you died and then another entire episode while the DM gets the group together with the new character. Less then ten minutes into the next session the new character dies because of another players actions.
<snip other stuff>

1) While I've never seen a slippery slope of PC death in 35 years in the hobby, I'm sure it's possible.

2) I haven't sat out more than part of a game session since 1991, because I've used the base concept of the character tree (introduced that year in Dark Sun in every game since then. Essentially, I have multiple fully statted out PCs ready to go in any campaign*. All they need to go is level-appropriate gear and DM intro.

3) while I sit out sans PC, I make myself useful by helping the DM run combats. Sometimes I do this when my PC becomes severely incapacitated (stable but in negative HP, turned to stone, etc.).

So essentially, I'm never sitting out so long that I'm not having fun in some way.












* minimum two, sometimes more if I'm expecting the game to be a slaughter feat.**



** Paranoia and CoC are exceptions, of course.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Yep.
2) I haven't sat out more than part of a game session since 1991, because I've used the base concept of the character tree (introduced that year in Dark Sun in every game since then.

Character trees were a good idea. Dark Sun rather expected you to lose characters. Athas is, after all, a dying Death World.

 

[Water Bob]

I was getting frustrated over the fact that I felt that some posters you being one of them were making arguments not for why you like to play the way you do but how those of who don't were some how wrong.

Using examples like little league trophies for all the kiddies and comments like DnD is not Demigods and Immortals.

Oh, make no bones about it. I do think that it's the wrong way to play.

But, again, that's my opinion. If it were not my preference, I'd play that way.

On another thread, this dude posted his stats where he said he rolled all 17's and 18's for his character, with one 16 as his lowest score. I call BS on that, and I don't respect that kind of play (because I don't believe he rolled it on what I would call a "fair" system).

But, hey, it's his game. If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him. I'm not going to tell him that he can't do it, but I'm also not going to act as if I sympathize with that type of play (because I don't).