Your character died. Big deal.

[Mallus]

They do not have to include dangerous situations or the potential for harm.

Or they can operate like most adventure fiction, which does include dangerous situations without the potential for lasting harm to the protagonists.

You can have a role-playing game about folks sitting around playing role-playing games if you want...

Stop that, you're making me miss David Foster Wallace (god rest his soul).

I would hate to see that term co-opted to mean a game where risk levels must remain below the threshold of death.

There is no must, Grasshopper. Only can, maybe, if you prefer it like that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My question to you was: given that a good DM always provides clues that a SoD effect is upcoming, why even give the characters saves at all? If they ignore the warnings, they're dead. Simple as that.

There are times within the context of the game that the players may choose to take a calculated risk. If you remove the random element, you remove this ability. For example, when facing a medusa, the players may choose to take a calculated risk and fight it in melee (either blindfolded, or trying to avoid meeting its gaze, both of which have attendant risks) or try to defeat it without actually engaging it (through a trap, subterfuge, turning another creature -- perhaps a blind one -- against it, etc.). If meeting the creature in combat always meant death, then there would be no choice to be made. Essentially, the element of decision would be rendered meaningless.

On this we agree. High-death games do not preclude roleplaying any more than low-death games preclude risk and excitement.

Survival-guaranteed games do, by definition, preclude at least one form of risk.

Of course, the survival-guaranteed meme has already been extended to "paralyzed in fight = unfun", so the x-guaranted meme can preclude other forms of risk as well, depending upon how far you take it.

(It should be pointed out here that the "the x-guaranted meme" is present in most survival-not-guaranteed games, because the players recognize that they find certain things distasteful. "No-rape-of-PCs-guaranteed" is pretty common, even when it is not stated explicitly. Every group has to decide what consequences they are unwilling to accept; this does affect the risks characters are likely to take, however, because it precludes given consequences as being risked by actions in-game.)


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Essentially, the element of decision would be rendered meaningless.

Similar to situations where you have the thingy ready that counters the monster's SoD effect.

Survival-guaranteed games do, by definition, preclude at least one form of risk.

I guess that's why I said "low-death" games, not "no-death games".

 

[Janx]

"..snip...
But, if you really want me to answer your question, you need to supply more information. In this world, where do medusae come from? Why do they turn things into statues? What do they eat? What do they want, and how do they go about getting it? Who is the BBEG? What does he want, and how does he go about getting it? Why does he have a medusa as his #2? How does he protect himself from her? Why is she willing to be his #2? What does she get out of it?

Answer those questions, and I can easily come up with plenty of ways to clue the PCs in long before any actual confrontation. Anticipation of the encounter is the spice that makes the encounter worthwhile, after all.
/QUOTE]

I mentioned this last page, and here you are proving my point.

I think RC examines his encounters and adds fluff and explanation for how things got there.

I do not think every DM does this. If they don't do this, it makes it unlikely the DM will have proper clues in the game for the PCs that there's a medusa in the dungeon, surprise!

Now maybe DM's should do this due dilligence, but 3e already had GMs complaining about workload, so it's understandable how details get skimped on.

Perhaps that is another reason why folks see SoD as bad, because they can see how it can happen.

RC seems to see how it can be prevented, within the RAW, by more dilligent DMing.

I'm inclined to think that changing the rules will help GMswho want to do less work, yet have a fun, challenging, game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even if all other changes made in 4E were bad, that does not mean the changes to SoD were bad.

Not for you, if you're happy with the changes.

Me, I think that they are nice alternative rules, and it is good to have more than one set of options. Of course, this requires not using 4e per RAW.

Or they can operate like most adventure fiction, which does include dangerous situations without the potential for lasting harm to the protagonists.

From the point of view of the protagonists, there is a potential for lasting harm. From the point of view of the reader, suspension of disbelief includes a willingness to believe that there is a potential for lasting harm. Knowing that there can be no lasting harm when you are playing the part of the protagonist, though, steps outside of that point of view.

And, in adventure fiction, there certainly is a potential for lasting harm to the protagonists. Not all REH protagonists survive their stories, for example. In The Princess Bride, Wesley is only brought back to life temporarily, and Inigo's wound reopens.

There is no must, Grasshopper. Only can, maybe, if you prefer it like that.

If the player chooses when the character dies, there is no risk of death. There may be death, but no risk associated with it.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Of course, the survival-guaranteed meme has already been extended to "paralyzed in fight = unfun", so the x-guaranted meme can preclude other forms of risk as well, depending upon how far you take it.

Stop right there, Mr. Slippery-Slope. Death-lite means not having to change your in-game avatar (if you don't want to). That's all.

It has nothing to do with more technical critiques of play elements.

 

[malraux]

Answer those questions, and I can easily come up with plenty of ways to clue the PCs in long before any actual confrontation. Anticipation of the encounter is the spice that makes the encounter worthwhile, after all.


RC

I'll agree that there are a multitude of ways the PCs might be informed. The issue is that there is no guarantee that the PCs will be informed. SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around and a bad DM will relish. But they are also the kind of thing less experienced DM can easily screw up.

 

[Scribble]

Well, I guess I can respect your different opinion about D&D, but I must say that you're looking for a game very unlike poker, then. Part of poker is the specific goal of someone hiding their "monster hand" and not revealing it until the moment that they knock you out of the game. Someone having a "tell" and clueing you into that would be seen as a major failing, when they get such a "monster hand".

My argument wasn't that D&D and Poker are the same game. What I was trying to show as the main point was how a card like that would effect the game.

It's not that SoD are inherently bad, it's more that they stick way out in left field compaired to the design of the rest of the game.

Sure in Poker there are the moments when you think you've done everything right, but you still loose, but a "fold now" card is still much different then the rest of the design of the game. You can't really plan for it, because either you don't get it, or you do. You have to continue playing as normal because really what's your defense? Fold anyway on the off chance you'll get dealt the card that tells you to do so? You'd end up having to fold every hand you're dealt. It ends up being something you just hope doesn't get dealt into your hand.

And that's how I see SoD. Even if you are armed with the knowledge that there is a SoD ahead (You decoded the GMs hints that it's there, or used a divination spell to deduce such facts) how does it change things?

You can either face it and just hope it doesn't get you like you would the fold now card, or you can avoid the threat completely.

Which again, is why I prefer SSoD effects. They kind of change the card from fold now, into if you don't have any pairs in your hand, you must fold.

SSoD doesn't eliminate your ability to find other ways to deal with the problem. In fact they might be the safest option available.

It just means now it effects the math and percentages instead of existing as something along side of it.

What it boils down to is how it effects the threat level of a foe. If the game is designed along the concept of A character of Level X should have enough resources to stand against a threat of level X (dice rolling well) things like SoD throw that math off completely.

They ignore HP, which is a significant part of what makes up the staying power of a level X character.

Where does one put that on the power level match up?

 

[Fifth Element]

Not for you, if you're happy with the changes.

You know I was arguing from a logical standpoint. Each rule change must be judged, you can't say "I think 80% of the changes are bad, therefore all of the changes are bad." It doesn't hold any weight in an argument.

 

[Mallus]

From the point of view of the reader, suspension of disbelief includes a willingness to believe that there is a potential for lasting harm.

Of course...and this same suspension of disbelief works for the players in a death-lite game.

Knowing that there can be no lasting harm when you are playing the part of the protagonist, though, steps outside of that point of view.

I'd say for people who prefer death-lite game, this "break" of POV offers no serious impediment to enjoying the game. The game is full of activities that pull you out of your character (start with "rolling dice"). They are part of the game.

And, in adventure fiction, there certainly is a potential for lasting harm to the protagonists.

Insert the word "serial" before the words "adventure fiction". And stop being so literal. You know I'm right about this...