Your character died. Big deal.

[Raven Crowking]

No claims of being king here, Mr. Crowking.

That is the fault of a lady lying in a pond distributing swords at random. I mean, really, can I be blamed if some moistened tart lobs a scimitar at me?

But like any poster I am entitled to request that another poster not be rude in his responses.

"The poster doth protest too much, methinks."


EDIT: Seriously, though, sorry if the way I made my point seems dismissive. I mean, it is dismissive of the idea that dying in an RPG is somehow worthy of serious angst -- although I do understand the investment aspect of it as ably described by Rackhir. It is not intended to be dismissive of posters, however. Posters I dismiss via use of the Ignore list, and so far mine has only one name on it. Overall, most everyone on EN World has interesting things to say!


RC

 

[Kishin]

That is the fault of a lady lying in a pond distributing swords at random. I mean, really, can I be blamed if some moistened tart lobs a scimitar at me?

Permission to sig the following quote?

 

[Fifth Element]

A medusa was scary not because of its combat prowess, but because it could turn you to stone.

You know that in 4E, a medusa can turn you to stone, right? It's just no longer fail one save, and you're petrified. First the attack slows you (you feel your body starting to seize up). The first failed save means you're immobilized (you can't move, your feet are too heavy and your legs are too stiff). The second failed save means you're stone. Some argue it's more exiciting and suspenseful this way.

4E did not remove petrification. It removed single-die-roll petrification. The danger is there, you just have more decision points to work with.

That's all I'm talking about. The reduction of the ability for a single die roll to totally screw you over. The dangers remain, but the mechanics are different.

 

[Fifth Element]

Seriously, though, sorry if the way I made my point seems dismissive. I mean, it is dismissive of the idea that dying in an RPG is somehow worthy of serious angst -- although I do understand the investment aspect of it as ably described by Rackhir.

The idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is a strawman. The posters arguing in favour of reduced-death games certainly don't strike me as angsty. They've described why they prefer lower-death games, and without the "oh noes!" implied by your post.

That being said, apology accepted. I do think we (ENWorld in general) need to be more careful in how we express ourselves, because a lot of things come off as dismissive, and there are a lot of mischaracterizations of arguments going on.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Permission to sig the following quote?

Granted.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know that in 4E, a medusa can turn you to stone, right? It's just no longer fail one save, and you're petrified. First the attack slows you (you feel your body starting to seize up). The first failed save means you're immobilized (you can't move, your feet are too heavy and your legs are too stiff). The second failed save means you're stone. Some argue it's more exiciting and suspenseful this way.

I would say that it is a different kind of excitement. And, actually, I do think that there is (or should be) a place in the game for both kinds of mechanics. "Slow petrification" is less mythological/folkloric than all-or-nothing petrification, of course, and if it simply disappears after the monster is slain it is questionable why it is more suspenseful than hit point loss.

4E did not remove petrification. It removed single-die-roll petrification. The danger is there, you just have more decision points to work with.

Sometimes, though -- assuming a reasonably competent DM -- knowing that you have only a single save means your decision points are more important. Does 4e encourage you not to fight the medusa? Does it encourage you to deal with it in some other way? If not, it fails to encourage the form of mental elasticity I was referring to earlier.

Back in the 4e preview threads, I agreed that the "reduction of the ability for a single die roll to totally screw you over" was often, but not always, a good thing. I disagree, though that "The dangers remain", because one specific danger does not, i.e., "the ability for a single die roll to totally screw you over", and I maintain that this danger specifically has value.

One of the design parameters of 3e was that it is fun to roll dice. Knowing that one bad die roll can kill you is a profoundly different sort of fun. It is the fun of solving a problem. Specifically, the problem of "How can I do this without having to roll any dice? Or, if I must roll dice, how do I hedge my bets?"

Ultimately, in any game system, there is a point where the characters are low on hit points, have run out of spells, and are unsure if one last hit will do it. Those moments -- whether they succeed or fail -- are the moments we gamers tend to talk about long after the actual campaign has passed. Although admittedly in moderation, gamers IME overwhelmingly like to let their fate hang on a single die roll. Or, at least, they certainly find great enjoyment in doing so after the fact.

The idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is a strawman. The posters arguing in favour of reduced-death games certainly don't strike me as angsty. They've described why they prefer lower-death games, and without the "oh noes!" implied by your post.

I have no problem with different strokes for different folks. I do have a problem with those for whom the idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is not a strawman. And I think we both know that they exist.

That being said, apology accepted.

I do think we (ENWorld in general) need to be more careful in how we express ourselves, because a lot of things come off as dismissive, and there are a lot of mischaracterizations of arguments going on.

That's true. And we also need to try to give the "best possible reading" to each other's comments, because we lack body language and tone of voice to convey meaning. Well, until the other person proves to be a prat. Then the Ignore list works exceedingly well.

(I imagine that I am on one or two Ignore lists myself.)


RC

 

[Janx]

But by the OP's reasoning, there is no risk, because it's just an imaginary elf in a game of make-believe.

I think it's a case of badwrongfun.

The OP seems to state that death is not a big deal, that it should not matter to the player if their PC dies.

Let's change games for a second, where this kind of thinking results in bad game play.

Texas Hold'em is an excellent case. When you play for chips (no money, no risk), the only way you get good game play (rational betting and strategy) is when everyone wants to win. They don't want to die (run out of chips). Players who don't care will not play rationally, which messes with the results. It's not fun. This is why many serious players refuse to play without money on the line. It makes people concerned about losing, and thus they will back down on bad hands that might get lucky.

Here's the odd thing. Some people find it hard to care about the outcome in hold'em without money. Yet, people play chess which also commonly has nothing at stake with no problem. The key variable might be randomness (or percieved randomness). Chess has no randomness (it's human vs. human, no randomizer). Poker has a deck of cards (the random factor), but the humans are still in control, deciding which hands to play, and what to bet.

My key thesis here is that a game is fun when the players are interested in winning (not dying). Hold'em and chess prove it (chess would suck if the other player just did random crap). I posit that this is true for all games (true enough anyway).

Likewise, playing D&D with somebody who doesn't care about the outcome, is not likely to be as fun. This caring about the outcome is implemented by caring about your PC (trying to keep him alive and being successful in the game world). Therefore, dying is against that (barring a deliberate sacrifice), and would thus be undesirable.

This is why dying is a big deal. It means you failed. You lost.

Now what happens next when you die further modifies the impact and signifigance of PC death (how big a deal is it). If the GM pops you right back in the scene, or does a do-over (like some video games), then it's not much of a big deal, just annoying. If it makes the game challenge harder and costs your party much, then it's a big deal. If you're forced to sit and re-roll a PC and wait for the next game, then there is real world price to PC death, lost fun time.


I suppose somebody will jump on and claim the OP has a valid way to play the game. My experience says players with the OP's stated philosophy are not fun to play with in any game. Not being concerned in your character's survival is an extreme disconnection from your PC, something which is against the grain in RPGs.

I would recommend looking at the problem from the other angle. Somebody who is OVER concerned with their PC's survival, aka overly competitive player who hates losing, is also a bad thing. THose kind of players suck to be around.

So, I think a middle ground is best. A player should be emotionally interested in winning (not dying/losing). A player should feel something if they do lose. A player should not become overly upset or distressed about losing, however.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A player should be emotionally interested in winning (not dying/losing). A player should feel something if they do lose. A player should not become overly upset or distressed about losing, however.

Exactly!




RC

 

[malraux]

I still think that dying is not the only element of the set losing. You can get captured and then used as part of the evil ceremony letting Tharizdun out of his prison. You can not get the princess out of the castle. You can get lost in the maze of the dungeon surviving on nothing but rats. Having to stick another quarter in the life machine doesn't necessarily make the game fun for everyone.

 

[Umbran]

How did you get to be king, then, eh? I didn't vote for you.

He doesn't need to be king to be allowed to ask you politely to knock off the hyperbolic overstatement of other people's positions. He's asking you to raise the level of your rhetoric, and not be dismissive - that is not too much to ask.