Your character died. Big deal.

[pemerton]

Now, let us say that you are in an RPG where you are playing Bond. The risks you are likely to take are based not only upon what you know of Bond's fictional world (where the dangers are real), but also upon the mechanics of the game you are playing. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are real, then it is easy to suspend disbelief. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take. It becomes inherently harder to suspend disbelief, because "good play" within the context of the game rules doesn't support your doing so.

Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should encourage the players to have their PCs take outlandish risk. Death flag mechanics presumably would encourage this. (This would be an example of the use of the death flag to support high-concept simulationist play.)

 

[pemerton]

You can remove these effects, and still have a game. But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances. That is a real loss, IMHO.

Well, to the extent that this is true, there is no loss for those play groups who prefer the game to consist of encounters rather than exploration. 4e is clearly aimed at such groups.

And it is a loss based upon the idea that the player believes that there is nothing he could do, which, assuming the DM isn't either out to kill you or incompetent, is false.

I tend to think that it is a change (not a loss) based upon the assumption that the players prefer encounters to exploration. If you are a player for whom this assumption does not hold, you may not like 4e.

I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.

I don't think that the randomness needs to be temprered only through game mechanics. Part of good play, in the old school sense anyway, is to temper randomness through the choices that you make.

This is a huge part of 4e. It's just that 4e locates this decision-making within the context of an encounter, rather than as part of the prelude to the encounter (the element of play that the 4e rulebooks call "exploration").

In short, 4e's shift of the locus of play from exploration to encounter (the degree of this shift I think may be highly variable from group to group - most 3E play that I'm aware of, for example, seems to focus on the encounter, and hence to find SoD mechanics problematic) does not alter the balance of player choice versus dice rolling in any obvious fashion.

I dismissed the complaint because it relies upon the idea that "SoD" is a bad tool, and then assumes that based upon a playstyle preference.

<snip>

I am arguing that there is nothing inherently problematical in character death, not that some people don't like it.

I'm not sure what the criteria are for "inherently problematical". The problem with SoD is that it doesn't work well in a game which takes the locus of play to be the encounter rather than exploration. This is what most 3E play defaults to, as far as I can tell (and is the focus of play in the 3E rulebooks) - for example, compare any WoTC module to a classic module like C2 or the S series, and you can see the increased emphasis on encounters over exploration. 4e is quite explicit in the rulebooks that play is primarily about (combat and non-combat) encounters.

Given this playstyle, which is now - and probably has been for 1 or 2 decades - the default playstyle for D&D - SoD is a bad tool. This has nothing to do with whether or not player choices should matter. It has everything to do with whether players want to make those choices in the context of encounters, or in the context of exploration.

However, a game that would allow the character to do these things and automatically survive unless the player decided otherwise is, frankly, too far out there for me.

So is it just a matter of playstyle preference?

Rather than saying SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around, I would say that SoD provide a toolset for a skilled DM that, when removed, damages the game.

Is this "inherently problematical" damage? Or just playstyle-relative damage? Removing SoD prevents a certain sort of play that some players (especially a certain sub-set of 1st-ed AD&D players) enjoy. It enhances a different sort of play. This is largely zero-sum, and WoTC have taken a punt on where the majority of their customers' preferences lie.

If your contention is, though, that there is something inherently unskilled about GMing or playing in a death flag game, I think that's a little uncalled for.

We are not writing fiction. You can write fiction about your game, and you can game within a fictitious environment, but the minute you begin to plan the outcome prior to the decisions that lead there, you enter a zone where it is questionable whether or not what you are doing is actually a game, or rather some other form of recreational activity.

Ah. Your contention is the RPGs with death flag mechanics are not actually games. Well, perhaps on one (somewhat narrow) meaning of that word they are not - Ron Edwards did distinguish "gamism" as one approach to RPGing, and death flag mechanics would be more often associated either with narrativist or with high-concept/genre simulationist play. But as Wittgenstein famously pointed out in the Philosophical Investigations not all games involve competition or winning and losing in the way you seem to be assuming. In this broader sense I don't see why death-flag RPGing should not qualify as gaming.

 

[pemerton]

if the DM isn't communicating with his players well, is there any set of rules that will save them?

Can I also point out that its odd to assume that its ok for the DM not to play certain monsters to the fullest (ie, that the BBEG wouldn't capture a bodak or basilisk to drop on intruders, or hire a medusa as guard but not give hints of such things so that adventurers would find out) but that its inconceivable to move such meta-rules out into the open with the no deaths rule.

As Malraux points out, there are at least two ways of communicating: ingame, and metagame. Metagame is typically easier. It's no surprise that 4e - a game expressly designed to reduce the preparation burden on GMs - has opted for metagame communication of risks.

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.

<snip>

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

The second paragraph runs together risk in the real world with risk in the gameworld. It goes without saying that in "death flag" play the players do not run these things together. That is, they are happy to "step outside of the point of view" of their PC. "Death flag" play is metagame-heavy play.

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.

Exactly.

The audience doesn't, however, want to believe that Bond knows that he is in no real danger.

And likewise the players don't want to believe that the PCs know they are in no real danger. Luckily, the players can easily bring about this result, because they get to determine (through the standard means that roleplayers use) what the PCs do and don't believe. And they can choose not to have their PCs break the fourth wall.

It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk.

It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk. That isn't a nonsense statement. That is tautological fact.

And death flag mechanics don't remove the tautology - the PC faces risks in the gameworld, but the mechanics of the game mean that those risks are never realised unless a certain metagame constraint is satisfied (ie the player raises the death flag).

But I assume that you really means something like "It is far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when the risk that your character faces in the gameworld is actually modelled by some randomness in the real world." And this is an empirical claim, not a tautology. What evidence supports it? As far as I know a lot of people are playing with death flag and similar mechanics and do not find it hard to play their PCs without breaking the fourth wall. It is no different from any other time that a player knows something that his/her PC does not.

Here's another question: Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?

I don't know. But in the typical "death flag" game it wouldn't come up, just the same as in the typical 1st ed AD&D game the player of the high-level fighter won't deliberately flaunt the wackiness of the hit point rules by having his/her PC take head-first dives of 100' cliffs for fun.

"Death flag" mechanics, like any other set of RPG mechanics, presuppose that they are being used for a certain purpose and that the players won't set out to break them by turning them to another purpose for which they don't work.

There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed.

This is an entirely empirical matter. It depends upon such considerations as what motivates players to enjoy "death flag" mechanics and what options exist in the game for a player whose PC is paralysed. I don't find it very hard to imagine a death flag game in which paralysis of PCs is possible. To work well, however, it would probably have to be the case that the paralysis was only temporary in real life, which would mean either that it lasts only briefly in the gameworld also, or else that there is some way of accelerating the gameworld to the point at which the paralysis is lifted.

If the real question is "Does thinking about the death flag make us wonder whether other deprotagonising mechanics should also be dropped from the game?" then the answer is Yes. But paralysis need not be a deprotagonising mechanic, depending how it is handled.

 

[Delta]

But those aren't really player challenges at this point (its not like the answers are particularly clever or unexpected anymore, and, besides, they can also easily be dealt with in game means as well), and, again, asks the question of why bother with the save part. It essentially amounts to a checklist. Either you breeze through the difficult part of the fight, or you get horribly maimed.

That's probably because they're just the first few things I could think of. (Remember, Scribble was asserting that nothing could be done about SOD, even if known in advance. I disagree -- sounds like you concur.)

Furthermore, the new players I introduce to Classic D&D do find them to be clever and challenging also make sense to them. It's better than some arcane power vs. power interaction.

I think that one of the worst things that could happen is for D&D to evolve to cater only to jaded hyper-experts of the game. Unfortunately, I do believe that's exactly what's happened at WOTC.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

if the DM isn't communicating with his players well, is there any set of rules that will save them?

If you ask this, why do you bring up "lava bathing" scenarios as a point against Death Flag mechanics? The same applies here - if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Largely in the realm of player-skill (see the "challenge the players thread"). Which lots of us old-schoolers (and old new-schoolers that I introduce the game to) prefer.

- Gaze-turns-to-stone? Close your eyes or get a mirror.
- Charming song? Plug your ears or counter-song.
- Finger of death? Go craft a scarab of protection.
- Other? Get a rogue to backstab 'em before they can act.

Etc., etc.

(Again, a "fold now" card misses the analogy of SOD pretty badly, and you're not addressing that, but whatever.)

The key is to have these counter-measures in place, and make the Save or Die effect irrelevant.

For this you have to go back to the origins of D&D, and really why there are saves in the first place. Answer: So even when everything goes wrong, your hero still has a chance to survive. But, you don't get to choose when. It could happen at any time, so actual risk is in the picture of the actual life-or-death encounter. It's a gift that you look to the dice to give you. It's a "happy little accident", and that's what makes it a game (and not a story).

See explanation on saves in 1E DMG.

Therefore, the Save aspect is strictly seen unnecessary and just a boon for those that weren't smart enough to figure the counter-measure out. But it has an unfortunate side effect: It might create the belief that the Save is all that you need to care about, both as the DM and the player. And that is something that seemed to have happened in 3E. Save or Die effects can easily happen - enemy spellcasters have enough spell slots and spells known that they could always carry a save or die spell around. The attempted "counter" is that you can greatly affect your saving throw chance. Unfortunately, this just makes the experience of simply rolling low a lot more bitter - there is nothing you could have reasonably done to prepare yourself against the enemy with SoD and all comes down to luck. Unless you want to cast a divination spell for every encounter and rest after each encounter (or at least once all divinations and counter-spells are cast)

If we go back before 3E, the situation might have been better. The "encounter" focus of the game wasn't there yet, and probably few would have used Save or Die effects without the warning signs that at least a clever player should be able to figure out. But there, Saves aren't really needed, because smart play doesn't want you to a save at all - you already failed at that point, and the death or survival of your PC is basically a formality.

So, after this thread, I would say the problem is not as simple as "how many rolls till I die or survive?", but it is about the decisions that lead you to your death. And it also matters about how we set the context for a decision making process.

At least since 3E, the decision making process is mostly seen per encounter, not per session. So any talk about ample warning should let you avoid the effects are fine and dandy, but don't work in the encounter-context. The warning would have to come in the encounter, not later.

I think that one of the worst things that could happen is for D&D to evolve to cater only to jaded hyper-experts of the game. Unfortunately, I do believe that's exactly what's happened at WOTC.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. I think it has less to do with "hyper-experts" or experience at all, but just different play styles. Some people might even enjoy both - but a system can affect which play style work better (and I dare say).

Also note - if you wanted a (Save or) Die effect in a 4E game, you could do that. Again, it requires the necessary communication, but if you wanted, you could create a scenario in where the PCs can learn that if they are not prepared, they will just die. Part of the communication that still follows the 4E spirit might be that you tell them when they are not adequately prepared. If they ignore your warning them - well, let's just say this is a nice chance to try a different character concept then. Maybe a non-suicidal one this time?

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry 'bout this, but I can't resist:

"Save, save, save or die
gently roll the dice
merrily merrily merrily killing me
that's not very nice"

And I have a game-wide Death Flag. It's called my DM screen, and it's up every session.

If I as player know I can't be killed then I know that I as player *will* have my characters do riskier things than they otherwise might.

As for those worried about the death spiral (example a few pages back was of a fighter who died, came back one level down, was then at greater risk of dying again to thus become two levels down, etc.), fear not: if things are going according to plan, there'll be enough death to go around that the fighter won't be far behind for long. (that said, I *far* prefer 1e's Con-loss mechanic, if only because levels in my game are hard to come by)

Someone way upthread said something like "This isn't hockey. There's no need for a penalty box." Would you believe that on my board there's a small rectangle chalked out that's often referred to as - wait for it - a penalty box! If a character's fate is unknown due to being captured, wandering off, etc., the character piece goes in the box until its fate is determined later.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

No, it's not the same thing at all. If my character is lost in a dungeon, then that's part of the character's adventure- it becomes just yet another challenge to surmount. If my character dies, that's it for that character, and that's it for any story that I tell with the character.

It's also the end for my participation in the game. When my character's done, I'm done. Why should I be expected to go to all the trouble and fuss of making a new character, just because you consider your silly little game world to be more important than my character?

I consider the party as a whole, and the game as a whole, to be more important than any one character within it...and that includes yours.

Who's saying that? All I'm saying is that you get ONE chance to entertain me. I'm a busy person, so your game gets exactly one character of mine. If you kill off that character, then you better give me a damn good reason why I should take the time to make a new character for you.

Of course if you have a tendency to throw boring adventures at me, especially if it's for no good reason than it fits the story you want to tell, then that's another problem all on it's own. You'd better just give up the damn DM Manual and let me drive.

If the games you play in are all about you to the extent shown by this post I'm quoting, you can drive all you like but I'll take the next bus.

Lanefan

 

[cougent]

Sorry 'bout this, but I can't resist:

"Save, save, save or die
gently roll the dice
merrily merrily merrily killing me
that's not very nice"

And I have a game-wide Death Flag. It's called my DM screen, and it's up every session.

If I as player know I can't be killed then I know that I as player *will* have my characters do riskier things than they otherwise might.

As for those worried about the death spiral (example a few pages back was of a fighter who died, came back one level down, was then at greater risk of dying again to thus become two levels down, etc.), fear not: if things are going according to plan, there'll be enough death to go around that the fighter won't be far behind for long. (that said, I *far* prefer 1e's Con-loss mechanic, if only because levels in my game are hard to come by)

Someone way upthread said something like "This isn't hockey. There's no need for a penalty box." Would you believe that on my board there's a small rectangle chalked out that's often referred to as - wait for it - a penalty box! If a character's fate is unknown due to being captured, wandering off, etc., the character piece goes in the box until its fate is determined later.

Lanefan

THIS mostly.

I have had players that were risk takers WITH SoD firmly in place, and sometimes it paid off for them and sometimes it did not. Take away SoD and they escalate on the risk factor 10 fold! Your players may not, but some/most of mine would.

There is also a flip side that seems to have gotten lost here somewhere also, for my group some of the most recounted fond memory stories are from MAKING that SoD save. Beating the incredible odds, rolling a 5 when you "only" had to make a 12 and being damn thankful for that +7 bonus. Those have been some of the BEST moments of our games, and I don't think any of my players would even remotely consider trading those moments away for "No SoD situations" even if they got back the (rare) times when they did fail and died.

IMNSHO, You simply cannot have the big massive highs without at least the risk of the devastating lows. As a DM you can make the SoD's rare, or even fudge them in the players favor on occasion, but to totally eliminate them, I find that unacceptable. As a player, (and one who likes the tables in Vegas) I want that risk, even if it means I have to go roll up a new PC because of it; because the flip side is awesome.

BTW: I survived the Tomb of Horrors with 1 PC, barely, but I can claim that... can you? [Not a literal challenge to anyone, but an example of the joy of beating the SoD]

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay. But if you recognize the sizable difference between a) and b) then surely can can see the reasons for preferring a) over b).

Hardly. The difference is sizeable, perhaps, but it is easier (IMHO) to believe in a universe without monsters that can paralyze human-sized prey than to believe in a universe where you don't die unless you really, really want to. It is easier to suspend disbelief in the paralysis-proof game than the death-proof one.

No they aren't... but that's not relevant.

We disagree on that point.

Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that.

Then why have dice or mechanics? Why not just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters?

Clearly it is more complicated than that.

Going back to a question that has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer yet:

Why even have a Save for Save or Die powers?

The answer I gave is upthread.

It's more like being aware that a slide exists.

Sorry, but I think "sunder-proof" (for example) is a step towards "death-proof", and the nerfing of deadly attacks is a much larger step, IMHO. I wouldn't mind their using two systems, so that (say) solo death attacks were really deadly, and elite death attacks not so much, but that is not the route they took. I look at this in light of the pre-4e announcement WotC articles about how X, Y, and Z are "unfun", and I think we are past the point of mere awareness of the slide.

YMMV, of course.

PS: Before this goes on much longer, I'd like to say thanks, RC. This discussion has been a really good one I think, and some of your larger posts have really helped me to see some areas where I might be able to improve my games. We have our disagreements, but hashing them out has helped me. I hope you get something out of it too

If I didn't, I wouldn't be posting.

Thanks, though.

Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should encourage the players to have their PCs take outlandish risk. Death flag mechanics presumably would encourage this. (This would be an example of the use of the death flag to support high-concept simulationist play.)

Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should allow the players to have their PCs experience the same risk that Bond does.

Well, to the extent that this is true, there is no loss for those play groups who prefer the game to consist of encounters rather than exploration. 4e is clearly aimed at such groups.

I tend to think that it is a change (not a loss) based upon the assumption that the players prefer encounters to exploration. If you are a player for whom this assumption does not hold, you may not like 4e.

Agreed.

If you ask this, why do you bring up "lava bathing" scenarios as a point against Death Flag mechanics? The same applies here - if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.

Because lava bathing highlights the problem with survival-guaranteed mechanics, whereas the problem with SoD is, IMHO, the universal one with all rules: if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.

I have had players that were risk takers WITH SoD firmly in place, and sometimes it paid off for them and sometimes it did not. Take away SoD and they escalate on the risk factor 10 fold! Your players may not, but some/most of mine would.

There is also a flip side that seems to have gotten lost here somewhere also, for my group some of the most recounted fond memory stories are from MAKING that SoD save. Beating the incredible odds, rolling a 5 when you "only" had to make a 12 and being damn thankful for that +7 bonus. Those have been some of the BEST moments of our games, and I don't think any of my players would even remotely consider trading those moments away for "No SoD situations" even if they got back the (rare) times when they did fail and died.

IMNSHO, You simply cannot have the big massive highs without at least the risk of the devastating lows. As a DM you can make the SoD's rare, or even fudge them in the players favor on occasion, but to totally eliminate them, I find that unacceptable. As a player, (and one who likes the tables in Vegas) I want that risk, even if it means I have to go roll up a new PC because of it; because the flip side is awesome.

This was brought up earlier, but not necessarily so well. Thank you.


RC