Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4507210" data-attributes="member: 710">But I didn't this other role-playing thing. To use a generic food metaphor You can't tell me "Sorry, I ate all the peanut butter - have some chocolate" and expect me to be happy with it - I wanted that peanut butter. Especially considering the possibility that I might be able to get some peanut butter first and later try the chocolate. Also don't forget - it is not about the egoistical desires of the individual player. It's about the entire group. The DM took some of your character hooks and prepared something for it. The other players enjoyed following these hooks (along with those of their own characters). You want to see what the DM have planned. In such a scenario, there might be times where death is in fact an interesting outcome, and where it is not. For example, if you're "resolving" a hook (maybe a missing mentor story-line, or just a general theme of your character, like choosing between family and duty), that is a good time to "raise the death flag" - because the death will most likely be meaningful for the characters goal. And so would be survival.For example, the parties Fighter is fighting his nemesis - a lich that killed his fathers mentor, and now he is fulfilling a family blood oath started by his father. This is a good time to raise the Death Flag, to represent the stake in this goal (and, mechanically speaking, to gain a little edge). He either beats this lich, or he dies trying. This can be a meaningful conclusion of the story arc, either way.Maybe this is the difference between "Narrativist" and "Simulationist" play (at least if used in a more "sane" way then Ron Edwards seems to use it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ). Mechanics to control character death are more about the goals of the story you'd like to tell in the game, then about fulfilling a characters goals. (If it was just fulfilling the goals, you wouldn't want to raise the death flag in the encounter against the lich - after all, the characters goal is the destruction of the lich, not dying in the attempt). It of course assumes that you are interested in particular stories to be told - but note that even this type of play doesn't automatically assumes the out-come of any game situation. It's more about "what is the story about" not "how does this story end". And by removing character death in most situations, the story is guaranteed to be about the particular character, and that it is only about his potential death when you want that story. It's a little funny having to explain or defend a play style or a game mechanical element that I don't actually use. (Though I might be willing to...)But if you drop unconscious in an encounter, that is a notable failure in combat. It makes the combat more difficult for the rest, and you are reduced to a spectator instead of an actor in the game. If the party is forced to retreat because of such losses, this is a failure in combat. If the entire party is dropped unconscious, that is a terrible failure because now they are in the hands of their enemies, might lose precious toys (another thing many player hate), and have lost control over their characters options. Heck, the enemy might be able to fulfill his own goals (maybe destroying your home village, completing the ritual to call a powerful demon) and you are unable to do something against it. In fact, even in games where character death is possible, you can effectively face failure - like when you use up too many spells so the next fight becomes impossible or to risky, or when you've used up all healing.</blockquote>

Verification