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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 4507893" data-attributes="member: 8835">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.</blockquote>

Verification