Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4508464" data-attributes="member: 42582">What is the basis for claims&nbsp; like &quot;should&quot; or &quot;can't&quot; or &quot;meant to&quot;. These look like nothing more than statements of personal preference.Well, as Mustrum Ridcully noted upthread, readily available raise dead spells are functionally a type of (potentially verisimilitude threatening) death flag mechanic.What is the basis for this judgement of relative importance? Presumably a player playing in a death-flag-style game of D&amp;D has already decided (i) that they want to use a particular PC as a focus for participation in the game, and (ii) that they do not object to the GM throwing in complications such as being lost in a dungeon eating rats and being chased by a minotaur.If they are not, then (for reasons other posters upthread have already noted) the game will probably not play in a very satisfactory way.Maybe it would be. But death-flag play is not motivated by the thought &quot;I don't like Z; let's just have Y,&quot; in which &quot;Y&quot; is Z-lite. Death-flag play is motivated by the though &quot;I don't like Z, so let's have Y instead&quot; where Z is something disliked (eg thematically/aesthetically unsatisfying play) and Y is something like (eg thematically satisfying play, in which thematically arbitrary PC death should play no part).Typically it is not, although for some players it may be the most important issue - because if the player is allowed to keep the same character, AND if the player is allowed to develop the backstory and the ongoing story of that character, THEN the player automatically enjoys quite a bit of further authorial control. But to see further examples of player authorial control in death-flag-style play, consider the discussion of &quot;fact introduction&quot; in the Challenge the Players thread, for example. Or look at the &quot;raising the stakes&quot; rules which, together with the death-flag mechanic, are part of E6.Who said the monsters are holding back. They're not. It's just that the mechanics favour the PCs. A pure deathflag mechanic (or Fate Points or Karma Points or whatever) is a metagame mechanic that favours the PCs. 4e D&amp;D uses a bunch of mechanics that mix game and metagame (hit points, healing surges, saving throws, and all the powers that interact with them) to produce something that is closer to the death flag end than the low-level AD&amp;D end of the spectrum.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4508464, member: 42582"] What is the basis for claims like "should" or "can't" or "meant to". These look like nothing more than statements of personal preference. Well, as Mustrum Ridcully noted upthread, readily available raise dead spells are functionally a type of (potentially verisimilitude threatening) death flag mechanic. What is the basis for this judgement of relative importance? Presumably a player playing in a death-flag-style game of D&D has already decided (i) that they want to use a particular PC as a focus for participation in the game, and (ii) that they do not object to the GM throwing in complications such as being lost in a dungeon eating rats and being chased by a minotaur. If they are not, then (for reasons other posters upthread have already noted) the game will probably not play in a very satisfactory way. Maybe it would be. But death-flag play is not motivated by the thought "I don't like Z; let's just have Y," in which "Y" is Z-lite. Death-flag play is motivated by the though "I don't like Z, so let's have Y instead" where Z is something disliked (eg thematically/aesthetically unsatisfying play) and Y is something like (eg thematically satisfying play, in which thematically arbitrary PC death should play no part). Typically it is not, although for some players it may be the most important issue - because if the player is allowed to keep the same character, AND if the player is allowed to develop the backstory and the ongoing story of that character, THEN the player automatically enjoys quite a bit of further authorial control. But to see further examples of player authorial control in death-flag-style play, consider the discussion of "fact introduction" in the Challenge the Players thread, for example. Or look at the "raising the stakes" rules which, together with the death-flag mechanic, are part of E6. Who said the monsters are holding back. They're not. It's just that the mechanics favour the PCs. A pure deathflag mechanic (or Fate Points or Karma Points or whatever) is a metagame mechanic that favours the PCs. 4e D&D uses a bunch of mechanics that mix game and metagame (hit points, healing surges, saving throws, and all the powers that interact with them) to produce something that is closer to the death flag end than the low-level AD&D end of the spectrum. [/QUOTE]

Verification