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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4513113" data-attributes="member: 18280">Not objectively inferior, but objectively less dangerous.  And, because it is known to be objectively less dangerous, less easy to suspend disbelief about the dangers involved.  Actually, since books and movies were brought up previously, you should be well aware that this same criticism has been levelled against the type of storytelling (and far more than once) in those media where it is obvious that the hero will survive from the first page.Sure......But that doesn't alter the fact that a survival-guaranteed game can be played using a survival-not-guaranteed ruleset (generally by RAW), but the reverse is not true.Moreover, as I said upthread, I have no problem with "different strokes for different folks"....until those folks try to take valuable tools (SoD) out of my game (D&D) because they don't understand how to use them well, or (worse) try to turn my game into something I don't want to play.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />The important line, IMHO, is that death is there in theory.  No characters need actually be harmed in the making of this game.  However (and it is a big however), my experience with 2e (which actively encouraged DMs to save characters who would otherwise die) is that this causes players to engage less with the gameworld.  IME, the percentage to which this is true is 100%, although my sample set is only about 50-75 players in two countries.IMHO, yes.RC</blockquote>

Verification