Raise Dead in Next

I think Raise Dead should be a little harder to accomplish in Next, with a longer lasting penalty.

I am currently (that's the issue) playing a character that was killed by gnolls during the last session. Out of character, I simply failed to realize that this was the "big" encounter. In character, my Sorcerer is followed around by tribesman who tell him he is the reincarnation if a mighty dragon, indeed-- so he would not feel particularly threatened by mere gnolls... until it was too late. The death made sense, in and out of game.

After the rest of the party defeated the gnolls and finished the quest, another player simply hauled my body back to town, paid the monetary cost, and had an NPC caster in the city cast Raise Dead. If this was Next, my character would simply sleep it off for a few nights, and be good to go.

I think the Raise Dead penalty should last potentiality longer, perhaps for a level. I also think Raise Dead itself should have a risk for the caster, perhaps also imposing a penalty on them, making it unlikely most NPCs would cast it on a stranger, and also of more consequence to the players.

Last year, in this campaign, the party was captured by orcs rather than TPKd, and later escaped. I think some DM fudging (like the capture) is fine, but sometimes the character has to die, and it has to mean something.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Video games don't have that.

Some of the "naughty" ones do.

Video games don't have that.

Some of the "naughty" ones do.




Touche.  But still not what we're discussing ;)
Two suggestions: 1). If you want people to rally around your cause, please say more than "it's like a video game". After all, wizardy 1 was released in 1981 with fighter wizard cleric rogue and so every version of d&d with the core four since then has been like a video game.



This premise is false.  Having classes named the same as D&D does not make a video game like D&D.  There's this little thing called ROLEPLAYING that is required for something to be a ROLEPLAYING game.  Video games don't have that.



Max, your argument, though cogent, implies that since D&D has roleplaying, and no videogame has roleplay, then no video game is like D&D.  Which is only 1 step away from saying "D&D is not like any video game". Which means, by your argument, whether raise dead is impossible, costs 1 CON, or is free is completely irrelevant to making D&D "more videogamey", since non of those affect roleplaying, only how people access their roles. 

Similarly, whether the Fighter casts spells out of his wand, since that just affects the  role he's playing, not whether he roleplays.

I'm not saying your argument isn't a breath of fresh air, but I don't see how you can reconcile your argument that videogames aren't roleplaying with any video game being like D&D.   

But, honestly, your argument feels a bit too black and white for me.  I get that you're defining an RPG by the infinite sandbox feeling -- that it isn't a RPG unless you can randomly attempt to scale Mt Everest or kick over a sandcastle.  I hear your argument, I believe, but I don't think it's 100% agreed upon here.  I mean, many games are immersive, and so have you playing a role, and I'd argue that the best of those involve roleplaying.  Maybe not infinite sandbox roleplaying, but roleplaying.  

I'm tempted to believe that the number of people arguing that WoW and 4e are the same means that people often disagree with your strict definition.  
i didnt think fighters could use wands unless they got rid of class related magic item use
 Max, your argument, though cogent, implies that since D&D has roleplaying, and no videogame has roleplay, then no video game is like D&D.  Which is only 1 step away from saying "D&D is not like any video game". Which means, by your argument, whether raise dead is impossible, costs 1 CON, or is free is completely irrelevant to making D&D "more videogamey", since non of those affect roleplaying, only how people access their roles.



True.  However, infinite lives puts the game on easy street and a huge number of people lose interest in games that hold little challenge.  That alone is reason enough to to make raise dead extremely easy to come by as a base rule.   

Similarly, whether the Fighter casts spells out of his wand, since that just affects the  role he's playing, not whether he roleplays.



I'm not sure what you were trying to say there.  That sentence is not written very well.  Mind re-stating it?

I'm not saying your argument isn't a breath of fresh air, but I don't see how you can reconcile your argument that videogames aren't roleplaying with any video game being like D&D.



Obviously there will be elements that are included in both types of games.  The critical difference between the two is actual roleplaying.  That one element is an incredibly large portion of D&D.  Even with all other elements being the same, the lack of roleplaying in a video game will make that game play far differently than D&D does.

But, honestly, your argument feels a bit too black and white for me.  I get that you're defining an RPG by the infinite sandbox feeling -- that it isn't a RPG unless you can randomly attempt to scale Mt Everest or kick over a sandcastle.



Nah.  Deciding to go over to the Black Forest instead of to the Dark Woods is not roleplaying.  Stepping into a role and acting it out is roleplaying.

I hear your argument, I believe, but I don't think it's 100% agreed upon here.  I mean, many games are immersive, and so have you playing a role, and I'd argue that the best of those involve roleplaying.  Maybe not infinite sandbox roleplaying, but roleplaying.



You're not really, though.  You're simply picking from among the limited choices presented to you.     

I'm tempted to believe that the number of people arguing that WoW and 4e are the same means that people often disagree with your strict definition.  



Heh.  I rather think that most people doing that are simply trying to slam 4e, rather than actually believing what they are saying. ;)
You can do that RP in online video games as well as you can in PnP. The only difference is the vast number of people that inhabit the online world with you don't play that way so you sort of stick out.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 8:06AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:


Feb 4, 2013 -- 6:26AM, Maxperson wrote:

Feb 3, 2013 -- 9:58AM, malcapricornis wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 3:27PM, MeCorva wrote:

Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.


 


People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.


 

World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME.  D&D is an RPG.  They are very, very different types of games.



World of Warcraft is a MMORPG, and Dungeons and Dragons is a TTRPG. Both are RPGs.



No.  Video games are misclassified as RPGs.  They are not RPGs since all you do is run around playing a video game with other people.  Unless you are on a roleplaying specific server (and the vast majority of people on those don't roleplay, either), there is no roleplaying involved.


I heavily disagree. I believe that every game that is a RPG shares what it makes to be an RPG. So eletronical and MMO RPGs and table-top RPGs, I believe that everyone of them is RPGs. That and the most -if not all- limitations of the eletronical/MMO RPGs exist basically because of the technology.
Online MMOs illustrate a sort of reverse Stormwind fallacy: nobody roleplays crappy builds either.
The term "RPG" has expanded beyond its original meaning.  Yes, it means a game that involves roleplaying, but it's also become the term for the genre that includes numerical progression through character stats and equipment.

"Contains RPG elements" is what they say when a game like Mass Effect includes its talent point system.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Also I don't think that roleplaying is all about chatting 7 hours about the weather, and I don't think that roleplaying = social interaction.
Basically I think that all this games shares what is necessary to be an RPG. But, I think that some video games that are currently not considered RPGs are RPGs, such as Assassins' Creed or Red Dead Redemption or GTA. In that point or the video-game industry still thinks that RPGs must have things like mages or spells, or there is some marketing going on (after all, classifying an game in one genre or another can have impacts in the sales, target public and that stuff).
I prefer the DM to have total control over how raise deads/ressurections/etc work. It doesn't really matter how the spell is written currently, it's how you wish to implement it. I also feel it's fair to warn the players before their first game how you will treat these spells.

In my games, I have Raises available but expensive. It's going to cost some coin for the components. I like to have everything story driven, however. If you lose the fight against the orcs because of bad luck/bad dice/slight miscalculations/good idea that didn't work/etc., then instead of killing you immediately they might take you captive with sinister intentions. If you play your cards right, they just might get your chance to escape.

Unless they made just obviously bad choices, I don't want to permanently destroy that character. But I do want them to stay on their toes. So far, it's worked and let to some great stories.    
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
FWIW I treat the variety of raise dead spells as gate spells which open a portal into the Land of the Dead where the party may then enter to retrieve the lost soul and bring them back to its body. This offers opportunities in side quests, as the soul is invariably held in some region of the Spirit Realm which is designed around them, meaning that they face that characters worse fears, vulnerabilities, faults, or hubris they carried with them in life. The party can choose whether such an excursion is worth the risk, as some of them may perish in the process. Should they succeed, the spirit and body are reunited, and a recovery period is endured as the character returns to full health. I treat this recovery period as the character having only his bloodied HP total as max, which rejuvenates at a rate of 25% per game session (i.e. bloodied HP total upon their return, 75% of max the next session, 100% of max at some point during the following).
FWIW I treat the variety of raise dead spells as gate spells which open a portal into the Land of the Dead where the party may then enter to retrieve the lost soul and bring them back to its body. This offers opportunities in side quests, as the soul is invariably held in some region of the Spirit Realm which is designed around them, meaning that they face that characters worse fears, vulnerabilities, faults, or hubris they carried with them in life. The party can choose whether such an excursion is worth the risk, as some of them may perish in the process. Should they succeed, the spirit and body are reunited, and a recovery period is endured as the character returns to full health. I treat this recovery period as the character having only his bloodied HP total as max, which rejuvenates at a rate of 25% per game session (i.e. bloodied HP total upon their return, 75% of max the next session, 100% of max at some point during the following).



To keep the dead character player active allow him to be battling to save himself against those otherworld adversaries who manifest his aspects... don't emphasize the part of the quest where they are apart because that is harder to game he might even get to use the famous "What took you so long" quip when they meet up.

The process and quest could be significant enough to garner a fair amount of experience points doubly fun if you have it be a level up. Heros of legend who come back are often greater because of it.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Excellent insight, I do indeed allow the dead character a participatory role in the quest. The party obviously has a finite amount of time in which to choose on embarking on such a quest, which is usually during or immediately after the session in which they died. I have, in the past, actually allowed the "dead" player to run this session (that I have written), having immense fun watching them embellish the "downsides" of their character's personality as they assail the rescuing party. It's impressive to see just how willing a player is to punish their own party if the context is their own fantasy.
Excellent insight, I do indeed allow the dead character a participatory role in the quest. The party obviously has a finite amount of time in which to choose on embarking on such a quest, which is usually during or immediately after the session in which they died. I have, in the past, actually allowed the "dead" player to run this session (that I have written), having immense fun watching them embellish the "downsides" of their character's personality as they assail the rescuing party. It's impressive to see just how willing a player is to punish their own party if the context is their own fantasy.


Cool ... my way has most of the fighting to get out... so the party is able to  operate as a party.. but the players own insight int to his inner spiritual landscape is pretty tempting awesome
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments