|
5 years ago ::
Oct 14, 2008 - 10:02PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2008
|
Eud: By your Logic any person who is unable to recover themselves is dead (player restart). What about the party that doesnt want to recover the body? What about the party that is physically unable to rescue all the party members? All the Baddies are dead but The party is so physically weak they can't carry everyone to get raised.
So they carry one out and when the return the DM says a wandering monster carried the other bodies off
Clearly this is not what the rules intended, but they are options under the logic you present. I have stated what I think amounts to a character not being able to be raised rules wise. I dont believe a TPK is one of those situations.
You dont understand the twin argument. Whats the difference between the twin participating and the original character participating? With the ability to replay adventures I am saying death is academic. I believe thats what the campaign staff is saying as well. It doesn't really make sense for the player to have to replay all the same adventures again to achieve his original starting point., but it could be done and he'd still be at your level 30 table, without all the epic battles because heck hes done them twice.. He knows all the secrets. It is in fact more likely that he would be an Uber character than the original. It is far more likely at that point for the player to just walk away from the campaign.
Now I think we have shown that Death does have different penalties than in previous campaigns. I just dont believe the TPK spells the end of a character, and eventhough it does happen in games. I dont think it is intended to lead to perma death like in previous campaigns.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 12:56PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
Eud: By your Logic any person who is unable to recover themselves is dead (player restart). What about the party that doesnt want to recover the body? What about the party that is physically unable to rescue all the party members? All the Baddies are dead but The party is so physically weak they can't carry everyone to get raised.
So they carry one out and when the return the DM says a wandering monster carried the other bodies off
Clearly this is not what the rules intended, but they are options under the logic you present. I have stated what I think amounts to a character not being able to be raised rules wise. I dont believe a TPK is one of those situations.
In the event of a death, characters have two options, PROVIDED they:
1) Have access to the Raise Dead ritual (either by owning it or returning to civilization
2) Have access to the body
In a TPK, no one returns to civilization, and body access is usually questionable as well.
It's not my logic, it's the boilerplate. I just happen to think it makes sense. The PCs don't have to carry out the entire bodies, just pieces of them, according to the ritual. (I would rule the fingernail-clipping bit wouldn't work because they weren't actually from the BODY; that is, parts must be harvested after death, not before.) Not sure about that "wandering monster" bit, but it's not really relevant, since all that has to be carried out is a coupla gallbladders.
What makes you think it's "clearly not what the rules intended"? What do you think the rules DO intend? It seems to me that the rules are intended to encourage PCs to fight smart, be willing to retreat when overmatched, and go to great lengths to leave no one behind.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 1:12PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2008
|
Actually if you read the link I provided it explains exactly what the developers intended....
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 1:31PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
"Our game required a realistic possibility of defeat and death to maintain its excitement and dramatic tension. Take away a plausible threat of death and failure, and heroes become boring automatons."
That's what I'm talkin' about.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 1:40PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Perhaps I can summarize: for some people, the thought of playing a character for several months and/or years, and then to lose that character completely is the worst thing that could happen and would be a waste of time. For other people, the thought of never being able to lose a character completely is the worst thing that could happen and would be a waste of time. Welcome to running a Living campaign.  For the time being, the compromise is the Death Charity clause. If the PC's body cannot be raised (or if the player chooses not to raise the PC), then the Death Charity clause is there to allow THOSE WHO WISH TO USE IT to continue playing the character, with the penalty being that they have to take the XP earned in the adventure without getting any of the other rewards. Players who want to live on that tightrope without a net are in no way required to bring back their character. Right now the exact wording of the Death Charity clause indicates that the body needs to be recoverable to use the clause, but I do not think that was the intention of the rule. So until you hear otherwise, the Death Charity clause should be available to any player whose PC died, whether the body is recoverable or not. If Chris Tulach or someone else at WotC tells me differently, then I will retract this statement. Thanks, and be well. Shawn LFR Global Admin
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 2:53PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
I don't mean to be offensive (especially since I'm new here and you're plainly a Big Chief), but that seems bass-ackward to me.
They said it once. Why assume they meant something other than what they said, until they say it again?
It seems more logical to me to assume they DID mean what they DID say, UNTIL they say OTHERWISE.
Could be just me, though. My personal bias might be clouding my reasoning.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 3:44PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
I don't mean to be offensive (especially since I'm new here and you're plainly a Big Chief), but that seems bass-ackward to me.
They said it once. Why assume they meant something other than what they said, until they say it again?
Because I was at the meetings where these things were discussed. So even though I did not write the boilerplate text we are discussing, it doesn't correspond to what I remember the direction of the campaign being. And if we are going to err, I would rather err on the side of the player being able to continue playing his/her PC rather than erring the other way.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 5:08PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
Heh, I had a feeling you'd go with the "err on the side of caution" argument.
Well, I don't particularly like it, but you're the boss. Scratch that--I STRONGLY dislike it.
Is fulfilling the three provisions still required to exercise the first option, "paying the component cost for the ritual"? The PC then receives story awards and treasure at the end. The 'plate says the cost of the ritual should be divided evenly amongst the group. Is that binding? I can't see very many people wanting to shell out dough just so Sir Doofus can get his magic boots.
My character is going god-hunting now. I get xp for the encounter I die in, right?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 6:59PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2007
|
I think the biggest problem is the paradigm shift.
Previously, a living campaign was about earning rewards and playing high level after defeating monsters/other things and death was a hindrance (well at least it was supposed to be, and TPKs were devastating)
Thus, if you sat at a table with a bunch of level 15 PCs, they were usually competent, hardened adventurers with tales of near deaths and dangerous situations. They 'earnt' their power, instead of just turning up to x adventures, they were successful heroes.
The shift now is that the 'success' is no longer required. A PC can incompetently make itself into a demigod, regardless of situation. This is so that WoTC and the RPGA can promote play and encourage 'fun'. It isn't any fun if because of dice rolls you die and can't play in the same 'APL' as your friends anymore.
I am a really strong proponent of the requirement of a chance of failure. If there is none, then what is the point of the dice/combats? we should just box-text us winning and get back to the roleplaying surely? That is not the case. A fight is contingent on a chance of failure, and failure implies something bad happens. The current death mechanic bugs me a lot (more so with Warforged Barbarians running around) But I can see why they attempted to do it that way. In LG death was either 'you are perma dead and lose everything' or 'you get ahead of the gold curve - sweet!'
HAVING said that, I am a firm believer that a TPK should be BAD. I mean, yes, you may die, but if EVERYONE dies than you *should* be stuffed. If someone gets out, then a rescue operation is at least feasible.
I dunno, I find that the incompetent players will get to 30 regardless of death, as there are always people to baby them/tell em what to do, so I don't think Death affects that. I do however feel that a chance of death + an actual penalty for it (come on, dying should be an inconvenience, especially now it is supposedly harder to die) is intrinsically required in any game system where there is combat/advancement. Otherwise why not just have level bumps and throw the whole achievement of advancement out the window?
I second that it needs addressing. I would prefer it stay as is, than let people come back from a TPK. God Mode is stupid in a game as combat oriented as 4th edition. People complained about the effect Delay Death/Close wounds/Revivify had on 3.5, well I foresee the same issues with this. Who cares? Especially with free raise dead scrolls in modules as consumable bundles that cost only 75gp and don't take up a slot...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2008 - 7:30PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
I think the foundation of this debate stems from differing views on what is fun in D&D. There are clearly those players who believe it is a contest to prove who is the most worthy/competent player of D&D, and he who gets to 30th level, is the winner! There are clearly those players who believe anyone who has fun playing D&D is a winner and why should they be limited to low level play.
The RPGA stated that LFR would not define what is fun or ordain a style of acceptable play. The RPGA has recognized that the old model of tournament style of play with the consistent play experience concept is gone. New model -- players and DM sit down, play, have fun, then it was a success.
Shawn will find out intent on whether the Charity Death clause should override the in-game retrieval of body parts or not, and then let everyone know.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
