|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 12:27PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2008
|
I can't believe we are still discussing this.
Shawn has given us a temporary solution and promised to address this with higher ups. I am sure they will rewrite or redefine what "IS" an unrecoverable body
Not only that he left it to the real people that matter -- the players. If you want to make use of the charity clause you can do so if you want to play a more iron man aspect you can do that as well.
It has broken down into what I would call a few people unwilling to change from the old way. I secretly surmise that these people gain some perverse pleasure in killing characters in game. These people dont recognize that death while an occurance in game is bad by itself it carries additional penalties beyond the unsuccessful completion of an adventure. The only argument I have seen presented here and only by a few is that it is not severe enough. I recognize it is a severe and lasting penalty, I appreciate it is not a permanent option. The people, regardless of the intent of the rules want more punitive damages heaped on players. Not thier characters. I dont have anything to say to that really I am kind of dumbfounded. Not realizing that a six player tpk is six times worse than a one person death.
To the obteuse comment "I am going God-hunting I get XP right" experience for what? did your group successfully complete the encounter? You failed. (Not successful) No xp. If you started the encounter and couldn't overcome it again no xp (unsucessful) but you dont have the penalties of death.
I am not going to say I represent a large group of people in a post to falsely puff up its potential importance. I am going to say some people dont get it. and to use words from another person with better word power than I.. It is not a paradigm shift, but it is a different way of administering a campaign.
Listen folks Death is going to happen. Regardless of the circumstances that surround the event. I know that. I am not against it. I like that the penalties effect the character and not the player.
I can break every encounter down into this simple situation. Every event in a game is either a success or failure. The event as a whole is either a success or failure
broken up into little events (which again are either success or failure) All failures have penalties associated with them. (Minor) the next several encounters may be slitghtly more difficult. (This is very different from the previous campaigns and I like it) (Medium) party fails and stops. end of this particular adventure. (severe) Party fails end of adventure and with death(s) carries over into the next 2 adventures.
But regardless of the penalties i don't lose players. They arnt guaranteed success. I dont have to worry about them keeping up with the Jones'. i can let them pace themselves. There isnt any kind of end game were are rushing to. Maybe they progress a little slower, maybe that by itself gives less talented players more of a chance to hone thier skills. I do think I see where the campaign is going and I like it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 12:43PM
#72
|
|
|
I like that the penalties effect the character and not the player.
Ensuring this is the entire point behind why I started this thread. While the thread may have focused on a particular aspect of this, this is what it's all about.
David
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 12:49PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
I can't believe we are still discussing this.
Shawn has given us a temporary solution and promised to address this with higher ups. I am sure they will rewrite or redefine what "IS" an unrecoverable body
...
To the obteuse comment "I am going God-hunting I get XP right" experience for what? did your group successfully complete the encounter? You failed. (Not successful) No xp. If you started the encounter and couldn't overcome it again no xp (unsucessful) but you dont have the penalties of death.
I'm hoping they don't rewrite or redefine unrecoverable deaths. I think the way they were originally written and defined is grand.
I thought god-hunting was pretty acute. According to the Death Charity clause, the character receives the experience point award for the encounter in which they died, and if the group fails the encounter because it's too tough, they get half xp. So all I gotta do is let Tempus smash me to death a couple times (or get eaten by half a dozen different dragons, or...) and I should hit Paragon tier in nothing flat, right?
Also, " If you started the encounter and couldn't overcome it again no xp (unsucessful) but you dont have the penalties of death." doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Then again, I'm pretty obtuse sometimes.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 2:39PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2008
|
Correct you are....
I guess thats why the adventures have hard caps...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 6:00PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2007
|
I don't think that a TPK is a good definition of failure.
I never said it really was. However, a TPK is a form of failure. And therefore I believe that it, or something else needs to exist to make the game not seem pointless.
That is indeed what one portion of the player base believes. Another portion of the player base does not agree (or at least does not equate "failure" with "permanent PC death").
Well, than that is their opinion. However there must be some level of failure for the game mechanic to work at all, do you agree with that? If in Chess, white always won with no chance of losing, why would you play it?
I find it hard to believe that there are people out there who believe that there should be no chance of failure. A TPK is an extreme example, but by the same token if you are eaten by a dragon: you should be eaten by a dragon. Death is already more difficult to achieve than it was before, so why must death also be meaningless?
Are you saying that regardless of PC actions, regardless of who they stupidly decide to fight, they will always come out alive, and only lose minimal gear?
Sure, I want to role-play with players like that:
Guy: "I go attack the Ancient Red Dragon because my Grandmother will go and get my stuff/body and I will get half xp"
Me: "But won't it eat you and take your stuff? we are supposed to be avoiding it and taking on those goblins, we are but inexperienced adventurers"
Guy: "Nah it's cool dude, death doesn't matter and regardless of what happens, I will get to level 30 and will only lose a small amount of stuff. - Also I'll get 'better' just for having a go. All I'm taking is a wooden sword to ensure I don't drop behind the gold curve. just tell granny about the free raise dead scroll we found yesterday."
Me: "Wow, that's really heroic and like a reasonable depiction of fantasy mythos about heroic adventurers!"
Guy: " I know, isn't it awesome! like a whole bucket of Awesome! And get this, apparently we can become demigods/immortal this way - by dying a whole lot!"
- Not the kind of player that I want to hang around with...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 6:05PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I find it hard to believe that there are people out there who believe that there should be no chance of failure.
There's plenty of ways to fail without permanently losing a character. The potential of "failing" a module is enough for many people (dare I say most, anecdotally, of the people I play with). Taking away the potential to die permanently does not take away the potential to screw up a module so that it can be considered "failed".
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 6:12PM
#77
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I'll say that the very random nature of party makeup, game experience, optimization, etc that you see in a living campaign is a direct influence on people's willingness to permanently lose their character.
In a home game where you know everyone, you can account for the possibilities, know that you did the proper things (or not), etc. In a con game, maybe you mustered up a really poor group (5 strikers and a wizard someone said at one point? I bet that is great... until things go wrong), got the guy who forgot to sleep for three days and got the rest of the party killed, whatever. It's a lot more irksome since it no longer becomes "Well, we fought the good fight, what shall we try next?" and becomes "God, if only I hadn't sat down with that idiot! That's 9 months down the tube and there's no way I can play in the game I'm signed up for next week now... heck, it might be months before I can play with my regular home group at all, unless they make new characters!"
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 17, 2008 - 5:23AM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Well, than that is their opinion. However there must be some level of failure for the game mechanic to work at all, do you agree with that? If in Chess, white always won with no chance of losing, why would you play it?
Yes. And when you don't succeed at the goal of the mod, that's a failure. When you die, that's a failure. I take either of those happening personally. Most gamers I know seem to feel the same way. I don't need to have my character taken away from me to not like the results. Suppose you losing at chess meant you couldn't play chess at your level of play for 6 months, but only with beginners...
If you need to not have your character get raised, don't let him get raised. Then you can feel failure at the level you want to feel it - no one is stopping you from doing that.
Me: "Wow, that's really heroic and like a reasonable depiction of fantasy mythos about heroic adventurers!"
Guy: " I know, isn't it awesome! like a whole bucket of Awesome! And get this, apparently we can become demigods/immortal this way - by dying a whole lot!"
[/i]
- Not the kind of player that I want to hang around with...
So, um, don't...no one is forcing you to play with Guy. And again, unless the mod gives xp for the big dragon, Guy's getting a big fat zero for attacking him.
I'm having trouble imagining the published fantasy novel where the following happens:
The PCs set out on some important task.
They're not there yet and run into a random encounter on the way.
They all die.
End of novel. End of series.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 17, 2008 - 5:26AM
#79
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
End of novel. End of series.
Well... in the novel they generally win.
They don't all die and then get raised...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 17, 2008 - 5:49AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Well... in the novel they generally win.
They don't all die and then get raised...
That's not true - the heroes generally win in the end - there have been many novels where the main character(s) lose temporarily, possibly even dying. But as a result, gain some additional determination to overcome their enemies.
|
|
|
