|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 3:11AM
#271
|
|
|
Saratek: If the players all die in a TPK, in a game with PC death, and they don't have some wacked out Elminster's Evasion contingency cheese, the game is over. The campaign simply stops. They lose. They make new characters, in a new world, in a new campaign. They don't get to see what happens in the old one, it's done, they failed, it's over.
1. No death? No matter what happens, you're going to see the end of the campaign. Sit back, take your hands off the controls, get ready to enjoy your DM's story.
2. Real death? If you fail, campaign ends. Do better next time. Succeed? You did well, congratulate yourself.
Resurrection and other rules prevent campaign-ending TPKs from happening too often. Follow the rules, you get option 2. Nerf the game, you get option 1. People tend to like one or the other. I like option 2. Others like option 1. So?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 6:07AM
#272
|
|
|
If the players all die in a TPK, in a game with PC death, and they don't have some wacked out Elminster's Evasion contingency cheese, the game is over. The campaign simply stops. They lose. They make new characters, in a new world, in a new campaign. They don't get to see what happens in the old one, it's done, they failed, it's over.
But this way of playgame lacks continuity and the feeling of "i can change the world". The campaign has no effect, no change to the world. It doesn't matter if i win or not.
I once mastered a campaign with a plaque turning everything to stone. Now i play another campaign with other players in the same world - and 1/3 of a country is "stoned" (:P). The PCs from the first campaign still have some impact to the story of the second campaign. They provoked a villian but didnt take him out and they released another villian to the world.
The PCs in the new campaign have to deal with those villians. If i play some adventures without a campaign, these villians can show up somehow. There is a world and the PCs can change it.
If my character wins an epic story and saves the world - and nobody cares one play session later (as we started a new campaign), there is no feeling of victory. At least not for me.
I simply wanted to make the point that "a DM doesn't let the PCs die" doesnt mean "the DM cheats for the PCs and let them win the fights".
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 6:48AM
#273
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2005
|
But this way of playgame lacks continuity and the feeling of "i can change the world". The campaign has no effect, no change to the world. It doesn't matter if i win or not.
???? 
It seems to me the exact opposite is true. The PCs can change the world - but only if they succeed. If they fail - they fail. Bad stuff happens. This as opposed to "the PCs will change the world - we just need to fill in the turgid details of how exactly they do it".
The fact that the campaign ends need not mean that the next group of PCs don't get played in the same world - just that they don't get to take up where the last group left off. That would be my approach, anyhow.
=======
Balesir
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 7:39AM
#274
|
|
|
The campaign simply stops. They lose. They make new characters, in a new world, in a new campaign. They don't get to see what happens in the old one, it's done, they failed, it's over.
I replied to this quote. There it simply ends.
Saratek
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:30AM
#275
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
But even if they have to roll new characters, they will bring the campaign to an end, too.
It depends on the campaign. Most campaigns have things that need to be accomplished. If those things aren't accomplished, then the bad things happen. If the party dies, the campaign doesn't have to end. The DM just applies the bad stuff, and now things are even worse than they were before and the new party has to work even harder. Sometimes, the bad stuff happening will destroy the old campaign, and a new campaign will have to be started that has elements from the old one in it, due to the first party's failure. These consequences add a great deal of meaning and story to the game. Not being able to die destroys those things.
They will "win" the campaign, no matter how many PCs they "lost". They can fail again and again and again, but continue with new PCs. So this final victory is worthless for the players, too. The players can't fail, only their characters.
Sure, if you have a putz for a DM. I'd like to think that most DMs aren't putzes like this.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:34AM
#276
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2003
|
This death then was completely at the hands of your DM, and I think it is a very poor decision to allow the character to fall off the 500' cliff. How would I handle the situation? Well I'm fortunate enough to have the 4e rules (while this DM wasn't) so I have a nice advantage. I'd say he made a bull rush attack on the creature. When he rolls a 1 to hit, I say he misses his bull rush attack. Since bull rush says no where that if you roll a 1 you go sailing past your target, I wouldn't invent some "oh, well, pass these checks to live" on the spot. I'd just say he missed, and if he had no other actions for the turn I'd move to the next initiative.
Yes, according to the (4e) rules there is nothing that says that if you miss a charge that you rush past the person. But common senses says that you would go past the person. To me this is a case where slavish adherence to the rules breaks the versilimitude of the game, and situtations like this is also why there used to be some lively RAW wars during the days of the old edition.
Generally speaking, and with some exceptions (such as magic), I do not like rules that defy the laws of physics. Look at cavalry charges, both historic and in D&D. Let us imagine a classic knight on his horse armed with a lance and let us imagine he is charging a footsoldier. In real world if the knight missed his horse suddenly would not stop. He would keep riding past the foodsoldier. In D&D the player is free to simply stop his horse "on a silver piece" if he misses. Yes, it is according to the rules, but to me it is a case where the rules need to be house-ruled by the DM. One thing I liked about 1st and 2nd edition is that the rules provided a framework to work with and the DM could use intelligence and common sense to adjudicate situations not specifically covered in the rules (and Yes, this is also what could make the games horrible because not evry DM had intelligence or common sense). As a wise forumite (damixmastermike) once said, "Remember that the rules are only there to help you along, they shouldn't completely govern your sessions."
Gygaxian is NOT a slur. Those who use it as such should be punched in the face. Repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 10:18AM
#277
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2005
|
Saratek: If the players all die in a TPK, in a game with PC death, and they don't have some wacked out Elminster's Evasion contingency cheese, the game is over. The campaign simply stops. They lose. They make new characters, in a new world, in a new campaign. They don't get to see what happens in the old one, it's done, they failed, it's over.
That may be how you do it, but I've played in plenty of games where after a TPK the DM had the players roll up new characters that basically took up where they were at. In fact, I think thats fairly common. You assume that everyone else just starts back at level 1 after a TPK with a brand new campaign. I don't think that's a fair assumption.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 10:21AM
#278
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2005
|
Yes, according to the (4e) rules there is nothing that says that if you miss a charge that you rush past the person. But common senses says that you would go past the person. To me this is a case where slavish adherence to the rules breaks the versilimitude of the game, and situtations like this is also why there used to be some lively RAW wars during the days of the old edition.
Generally speaking, and with some exceptions (such as magic), I do not like rules that defy the laws of physics. Look at cavalry charges, both historic and in D&D. Let us imagine a classic knight on his horse armed with a lance and let us imagine he is charging a footsoldier. In real world if the knight missed his horse suddenly would not stop. He would keep riding past the foodsoldier. In D&D the player is free to simply stop his horse "on a silver piece" if he misses. Yes, it is according to the rules, but to me it is a case where the rules need to be house-ruled by the DM. One thing I liked about 1st and 2nd edition is that the rules provided a framework to work with and the DM could use intelligence and common sense to adjudicate situations not specifically covered in the rules (and Yes, this is also what could make the games horrible because not evry DM had intelligence or common sense). As a wise forumite (damixmastermike) once said, "Remember that the rules are only there to help you along, they shouldn't completely govern your sessions."
This is starting a discussion on verisimilitude vs functionality in the rules, and IMO is completely off topic of this thread. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread though.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 1:54PM
#279
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
That may be how you do it, but I've played in plenty of games where after a TPK the DM had the players roll up new characters that basically took up where they were at. In fact, I think thats fairly common. You assume that everyone else just starts back at level 1 after a TPK with a brand new campaign. I don't think that's a fair assumption.
My experience is very different that yours. In 25+ years of D&D, I've never once had a DM just have us pick up where the last party died and keep going in the campaign. Every last one of them has resulted in a new party approaching the campaign from a different direction, or more commonly, in a completely new campaign. So I guess it's not a fair assumption on your part that things just start up where they leave off.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 2:14PM
#280
|
|
|
Let PCs die any time the dice say it's going to happen, unless it's the first encounter of the campaign or the encounter was grossly misjudged.
|
|
|
