Community

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:36AM, iserith wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:27AM, LunarSavage wrote:

It's just not that simple for some people. Knowing beforehand that they had that choice removes the tension altogether. Better for them to never have had it, than to give it to them and then having them shove it back in your lap.

Maybe it's not that simple for some people. Maybe those people should seriously examine why that is, where it comes from, whether or not it's viable to change, and how to go about that. I still believe those people are corner cases.

Also, going by the default rules means that you may exclude some people who in my opinion rightfully see "losing" (as you put it) a non-competitive game as pretty stupid as far as that goes.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:27AM, LunarSavage wrote:

And honestly, your views on participation make little sense to me. Far too much about the meta game. And on top of that, if the players come to my table, they agree to play by the rules, even if the rules remove them from play. I've never seen a player take issue with that. As for their toy and their participation, it's not completely about each individual at the table as we've discussed before. There's a certain social paradigm that must be met for everyone to have enjoyment. Giving each player their own individual powers to ignore or not ignore something the DM doesn't want to deal with (or can't cope with), is not a workable solution for every human in existence. 

You made the metagame argument pages and pages ago. In fact, this was the first "real argument" in this thread that I acknowledged as being an actual explanation for why you wouldn't use this house rule. Now, I may believe that such reasoning is pointlessly limiting as a game philosophy, but that's at least a reason you can point to. It's a thing.

If your social paradigm includes people getting upset that one person chooses to live and continue participating in a way that's fun for them and hurts nobody else, I would seriously question that paradigm. But that's me. I don't game with people like that for reasons stated.

Those people don't need to psychoanalyze themselves. All they need is a DM who is willing to live up to their responsibility and do what they're supposed to do as game ref. Not shove those responsibilities into the laps of others. And I damn sure wouldn't say those people are corner cases, as many of the DMs here have argued this point with you and have each witnessed a fair amount of players on their own who prove that wrong.

And your damn right my way excludes people like you. Just as your way excludes people like me. I would never pretend my way to be all inclusive or as having the ability to cover all bases. That is absurdity at it's finest, and highly presumptious.

And to be fair, I wouldn't game with people like you who uphold the opposite paradigm.

 

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:58AM, iserith wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:46AM, LunarSavage wrote:

Those people don't need to psychoanalyze themselves. All they need is a DM who is willing to live up to their responsibility and do what they're supposed to do as game ref. Not shove those responsibilities into the laps of others. And I damn sure wouldn't say those people are corner cases, as many of the DMs here have argued this point with you and have each witnessed a fair amount of players on their own who prove that wrong.

And your damn right my way excludes people like you. Just as your way excludes people like me. I would never pretend my way to be all inclusive or as having the ability to cover all bases. That is absurdity at it's finest, and highly presumptious.

And to be fair, I wouldn't game with people like you who uphold the opposite paradigm.

Many of those DMs you reference are basing their assertions on anecdotal evidence. "My players wouldn't like it, therefore you are wrong." One wonders if they're even telling the truth. But, of course, one doesn't have to wonder long if we simply discount anecdotal evidence altogether, as we should. Instead, we look for real explanations to understand the preference rather than simply state the preference exists (which is obvious and unhelpful). "Promotes metagaming" is a tangible reason not to adopt the house rule, regardless of whether or not I personally think it's foolish.

My responsibility as DM begins and ends with facilitating a good participatory play experience. Fiat or rules-based removal of players from participation goes against that. If I believe I have some kind of mandate and authority because some dude in a cubicle thousands of miles away wrote something in a book one day, I would start to question my own sanity. Seriously.

I don't exclude anyone except jerks from my table. If someone likes to die when the death rules say they do, they can do that. If someone wants to live, they can do that, too. Or they can do both depending on their mood. If someone wants to pitch a fit over that, they'll have revealed themselves for what they are and "Buh-bye."

This is why we'll never get anywhere. We are standing on different foundations and can thus never agree to anything. Ever. Period. I see no reason to continue this discussion except to continue bashing one another about the head with insults both real and imagined. Edit: Which, for the record, I'm okay doing. I have no love of CoCs or kindness (or tolerance) towards arrogance.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:21AM, iserith wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:08AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Moot point. The player who wants or needs that kind of power could also have control issues.

Since retaining that power as a player is detrimental to the player's enjoyment by making the consequences of his/her actions utterly predictable, it seems that control for control's sake is the reason the player would want that control in the first place.

The house rule makes no judgment as to why a player would want that control. It is irrelevant. That the player's participation, hoops or no, is at stake and the character is their toy to begin with is a fact. The house rule recognizes that fact and gives the power to the person most affected by the death. Just like P2, it's none of the DM's business if P1 wants to stay in the game or not. And like P2, if the DM wants or needs that power, I'd be very curious to know why I felt that way and how I could correct myself, especially if I was P2 or the DM. 

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:08AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

 By having the DM retain this power, all of the players as well as the DM can experience the excitement that this tension provides.

There's nothing to suggest any tension is removed by implementing this house rule. If you need the threat of fiat or rules-based death to get your jollies, then just choose death, every time by default. Tension preserved, off you go.

The Situation: The DM describes an icy ledge. Just beyond the ledge is a frost-covered dwarven skeleton with a big gem in his bony hand.

Player A (allows dice-rolls and DM to determine fate): Wow this is intense! I wonder if my character will make it? I sure hope so! If I make it to the skeleton, I hope it's not an undead. This character is awesome, but I don't know if he's that awesome. Well, here goes...

Player B (uses self-determination house rule): (writing 'big gem' on his character). Wow that was intense!

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:36PM, iserith wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

The Situation: The DM describes an icy ledge. Just beyond the ledge is a frost-covered dwarven skeleton with a big gem in his bony hand.

Player A (allows dice-rolls and DM to determine fate): Wow this is intense! I wonder if my character will make it? I sure hope so! If I make it to the skeleton, I hope it's not an undead. This character is awesome, but I don't know if he's that awesome. Well, here goes...

Player B (uses self-determination house rule): (writing 'big gem' on his character). Wow that was intense!

Player C (allows dice-rolls to decide his fate because he chooses death every time if it comes up): Wow this is intense! I wonder if my character will make it? I sure hope so! If I make it to the skeleton, I hope it's not an undead. This character is awesome, but I don't know if he's that awesome. Well, here goes...

EXCEPT... Player C knows his character WILL make it and cares little even if it IS undead and also doesn't care about off the icy ledge, because the DM is never going to describe such scenarios (it would be a mistake according to your earlier posts). Besides Player C has the get-out-of-death-free-Player's-Choice trump card, usable at-will. He doesn't HAVE to die. And unless the DM makes the 'mistake' of describing a failed balance check as "your foot slips, you bang your shin on the ledge and the palm of one hand slaps the cold ice, the other hand grabbing air, grabbing anything, grabbing the skeleton by his thick gray beard, and you both fall through darkness not even having time to scream as (grabbing many d6)". But Player C then cuts him off... you can only roll 1d6, not all those. I only have 7 hp left. With even 2d6 I could probably die. I'm not jumping through hoops! I am probably not going to survive if you roll that many dice. Why should I have to stop playing just because you chose to put the monster on an icy ledge and I decided to cross it? My actions shouldn't matter, only the consequences... and the player should get to decide the consequences. I write the gem on my character and move on. Love this house rule, huh guys? Nobody ever has to stop playing unless the player wants to stop playing! Wow! I'm actually Player B! I could have saved a lot of time by simply saying writing 'big gem' on my character."

Player D (like player A, is tired of the silly house rule which rendered them useless compared to their immortal companions): Got it. The gem. Yay. That could have been intense. This DM is good (silly house rule aside), why is he such a people-pleaser? This houserule is godawful. They can't seem to give a single reason how this is better for the enjoyment of the game. If A and me just hang around long enough, maybe B and C will leave and we can talk the DM into letting us finish this awesome campaign before the immortals dance through every encounter writing down the treasure in every room and ending every dangerous situation with "Terrible DM! Don't describe it that way. Describe it like this...". This is like playing mario brothers without monsters bricks and obstacles. Wait.. I could split the party... or me and Player A could gang up on B and then C and stick them in barrels. As long as they can breathe through the spigot, they should be satisfied and we can still have a challenge. That's it!