|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 9:50AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
Dinosaurs evolved into birds, I don't see birds as the best thing since slice bread. Dinosaurs were the top predators and top herbivores for millenia, birds are neither.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 9:57AM
#62
|
|
|
Dinosaurs evolved into birds, I don't see birds as the best thing since slice bread. Dinosaurs were the top predators and top herbivores for millenia, birds are neither.
Would dinosaurs have survived in their environment after a certain point? Nope. Hence birds. In the great game of evolution & life it's a constant state of "What have you done for me lately?" and being the best thing several million years ago doesn't mean squat if your genetics are out of the pool in the present.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 10:20AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
What did the Romans ever do for us? (lately).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 12:45PM
#64
|
|
|
Why do you assume that D&D should still cling to its miniature wargame roots? I like to think that the game has evolved quite a bit by now.
- D&D from 0E to 4E has rules focused primarily on combat. In fact, a lot of the "fixes" 4E did to the D&D legacy involve combat.
- D&D from 2E to 4E has always been accused of having clunky and "tacked on" non-combat rules (and in some ways 0E's Thief has contributed to this, given that it had a semblance of non-weapon proficiencies before it was even introduced in 2E).
- I consider 4E's non-combat rules (skills, skill challenges, rituals) as a major improvement, but 4E still uses the "if you fail on a check, you don't do it", or basically the "No" philosophy. Skill challenges simply expound on this problem by effectively implying "fail 3 times before the DM has to (subtly/blatantly) deus ex machina you into the next encounter".
- in LFR, some of the more recently published adventures sort of fix this issue with skill challenges by limiting checks to 1 or 2 per scene in a skill challenge before moving to the next scene, sometimes completely ignoring the 3-fails-to-end-skill-challenge part of a skill challenge. As it's not the general approach to skill challenges however, we can't consider this as the actual rules and official stance on 4E's skill challenge
- Compare this to GUMSHOE/13th Age core philosophy on skill checks: "Failing forward" means that the non-combat scenes always push forward regardless of result, but the result determines the complications involved in the next scene. For me this is effectively "Yes, and" and "Yes, but" combined and fully implemented in non-combat (as opposed to having "Yes, and" and "Yes, but" apply only in determining what checks can be made)
While I would agree that 4E is an overall improvement in the evolution of D&D mechanically, the dynamics in the system especially with regards to out of combat rules are still a couple of levels short of systems that truly take non-combat into consideration. D&D Next's skills are a sorely needed improvement, but comparing D&D Next skills and 13th Age Backgrounds combined with how D&D Next treats skill-related ability checks (which still uses the "No" philosophy by default) versus how 13th Age treats background-related ability checks, all we'll see in D&D are mechanical improvements, but not philosophical progression.
In short, it's still a fantasy wargame where you can tell stories in (as opposed to a storytelling game where you can hold fights in), and from the looks of it, it will always be that way.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 1:37PM
#65
|
|
|
I've never understood why PC death is so controversial. If you've ever read Chris Perkins' articles he makes it seem so casual as he mentions every now and then just how many times some of his players have died. I like his approach and tend to follow it. Every time session zero occurs I advise my players that character death is not something to fear, and so, even in my current game they all have back ups just incase. This way they can be interjected some how, some way in the case of sudden death.
Some times back up can even be temporary as I also tell my players that their characters will never be gone for ever unless they absolutely allow it. Such as being resurected, the party going to the netherworld to save them (penny arcade) or a sorceress saving their soul an dplacing it in a construct, thus becoming a warforged.
All the same I don't do any hand holding when it comes to death. If a player dies in an encounter, (HP to zero, and fail the saves) they die. I keep them involved by either tossing in their back up some how or allowing them to control NPC's / Enemies. And then I allow the group in game to find a way to either bring them back or seek a new companion. My players don't have any problems with this.
I've only had one death so far in my current campaign. The leader of the group got captured and executed. He got captured at the end of one session so on the next session I involved his back up in the story via a plot twist, and they then witnessed their ex leaders execution, and his back up became his main (fyi, he was only executed because the player approved)
I think a campaign with out PC death halves the emotion and the experience. Due to their ex leaders death they have pretty much declared all out war on the city, which makes it all the more dramatic because they were the original founders and the reason the city flourishes. PC death can drive the story in new directions. ex; character dies to a standard orc during an encounter due to bad luck. he opts to use a back up but is fond of his now dead character so he expresses out of game he wouldn't mind if they later found a way to bring him back. Suddenly the story has two new objectives. A generic orc encounter has become about revenge, the DM toss a spin on it and suddenly the Orc Killer is a son of the cheif of an orc clan in the area, and now the party must wipe them out! Only to discover in the cheifs employ he has a hag, a hag that dabbles in necromancy, who can bring back their fallen comrade, etc yadda yadda.
I personally find that way more interesting then "oh your character died." "But I don't wanna" "okay he's just unconcious." "yay"
Maybe that's just me.
This states how I feel as well. I know for a fact my players want character death (and on occasion, permadeath) to exist in the game.
No disrespect to those that play that way, but the approach of "You tell me if your character died" will never see the light of day at my table. Permadeath, I would be willing to discuss with the player, but strictly out of session. I can think of few things more immersion crushing than doing it in session.
I tell my players "Your character is not immortal, but you, the player, will always have a place at the table". So have fun with your character! be bold and daring!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:42PM
#66
|
|
|
I tell my players "Your character is not immortal, but you, the player, will always have a place at the table". So have fun with your character! be bold and daring!
Well said.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 7:19AM
#67
|
|
|
On the purely combat mechanics level, character death is the only form of failure in D&D because it is a failure to survive the combat aspect of D&D, which is the main focus of the system.
However, assuming character death is the only form of failure in D&D is a really narrow perception of the game, because you fail to take into account that D&D has the quest objectives (something that CRPGs later adapted). If the players fail to meet their quest's objectives, even if they survive the encounter intact, it's still a failure because the reason why you're adventuring was never attained or completed... which, although not as painful as character death, is still really annoying.
|
|
|
