|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 2:24PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
There are still those who prefer tactical set-piece battles and dungeon crawls, but I'm fairly confident in stating that big narrative-based games have been considered "the standard" for more than a few years now.
I agree with this, but I just want to point out that not everyone agrees that character death ruins this style of game.
Different people like different levels of lethality, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong when people try to make sweeping statements like "Characters can't die in any game with a plot or it ruins everything" or "If characters don't ever die no one can possibly have any fun".
(Not accusing you, I just wanted to throw that into the thread and your post was the most recent vaguely on-point one to quote.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 2:26PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
That would be my guess as well. I would love to see the other playstyle get the lime light for a while though, see how people react to that.
With an extended campaign of hate and misinformation that further divides the community and makes honest discourse difficult if not sometimes just impossible.
I mean, I'm just guessing.
Really Pash? I know I'm not talking about mainstream interests here, but this a play test forum. I really enjoy pondering the possibilities.
My only long-term goals are to encourage people to speak civilly and respect the ideas of fellow players. We are such a small community I have always felt that its important for us to tolerate each other in spite of differences. This is Role playing rule #2 for me as described in my vid “top 5 DM pitfalls” –Anyone can sit down at my game table.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 2:31PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Really Pash? I know I'm not talking about mainstream interests here, but this a play test forum. I really enjoy pondering the possibilities.
My only long-term goals are to encourage people to speak civilly and respect the ideas of fellow players. We are such a small community I have always felt that its important for us to tolerate each other in spite of differences.
This is Role playing rule #2 for me as described in my vid “top 5 DM pitfalls” –Anyone can sit down at my game table.
Hey, I'm not saying I'd lead the pitchfork and torch brigade, that's just what I think would happen.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 2:42PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
Hey, I'm not saying I'd lead the pitchfork and torch brigade, that's just what I think would happen.
Well that’s the nice thing about the internet, no one is ever in charge of anything. Sometimes people band up behind a cause, or little PM cliques form up, but there's nothing strong enough really rally the troops so to speak. And even if there was, there's really nothing anyone can do to another person here. So while I'm comforted that you will not be in the forefront of whatever mob gets formed up to come and...do something about this horrible bluespruce character and his heretical ranting, I'm not too concerned. Thanks for your input, its at least interesting to read.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 2:56PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2007
|
I've never run a year-long campaign, but if I did, 20% death rate would be entirely too high. You'd have total party turnover many, many times. Unless you are running a generational epic, that just wouldn't work for telling a story. Really, death should not be a consistent average anyway. It's the idea that there is some ideal rate that is off. A story's climax and beginning should have higher death rates than the middle, and only then if it is the right sort of story. Basically, death rate needs to be a dial that the DM (or better yet, the players) can turn up or down, independent of the types of monsters being encountered.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 3:01PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
i'm not interested in playing a game if death is a mathematical inevitablity.
personally, i'd rather have a game where death is a final consequence of bad decisions.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 3:04PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
I've never run a year-long campaign, but if I did, 20% death rate would be entirely too high. You'd have total party turnover many, many times. Unless you are running a generational epic, that just wouldn't work for telling a story. Really, death should not be a consistent average anyway. It's the idea that there is some ideal rate that is off. A story's climax and beginning should have higher death rates than the middle, and only then if it is the right sort of story. Basically, death rate needs to be a dial that the DM (or better yet, the players) can turn up or down, independent of the types of monsters being encountered.
Yeah I think so to, char death doesn't help long term campaigns (over 2 months 8 or 10 sessions) and it doesn't help story based immersion oriented games.
It does lend an air of challenge and danger that can be great fun in very short campaigns 3-5 sessions, Its a great matter of accomplishment to be the one guy that made it through one of those with the same char. And it really helps to make the game much more suspenseful.
So there is certainly a time and place for both styles, so far though low lethality seems to be the norm, which I wonder about. The game as a whole would have a much darker, more edgy feel if it was designed to be deadly, but also included tools to mitigate that.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 3:07PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
i'm not interested in playing a game if death is a mathematical inevitablity.
personally, i'd rather have a game where death is a final consequence of bad decisions.
If its possible then we can quantify it with probability. That result is not inevitable by any stretch of the imagination, just probable.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 3:10PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
i'm not interested in playing a game if death is a mathematical inevitablity.
personally, i'd rather have a game where death is a final consequence of bad decisions.
If its possible then we can quantify it with probability. That result is not inevitable by any stretch of the imagination, just probable.
Ha, it just occurs to me that death is a mathematical inevitability in the game of life! lol
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 3:12PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
i'm not interested in playing a game if death is a mathematical inevitablity.
personally, i'd rather have a game where death is a final consequence of bad decisions.
If its possible then we can quantify it with probability. That result is not inevitable by any stretch of the imagination, just probable.
a 20% chance of death stretched over any appreciable time frame (say 1-2 years for an average campaign) becomes statistically 100% per character. this makes it inevitable.
|
|
|
