Incoherence

[John Burdick]

If I want to do a story that involves plague, in a DnD world I make the disease something magical and resistant to ordinary spells, something that requires a mcguffin of some kind to cure.

The tricky part of that is avoiding the arbitrary nerf perception. I tried playing Neverwinter Nights as a palidin with cure disease. I encountered disease; disease won. The lesson is that a disease won't be in the game unless it's going to beat me. The power could be called "Cure Disease of No Plot Consequence".

Exalted has magical diseases including one called "the Great Contagion" which killed 90% of the world's population some 800 years before. The core book includes a cure and a perfect immunity for the the Great Contagion. Nothing short of the default player type can cure the disease. Ailment-Rectifying Method: "... even the most serious illnesses are halted in their progress by this Charm, and even the Great Contagion requires but five accumulated successes to overcome." A player can start with this and Contagion Curing Touch without compromising the ability to participate in combat.

Exalted: the Sidereals has a long list of magical disease attacks. Against a vulnerable person they are strange and nasty. Against a character with Immunity to Everything, they have no effect.

By putting the super healing gimmick as a player option up-front, they avoid the let-down feeling. Later character types offer weaker powers contrasted with those in the core book. In Exalted: the Dragon-Blooded, Disease-Banishing Technique says "This Charm, like so much other magic, is powerless against the Great Contagion." In the adventure location book Ruins of Rathess, the danger of tropical diseases is played up with intent of players feeling their characters are special, even if they are playing Dragon-Blooded with weaker magic. If you play that location without protection from disease, you can guarantee dead characters.

In the King's Quest computer game series, combat was always an automatic game over. If some one wants to hurt you and you don't have the right gimmick, game over. Combat is commonly expected to be part of a D&D game and still players expect their powers to be applicable. Perhaps I should mention that I sometimes play clerics or similar concepts.

John

[Vaxalon]

If I want to do a story that involves plague, in a DnD world I make the disease something magical and resistant to ordinary spells, something that requires a mcguffin of some kind to cure.

The tricky part of that is avoiding the arbitrary nerf perception.

Plague is different from disease.  I regularly include ordinary diseases when someone plays a paladin or cleric with that ability, so that they can use them.

Sometimes, for example, the PC's will encounter a diseased person that has information that they need.  They use the cure, and the person provides the information in gratitude.

I do understand, really I do, that when a player takes an ability for his character, he wants two things:

1> He wants opportunities to use the ability.
2> He wants the ability to work most of the time.

I didn't feel the need to include this little digression in my first post, because the topic I was addressing was the question, "How can disease exist in a world where magic cures disease?"

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think the discussion is drifting off-topic slightly, although I'll let Christian make the final decision.

It seems to me that any and all of these justifications, explanations, and modifications in settings to deal with the availability/escalations of magical injuries and healings are 100% not relevant to the issues of play that Christian is dealing with.

The issue is one of Step On Up and of teaching (however badly) a new participant to understand and accept losing. The lesson is, Do not get attached to your character in any way except as a strategic unit. The GM is saying, If you do, and if therefore you beg for mercy "because you care," I'll fuck with your character in such a way that you will dearly regret it. And not in a good fun way, either - here's your dunce cap.

I don't care what sort of in-setting discussions ensue. The DM of this game has just demonstrated in the most outstanding terms that they do not matter. What he wants to teach is what matters. Christian, I think you were fooled by the elaborate prep, thinking it Simulationist, because it is carried out on a shorter time-cycle (session by session) than the actual, Gamist context of play (level by level). But this is a classic example of "when push comes to shove," and the values and aesthetic principles of rather savage Gamism are now nakedly exposed.

So guys, you can speculate and go "if" and talk about what "would be" all you want, in terms of a setting which includes healing magic ... but you're spinning your wheels and going nowhere. You are bringing Simulationist concerns to a Gamist play-issue, and historically, that's a losing proposition. It's hard to recognize that out of those Simulationist concerns, what "would be" or "how it would have to be" are only provisionally important, no matter how much time or emphasis they might be given when they don't conflict with the Gamism.

But if you've ever faced a strongly Gamist-oriented player or GM, and suddenly had that "he's a space alien" feeling, you'll know what I'm talking about. The horrible truth you must face, though, is that "the alien" is already 100% consistent with his goals of play, and that he is right.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

Yeah, I agree Ron.... the questions that started this thread got answered a long time ago.

[xenopulse]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

I find the topic of in-setting consistency with the mechanics a good one, and I guess it was part of my original post in that I mistook what's going on for something intruding on the GM's Sim play.

So yes, I believe my question has been answered. I find myself in a Gamist group, with a GM and a main player who have very strong ideas on how play should go, and it clashes with my expectations and enjoyment of the game.

I guess I do feel sort of misled in this group. Ron, you are completely right about me being fooled. I was expecting that, when I put effort into my character, his background, connection to the existing setting, and all that, it would pay off in a meaningful way. But instead, I am pushed into pawn stance with Gamist aims in order to support the group's play. Had I known this before getting this far into it, I would have made a different character and played with different expectations. I can still enjoy Gamism--I just need to know upfront that that's what it's going to be.

Thanks again everyone.

[Vaxalon]

One of the strongest lessons GNS teaches us is that it is wise to learn the style of play of a group before making a strong commitment.

[NN]

[read thread more thoroughly]

[Vaxalon]

[Next time I'll let the previous poster finish editing their post before replying]

[NN]

Players can teach DMs lessons as well.

My "savage gamist" response as a player would be to either

i) Retire the character

or

ii) Establish what the price of getting the ears healed back is.
Then play the character as a monomaniacal backstabbing, double-crossing, granma-selling swine out to get the money for the 'operation' at any cost.

[Callan S.]

Maybe I'm just not all that good at using the cracks that you mentioned to gain an advantage. As you can see from my Power/Evil draft, I am all about Gamist mechanics, for fairness' sake.

I think the exploration of those cracks will just end up as simulationism, depending on who you negotiate with (unless you throw your weight around). Look for the key words 'No, it just wouldn't work that way' rather than 'No, that'd be too easy'.

Certainly if he's messing around getting every building just right, he's going to be saying the former rather than the latter even if actual play is gamist.