Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Rob Alexander, November 01, 2005, 04:33:50 AM
Quote from: ffilz on November 03, 2005, 01:11:35 PMGood point Andrew. I've re-titled the post. And excellent summary of the point of the article.Frank
QuoteWhich means your link to the post no longer works
Quote from: Eric J. on November 13, 2005, 02:22:30 AMOn some occasions for some games eliminating player death is a very good idea. With WotC's take on the game, it's become a kind of class-ability combination that has served them as a winning strategy with Magic: The Gathering. Playing it like that makes perfect sense then. However, D&D is also a roleplaying game which means that the consequences should have meaning in game as well.
QuoteI'll talk a little bit about dealing with character death in D&D without eliminating it (that seems to be the focus of this thread right now so I'll go with it). One thing that I do is start the characters off at at least level 4. This is in keeping with 3rd ed's style of customizability. It sets the stage for getting pretigue classes and makes each character powerful enough to have one on one duels.
QuoteRunning away is usually a viable option in my games. It also makes treasure and XP more protagonising since they chose which fights they enter into.
QuoteWeaker monsters are also useful because they give more tactical emphasis to the DM's role and something for the players to kill (and show off). Weaker monsters also can be used to fulfill a simulationist agenda by making it appear that the world is consistant. A realistic and consistant world is cool because it lets the players show off.
QuoteThis has been said many times before but- People shouldn't always be trying to kill the characters. Unless there is strong resistance mix up your gamism with political intruigue, competing motivations, and meaningfull decisions. You'll be fulfilling at least two agendas at once.
QuoteWhich is more realistic: saying that the Elven ranger only looked as if he had his head bashed in (and is now groggily coming to his senses) or meeting another adventurer from the surface in the depths of the Underdark (and who is happy to join you, too)?I'm not saying one option is better than the other, but merely that the claim that PC death is automatically more realistic than fiating away death just doesn't wash.
QuoteCould you elaborate a bit on this? To which level have you played and plan to play to? What's the biggest difference in levels between player characters that your game has seen? How many player characters have died and stayed dead in the last twenty sessions?
QuoteThis sounds prefectly viable, though it has the potential drawback of wasted prep work. For instance, I like to draw up very elaborate battlemaps in advance (e.g. a Robo-Rally inspired factory map with conveyor belts etc.) and that prep is wasted if the player characters can avoid combat there.
QuoteI agree only insofar as I see the occasional push-over fight as satisfying (particularly against monsters you fought and were afraid of just two levels ago). I don't see how realism and consistency feed into showing off, though.As for weaker monsters, I'll grant that their presence is realistic - though most encounter tables and especially encounter frequencies are not, but that's another topic -, but actually fighting them just bores me out of my skull, so I prefer the DM to gloss over that ("You run into another 2d6+4 goblins and slay them all. Do you want a captive?").
QuoteCould you elaborate a bit more on this, perhaps in Actual Play? I'm particularly interested in hearing about the presence or absence of illusionist techniques and the ratio of improvisation to prep work.
QuoteFor gamism, I always refer to "Arenas of Conflict." Meaning the place where the conflict will occur, and the type of conflict that's expected. In gamism, it's largely the GM's job to shuffle players from arena to arena.
QuoteElimination from play is not the only risk available. Reduction of position is just as valid, and superior in that players don't have to "start over" (in which case you have the problems of handicapping) or not get to play the game. Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't played enough games, or is stating a personal preference.
Quote from: Eric J. on November 14, 2005, 03:35:13 PMUm... yeah but for this case why are we assuming that they're playing strictly gamist?