Courage and the Genre of Heroic Asskicking.

[veekie]

It does mean something however, to a player, level loss is as devastating an effect as possible to suffer short of killing off their PC. With permanent death, while it's all very heroic and cinematic, in the end, the player is just plain not having fun, he has to create a new character, discard all the team dynamics that have been built up and generally start from scratch.

That is why revival magic is available, to mitigate what are often extremely unheroic death by misfortune. Rolling a 1 is not a good reason to die permanently.

[Elennsar]

No kidding. But removing "die permanently" from the list of things that can happen at all is not necessarily a good solution to that.

Seperate debate, so could we move it to a new thread if we're going to focus on "death" rather than just "consequences" in general, including but not limited to dying?

[Brainpiercing]

Some of the best "heroic (near) sacrifice" encounters I've had were with a mostly crappy German system called "Das Schwarze Auge", it's called differently in the US, I think. In that game player characters are poor losers who always have to act the hero without mosty EVER being actually able to do any real heroic deeds. Now... generally that means that every fight initially runs badly, unless the enemies are really underpowered. (In that game, even going up against TWO underpowered enemies in melee can mean near-certain death, unless you pack a shitload of armour.) So basically all of my characters in that game at some point take on the attitude of constantly doing suicide missions. The main problem here is, while the atmosphere is good, the gameplay resulting from it is horrible: While sometimes we manage to stay alive by the skins of our collective teeth, and those moments are great, mostly the GM has to railroad the battles. And the campaigns are just plot-train, from beginning to end.

Predictable encounters against overwhelming odds basically only happened in Shadowrun 3E, but that's because you overpower the mooks to such a degree that they just won't hurt you, most of the time.

[Elennsar]

And that is the problem. You don't want it to be so lethal when heroes take a chance that it can't work...but you don't want it being too easy, or it isn't against the odds.

So frustrating.

Anything in the game, mechanically or fluffwise, worth salvaging for a less painful system?

[veekie]

I think the very mechanical basis that made it 'heroic' is ironically the same one that makes it terrible as a gaming system. The heroic danger element is an illusion in a properly done game, the players should always feel they're on the edge of danger, but never be in actual risk of losing the game(AKA death) ideally.

Dying breaks immersion after all.

[Elennsar]

The problem is that if you are never at actual risk, you are never actually doing anything brave/self-sacrificing.

And playing the man of steel against foes of tissue is not much more appealing than the reverse if you want to play characters who are risking their lives.

[veekie]

Whether or not you are at actual risk was never the issue, as the character you play is an avatar in a made up world. The sole trick that matters here is that you believe your avatar is in real danger of being terminated. Because if you take a truely OOC view of the matter, theres never a reason not to kamikaze(save for level penalties, time wasted not actually playing, etc), you just roll up a new guy to go a second round with.

So the hard part is making the players care for their personification, and the rest derives from that.

[Elennsar]

Right. The point is that if you only believe it because the DM has Intimidate the Players, not quite the same if you actually can tell what your character can/can't do in terms of the (game) odds.

There ought to be an actual possibility of death, at least some of the time.

I suppose the question is. How do you set it so that you can get killed by a bear without making it so that no one fights bears?

Insert your chosen close-enough-to-PC-level opponent in place of bears, I'm musing on the Oregon Trail game for some reason at the moment and there getting bear mauled is a pretty bad experience.

[Soda]

I think dying has two categories: stuff your character is willing to die for, and uninteresting death due to bad rolls.
Heroic death is cool. If Gandalf knows he has to face the Balrog so everyone else can escape, and he dies because of it, that is something a heroic adventurer would do. Likewise, Boromir staked his life to defend the hobbits and fight the horde, and paid for it (he didn't get raised like gandalf, though).

I like Ryan Stoughton's method in the Raising the Stakes pdf. Basically if a character would die regularly, he drops to a near-death state instead.

Then when risking his life to save the princess, he can raise his "death flag". Now he is able to be killed and he also gains a boon such as extra action points. Ryan uses "Conviction" points which can be used for rerolls or extra actions.

You could have problems with players never risking themselves. I felt very satisfied when my 8th level cleric bit the dust to save the party, but not everyone might feel that way.


In short, let the players tell you when they're ready to risk their lives.

[Elennsar]

Quite. Though I would say this.

"Bad rolls" should not mean "I rolled an eight when I needed a fifteen."

Yes, it sucks. However, shit happens.

Still, good stuff. I'll take a more detailed look later, but the sound of it is appealing.

Ultimately, the thing ought to be thing. Sometimes, you die despite your best efforts.

But by the Emperor, a good man ought to be able to count on a good death. Depending on the setting, LAB (Life's A Bitch) may or may not interfer with that, but that's part of the whole "I accept that this is a grim setting." thing the player said to begin with. It should never catch a player by surprise that he can die at the hands of a _____.

If even the mightest heroes can fall before a goblin, the DM had better say so.

My only problem with the "near death" is this.

As someone who would like to have death come from things like oh, chopping off people's heads, how does one represent that?

But that's a seperate mechanic, for the most part.

Appreciate the comments. There's a fine line between heroes can triumph and heroes are still only mortal men that is hard to balance, and ultimately you have to figure out how much you want people to be able swing the latter into the former.

Personally, I'd like to have it always be possible to die knowing that your death meant something, but to not grant the PCs script immunity to dying just because "it would really suck to die at the hands of a ____". Yes, it would. Which is why you're supposed to be skilled enough that a ____ isn't capable of reaching the threshold necessary to threaten your life (unless it gets extraordinarily lucky...beyond natural 20 or even natural 3 in GURPS terms lucky, though those might help.) under ordinary circumstances.

That said, just because a goblin can't kill you doesn't mean it can't hurt you.

Superheroic fantasy is a seperate genre from the larger-than-life mortals I want to play, so people who prefer having "Flat out immune to goblins and kobolds" on their sheet will probably disagree with my feelings on how to present the level of menace they have (enough that wise men don't charge into a screaming horde if they can avoid it, and heroes know that its their fate to wind up being less than wise).

But to repeat a point that cannot be said too often: If enough kobolds can take down even the mightiest heroes, this has to be made bluntly clear from the very begining.

Players can and should accept that the setting isn't always fair if that's the case. But they damn well need to know that it isn't (and be given all reasonable opportunities to deal with that) fair and that everyone else on their level is equally screwed.

Whether or not a LABby setting is a good one to game in is a subject for another thread.

[Achiever_Type]

I think making an genuinely courageous PC stand out is achieved by kicking their ass some times.   If the PC's win every battle, they will expect to win every battle.  Sometimes, they just have to loose.  And let me just say, a good DM can make loosing fun.  A bad DM just mercilessly whips their PCs without sense of style of story.  There are times when I've punished PC's for doing stupid things, or simply because it became necessary and it made the world a better place.  A sense of mortality does that.

Look at computer games, especially online ones.  If you "die" you just come back and try again.  WTF cares if you die facing the dragon?  Just get up and try to pawn it again.    Yet if you have a game where if you die, that character's toast, people are VERY reserved about what they do.  "Heroics" are rarer and more meaningful.  The trick is balancing it out.

[Elennsar]

The trick is also having players willing to accept being brave.

If you want to play a hero in that sense of the word, but aren't willing to act like a hero in that sense of the word...

Make up your mind. Please.

But yes, a good DM can and should make losing fun. Or if not "fun" per se...interesting. Han getting carbonite frozen is "interesting". It is not "fun".

Unfortunately, players wanting to take risks tends to be tied more to "confident that the risks aren't that high" rather than "the risks are worth it". Maybe I'm mistaken here.

[Judging Eagle]

I think making an genuinely courageous PC stand out is achieved by kicking their ass some times.   If the PC's win every battle, they will expect to win every battle.  Sometimes, they just have to loose.  And let me just say, a good DM can make loosing fun.  A bad DM just mercilessly whips their PCs without sense of style of story.  There are times when I've punished PC's for doing stupid things, or simply because it became necessary and it made the world a better place.  A sense of mortality does that.

Look at computer games, especially online ones.  If you "die" you just come back and try again.  WTF cares if you die facing the dragon?  Just get up and try to pawn it again.    Yet if you have a game where if you die, that character's toast, people are VERY reserved about what they do.  "Heroics" are rarer and more meaningful.  The trick is balancing it out.

Emphasis mine.


Have you even played these games and palyed at the end-game content for such games?

Even if the whole group of 40 people can return to the dungeon, it is not  a "WTF Cares" moment.

Players go after the monster again b/c they are now pissed, not for "the lulz".


Also, your second comment is complete and utter bullshit, and seems to me as if you are talking from opinion and not any sort of experience.

Case in Point: Shadowrun, or Low Level D&D.

Coming back from the dead in either game is not possible (Shadowrun), or so unlikely or time-consuming that it's easier forthe game to just write in a new character (low lvl D&D).

Yet people will still try to breaking into Matsuhira Arcologies and risk having to face Corporate Mages, try to hack security ICE/s that can leave the Decker's brain fried, and have to deal with Corporate Security that is heavier armed and armoured than most National Militaries.

Or will fight some CR 1/2 Orcs in melee, even though there's a good fact that every 6 seconds spent fighting will easily kill one or more PCs.

The Heroics don't leave when you have no ressurections built into the game.

They leave when people stop taking risks.


On the other hand, Shadowrun doesn't assume that you will have at least one person die every mission when you get to higher levels.

Core D&D however does.

By level 6 and onwards you will have one PC die per adventure; as a minimum. Usually you might have as much as 50% to 75% PC mortality rates in D&D games before the remaing PCs can wrap up the adventure and get everyone Stone to Fleshed, Ressurected, Plane Shifted or whatever back to the Material Plane.

Serously, Death in the D&D game is a Status Effect. That's how high powered the D&D game simply is.

If you want a system that does not have ressurection as a required ability in order to progress game-play; then maybe you should look at game systems that actually are focused on that.

Seriosuly, it's not a big deal, and no one will cry or gnash their teeth if you play a different setting b/c it gives you the campaign worlds that you want to play in. At the very least a reasonable person wouldn't make a personal attack on your choice of a different game system if your reason is "It lets me play the type of campaigns that I want to actually play." 

Really I'd be happy, I think that everyone should play a game that suits their play style, and not try to fit their own unique views on how they want to game into a game system that will openly or subvertly try to reshape your own unique view of how you want to play your games.

Essentially what I'm saying is that you shouldn't let your round peg of play style get hammered into an other game system's square hole of game style.

Pendragon could fit the bill. As could GURPS. Maybe D&D with any creatures with SU and SP abilities removed from game-play, and magic classes restricted only to villans.

Those are possibilities.

[Elennsar]

Emphasis mine. Have you even played these games and palyed at the end-game content for such games? Even if the whole group of 40 people can return to the dungeon, it is not  a "WTF Cares" moment.
Players go after the monster again b/c they are now pissed, not for "the lulz".

As someone who hasn't, my observation.

That still means "they just come back and try again. And again. Until eventually it works or they learn they need to gain more power first, then try again (and again and again)."

Its not failure in any sense. Its not time for a new character. It is just a status effect.

Now, once death is a status effect, what is left as "the last full measure of devotion"?

What is left to show you are "willing to give everything (or anything)"?

[veekie]

Emphasis mine. Have you even played these games and palyed at the end-game content for such games? Even if the whole group of 40 people can return to the dungeon, it is not  a "WTF Cares" moment.
Players go after the monster again b/c they are now pissed, not for "the lulz".

As someone who hasn't, my observation.

That still means "they just come back and try again. And again. Until eventually it works or they learn they need to gain more power first, then try again (and again and again)."

Its not failure in any sense. Its not time for a new character. It is just a status effect.

Now, once death is a status effect, what is left as "the last full measure of devotion"?

What is left to show you are "willing to give everything (or anything)"?

At the higher levels? Your soul.
Eternal servitude, imprisonment without possibility of death.
Fates worse than death indeed.

[Sunic_Flames]

Is this a serious question?

Any assclown with Improved Break Own Stuff for a feat can inflict fates worse than death. After all, having even a single item broken around this point is worse than death + True Res. Difference is Improved Break Own Stuff isn't restricted to high level. It's just relatively less crippling at lower levels.

In summary, if any enemy ever attempts to break your stuff, your DM is an asshat.

[Elennsar]

It is a serious question. If your stuff is broken, you could get more stuff. It is not a "you gave it ALL and can't get it back".

In fact, I could make a pretty serious arguement that WBL means that if someone does, then you're OWED replacements, so that the value of the stuff you have stays there.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a good arguement, but I could make it with a straight face.

As for your soul: And how exactly do you lose your soul "beyond rescue"?

[Judging Eagle]

Irreversable and permanent death?

Spheres of Annihilation?

Being forced to draw an entire deck of cards from a deck of many things?

Some spells.

Some magic items.

===============

As someone who hasn't, my observation.

No. That's not your "observation". Learn2Diction.
You are making shit up when you say what you are saying. LearnNot2Hearsay.
You haven't observed shit. Learn2ScientificMethod.
You are making an assumption when you say what you said. Learn2Logic.

Observation means that you have OBSERVED something. You haven't actually observed anything, you haven't mentioned any cases that you saw first hand a group of people working on end-game content, and then fail. Heck even lower level game content would also qualify. You haven't stated any instances where you actually knew what you were talking about.

You just talked out of your ass for all I know.

You "might" have hearsay, in that someone else told you what happened to them. Really, I'm guessing that you probably just have prejudiced opinions. Learn2ConstructArgument.

============

Get to end-game play in an MMO with end-game content and tell me how even dealing with a poorly organized group for a 25-man dungeon is?

Was it like herding a bunch of mentally retarded cats? Did they "go for an other go", but really quit because they can't cut it?

Were they happy afterwards?

Did they FAIL that dungeon?


That still means "they just come back and try again. And again. Until eventually it works or they learn they need to gain more power first, then try again (and again and again)."

Yes, they may "try" again. But the game doesn't give a shit. They still lost and will probably lose again. Mostly b/c they don't have the chops for what they were trying. Really, they've already lost and failed. They won't be succeeding any time soon.

If you suck, you die and lose. That's it.

In some ways, MMOs are more brutal than table top games. They don't give a shit about how many times you've tried to lemming your way into a 3 hour vocanic dungeon or castle-fortress. If you suck, you die, and that's it. You do not pass go, you do not collect an awesome item, you do not get a chance to progress to more difficult content later on in the game.

You have failed that dungeon. Maybe when you have some more experience, a better group, better equipment, you might be able to suceed.

Its not failure in any sense. Its not time for a new character. It is just a status effect.


You don't speak from expeirnce, you speak from assumption. You are just making an ass of yourself.

It is failure. To succeed the next time, you'll probably need something that you're currently missing. Player knowledge, experience with your class, a better composed group, new equipment, a more powerful character.

Any of those is in effect "a different character" or "a different group of adventurers"; even if the players are all the same.

Watching a bunch of level 70 characters fail to complete a level 60 Raid is the very height of failiure, and I've watched it. Failure is failure. Most people who play MMOs are full of fail when it comes to end-game content.

When a person has to play the game for 20-odd days before you can even attempt end-game content, you can't have the game make death permanenent. Unless you think otherwise, you'll have to explain to 9 million people why you think that death should be permanent when it takes about 500 hours to get a character ready for end-game content (and really, 500 hours is a conservative estimate, it's more along the lines of 750 to 1000 hours really).

Seriously, damaging a player's pride is just as effective as killing their character permanently. Really, pride is a better price to pay; mostly because there's an emotional cost that is never able to be assauged easily.

Now, once death is a status effect, what is left as "the last full measure of devotion"?

What is left?

See my answer above. Do you get it?

If you don't or can't get it:

[spoiler]
Then my explaining or not doesn't matter. Your arguments are blunt in their vaugness and generality and useless in their ability to injure anyone. You ignore anything that would get you to change your thinking or make you appear even remotely open-minded. You're a Ferrous Cranius.

Seriously, get yourself out of D&D and play a game that will actually cater to what you want in a game. No one here is threatening to waterboard you if you switch to Pendragon.

At this point, if you choose to keep playing D&D and bitch about the fact that Ressurection is necessary for gameplay to even occur past level 6, then you're just being a pig-headed whiner.

I'd call you a child, but at least a child knows that they can take their ball and go home if they don't like the way that the game is being played. You apparently are less wise than a child at this point. Which is very sad for me. [/spoiler]



Off-Topic Side Note:
[spoiler]
Apparently Elennsar is my sock puppet. Which is freaking cool. I didn't know that I could nerdrage against myself.
[/spoiler]

[Sunic_Flames]

It is a serious question. If your stuff is broken, you could get more stuff. It is not a "you gave it ALL and can't get it back".

In fact, I could make a pretty serious arguement that WBL means that if someone does, then you're OWED replacements, so that the value of the stuff you have stays there.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a good arguement, but I could make it with a straight face.

As for your soul: And how exactly do you lose your soul "beyond rescue"?

WBL = you get x cash. If you spend it, or lose it, or whatever too bad. Otherwise your actions don't matter. True Res puts you down 20k permanently (though it might just come out of the roughly 10% allowance for consumables, check the DMG) whereas any peon can break your cloak of resistance +5 which is 25k. 61k, if you care about Charisma and pumped that. Or 49k if you made it lesser displacement and resistance... still well over 20k.

Oh and a simple Barghest can perm kill you. Among many other effects. A Trap the Soul where the gem gets put in say... a Bag of Holding and then stabbed is forever lost for example.

[Judging Eagle]

a Bag of Holding and then stabbed is forever lost for example.

Most awesome way to utterly shaft some one.