The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfI think there's a better middle ground between Gygaxian Death Dungeons with no possibility of resurrection and the Comic Book/MMO-style constant resurrection concept.

Amen!

Problem is, how do you find it?

The first question you have to answer is, how common should the spell(s) be from the PC's perspective? There's a lot of wiggle room between Zero and Infinite.

Related to the first question is at what level can Clerics/Druids/Healers/etc. cast a spell to resurrect their fellows?

How common should the spell be in the game world (outside of the PCs)? Does every Parish Priest know the spell or only the Bishops? Perhaps only the gods are allowed to cast the spell?

What is the cost for resurrection, in terms of money or serviced rendered?

Should there be tiers of resurrection spells where by lower level spells can revive the dead but at a sever cost, while higher level spells essentially remove those deficits? Or should there only be one kind of resurrection spell?

How long should the spell take to cast? There's a big difference between instantaneous and setting up a complex seven day ritual.

Can wands/scrolls/staves of resurrection spells be made? Should they be made?

Quote from: sparkletwistThese are fair points, but I contend that the "insult to the player" is still largely there: the player of the dead character is, after all, usually forced to sit out during all of these resurrection hijinks.

I'd agree that, as per the default rules, this is a major issue.  As a GM I try to have available NPCs on hand for players to play instead of their characters if they want to.

Quote from: sparkletwistGranted, you can play a random NPC or something, but that may wreck immersion for some people, and probably feels "less fun" than playing your own character. At least, it would to me.

That's fair enough, although on occasion I think the opposite effect can be true - it can be sort of fun to sometimes switch things up with a different character for an hour or whatever.

Quote from: sparkletwistThat is, the play time lost creating a new character now becomes play time lost because the group has go through whatever resurrection hoops are in place-- which, as you've pointed out, can be significant.

They can also be quite fun, with good GMing.  Losing a party member can add to the tension of a fight or crawl; if a character goes down, suddenly things can get quite serious.  And the trip to a temple can be entertaining as well.

A lot of the point of high-lethality, as I see it, isn't actually to kill people a lot.  It's to cultivate a certain type of play and a certain atmosphere that I don't think simply a "willing of themes" can accomplish.  I think it can be basically summarized like this:

1) When you're aware your character can die, you'll usually play differently than if you're fairly well-assured of your character's safety.

2) This awareness can sometimes encourage more creativity and strategic thinking.  If there's a negligible chance of your character dying, then the only reason not to run into every battle in full-out assault mode is because you think it might not seem as interesting.  Some players (I'm thinking of you, actually, sparkletwist) don't need additional "incentive" to think tactically, plan attacks carefully, be cautious with resources etc, but many do.

3) For some players, a higher risk of lethality can lead to a greater "thrill" of accomplishment, especially if the reasons for that accomplishment weren't based merely on luck but on inventive solutions or workarounds to deadly problems which, in a non-lethal system, wouldn't have carried the same consequences.

4) Married to this, some players will find a higher degree of lethality lends tension and atmosphere to the game.  I think this may be especially true in survival horror type games.

This blog post gives some interesting examples.

Some players won't find the above true, or will find a lethal game unpleasant for other reasons, or will find the things lethality adds aren't sufficient to outweigh the things it takes away.  Which is just fine.

Quote from: SteerpikeIt's to cultivate a certain type of play and a certain atmosphere that I don't think simply a "willing of themes" can accomplish.

In general, I think I have a lot more faith in a game group's ability to create a certain atmosphere purely through consensus and descriptive roleplay than you do. Which one of us is "right" depends mostly on who is playing, of course.

Quote from: SteerpikeWhen you're aware your character can die, you'll usually play differently than if you're fairly well-assured of your character's safety.

Ok, sure. However, we've established already that death-with-resurrection is essentially one of these defeat-with-setbacks outcomes I'm always advocating; it's just a particularly annoying one because a big part of the setback is essentially "you don't get to play your character for N amount of real time."

But anyway, since death-with-resurrection is just defeat-with-setbacks, essentially what you've said is "When you're aware your character can suffer significant setbacks, you'll usually play differently than if you're fairly well-assured of your character's safety." And... I completely agree with that!

Well. unless you were talking about perma-death. That's different. But there's still plenty of room for risk even without it, because...

Quote from: SteerpikeIf there's a negligible chance of your character dying, then the only reason not to run into every battle in full-out assault mode is because you think it might not seem as interesting.

Or because you just don't have the power to win a full-out assault and you know it. Or because that would alert far more enemies and turn a potentially easy win into a potential gigantic failure. Or because you could get captured and that would suck also. Or because this is the one chance you have to have this battle and if you lose you don't get another shot. Or, even, yeah, the thing you said-- this one really depends a lot on player mentality so that's why I'm putting it last and least-- the character doesn't know that the system gives a negligible chance of dying and will as a result realistically tend to be careful anyway.

I think a real problem is the inability of a lot of GMs to think of worthwhile defeat states than "you're dead." D&D does very little to help in this regard. As an example of that, just change "save or die" to "save or lose" in that blog entry and I almost completely agree with it. :grin:

Quote from: sparkletwistIn general, I think I have a lot more faith in a game group's ability to create a certain atmosphere purely through consensus and descriptive roleplay than you do. Which one of us is "right" depends mostly on who is playing, of course.

This is true, although I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and I think that the right mechanics (like lethality) can encourage/complement/supplement "consensus" roleplaying.

Quote from: sparkletwistBut anyway, since death-with-resurrection is just defeat-with-setbacks, essentially what you've said is "When you're aware your character can suffer significant setbacks, you'll usually play differently than if you're fairly well-assured of your character's safety." And... I completely agree with that!

So... are we in agreement then?  Death (not permadeath) is a setback/negative consequence, like any other, albeit usually more severe than most.  If it wasn't "annoying," per se, there wouldn't be much motivation to try and avoid it.

Quote from: sparkletwistOr because you just don't have the power to win a full-out assault and you know it. Or because that would alert far more enemies and turn a potentially easy win into a potential gigantic failure. Or because you could get captured and that would suck also. Or because this is the one chance you have to have this battle and if you lose you don't get another shot.

These things are all true, too, but we're talking about a game where violence and sword-fighting and people shooting arrows and stuff is pretty common, so to have "death" on the table as a setback makes sense.

Quote from: sparkletwistI think a real problem is the inability of a lot of GMs to think of worthwhile defeat states than "you're dead." D&D does very little to help in this regard.

Sure, I can agree with this.  A big part of the game is about violence and battles, which sort of inevitably entails the risk of dying.  Any game that regularly involves lethal force is going to run into this to one degree or another.  Those who don't find that kind of thing interesting should probably seek different sorts of games.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting death should be the only setback in D&D.  There should be plenty of other "negative consequences" when the players make decisions that don't work out!

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: Gamer Printshop
Really once D&D came out with 4e, I stopped considering WotC a company worth following. Really, no matter how successful DDN becomes, I won't even look at it, because WotC made it - which to me is a reason not to look.

I've never understood absolutist attitudes like this.

If a company makes a product I don't like, I won't buy it. If a company recognizes its mistake and attempts to make amends, then I will be amenable to them (especially if they are actually trying to right their wrongs (i.e. the way WotC is)). :)

WotC is in the business of making games, it's not like they are running out and cutting the fins off sharks.

Back in the 1980's I played lots of different games and game systems. These days are different, I have almost no time at all, so on weekend gaming, my group sticks to one system and one ongoing campaign. I don't need two game systems, so once 3.5 ended, I looked to see what was coming up. The choice became Pathfinder or 4e - pick one. I picked Pathfinder. So I'm not really an absolutist, I'm just a guy with limited time and cannot play every game system no matter how good. I pick one that works for me, and Pathfinder is it. Especially since I develop and design material for publication using Pathfinder, I don't want to confuse myself with rules from more than one system.

Consider, for example, I was still playing 2e when 3.0 was released, and at the time not needing a second game system, never left 2e. When one of our players began buying 3.5, we took a look, liked it and started playing. We missed 3.0 altogether, and didn't even begin using 3.5 until well into it's publishing cycle. We played 3.5 for about 5 years. While there was no particular need to stop playing 3.5, I wanted to develop my own game material and using a 'dead' system was not acceptable, so I looked at new systems - and it was then we had the Pathfinder vs. 4e decision to make, and made it.

When I was making my choice of one system, I thoroughly looked at 4e. One of my gamers even bought the Gift Box with the players, GM's and monster guide - we rolled up characters, ran a one-shot and afterwards, as a group went "yech, not for me."

Since Pathfinder isn't going away any time soon, I have no reason to look at DDN - and from what I've read about it, it holds little interest to me.

Again it's not absolutist or any one way of thinking, it's just a limitation of time and a willingness to work with one system, that my decision and reason to play is any particular way. In the end WotC didn't make a mistake, it just made a system I wasn't interested in. I know many who like it, though I'm not one of them. So it's not about "hate" on any publishing company, it's about only needing one system, and D&D is nolonger that system for me.

Besides regarding RPGs, I am loyal to games, not companies. Really, I have no particular love of Paizo Publishing as a company, it's pretty much meaningless to me. My interest is in their game only.

Quote from: Elemental ElfIf a company makes a product I don't like, I won't buy it. If a company recognizes its mistake and attempts to make amends, then I will be amenable to them (especially if they are actually trying to right their wrongs).

I'd stop short of saying I'll never ever buy WotC products again, but they've gotta be pretty damn impressive for me to do so.  Leaving aside the matter of WotC's dodgy business decisions (the GSL etc), I just didn't like their last product (i.e. 4th edition) pretty intensely, so it's going to be a real uphill battle for them to regain my interest as a consumer.  Most of the things I've heard about D&D Next so far have been cautiously optimistic, though I wonder whether it just seems better in some players' minds when placed next to 4th; time will tell.

Quote from: SteerpikeSo... are we in agreement then?  Death (not permadeath) is a setback/negative consequence, like any other, albeit usually more severe than most.  If it wasn't "annoying," per se, there wouldn't be much motivation to try and avoid it.

Sort of. By annoying I meant specifically annoying the player.

In-character setbacks may throw a monkey wrench into the overall plans, but as long as everyone's flexible and a good sport (and the GM isn't just being a jerk) then the game is still fun. On the other hand, being told "you don't get to play your character for N amount of time," where N is some sizable amount of time, or, in the case of permadeath, "ever," is generally not so much fun. It may lead to other fun outcomes if you want to play NPCs or roll up someone new or whatever, but, unlike some other setbacks, it in itself does not add anything except potential annoyance.

Quote from: SteerpikeThese things are all true, too, but we're talking about a game where violence and sword-fighting and people shooting arrows and stuff is pretty common, so to have "death" on the table as a setback makes sense.

In some games, it works well enough to take the approach that PG-rated movies do where everyone acknowledges they can die in perilous situations but nobody actually does. I understand that some groups may find this dumb, though, and it probably depends largely on how much "by consensus" stuff you're willing/able to use.

Quote from: sparkletwistIn-character setbacks may throw a monkey wrench into the overall plans, but as long as everyone's flexible and a good sport (and the GM isn't just being a jerk) then the game is still fun. On the other hand, being told "you don't get to play your character for N amount of time," where N is some sizable amount of time, or, in the case of permadeath, "ever," is generally not so much fun. It may lead to other fun outcomes if you want to play NPCs or roll up someone new or whatever, but, unlike some other setbacks, it in itself does not add anything except potential annoyance.

I understand your point, but what I'm trying to say (I think, perhaps inarticulately) is that by having the threat of that fate (the "annoyance of death") present, players may alter their behaviour in ways that may (in the end) make things more fun.  The possibility of a negative consequence for the player as much as the character can act as a motivating force of a certain sort which, in a strange way, may actually make the experience more enjoyable.  Again, the point here is to try your best to avoid the consequence you don't want, both as a player and as a character.

EDIT: sparkletwist, I know you've said in the past that you personally don't get much thrill out of a sense of risk, so perhaps the above just isn't true for you, as a player.

I agree with Steerpike, and we're talking about Perma-Death as a necessary element to make for an exciting game. That's the point to maximizing your abilities, gathering powerful defense/offensive magic items, covering youself in spells, to give you the best chance to survive a challenge, where if you fail, you're very likely dead. If you don't have that, you're playing an entirely different kind of game. I play games to risk extreme failure for the chance to valiantly succeed. At least in my games, risking Perma-Death is what makes playing worth it - from the point of view as a GM and player.

Quote from: Steerpikeplayers may alter their behaviour in ways that may (in the end) make things more fun.

Players may also alter their behavior in ways that make things less fun, or at least introduce less variety. The thing about having the player have "you don't get to play" (or whatever consequence for the player, not just the character) on the line is that it creates a certain hardcore feel. Players want to keep playing, so they'll play for keeps. It may well encourage a bit more thought being put into tactical choices and optimization, but it discourages quirky character concepts, trying audacious and zany things, and staying in character even when the in-character choice isn't the soundest tactical move. Some groups may want to encourage this style, and they're free to go for it, but it has plenty of drawbacks, too.

Quote from: Steerpikesparkletwist, I know you've said in the past that you personally don't get much thrill out of a sense of risk, so perhaps the above isn't true for you, as a player.

This is probably true. I do enjoy when the character is risking something, but I think you understand this distinction. I think it's basically just a part of good roleplay that when the situation is one in which the character's life would be in peril, the player plays the character to behave in that way, regardless of what conceits may be in place in the system.

I also wonder how much risk is really in place, even for people who say that's their thing. It seems like, ultimately, nobody wants the game to crash and burn, so GMs frequently do things like apply spot-nerfs to enemies, make them use suboptimal tactics, fudge the dice, or do other things that mitigate the actual risk. If they're going to do that, of course, the only difference between them and me is that I'm more honest about the kind of game I play. :grin:

Quote from: sparkletwistPlayers may also alter their behavior in ways that make things less fun, or at least introduce less variety. The thing about having the player have "you don't get to play" (or whatever consequence for the player, not just the character) on the line is that it creates a certain hardcore feel. Players want to keep playing, so they'll play for keeps. It may well encourage a bit more thought being put into tactical choices and optimization, but it discourages quirky character concepts, trying audacious and zany things, and staying in character even when the in-character choice isn't the soundest tactical move. Some groups may want to encourage this style, and they're free to go for it, but it has plenty of drawbacks, too.

I fully, 100% agree.  Each approach has pros and cons.  A more lethal game is fun in ways that a less lethal game cannot be and vice versa.  Personally - in D&D, as opposed to other games - I like a level of lethality that strikes a balance somewhere between the old days and 3.X/Pathfinder.

Quote from: sparkletwistI also wonder how much risk is really in place, even for people who say that's their thing. It seems like, ultimately, nobody wants the game to crash and burn, so GMs frequently do things like apply spot-nerfs to enemies, make them use suboptimal tactics, fudge the dice, or do other things that mitigate the actual risk. If they're going to do that, of course, the only difference between them and me is that I'm more honest about the kind of game I play

This does happen, though I think it's part of striking a balance.  With some of the stuff you mentioned, though, the GM isn't letting the players know that things are being tweaked in their favour.  The illusion of a threat is still in place.  Fudging too often will cause suspicions, though.  I think, generally, that the more lethal the game is - and the more onboard with that level of lethality the players are  - the less the GM should fudge the dice, to contribute to the "hardcore" feel you mentioned before.

Speaking of hardcore, I thought of a good non-tabletop example for the kind of thing I mean.  I just started playing Fallout: New Vegas, and there's a "hardcore" mode where your character's dehydration levels and starvation levels etc get tracked, and you need to seek out water and food (preferably non-irradiated) on a regular basis to prevent your character from becoming weak and, eventually, dying.  Now dying of starvation/thirst is not something I want for my character or as a player.  It sounds boring and stupid and I don't think it would be fun at all, or add anything to my playing experience.  But because the threat of starving or dying of thirst is present, I'm going on all sorts of crazy adventures I wouldn't normally be - driving monsters from wells and raiding bandit outposts for their bottled water and hunting animals for food and bartering guns for sustenance.  I never did that stuff in the regular, non-hardcore Fallout 3, even though there's no reason I couldn't - I just didn't have to, so I didn't bother, rather concentrating on the various quests and other activities the game put before me.  The threat of the very unfun fate of dying of thirst motivated me to do stuff I wouldn't normally have done, which turned out to be really fun.

Quote from: SteerpikeWith some of the stuff you mentioned, though, the GM isn't letting the players know that things are being tweaked in their favour.  The illusion of a threat is still in place.  Fudging too often will cause suspicions, though.

It completely destroys the integrity of the rules and the ability to trust the GM if the game is stated to be one way and then secretly tweaked to be some other way. If the GM claims to run a "challenging" or "lethal" game and then tweaks outcomes to subvert that, that GM is more or less just running the same kind of game I do, only lying about it, and GMs lying to their players about issues like game parameters and objectives does nothing but corrode group dynamics.

This may be the GM's own preferences being asserted over the group's desires, or it may turn out that the players don't actually want such a lethal, for-keeps game, regardless of what they say-- in either case, what is actually needed is an honest and clear discussion about what the group actually wants in its game, not tweaking and fudging behind the GM screen.

Quote from: Steerpikethe more onboard with that level of lethality the players are

I don't see this as a "the more." Players should always be on board with whatever the level of lethality the game is. Otherwise the game is ill-suited to that group, or the GM is being a jerk. In either case, that is just going to lead to disappointment.

Quote from: SteerpikeThe threat of the very unfun fate of dying of thirst motivated me to do stuff I wouldn't normally have done, which turned out to be really fun.

This is actually an interesting anecdote because of something that happened in a recent game of Asura. The characters were in the desert city of Agahza, wandering around in the midday heat. I decided that there would be an opportunity here, and I compelled the characters to be thirsty and go looking for some water. This led to an interesting adventure that would not have otherwise happened! However, it was done entirely in the context of a "narrativist" system that normally wouldn't have tracked that kind of thing-- so, yes, had they not pursued this quest, the only cost would've been some metagame plot control currency rather than being forced on pain of ignoble death to go look for water, but hey, all that really that means is that I (as the GM) don't get to railroad.

In short, yes, I agree that unintended side quests can create interesting and fun gameplay opportunities. I don't agree that introducing unfun "you're dead" mechanics to force players to go on those quests or else has anything to do with why they're fun.

I totally agree that players should be onboard with the game's lethality (and all of its other mechanics) as much as possible.  You're right.

I'm not sure whether or not fudging the dice is always the worst thing in world, as you essentially imply  :P.  Usually I don't do a lot of fudging, but have I sometimes very occasionally spontaneously (and invisibly) decided that something should be DC 20 instead of DC 25 as it says in my notes because everyone just failed the check and I realized I made a bad decision by making that DC too high and now everyone is going to be at the bottom of a pit of poisoned spikes or whatever and it's really my fault because I didn't design this part of the adventure well and I'd just be punishing the players for my poor design decision?  Yeah I've done that.  I try to avoid doing it, but it happens, and so long as it's discrete and springs from something like a GM design error I'm not sure it really merits such withering condemnation.  In a hyper-lethal game that's meant to be very hardcore about the rules, maybe a bit of withering condemnation, if it's glaring.

Quote from: sparkletwistThis is actually an interesting anecdote because of something that happened in a recent game of Asura. The characters were in the desert city of Agahza, wandering around in the midday heat. I decided that there would be an opportunity here, and I compelled the characters to be thirsty and go looking for some water. This led to an interesting adventure that would not have otherwise happened! However, it was done entirely in the context of a "narrativist" system that normally wouldn't have tracked that kind of thing-- so, yes, had they not pursued this quest, the only cost would've been some metagame plot control currency rather than being forced on pain of ignoble death to go look for water, but hey, all that really that means is that I (as the GM) don't get to railroad.

This is cool and sounds like a lot of fun.  I've got not problem with how you handled this, given asura's system.  Your players are clearly onboard with asura and I'm sure they had a good time.  It sounds like it yielded an interesting side-quest.

In a system where your characters could die ignobly of thirst if they don't get water, and this facet is built into the system rather than being announced by the GM, the above side-quest would probably feel different.  For you and your group, it sounds like it probably wouldn't have been as fun, because the prospect of a potential ignoble death from thirst and the loss of their characters (either temporarily or permanently) would be stressful and unfun, and the knowledge of that possibility would cast a pall over the game.

For a completely different group more onboard with a higher lethality level, the knowledge that no this is serious guys your characters need water or they are going to die you think I'm kidding look here's the body of a guy who died of thirst go find some water now or you guys are really screwed is going to contribute a feeling of urgency and desperation to the proceedings, and when they find the oasis and drive away the beasts/bandits/ghouls/evil genie guarding it, the sense of relief and accomplishment is going to be correspondingly intense.

I don't think it's wrong to say that the two experiences would be very different, or that the two experiences yield different sets of rewards because of the difference in stakes and mechanics.  That's all I'm saying.   I'm not claiming "lethal > non-lethal" or that people who don't like lethal games aren't playing properly or that they'd have more fun if they tried a more lethal game.  I don't think either approach is intrinsically better.  But they are different; one system can't fully replicate the experience of the other.  Some people like the more lethal system, and there are reasons for that that have to do with the way a lethal system makes you think and experience the game, and a non-lethal system can't duplicate that no matter how many metagame points the GM deducts.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'm not sure whether or not fudging the dice is always the worst thing in world, as you essentially imply

No, it's not the worst thing in the world. However, I think the group dynamic works best when the space between "what the game purports to be" and "how the game actually is played" is as small as possible. That makes sure everyone knows what they're getting and is on board with it. Doing things like fudging dice to prevent lethal outcomes that are supposedly part of the game increases that gap.

Quote from: SteerpikeI sometimes very occasionally spontaneously (and invisibly) decided that something should be DC 20 instead of DC 25 as it says in my notes because everyone just failed the check and I realized I made a bad decision by making that DC too high and now everyone is going to be at the bottom of a pit of poisoned spikes or whatever and it's really my fault because I didn't design this part of the adventure well and I'd just be punishing the players for my poor design decision

Actually, I think your poor design decision wasn't setting the DC, but setting up this trap at all. Seriously, what is the point of putting in this death trap at all unless you're running some sort of a Gygaxian death dungeon? And if you are, then you might as well stick to your guns and kill anyone who fails their check, because that's how Gygaxian death dungeons work.

If the whole point of the trap is just to have everyone pass and pretend like there was risk because it would've been bad if they failed but the GM was secretly making sure nobody would ever actually fail, that's just a ridiculous cognitive dissonance scenario that is basically saying "my players are incapable of roleplaying characters that are in peril." And that's dumb.

I probably wouldn't use a trap like that in actuality - I'd try to think of something cleverer.  But when I do use traps of the non-riddle variety I try to calibrate DCs so that if the trap goes unnoticed it's most likely to hurt/debilitate 1-2 PCs (as opposed to all of them or none of them), either because of its DCs or the nature of the trap itself.  The "point" of putting such a trap in a dungeon could be any number of things beyond it being a tomb-of-horrors-style Gygaxian deathtrap dungeon, though.  Like cultivating an atmosphere of paranoia or presenting a minor challenge that puts a strain on PC resources (i.e. now some of them need healing, restoration, etc).