Wow.
Do you really not understand this? Seriously? This badly?
I'm finding this hard the believe.
Moderator: Moderators
Wow.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
A pity death flags as presented is not that mechanic. Nothing about it lets a group say "oops that didn't happen". The RIVAL option, the one where a defeat happens and then the players decide how fatal it really was, THAT is the "oops that didn't happen" mechanic that actually lets a group counter unwanted TPKs.deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 1:58 pmCreating a mechanic that prevents 'accidental' TPKs is helpful.
I already nailed this. No one who is actually criticizing the thing is confused about what it does. Dead just has not been able to actually engage with actual criticisms. Before the loop repeats and dead reposts what the rule is or what the intended function is again I'll highlight that doing so does not address any of the problems people have laid out.MGuy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:59 amIf the player gets the bonus for opting in to being killable then this is a context where normally they could opt not to get this bonus and be unkillable. So the context here is "death doesn't exist and you're introducing a way to die". That's the lens I'm looking at this through. Whether it works or not depends on if that is the outcome that's being sought or if that is an intolerable consequence of its implementation. I have said it in other places and I'll repeat it here. I do not personally care much about what arbitrary goal a person has. I'm only interested in whether or not the rules used to get to that goal are a good way to get to that goal once it is decided. I know that death is desired in some way based on where this discussion came from. I figured that beyond that what was desired was a way to make possible death, or eventual death, feel meaningful while giving players a reason to worry about it. I offered what I thought were better ways to get that because I do not think simple numerical bonuses are a cool or interesting way to achieve that goal and essentially getting nerfed for not wanting your character to die does not seem like good design based on what I thought the design goal was.
It does feel like a waste of time to keep up with claiming that X isn't X. An ability that trades defense numbers for offense numbers is not the same as choosing to open yourself up to permanent character loss in exchange for numbers. One is taking on a penalty for a bonus, both dealing with numbers that are in the game. The other is trading character loss for numbers. These are not the same thing. To even get to the point where you equate one to another requires some mental gymnastics that aren't really required for this discussion and are very unconvincing. Especially with the added context that outside of taking this risk characters do not die.
Let's be reasonable and not waste more text over a thing like that. You want characters to die. I do not think this is an interesting way to get there. You do. Why do you think this way is more effective, interesting, or whatever than just letting players choose when or where their characters die? How is this better than not giving them the choice at all and just deciding that death is on the table should the required circumstances be met?
No one is arguing that death flags are bad because the gm might be a dick.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
Krusk WASN"T TALKING ABOUT DEATH FLAGS. The death flag discussion started a few posts (and weeks) AFTER Krusk's last post. Also...
THATS BECAUSE IT WASN"T A DEATH FLAG. Krusk described what amounted to the rival option people have been presenting to compare death flags against. Arbitrary post facto decisions about death after a defeat has occurred....sure the death flag is raised or lowered after the fact, and perhaps that is what makes it work,
Again, it was dead dm that first brought up rocks fall everyone dies as a reason other people's suggestions were bad and then explicitly argued that the death flag is better then those other mechanics because unlike those other mechanics that are bad because they don't protect from rocks fall everyone dies, the death fall is good because it does protect from rocks fall everyone dies.merxa wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 4:52 pm
for whats it worth, i don't think dead dm had some intentional misunderstanding, honestly i found it confusing for people to complain characters can still die even when they haven't raised their death flag (and again the defense for making that statement seems to be 'what if the gm is a dick' or 'rule 0'), why even make that argument? Of course rule 0 exists, of course people can stand up and walk away from the table, that is so well understood that when someone feels the need to bring it up as a way to argue against your mechanic, it feels like that person is arguing in bad faith. I'll repeat myself again: telling someone their mechanic sucks because the GM will invoke rule 0 or not run the game is a bad argument and possibly one made in bad faith. It's a lazy, boring tautological argument to make.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
It is very weird that apparently your entire posting style is telling people they are wrong by writing an entire paragraph where you say they are right over and over again.merxa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:16 amin terms of rocks fall and everyone dies, dead gm usage at the beginning of the thread isn't, technically, correct. he uses it in reference to a trap (death? trap?), but clearly he believes the mechanic of deathflag will save the pc in that situation.
afterwards, i quote his usage of the term in one of replies. After that mguy uses it in the, 'correct' way, which is what dead gm is confused about because he immediately responds insisting the pc will in fact be saved from 'rocks fall'. Clearly dead gm didn't take the reference to mean unavoidable death by gm fiat, death by gm invoking rule 0, death by gm standing up and walking away from the table. That is pretty clear to me, you can go on with whatever belief you want and even continue insisting you are correct, but i'm unlikely to be convinced.
merxa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:16 amAnd is this really the interesting part of the discussion? again, no one wants to even attempt my challenge -- describe acceptable circumstances for pc death. anyone?
anyone?
crickets?
maybe kaelik fears losing street cred by giving a bad answer? At least krusk gave an answer.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
I REMAIN incredibly interested in how you cannot tell the difference between the death flags discussion and the thing Krusk discussed, which is the same status quo/rival proposal to death flags that I, MGuy, probably Kaelik and everyone under the sun has been comparing death flags to (not in a favorable way for death flags).
thank you for your response. I don't personally subscribe to this, but i think it is a very valid view and ttrpg's should probably incorporate this as an optional rule unless it is especially against the vibe of the game. For example, paranoia might lose some of what makes it fun and interesting if death was always optional. Instead paranoia gives you 5 clones, so whenever you die one of your clones from the food vats gets called up to replace you. Maybe optional death for a longer paranoia campaign, but i'd probably adapt the concept to the game system by instead letting people earn extra clones or handing out extra clones at the beginning of a session.MGuy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:48 amAnyways the "challenge" has already been answered. The best case scenario for PC death is letting it happen whenever the players decide that they want it to. The issue that was at hand was that Deaddm's thing was worse than that for reasons that have been explained.
You mistook a description of something against the position you are defending as the position you are defending and tried to use it as an attack on people that were already openly in favor of the thing you mistook.
If you think shadowrun, D&D, and paranoia should all have the exact same death mechanics then you are both very stupid and never going to actually design a game that doesn't suck.merxa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 6:29 pmKaelik, if you cannot answer the question then your criticism of a 'deathflag' feels rather quaint, since you're unwilling to advocate for any sort of PC perspective on the issue, therefore surmising the original deathflag concept as good or bad is rather impossible.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
I do not know what you think my position is and I'm going to just tell you I stopped reading this as soon as I got this point because you have to have not read my posts, even the one you quoted, to not realize that I've made this point. Paranoia is a game that has an intended experience for its players that is fundamentally different from a DnD like game. The question you asked is what is 'acceptable', perhaps even 'most acceptable', not 'what is the best mechanic for every game and intended game experience?'. If the enlightened view you're espousing is that different games can have different death mechanics to fit certain ends congratulations on making a point I already made, both where I quoted myself from earlier and in the post you got that quote from me from. What's more I don't know why you're treating my position as different from kaelik and PL's. Both have already also pointed out that letting it be opt in is superior.merxa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:06 pmthank you for your response. I don't personally subscribe to this, but i think it is a very valid view and ttrpg's should probably incorporate this as an optional rule unless it is especially against the vibe of the game. For example, paranoia might lose some of what makes it fun and interesting if death was always optional.MGuy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:48 amAnyways the "challenge" has already been answered. The best case scenario for PC death is letting it happen whenever the players decide that they want it to. The issue that was at hand was that Deaddm's thing was worse than that for reasons that have been explained.
Your idea is that a mechanic that clearly and unambiguously states that the character absolutely cannot die is a good way to please people who don't want their characters to die but like the suspense that their character might die? I hope you're not a good judge of character.deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:03 pmI still believe that a death flag (where players choose whether they are currently vulnerable to death) is a potentially good way to support the necessary narrative belief for many people that death is on the table without leaving the possibility for an unsatisfying character death in 'routine circumstances'.