Still more Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[ubernoob]

If you are able to ressurect people (a.k.a. are powerful) and let "son of whatever" fight alongside you, you personally are retarded. If you didn't, you have no more to do with that death than with "old useless #X" hitting the dust.

I've always used this logic. Not once in my games have sufficiently powerful PCs let those weaker than themselves endanger their lives. It works well. Either only PCs die or everybody dies.

It's a little DBZ when the wizard, cleric, and artificer raise hell on an oncoming army, but I'd rather have that than have to try and figure out stats for armies fighting (don't show them to me, armies don't work except as a plot device anyways).

[Bigode]

Actually, I'm all for army vs. army - I meant more letting a retard whose backside I'd kick just by having better nutrition fight at all, but actual soldiers fighting should be OK, and they're trained specifically not to care.

[Psychic Robot]

My issue with the way they handled resurrection is that they basically handwaved the problems away. They were clearly aware that rezzing had socially effects, but instead of dealing with them they pulled out the default 4e response: You just can't do that. You don't want rez in your games? Fine, take it the fuck out. But don't handwave it away and claim it only works for the PCs, who are somehow 'da speshuls' and a few plot critical npcs because you can't think up alternative scenarios if they die. Thats just lazy hack writing.

Kind of like the rest of 4e.

Same with death. Either everybody dies at 0, Con score, -10, or whatever, or you're playing silly buggers. The fact that you can't tell stories about unconscious or dying enemies without the DM stepping in with magical fiat powers is utterly pathetic. Nothing is gained by it. Death checks aren't necessary... keeping track of an extra 10 or so negative hit points isn't hard, and doesn't add anything in the way of additional bookkeeping.

I'm kind of okay with the increased "death threshold" or whatever it's called. However, it's ridiculous that you jump back up to 25% HP if you roll a natural 20.

[Talisman]

Your example isn't even a dilemma, frankly, since had the group not been there, the orcs would have killed all sorts of people. You already saved a boatload of villagers, some angst ridden sob story about some punk kid isn't going to make it more or less heroic.

This answer sums up an attitude I personally hate about RPGs: the "We're Awesome, You're Shit" attitude. As gamers, we know our PCs are inherently better, cooler and more interesting than the NPCs...but acting like it in game totally kills my suspension of disbelief. Character levels aren't stamped on your forehead; from the point of view of the PCs, a real, live person has just died. Barring nameless mooks, this should matter at least a little.

And in retrospect, the example was a bad one; forget about it. However, i don't buy the "plane shift to the Demiplane of Diamonds" answer either; you can't assume the GM will permit such shenanigans, or that the Demiplane of Diamonds even exists.

Neither am I defending 4e's arbitrarium methods.

My point is, resurrection should be rare and fvcking special. It shouldn't be a spell slot and a price tag. It shouldn't force PCs to choose between being combat-effective and being heroic. It is all of the things it shouldn't be in 3.x.

It also shouldn't be made of arbitrarium, as it is in 4e.

[Kaelik]

Yes there is a Demiplane of Diamonds. It's called Celestia, it very specifically has mountains of Diamonds. And yes you can expect any non-crap DM to allow it, because if he doesn't then he's a damn Dick for making you take a permanent penalty to raise some guy, even though you could totally do it without a loss for free at any time.

[Talisman]

Label me a dick, then. I use homebrew cosmologies almost exclusively, and stealing diamonds from the home of your deity, if possible, is frowned upon.

What the hell is this "do it my way or you're a bad person" thing? I don't tell you how to run your damn game.

[ubernoob]

Label me a dick, then. I use homebrew cosmologies almost exclusively, and stealing diamonds from the home of your deity, if possible, is frowned upon.

What the hell is this "do it my way or you're a bad person" thing? I don't tell you how to run your damn game.

You're not stealing. You're borrowing. Where do you think those mountains of diamonds came from to begin with?

[Leress]

*raise hand*

Umm, I really doubt that "stealing" diamonds for the purposes of reviving a fallen ally is going to be frown upon by good deity. Seriously, that like being mad that some kid picked wild flowers out of your yard.

[virgil]

Wait, where is it stated that only PCs can be raised?

[ubernoob]

Wait, where is it stated that only PCs can be raised?

4E DMG, I assume.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

Your example isn't even a dilemma, frankly, since had the group not been there, the orcs would have killed all sorts of people. You already saved a boatload of villagers, some angst ridden sob story about some punk kid isn't going to make it more or less heroic.

This answer sums up an attitude I personally hate about RPGs: the "We're Awesome, You're Shit" attitude. As gamers, we know our PCs are inherently better, cooler and more interesting than the NPCs...but acting like it in game totally kills my suspension of disbelief. Character levels aren't stamped on your forehead; from the point of view of the PCs, a real, live person has just died. Barring nameless mooks, this should matter at least a little.

And in retrospect, the example was a bad one; forget about it. However, i don't buy the "plane shift to the Demiplane of Diamonds" answer either; you can't assume the GM will permit such shenanigans, or that the Demiplane of Diamonds even exists.

Neither am I defending 4e's arbitrarium methods.

My point is, resurrection should be rare and fvcking special. It shouldn't be a spell slot and a price tag. It shouldn't force PCs to choose between being combat-effective and being heroic. It is all of the things it shouldn't be in 3.x.

It also shouldn't be made of arbitrarium, as it is in 4e.

WHAT DID I JUST TELL YOU?!

[Talisman]

WHAT DID I JUST TELL YOU?!

You mean this?

Or you could also solve it (and the issue of feeding and curing orphans) just by not coupling weapon power to money.

Therefore, you could if you wanted to actually spend millions of gold pieces researching and administering the cure for UltraAIDs. In fact, that could be the point of an adventure or a nice in-game reward for killing the Ancient Red Wyrm.

In fact, I'm starting to actually resent the magic item system in the game for forcing me to choose. Thank god for the Wish economy.

I actually agree with it. Profuse apologies for not specifically calling it out in the midst of all the debate.

Take it easy...sheesh.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

That's not what I was talking about. Sorry, I should've been more clear.

Namely, I was talking about this part right here:

It shouldn't force PCs to choose between being combat-effective and being heroic. It is all of the things it shouldn't be in 3.x.

To summarize my long rant from earlier, why not just get rid of effects that cure diseases, create food, create simple goods, move the soil, etc. etc.

Even though 4E has largely abandoned such abilities, I think it was done more out of an attempt to shift the game towards an MMORPG rather than to assauge peoples' moral dissonance.

But you know what? Fuck your moral dissonance. At least man up and say, 'yes, I prefer hitting things with swords and keeping the gold to myself so I can buy a shinier sword. Let the brats starve'.

[Psychic Robot]

Any type of moral dissonance would imply that the developers had a basic understanding of the concepts of good vs. evil.

[Koumei]

But you know what? Fuck your moral dissonance. At least man up and say, 'yes, I prefer hitting things with swords and keeping the gold to myself so I can buy a shinier sword. Let the brats starve'.

Weak. A TRUE hero would send those brats on to a Celestial plane where they never need starve ever again. Although I'm sure that, being children, enough of them are such shits that they get to go to the Abyss, but even there, they'll be judged by people who think it's awesome to be Evil.

I suppose, when you get down to it, the best course of action in D&D-land would be the complete annihilation of all life. After all, it would result in the most happiness, as everyone gets sent to their glorious afterlife and everything goes right for them.

If I can just find a DM who could justify that as "Good", that'd be an awesome concept to play.

"So, team, we start with those who are suffering the most, and those who are causing the most suffering. As well as those who try to stop us. Then we work our way towards the middle. If we succeed, then we carry out a suicide pact. Deal?"

[Calibron]

Regular people don't get awesome after-lives, they get turned into the spiritual equivalent of lamp oil or cement.

[Koumei]

But their suffering probably ends, especially if they lose self-awareness.

[Draco_Argentum]

But you know what? Fuck your moral dissonance. At least man up and say, 'yes, I prefer hitting things with swords and keeping the gold to myself so I can buy a shinier sword. Let the brats starve'.

Wrong. That sword isn't shinier, it lets you play the game at all. Keep up your bonuses or fall off the RNG.

You are confusing player motivation with character motivation. If the character is a hero they can have moral questions. A player is just telling a story about someone with morals that might include saving match girls or eating babies. The player knows that the character needs to keep their to hit bonus competitive so that the mechanics of the game work. In effect a metagame concept is forcing character actions.

[Voss]

Your example isn't even a dilemma, frankly, since had the group not been there, the orcs would have killed all sorts of people. You already saved a boatload of villagers, some angst ridden sob story about some punk kid isn't going to make it more or less heroic.

This answer sums up an attitude I personally hate about RPGs: the "We're Awesome, You're Shit" attitude. As gamers, we know our PCs are inherently better, cooler and more interesting than the NPCs...but acting like it in game totally kills my suspension of disbelief. Character levels aren't stamped on your forehead; from the point of view of the PCs, a real, live person has just died. Barring nameless mooks, this should matter at least a little.

Actually, this has nothing to do with levels or awesome vs. shit. Its more of a reflection of the assumed world in D&Dland- death happens, a lot. Getting severely choked up about a stranger taking an ax in the face makes about as much sense as having a 14 day self-mortifying mourning marathon every time someone dies in a typhoon in Burma. This stuff happens in D&Dland all the time- if you want, say a few words, have a moment to 'honor the fallen and get on with it. There are literally thousands of things running around that view you, him, and everyone else as a tasty treat, and in the grand scheme of things, if you're killed in battle you're getting one of the better deaths.

On top of that, there are actual gods who will really reward the kid for dying fighting orcs.

[Psychic Robot]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1063426

WotC fucks up, but not really because they're the fucking Jesus of RPG companies.

[Psychic Robot]

For my part, I simply don't view the 'damage' caused by certain effects as even the close calls HP represent.

Instead, I view it as a narrative understanding that essentially any action successfully directed at a character shaves off the counters of how long the audience can accept that character survive/have a chance at winning.

So when color spray hits you, it isn't damaging you in the traditional sense, but it is rolling back the counter on how long you'll be in the story.

What the fuck?

[Maxus]

For my part, I simply don't view the 'damage' caused by certain effects as even the close calls HP represent.

Instead, I view it as a narrative understanding that essentially any action successfully directed at a character shaves off the counters of how long the audience can accept that character survive/have a chance at winning.

So when color spray hits you, it isn't damaging you in the traditional sense, but it is rolling back the counter on how long you'll be in the story.

What the fuck?

I think I get it.

To put it another way, practically no PC can, on their own, survive being stabbed through the heart or having their head cut off or whatever. Whether it's at 1st level, or at 20th level, they're still dependent on having a functioning body.

So he's talking about a system of hit description where when your HP is decreased, your character isn't necessarily hit--he's just lost some numbers. When he hits 0 HP, he's described as getting hit badly, which fucks him up. So he doesn't think of or treat HP as, say, the inverse of how much your body is damaged.

No idea what the Color Spray bit is about, though.

[virgil]

Having HP be a form of narrative ablative armor rather than brute endurance is an old standby for explaining its use in RPGs. An acceptance of the abstract nature of combat, where damage is described by near misses and lucky dodges, wearing away your battle karma and endurance (as it were).

It does create an odd scenario my friend noticed with that, where both AC & HP represent how hard you are to hit.

[Voss]

An abstraction thats always been directly challenged by use of phrases like 'you are hit for x damage'. Which, you know, makes it funny. Or stupid.

[Surgo]

Umm, I really doubt that "stealing" diamonds for the purposes of reviving a fallen ally is going to be frown upon by good deity. Seriously, that like being mad that some kid picked wild flowers out of your yard.

I'd go a bit further than that. It'd be like being mad that some kid picked wild flowers out of your yard to make a wreath for his mother who is dying of cancer.