What is with the entitlement? (shadzar stay out)

[TOZ]

I have long since ignored Swordslinger.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Swordslinger]

When did monsters who could one-shot perma-kill any PC at the level they are expected to meet them, regardless of player stats or build, start counting as "trivially easy encounters?"

An encounter of EL = average party level is pretty much considered to be an encounter the PCs should win, unless they happen to be entering it badly injured or get unlucky. It's not entirely trivial, but it's really not threatening either.

A single orc is pretty easy to take out. You drop a color spray, get a hit with a greatsword or whatever and he's dead.

Yeah the orc might get a kill if he wins init and gets a critical, but all in all that's a pretty surviveable encounter.

I mean, seriously? You are actually trying to say that this orc is a trivial encounter after a well-armored and high-HP 1st level Fighter gets insta-gibbed in a single shot and there was nothing he could do to prevent it other than running from the encounter like a little girl before the orc could charge?

Pretty much yeah. There's less than a 5% chance that orc gets a critical on its turn, and there's a fairly high chance that the orc does not even get a turn. You're looking at probably 2% or less that it does anything of note, and probably about half the time, it's going to do no damage at all.

I'd call that pretty trivial dude.

If I had to run an orc because I'd done something stupid like agree to run a module, I'd make an encounter that was intended to be trivial actually trivial and make the orc use a weapon or tactic that won't insta-gib a PC in one shot.

Look dude, I'm just saying that Matticus is full of shit when he keeps claiming that there's some failure condition where the PCs lose the fight but don't die.

I'm saying that shit doesn't happen in your games. If I'm wrong about that, then correct me, but honestly, I just don't see how PCs can lose any of the encounters you throw at them, because you see an encounter where the orc does something 2% of the time to be a deadly encounter that's a no-no for DMs.

You basically let PCs play "I win", and whatever dude if you do, but just admit to that so Matticus can finally cut the bullshit about PCs losing fights, because I don't think any PC party has ever lost a fight in any of your games based on what you're telling me. You seem to freak out at the thought of one PC dropping, let alone the entire group routed or defeated.

[...You Lost Me]

Personally, I find that planning helps a lot with improvising, but I'll accept that there are people who can't improvise.

That being said, they probably shouldn't be DMs. Anyone can be a player, but the hobby doesn't need players for Team Monster.

And yet again we have this quasi-strawman where you take something to an unrelated extreme and say how it's bad and people who do that are bad and therefore your argument is right.

Completely ignoring the refute to your argument itself. Woo hoo, you won. Congrats?

[K]

I mean, seriously? You are actually trying to say that this orc is a trivial encounter after a well-armored and high-HP 1st level Fighter gets insta-gibbed in a single shot and there was nothing he could do to prevent it other than running from the encounter like a little girl before the orc could charge?

Pretty much yeah. There's less than a 5% chance that orc gets a critical on its turn, and there's a fairly high chance that the orc does not even get a turn. You're looking at probably 2% or less that it does anything of note, and probably about half the time, it's going to do no damage at all.

I'd call that pretty trivial dude.

And you'd be wrong.

When you run the encounter, it's trivial 98% of the time. The other 2% of the time it's brutally unfair.

See the difference? In that 2%, the players can do everything right and take every precaution and someone's session gets ruined for no reason.

Why even risk it when there is no payoff? Just use a better-balanced CR 1 monster.

If I had to run an orc because I'd done something stupid like agree to run a module, I'd make an encounter that was intended to be trivial actually trivial and make the orc use a weapon or tactic that won't insta-gib a PC in one shot.

Look dude, I'm just saying that Matticus is full of shit when he keeps claiming that there's some failure condition where the PCs lose the fight but don't die.

I'm saying that shit doesn't happen in your games. If I'm wrong about that, then correct me, but honestly, I just don't see how PCs can lose any of the encounters you throw at them, because you see an encounter where the orc does something 2% of the time to be a deadly encounter that's a no-no for DMs.

You basically let PCs play "I win", and whatever dude if you do, but just admit to that so Matticus can finally cut the bullshit about PCs losing fights, because I don't think any PC party has ever lost a fight in any of your games based on what you're telling me. You seem to freak out at the thought of one PC dropping, let alone the entire group routed or defeated.

Fine. Here is DnD 110: Running an Adventure.

DnD is a resource-allocation game, so any battle where you use up too many resources is a loss even if the monster ends up dead because it causes you to fail the adventure goal.

So let's use an example of a Standard BS Fetch Quest With Three Encounters. The goal is to save the Mayor's daughter from demon gnolls or some such nonsense.

The first encounter goes great and the PCs kill the monsters with minimal effort and HP damage and spell use. It's a pretty standard confidence-building fight.

The second encounter goes sideways. The PCs take some crits, the monsters make saves, and though they win or drive off the demon gnolls, they are toasted because there is no way they can even be level-appropriate for the the next encounter. They just used up too many spells and took too much damage and they know it.

At that point, the mission is failed even if no one is dead. They know some horrible fate awaits them if they press on with the adventure from here because they know I'm totally willing to strip them of their gear and make the next adventure the "Escape from Captivity and Maybe Get Back Some Equipment" if they press on in such a bad condition. Heck, that's not even the worst that I can do and they know it.

Nine times out of ten, players go back to town to heal and get spells back and the Mayor refuses to give them any reward or compensate them for expendables. They are exiled from town and they can't go back and they accept this as a loss. Usually, this leads them to get super emotionally-involved in correcting this loss and it gives me an automatic hook for the next adventure.

If they pressed on and tried the last encounter, they might win after taking some deaths or the villains might escape with the daughter. The entire adventure can turn into a net loss after accounting for expendables and raises even if they get the daughter back. They might also fail and get captured.... I don't know because it's a choice I'm making on the fly and I'm waiting to see if they come up with a good tactic or some dice-rolls go their way (I'd totally accept the PCs doing something clever like drawing off the rest of the gnolls and having someone sneak in and get the girl since this is a lower-reward option where they don't get the gnoll treasure, but they feel awesome about DnD).

Either way the adventure turns out, it's memorable, either fun or sets up bigger fun later, and everyone gets XP.

As a bonus, if the daughter gets whisked away because they didn't do the last encounter or botched it, she shows up in future adventures as a villain to remind the PCs of their failure and give them a chance to set it right.

As for perma-killing a PC? It crushes a player and ruins the narrative and it's completely unnecessary when failing the adventure can be devastating to PCs. I won't do it when there are dozens of fun options that work infinitely better.

If that means I have to toss in some sub-plots for an excuse for raises in order to negate the effects of weird dice rolls, then so be it.

[FatR]

WHY IS THIS STILL HAPPENING?

Scenario 1: PC fights NPC. He loses. He dies. His story ends.
Scenario 2: PC fights NPC. He loses. He survives. His story continues.
Scenario 3: PC fights NPC. He wins. His story continues.

K: "Scenario 1 is bad."
Swordslinger: "lol, look at crybaby who can't handle scenario 2."

Scenario 2 causes almost exactly the same sort of negative consquences that you can't stand in Scen 1, though. First of all, the player is excluded from the game (probably for longer time that is needed to generate a new character at low levels, almost certainly for longer time that is needed to get rezzed above low levels). Then, speaking of your precious "story", he is likely to be forced into a story direction he doesn't want or/and he might suffer humiliating contrivances to rejoin the play. In fact, it is an observed fact that in the games where non-death loss conditions are standard, like VtM, people often prefer character suicide on the spot to even partial loss of control, which might last longer that generating a new character.

So, I think, Swordslinger is correct, even regardless of K's stories apparently being incredibly asinine. You crybabies will start crying about wolf jails as soon as they will replace death as the standard consequence of poor play or having a RNG in the game.

[Fuchs]

Just look at popular movies and series and books - in almost every piece the heroes suffer some adversity, get captured, or have to flee once or twice.

There's almost no book (none worth reading) where the heroes walk from victory to victory. People, especailly new players, do not expect to win all the time.

Of course some people prefer to get rid of characters who suffer penalties, and start fresh with their next clone, I mean, next character. Just because they dislike consequences doesn't mean everyone does.

[DSMatticus]

when he keeps claiming that there's some failure condition where the PCs lose the fight but don't die.

You are too stupid to breathe. The fact that you can say "it's impossible to construct a game or scenario in which you can lose without dying" is fucking mind-boggling.

Here's how Swordslinger plays D&D, apparently:
"You fail to sneak past the guard. You explode."
"You fail to bluff the innkeep. You explode."
"You fail to stay balanced on the ice. You explode."

Expected response: "but combat is different because it's supposed to be lethal! The rules say so."
Response to the 'tard that says this: "No shit; which is why we're having a discussion centered around the shittiness of the lethality rules."

Scenario 2 causes almost exactly the same sort of negative consquences that you can't stand in Scen 1, though.

WTF? See AMiB's rules on page whatever-the-fuck. That is a clear set of mechanics where the negative consequences are exactly not the fucking same.

For fuck's sake, as long as it's not a TPK, as long as you stop people from randomly dying at a measly -10 HP, and add halfway decent "flee" mechanics, every encounter is survivable for pretty much everyone. "Hey, while you guys are running, help badly mauled Bob to his feet."

And if it is a TPK, you can invoke the alternative motivations to say "here's why you survive: the entire party is now in a monster nest. How do you guys escape?" Story continues. For everyone.

[Stubbazubba]

Scenario 2 causes almost exactly the same sort of negative consquences that you can't stand in Scen 1, though. First of all, the player is excluded from the game (probably for longer time that is needed to generate a new character at low levels, almost certainly for longer time that is needed to get rezzed above low levels).

? Only if your character is kept under heavy sedation or is in a coma or something. So long as your character is conscious, you should be able to take actions. Note that doesn't mean jump back into fighting again, but that you should be able to take actions in order to escape or otherwise further the party's goals, or the character's personal goals. I've explained this so many times, you must have just skipped all those pages in the middle. Just because skills outside of combat are meaningless right now doesn't mean they should be. The skill system should be an integral part of the "safety net."

[Swordslinger]

The second encounter goes sideways. The PCs take some crits, the monsters make saves, and though they win or drive off the demon gnolls, they are toasted because there is no way they can even be level-appropriate for the the next encounter. They just used up too many spells and took too much damage and they know it.

At that point, the mission is failed even if no one is dead. They know some horrible fate awaits them if they press on with the adventure from here because they know I'm totally willing to strip them of their gear and make the next adventure the "Escape from Captivity and Maybe Get Back Some Equipment" if they press on in such a bad condition. Heck, that's not even the worst that I can do and they know it.

Alright you're going to have to give me some encounter examples here. Give me a typical one of your quests in which the PCs can actually fail, because after the whole subdual orc with padded shortsword, I'm just not seeing how this can possibly work out that way.

And honestly, why would your PCs ever turn back? You're talking about how they took too much damage and know it, but seriously, do they? They know they can't die. They might as well try to accomplish the quest anyway, because they can't die. Damn dude, what a bunch of cowardly heroes.... they know they can't die, and choose to turn back anyway?

[infected slut princess]

Give me a typical one of your quests in which the PCs can actually fail, because after the whole subdual orc with padded shortsword, I'm just not seeing how this can possibly work out that way.

And honestly, why would your PCs ever turn back? You're talking about how they took too much damage and know it, but seriously, do they? They know they can't die. They might as well try to accomplish the quest anyway, because they can't die.

Swordslinger is being dumb because he seems unable to recognize the the arguments being put forth against him are not against failure in the game as such. They only argue that certain kinds of failure are bad for the game from a cooperative storytelling standpoint. (They might not be bad in other types of games, as the discussion of Paranoia illustrates).

On that issue he is dumb but separately, I think he is talking about how it is good for the DM to be objective as possible. And this is not altogether unreasonable... to an extent.

Earlier in this thread I disagreed vehemently with K that death is the end of a player's fun. In D&D, it's really not in most cases. At least, that's my experience, for what it's worth. But whether D&D ends a person's fun when they die or fail is something that varies from group to group and situation to situation. It is an empirical relationship, not a necessary one. His main point was that if the failure results in the end of someone's fun by its nature, then it is bad for the game. THAT is true.

So on the failure issue, as far as I can tell, only certain types of failure are put forth as "bad for the game" or "not conducive to fun" in a cooperative storytelling game:

1) failure causing permanent irreversible death (like a TPK with no one to save you because your whole party died in the monster closet).

2) failure that is "lame" (like getting one-shotted by the orc's critical axe hit at level 1 in a 'trivial' encounter).

3) failure that prevents people from playing the game for an extended period of time. Not participating for 20 minutes not a big deal, I think... not participating for a whole session is pretty damn shitty. (Side note: I can't even believe that people talk about people dying and being unable to play for MULTIPLE SESSIONS, as if that actually happens. Maybe it does. But I thought people played with their friends and not total assholes.)

Anyway, these issues must be confronted, if you want to have a cooperative storytelling game in D&D -- because a) D&D is super lethal and people can potentially die and/or fail a lot, and b) people usually have big hopes and dreams for their characters and the "bad failures" can really fuck that shit up and make them less happy than they would be otherwise.

Now for the second issue about the objective DM... I think his idealized DM is an objective-referee that is totally, completely "in-character" for monsters and NPCs. Or like a neutral elemental force in the game world that just basically follows rules and setting information without letting their "personality" get involved.

I think there is merit in saying he wants the NPC orc to "act like an orc" '(whatever that might mean) instead of "a self-gimped orc who purposefully avoids seriously threatening anyone with a [player character] tag." I don't think it's unfair to say that if the players doing something considered "stupid" in the game world, that something bad would happen to their characters. ("What? your Level 1 party wants to launch a frontal assault on the Emperor of Darkness' Invincible Fortress?") Because verisimilitude is important, or something.

Being objective is impossible for a human DM due to inherent subjectivity of human preferences. Still, assuming it is a goal that a human DM can strive for, and human DMs could behave more "in character" or less "in character" in a way that can be somehow measured... This prompts the question:

is it ever a good choice for the DM to choose an "in-character" or "in-setting" event or action that results in one of the bad kinds of failure? Because they _do_ have to choose it. The answer, of course, is NO - if you are focused on coop storytelling. But that's okay... because you can have any of the other kinds of failure.

At this point, you have to ask whether you regular ol' death is one of the bad kinds of failure in D&D. If you think so, then you would be desperate to avoid that. But I think death isn't all that bad in a game where people can be resurrected with magic spells and magic items.

[K]

The second encounter goes sideways. The PCs take some crits, the monsters make saves, and though they win or drive off the demon gnolls, they are toasted because there is no way they can even be level-appropriate for the the next encounter. They just used up too many spells and took too much damage and they know it.

At that point, the mission is failed even if no one is dead. They know some horrible fate awaits them if they press on with the adventure from here because they know I'm totally willing to strip them of their gear and make the next adventure the "Escape from Captivity and Maybe Get Back Some Equipment" if they press on in such a bad condition. Heck, that's not even the worst that I can do and they know it.

Alright you're going to have to give me some encounter examples here. Give me a typical one of your quests in which the PCs can actually fail, because after the whole subdual orc with padded shortsword, I'm just not seeing how this can possibly work out that way.

And honestly, why would your PCs ever turn back? You're talking about how they took too much damage and know it, but seriously, do they? They know they can't die. They might as well try to accomplish the quest anyway, because they can't die. Damn dude, what a bunch of cowardly heroes.... they know they can't die, and choose to turn back anyway?

If they try to accomplish the quest anyway, they end up worse than if they didn't. Maybe they end up paying for a few raises and that eats up the reward and loses them more treasure to boot and makes the whole adventure a loss in terms of treasure, or maybe I kill them all and tell them the open gate to the Abyss that was being used to send souls there has pulled their souls in and now they have to escape a demon fortress and find their way back to the Prime. The options are limitless and they have no idea what I'm going to chose. That's terrifying to players.

Frankly, permanent player death is the godmode option because it frees you from all the story problems that come from failure and resets your treasure. Talk about no consequences!

Losing loot and player agency by being forced to do a quest if you fail is a big deal, and most players will go to absurd extremes to not do either. Losing story goals and not getting a reward is a smaller failure, but people will take it over being forced to sell off prized magic items or having their recklessness have even longer-lasting consequences in the story or losses in player agency by being forced into quests.

Railroading is forcing all player actions to have the same result, but laying down consequences for risky behavior in the story is what people want and fear and it's the core of RPGing. They want to go back to the town and have it be kind of awful that they get exiled and told never to return. They want the daughter to show up later as a villain who reminds them of their failure even though it's messed up. The also want another crack at winning and saving the daughter, and that's a real player-driven hook and not the BS that usually passes as a hook of "there's a monster in X area and you should kill it."

It stings like a bitch, but that's good storytelling. If it didn't sting, it's because your players were never immersed in the first place and your problems go well beyond these other issues.

Permanent player death ruins the player's story, it ruins other players' stories, but it's not a consequence because the player pops up with a new character who is as powerful and as interesting as the one who died except he doesn't have to also have the story consequences of everything that happened before. I mean, he can go back to the town and talk to the mayor because he was not the guy who got exiled or the one who failed to bring back the guy's daughter!

All perma-death does is force people to not have story consequences to their actions (and they want those story consequences because that's part of RPing). Being forced to live with the results of your actions is an actual punishment.

PS. If you are still hung up on the orc example where I'm not going to let there be a 2% chance of a trivial encounter ruining my game because I'm equiping it with a shortsword instead of a one-shotting battleax at 1st fucking level, I'll just assume you don't actually want to discuss this topic.

[Swordslinger]

If they try to accomplish the quest anyway, they end up worse than if they didn't. Maybe they end up paying for a few raises and that eats up the reward and loses them more treasure to boot and makes the whole adventure a loss in terms of treasure, or maybe I kill them all and tell them the open gate to the Abyss that was being used to send souls there has pulled their souls in and now they have to escape a demon fortress and find their way back to the Prime. The options are limitless and they have no idea what I'm going to chose. That's terrifying to players.

Well first, I honestly think you're making this up as a bullshit contingency. You've laid out your encounter design philosophy beforehand. Your monsters are fucking gimps. So how often will they even lose? I'm saying not very. Besides, knowing you you'll probably just cut the number of monsters or have them attack with nonlethal damage so the PCs win anyway. Personally I'm not terrified at all, because I know whatever happens, I'll be okay.

I have yet to hear an encounter example from one of your games where PCs will actually lose.

Frankly, permanent player death is the godmode option because it frees you from all the story problems that come from failure and resets your treasure. Talk about no consequences!

Yes, and that exists regardless of whether you kill PCs or not, because some dude can always just say "Yo, I'm sick of my character and am making a new guy."

So what do you do about that guy? Tell him fuck you, you're on my railroad can't do that?

It's natural that if the consequences get to the point where their characters are gimped below a new character, they're probably going to make a new character. This is the point where you're probably just better killing that character instead of resorting to forcing the player into a quit.

Losing loot and player agency by being forced to do a quest if you fail is a big deal, and most players will go to absurd extremes to not do either. Losing story goals and not getting a reward is a smaller failure, but people will take it over being forced to sell off prized magic items or having their recklessness have even longer-lasting consequences in the story or losses in player agency by being forced into quests.

It's one thing to choose not to try to save the princess because you could die futilely and you feel as though you can't win. It's quite another to decide not to save her solely because it's more profitable for you to let her die or whatever. At that point, you're no longer heroes.

Railroading is forcing all player actions to have the same result, but laying down consequences for risky behavior in the story is what people want and fear and it's the core of RPGing. They want to go back to the town and have it be kind of awful that they get exiled and told never to return. They want the daughter to show up later as a villain who reminds them of their failure even though it's messed up. The also want another crack at winning and saving the daughter, and that's a real player-driven hook and not the BS that usually passes as a hook of "there's a monster in X area and you should kill it."

I'm still not convinced anyone ever loses in your games based on the pathetically easy encounters you're endorsing.

All perma-death does is force people to not have story consequences to their actions (and they want those story consequences because that's part of RPing). Being forced to live with the results of your actions is an actual punishment.

It also removes any benefits you had too, because seriously dude, most of the time, the PCs probably will be succeeding. This new dude is no longer friends with the king, he doesn't have the rest of the contacts the PCs do and nobody really wants to help him out.

You're talking like it's going to be some sadistic game where the PCs fail more than they win, but that's not the case. Most of the time, their reputation is a good thing.

PS. If you are still hung up on the orc example where I'm not going to let there be a 2% chance of a trivial encounter ruining my game because I'm equiping it with a shortsword instead of a one-shotting battleax at 1st fucking level, I'll just assume you don't actually want to discuss this topic.

Yes, I am hung up on it, because it shows that your encounters aren't difficult. You're playing two sides. You're claiming that encounters should be pathetically easy (nonlethal damage and shitty weapons), and also taking the other side of the discussion talking about player failures. But the whole failure bullshit is irrelevant because PCs don't fail with the kinds of encounters you use.

You're trying to have it both ways, and no, I'm not going to let that go.

[K]

Yes, I am hung up on it, because it shows that your encounters aren't difficult. You're playing two sides. You're claiming that encounters should be pathetically easy (nonlethal damage and shitty weapons), and also taking the other side of the discussion talking about player failures. But the whole failure bullshit is irrelevant because PCs don't fail with the kinds of encounters you use.

You're trying to have it both ways, and no, I'm not going to let that go.

Ok, if you can't accept that trivial encounters should be statted and played to be trivial and tough encounters should be statted and played to be tough, you can go fuck yourself.

Seriously. You honestly think encounters designed to be trivial should one-shot perma-kill PCs. You are terrible at DnD and life.

[angelfromanotherpin]

While I do appreciate a more traditional fantasy/heroic narrative, D&D's roots are in a wargame, and it most naturally tells war stories. Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionheart both anticlimactically died relatively young of wounds inflicted by total nobodies, and if it was good enough for them...

[Swordslinger]

Ok, if you can't accept that trivial encounters should be statted and played to be trivial and tough encounters should be statted and played to be tough, you can go fuck yourself.

Seriously. You honestly think encounters designed to be trivial should one-shot perma-kill PCs. You are terrible at DnD and life.

I never said it was exactly designed to be trivial. I just said that the DMG says it's a pretty easy encounter. I was trying to give you a fair scenario with the orc of an encounter a group of 1st level adventurers might have. "The orc quest" is perhaps the most common staple of D&D, so lets not pretend that one orc is somehow not an appropriate encounter.

So I give you this totally reasonable encounter and you went and claimed that it was too hard because someone might die. Dude, if you dont' like one shot kills, then play 4E. 3E is a deadly game, and people can die in one hit or more often, one spell. I didn't design the game, and I didn't choose the game, you did.

And besides, dude, it's a fucking level 1 character, who gives a shit? It's not like you're killing some guy that someone invested a ton of playtime into.

[Fuchs]

While I do appreciate a more traditional fantasy/heroic narrative, D&D's roots are in a wargame, and it most naturally tells war stories. Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionheart both anticlimactically died relatively young of wounds inflicted by total nobodies, and if it was good enough for them...

We've outgrown those roots since a long time. The system changed a lot since those days, as did the players.

[ckafrica]

First of all we all know not all CRs are created equal and what 4 CR1 creatures that really are a suitable encounter at 4th might actually be a bitch at 1st even by itself.

And besides, dude, it's a fucking level 1 character, who gives a shit? It's not like you're killing some guy that someone invested a ton of playtime into.

I would. I tend to put a lot of thought into a concept of how a character is going to work what he is going to do and what he will be like down the line. I create backstory and plot goals. That's half the fun of playing an RPG for me. I probably spend at least 10 hours on a character before the games even begun. Now I might have a folder of a dozen or so characters I've prepared this way who I could throw into action with a little alteration but it would still piss me off that I had lost a character I had barely gotten to know. Not raging pack up my shit and telling off the DM pissed off, but annoyed and disappointed because I don't like to recycle character ideas and so that character will never happen again for me. And the more trivial the encounter, the more annoyed I'd be.

Now if I were playing with a group like Tussock's where I was expecting to lose characters left right and center, I'd certainly not put much effort into the characters because it seems no matter what I did my character would be doomed from the start. I could probably still have some fun trying a lot of different concept builds that I just wanted to see if they worked but I certainly would put any more effort in to the "character" than some dude who uses the various charge augments to be an awesome blitz striker. But personality, background, motivations? Why bother if I'm likely to be fulling another one out of the folder in a few weeks because the DM thought it would LOL awesome to catch the players in an ambush of lizard men whose shamans cast hold person on the melee guys and dropped giant oozes from buckets in the trees and the rogues and rangers hidden by the camouflage spell peppered the casters with arrows before they could get defensive spells up. Because that is what I would do if I were DMing a mid level mission into the Banemire under the idea that players who do not prepare for every eventuality should reap what they've failed to anticipate. Because any level appropriate encounter can be made deadly with enough DM ingenuity and conviction

[angelfromanotherpin]

We've outgrown those roots since a long time. The system changed a lot since those days, as did the players.

The system didn't change nearly enough. You can tell precisely because sudden anticlimactic death is still a thing that happens, and because heroic dramatic conventions still have to be house-ruled or carefully manipulated into existence. That's part of why people get so frickin' frustrated with the system, because it doesn't provide the outputs of what they expect from a heroic fantasy – or even try particularly hard to.

Dammit, now I want to see Frank Trollman's Ensemble Dramatic Character Arc Game (For Cool People). I guess Black Forest had strong elements of that.

[Fuchs]

We've outgrown those roots since a long time. The system changed a lot since those days, as did the players.

The system didn't change nearly enough. You can tell precisely because sudden anticlimactic death is still a thing that happens, and because heroic dramatic conventions still have to be house-ruled or carefully manipulated into existence. That's part of why people get so frickin' frustrated with the system, because it doesn't provide the outputs of what they expect from a heroic fantasy – or even try particularly hard to.

Dammit, now I want to see Frank Trollman's Ensemble Dramatic Character Arc Game (For Cool People). I guess Black Forest had strong elements of that.

4E showed that sudden anticlimatic death was not something desired. Pathfinder boosted low level HP, if I recall correctly, to counter the crit threats.

[Falgund]

4E showed that sudden anticlimatic death was not something desired.

I though 4E showed that trying to prevent it by going padded sumo was boring ?

[tzor]

While I do appreciate a more traditional fantasy/heroic narrative, D&D's roots are in a wargame, and it most naturally tells war stories. Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionheart both anticlimactically died relatively young of wounds inflicted by total nobodies, and if it was good enough for them...

D&D's roots are clearly in a wargame but from a variety of reasons it is not a wargame. It was developed to be something other than a wargame.

One of the biggest questions that the genre has attemped to grapple is not really an Alenander the Great or Richard the Lionheart but the question of Harold. Yes ... that Harold. Back in the days when arrows were area of effect attacks, he gets a critical hit in the god damned eye.

He's a god danmed king and he gets one shotted by a single arrow!

No one wants to be Harold, they all want to be Arthur.

Excalibur's scabbard was said to have powers of its own. Injuries from losses of blood, for example, would not kill the bearer. In some tellings, wounds received by one wearing the scabbard did not bleed at all.

But Arthur is boring as all hell. Harold generally pisses everyone off.

Gandalf (who gets pulled down the pit along with the balrog) is generally acceptable by some.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Arthur specifically loses the scabbard before he ever learns what it does and so probably never benefits from it a meaningful way. But more importantly, Arthur's final battle is a duel with his son-by-incest (or foster son, or nephew) who, one way or another, poses an existential threat to Arthur's moral framework and legacy. That's not boring, that's an amazing dramatic convergence of Arthur's family issues and the central conflicts of his reign. If I could have every PC in my games end their stories with that level of thematic resonance, I would call it an immense victory.

[TOZ]

In my Shackled City game, I have a character who chose a plot-important trait. (He did not know it at the time of choosing.) This marked him as a suitable sacrifice for the villains ritual.

When I decided that they would make an attempt to kidnap him, I called him before the game and told him that upcoming events might render his character out of action permanently. I did not give specifics, but asked if he wanted me to make it a narrative encounter so he would not lose his character. He said to go ahead and run it by the rules and he'd have a backup ready if things went south for him.

The party is returning from a costume party (and thus less well armed than usual) when they are surrounded by the enemy thieves guild. The target character, being a fighter, charges into the midst, unwillingly playing right into their hands. The mooks close ranks behind him, and the assassin in charge of the mission uses stealth and invisibility to approach. One paralyzing death attack later (PC rolled under 5 on the die) and he is dimension doored away. The mooks retreat.

The party begins tracking down the PC through divinations and an informant in the guild. Meanwhile, the fighter is tortured for more information on the party, then turned to stone for safe transit. (This also included removing one arm as intimidation.) The party mounts an assault on the safe house and retrieves his statue.

They then call in allies to break enchantment (local temple) and regenerate his arm (scroll from an adventurer network). Halfway through the session after the kidnapping (happened at the end of said session) the player is back to normal.

So, tell me what you see wrong in my actions.

[hogarth]

So, tell me what you see wrong in my actions.

Just to clarify, the PC was out for half of one session (and presumably not even all of one half, since presumably you cut to him being tortured and whatnot)?

I don't think anyone in this thread is particularly opposed to something like that.

[TOZ]

I roleplayed out the torture and petrification at the end of the session he was kidnapped in. The next session had the party tracking him down and making the rescue, then restoring him to health.