Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

[tzor]

Killing PC's ain't fun.

That is such bullshit. Nothing players hate more than a DM cheating them out of a good death scene, or even a weak one when it's obvious. For a lot of people, there is no fun anywhere in the game if their PCs can't die.

Quoted for agreement: My best experiences (in other words the ones I remember the most and the ones I brag about the most) are the ones where my character died in the middle of the heroic battle. My dwarf fighter got resurrected so many times by the Elf Cleric that he eventually converted to Correlian.

The other famous experience I quote often was a character misunderstanding. At a relatively low level, he saw a "demon" enter through a portal. It was, actually, just a minotaur, but he never knew that.

[souran]

Killing PC's ain't fun.

That is such bullshit. Nothing players hate more than a DM cheating them out of a good death scene, or even a weak one when it's obvious. For a lot of people, there is no fun anywhere in the game if their PCs can't die.

Quoted for agreement: My best experiences (in other words the ones I remember the most and the ones I brag about the most) are the ones where my character died in the middle of the heroic battle. My dwarf fighter got resurrected so many times by the Elf Cleric that he eventually converted to Correlian.

Quoted because anecdotes are bullshit. The WORST experiences I have had playing any kind of role plyaing games is always associated with Character Death. Nothing creates fights faster than killing somebodies player and nothing generates more screeching than when it happens to a character because of "good" DM dice rolls during a random encounter.

Now to be totally fair, "death" only matters as long as it is a condition that screws players over to the point of not being able to play.

At low levels, extended charms, death, being turned to stone and "permanent" stat drain are all the same. Getting them pisses people off.

Similarly once they have reasonable access to the rescourses required to be returned to life then death isn't as big a deal and players consider it a reasonable result of a combat exchange. However, if you start disintegrating, imprisoning (as per the spell), or annihilitaing people at the level when they only have acces to raise dead you piss off your players just the same.

Further the idea of a "noble" death or death against a main villian doesn't get rid of problem either. Unless the player knew that his actions were likely going to result in his death players will be angry at the results. A player who choses to face the evil villian alone to give the rest of the party time to escape won't be frustrated his character died, but its likely that all the playres will be pissed if the evil villian goes first on init, then immediatly gets a crit and takes out a pc before they even get to do anything you are certiantly going to have bad blood.

[tzor]

Further the idea of a "noble" death or death against a main villian doesn't get rid of problem either. Unless the player knew that his actions were likely going to result in his death players will be angry at the results. A player who choses to face the evil villian alone to give the rest of the party time to escape won't be frustrated his character died, but its likely that all the playres will be pissed if the evil villian goes first on init, then immediatly gets a crit and takes out a pc before they even get to do anything you are certiantly going to have bad blood.

When I wrote "heroic" I meant the battles you make epic stories of heroes from not the notion that it was "noble." And any combat that ends in the first rounds sucks, even if you are on the winning side. But a major battle where you dish out damage (contribute to the effort in a significant way) but still the dragon manages to rip his claw right into your ribcage. That's the types of combat I like; the chance of character death only makes the victory when done even more exciting.

[Wrathzog]

DSMatticus: I agree that FATE points etc. can do a good job of sending the play in ways that are fun but if you don't have those mechanics or those mechanics aren't cutting it and the GM finds themselves constantly fudging to get the rules to do what they want then they're probably either playing the wrong game and should find a game that matches their expectations better or just let things play out, having hilariously unfortunate things happen to a player makes for great stories, especially if they can get themselves out of that bind later.

This is pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

[Swordslinger]

Further the idea of a "noble" death or death against a main villian doesn't get rid of problem either. Unless the player knew that his actions were likely going to result in his death players will be angry at the results. A player who choses to face the evil villian alone to give the rest of the party time to escape won't be frustrated his character died, but its likely that all the playres will be pissed if the evil villian goes first on init, then immediatly gets a crit and takes out a pc before they even get to do anything you are certiantly going to have bad blood.

I've seen people depressed about it, but not truly angry. It sounds pretty immature to get angry about dying, given that the game allows that as a consequence.

As for the whole frustration factor of dying in one hit, if that's the case, then you need to find a new game, because that's a common trope with 3.5. 4E handles character death much better, where it's very rare for a PC to be killed.

It's kind of laughable for people to not expect to die in 3E. I could see maybe if they felt the GM really tried to focus fire them down or something personal, but if one monster attacks you and scores a lucky crit... well that's the game you chose.

[hogarth]

I've seen people depressed about it, but not truly angry. It sounds pretty immature to get angry about dying, given that the game allows that as a consequence.

I've seen plenty of people get angry about dying, usually because they think the situation is "unfair". E.g. an ECL 8 party encounters three spectres who all focus their attacks on the party wizard instead of splitting up their attacks among other party members.

[shadzar]

I've seen people depressed about it, but not truly angry. It sounds pretty immature to get angry about dying, given that the game allows that as a consequence.

the problem doesnt lie in death as a consequence of play, but when it is stupid death...and when the cause of the death is from random outcome or poor planning...

players low on HP and needing to rest to continue on, but decide anyway to continue on...DM lets them die from dice rolls, because they chose to risk rather than rest.

same situation but PCs decide to rest...DM saves them from the wandering monster getting to good rolls at this time.

only the killer-DM would want to kill them at that time.

now if the rest in the bandits bedchambers and get caught by wandering bandits...DM lets them die, because the PCs made a bad choice.

if the dice choose the PCs die, it isnt fun ofr all, nor "heroic"/"noble" or anything else. if the PCs make choices that lead them to their death, then they die with no DM help.

[Fuchs]

Not everyone has gun losing PCs. Don't generalize. I'd be rather pissed if I'd played with a DM who casually let PCs die.

I also would not play with anyone who is not able to roleplay a character fearing death without the actual threat of character death. That's like my minimal standard for roleplaying ability.

[Daztur]

only the killer-DM would want to kill them at that time.

Hell yeah I'd want to kill them if that's what the dice said, having players be able to rest with impunity has all kinds of negative effects on a D&D game.

[Swordslinger]

Hell yeah I'd want to kill them if that's what the dice said, having players be able to rest with impunity has all kinds of negative effects on a D&D game.

I second that.

If the random encounter can't hurt the PCs, then why bother having it all?

[Wrathzog]

Letting the PC's curb stomp monsters can be fun for the PC's. Not every encounter needs to be a challenge (but most probably should be).

[shadzar]

ask the morons that write published encounters that just like filling in 2-20 encounter tables without consideration of WHERE they are actually placing and basing monsters around...

not all of them fit within the games.

nor is the purpose of a wandering monster to always kill the PCs, but to slow them down.

[Hieronymous Rex]

Time for anecdotes, because they are evidence:

I MCed at game for someone who had never played an RPG before. The session ended in a TPK due to misjudging the HD of satyrs. The new player thought it was great and still plays.

I was running a martial artist in a Star Wars game. During a battle, seeing the opportunity to backstab a hated NPC, went for it. I failed, and immediately brought in the character's son, a demolitionist as my new PC without a problem.

That PC got into a protracted PvP conspiracy that ended in the death of his enemy, a droid PC. There were no hard feelings.

The belief that PC death is something the MC should fudge to avoid is foreign to me.

[hogarth]

The belief that PC death is something the MC should fudge to avoid is foreign to me.

I don't mind an occasional death, but I really dislike having a revolving-door party, especially when the party is in the middle of a long quest. But a hero point system is a much better way of "fudging" than GM fiat. YMMV, of course.

[Juton]

I think player death needs to be a real credible threat in a campaign for it to be taken serious. So if a PC is acting reckless and getting himself into dangerous situations the DM should let the dice fall where they may. That's not a license for DMs to go killing PCs, a DM should exercise discretion, but if they bend the rules of the game too often to prevent PC death then the players will get used to it and the suspense will be gone.

So basically it's OK to kill dumb PCs, it also OK to let a PC die if letting them live strains credibility.

[shadzar]

if the DM is jsut having a good night of rolling dice, and the PCs are going to die because of the DMs luck, i wont let PCs die a futile death.

that strains the ability to continue to game, not credibility. everyone gets mad cause the game went belly up cause some lucky die rolls.

the game can only really end because of a TPK. or at least stop, and a pointless one because of a good night rolling dice, doesnt become a good night playing D&D for anyone.

[tussock]

Nothing creates fights faster than killing somebodies player and nothing generates more screeching than when it happens to a character because of "good" DM dice rolls during a random encounter.

Already been said, but I'll say it again: anyone who feels the need to argue and screech over a game of D&D will not be invited back unless they apologise and commit to not behaving like a fucking four year old. It's a social game, and people need to mind their gods-damned manners.

to the point of not being able to play

Roll up a new character and get over yourself, eh. Almost always an NPC around to take over if you can't be bothered. Come help with the monsters for a bit if you can't face either. Go play some playstation if you're in a huff. Fetch some takeaways, have a beer, whatever floats your boat.

Of course, I don't run games that require hours to build new PCs, so that's a likely point of difference for us.

[shadzar]

There are few specific rules to encourage good play

there should be NO rules for this. you can only enforce a specific playstyle this way. the "rules" as you cal them...the guidelines should make the game parts work, not make the group work...

D&D IS NOT GROUP THERAPY.

make the fucking game, and let players figure out their own interpersonal problems

number crunching wont make good play, nor will it make good players. these are things the players must work out between themselves!

Mearls seems to want to take up psychiatry rather than game design.

5e will have rules within the game, where the players sit around holding hands and hugging to resolve the mechanics.

To start with, what makes a good DM? Here are the traits that I think make the difference between an average DM and a good one:

1 A good DM brings the action to life with narration, acting, and dialogue
2 A good DM pulls no punches when it comes to challenging the players
3 A good DM builds problems and lets the players create solutions to them. (In other words, the DM avoids rigid, single-solution challenges.)
4 A good DM balances risks versus rewards
5 A good DM reacts to the players and allows their decisions to affect the world, alter an NPC's course of action, or otherwise matter to the game

1. did you see the disaster that was the video podcast of Dave Noonan running a game?

not everyone wants funny voices...you are describing a specific playstyle, not something that benefits the game here so fuck-off Mearls.

2. now you are causing the whole problems of people bitching about MTP and the socially inept. you challenge the players to their own limits, which means YES you do pull punches when hitting someone that is softer in one area than someone else. that is how you make it so that you do NOT need some crappy social combat rules. THAT is what makes a good DM, to be able to run the game and let everyone be involved with their OWN personal skill/ability levels as a player.

3. no, a good DM designs these challenges, and then allows for other answers to be the right one, than the single one he chose. but sometimes thre may only be one right answer, and those times the "clues" should be available to the players, even if they fail to find them all. yes the key to the cell door might just be in another building. artifact, those things not something the players find normally, do NOT follow the standard guidelines within the game. the ONE Ring can work, but should not be the only type of this sort of "puzzle". most things the players should be able to have several options to solve, even if those are not something the DM would have come up with.

stop loading your statements with falsehoods or half truths.

4. no. all level 6 dragon encounter should not have the same thing as a reward. sometimes they might not have anything to offer as a reward. the game needs to be able to function as a living entity that makes sense. when someone asks why every level 6 dragon encounter has the same reward for a small subset of ranges to the PC party, you have to have a reason other than "the rules list it as such". where did this dragon get things from since there is only a poor settlement and this dragon has gold and other items this settlement has never seen? how far away did it go to get these things? does all of this fit in with how the players found out about the dragon?

the world must make sense, even to those just wanting a reason from "the game" standpoint. once you lose all verisimilitude, you have lost the rest of the game.

STOP FORCING PEOPLE TO PLAY YOUR FUCKING PLAYSTYLE AND ONE_TRUE_WAY you fuck head!

5. no. the PCs are the protagonists of the adventure being had, but they are also insignificant in a large world. again the game needs to be believable. go too far into letting players actions control the world, and you again can remove SoD.

seriously Mearls is wanting a damn board game, not an RPG. why the fuck isnt he working to get HeroQuest out again and just make more expansions to it.

Tony the Tiger is the mascot for a product that is less flaky than Mearls is.

but thankfully this is the last of the inane drivel from Mearls in Legends and Lore, so hopefully he is crawling back to the rock he was found under.

[icyshadowlord]

...how can the PCs be insignificant in the world if they reach levels where they can kill gods? Hell, in older editions Lolth was a pushover if I remember right.

[shadzar]

...how can the PCs be insignificant in the world if they reach levels where they can kill gods? Hell, in older editions Lolth was a pushover if I remember right.

Lolth's avatar you mean?

well here we go again.. this discusion i had long ago, but will try to remember it from both sides...

first their are two schools of thought...your and mine we will say.

mine has the players able to be a part of the world for their entire existence.

your has the players reach those higher levels, where they are not longer really a part of the world.

once they gain the power to fight gods, and since the game's gods are run by the DM, you really leave the game of D&D.

we can all see that people will want this, but the game really cannot handle it in ANY edition.

those levels and that power leaves Dungeons and Dragons behind, and because a game of Godslayer.

with those little bullets in mind, think about how you here of many people stopping after reaching a certain level. this was not only because of mechanics breakdown, but really the ideas and concepts used for play up until that point have changed. the mortal world really offers little left for them. to make them part of the mortal world, you have to transform them into something like Gandalf and make them a set piece which removes player control, or you have to bring like powered things to the mortal world.

making the PCs become NPCs ends the game.

bringing enough power to the world to have the PCs able to remain their rather than go off and play the game Godslayer, means that the rest of the world now sees, and if it disagrees then the PCs become targets not unlike all those they had been fighting to help the citizens of the world.

you also leave the realm of D&D core concept of playing a small band of people against another small band of people..which really is the heart of the combat. now the PCs can take on entire armies, which removes the original design of D&D and brings back to the wargame. many people may like having the PCs as part of massive armies fighting each other like The Battle of 5 Armies in the Hobbit, but it really doesnt work, as that isnt what the game was made for nor its focus.

that is a big reason why no rules for being part of such massive armies were published and maintained because it just wouldnt work with the game, and was outside of its scope.

what might work in a D&D novel to tell a story, doesnt always translate over to emulate that novel in the game. they follow different set of rules though being based on a similar subject.

within a novel, you control all the actions, while the game has to give control over to a committee to make the story work and to finish it. so the formats of novel and game make them not as compatible a many would think. likewise the point of D&D was to be able to become a character in the fictional world, not to act out the entire story such a Grey Mouser.

just because you can design the game for playing with Immortals, and Godslaying, doesnt mean you should.

this is why so many players would retire a character when they reach a certain level, because after that you really leave the game you were playing and entire the realm of another game that doesnt exist. no matter you can create stats for that level, the fiction starts to break down being on the same world with characters of this power. if all games then begin to include more powerful things to keep the PCs in the world they started in, then the SoD is quickly worn away as you get into a rut. "why is it that every time the PCs get higher in level, some super powerful unknown force then wrecks havoc on the world, but nobody ever heard of it before?"

often when people play the game, or try to, and these Godlsyer levels, they forgot what the game is about and how they got there, and jsut looking at it as something to "play", rather than they were making a story. at those levels you lose the game, should probably put the books away and just tell the story with someone writing it down to have the epilogue of your shared novel, and try sticking it on Lulu to sell.

[areola]

Monte is back on D&D btw..

Shadzar, yeah I too feel that way. That Mearls dictates how I should play D&D. Heck 4e designers told me I can only throw sand in eyes when I am a level 7 rogue.

[Swordslinger]

5. no. the PCs are the protagonists of the adventure being had, but they are also insignificant in a large world. again the game needs to be believable. go too far into letting players actions control the world, and you again can remove SoD.

seriously Mearls is wanting a damn board game, not an RPG. why the fuck isnt he working to get HeroQuest out again and just make more expansions to it.

What dude? You are claiming Mearls wants a board game, but you're the one proposing that you don't want the DM to get into character with NPCs, don't want the DM to allow multiple solutions to problems and don't want the PCs having any impact on the world at all.

Sounds like you're the person running the boardgame, dude.

[shadzar]

-good DMing is not emulating Lon Chaney. doing voices and all that is BAD advise.

-good DMing is not to have no idea how a puzzle can be solved and just let the PCs make something up. it is having a reasonable idea and at least ONE WAY to solve it that will work 100% of the time, and let the PCs come up with other ways that MIGHT work.

-how really important do you think you are in this world today of 7 billion people? you are just a skid mark in the drawers of the annuls of time.

they really ARE insignificant to the world. making them the center of hte world, rather than jsut the center of their story, means you end up with crap form people like the world waits for you and 2 goblins and and orc are always waiting in room 11b when you reach it. they have always been sitting there waiting for the PCs to reach room 11b, and will continue to sit there and wait for them until they have left the adventure area...maybe even longer. 5 years down the road of the PCs career they return and 2 goblin and an orcs corpses are not sitting waiting in room 11b.

the world needs to function as if the PCs dont exist. only when the PCs interact with something do they change its course of events and then anything depending on that course to remain the same to continue the path. ripples in the pond as it were.

[Gx1080]

Relevant to this topic:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110920

Starting next week, I'm turning this column over to acclaimed game designer Monte Cook. Monte should be familiar to D&D fans for his work on the Planescape campaign setting, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Arcana Unearthed, the mammoth Ptolus city sourcebook, and, of course, Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition.

I've spent the past several months talking about D&D's past and how that relates to its future. It's now time to focus much more on the future of the game. Monte has an unmatched design pedigree in the RPG field, and for that reason we've brought him on board to work with R&D in making D&D the greatest RPG the world has seen.

Heh. I'm somewhat interested on how D&D 5th edition will turn out.

[Swordslinger]

they really ARE insignificant to the world. making them the center of hte world, rather than jsut the center of their story, means you end up with crap form people like the world waits for you and 2 goblins and and orc are always waiting in room 11b when you reach it. they have always been sitting there waiting for the PCs to reach room 11b, and will continue to sit there and wait for them until they have left the adventure area...maybe even longer. 5 years down the road of the PCs career they return and 2 goblin and an orcs corpses are not sitting waiting in room 11b.

The PCs are certainly not insignificant to those goblins and orcs.

The PCs are killing all their friends!