Quote from: deadDMwalking;693838In my specific case, an alignment shift is pretty much the worst thing you could do to me.  The thing is, I could play an evil character.  On rare occassions, I do (usually Lawful Evil).  There can be fun there.  But for me a big part of the appeal of RPGs is heroic fantasy.  In the news I'm bombarded with stories of families being killed by a parent in a muder-suicide; I hear about women kept prisoner for years in a sex dungeon; I hear about football players gang raping a teenager and the town becoming divided over whether the players should be held accountable.  

I have my fill of evil on a daily basis.  When I play D&D, I want to strike a blow against evil.  At least, usually.  

With all of your questions the focus should be on 'why do you play RPGs'.  If you play RPGs just to accumulate power for your character, the loss of items might be 'unacceptable'.  

I'm most interested in experiencing the world through the character's perceptions.  Anything that fundamentally changes the character requires my agreement if you expect me to continue playing the character.  Equipment is, by definition, not part of the character.  

But if you're going to require item saves, it's best if you're consistent.

As a person that usually plays paladins and very good aligned characters I can relate.

Too much 'bang you evil now' would bother me. As a one time well thought out event, I think I could handle it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693848The whole idea that your characters were something special and nothing bad could permenantly happen to them didn't occur to us. A dead character was like going bankrupt in Monopoly. The difference was that in D&D if your thimble went bankrupt, you could generate an iron, and keep playing in the same ongoing game.

Yeah, this is how I learned to play as well. Even in the 90s, where script immunity became more common, the notion that no permanent change could happen to your character without express permission by the player was pretty unheard of. In Ravenloft, a fear or horror check (not to mention powers check) could have long lasting consequences for your character's personality. Cthulu has already been mentioned and that sort of thing was built into the game. Mind affecting magic is common in a number of RPGs and can lead to radical shifts in personality. None of this bothers me as a player.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693820I only used the term because it came up on the other thread.

The main thrust there was more about players not being able to play the character they want/planned to play as opposed to levels of power.

No one actually ever said they wanted to be able to be able to change the world or have great power just that certain actions restricted their chance to play the guy they wanted to play.

My position was one of suprise really becasue the guy I want to play is the guy that I created and if shit happens to him through play that makes me want to play him more not less as he becomes more intertesting and richer as a character.

See, this is a great example of what I am talking about: some people see an unexpected alteration to their character as a great opportunity to explore how the character responds to that, some see it as the sort of grim consequence that is necessary to make the game world feel like a real place that bites back, some people see it as vandalism of their major creative contribution to the game and so on. People's attitudes to their PCs and what they are happy to see happen to them are intrinsically tied in with what varieties of interaction with the game they are invested in and which types of interaction they care less about, because in traditional RPGs the PC is the player's major tool for interacting with the game.

For my part, I've said before that I would rather my character just die than have them crippled to the point where they aren't able to make an effective contribution to the action on a long term basis (say, more than a session tops), because I don't find roleplaying my character's reaction to helplessness sufficiently interesting to make up for the irritation of being sidelined. Other people may find the pure exploration of character fun enough that they are happy to roll with such a situation. In a more storygamey sort of game I would probably be fine with it because in such systems I would probably still have viable avenues of interaction with the game though the narrative mechanics,  but in traditional RPGs trimming the character's wings can often have the effect of limiting the range of ways a player can interact with the game, so it is natural for players to be antsy about it if they think the interactivity they are interested in is under threat. If Player 1 is at your table because they really love the rich political scheming aspects of your game then turning their character into a pariah nobody wants to talk to shuts down what they were interested in the first place, which in turn risks making them less invested in the game (particularly if there's no evident way for their political skills to help them out of this mess - forcing a player to engage with an aspect of your game or a type of interactivity they have no interest in is no fun for them and usually turns into a chore for you as well).

Quote from: jibbajibba;6937164 - I think is silly and its a rule no one uses and doesn't suit the fiction

Sorry, but exactly WHAT fiction doesn't it suit? In Lord of the Rings, magical items up to and including Rings of Power break, melt or get otherwise destroyed left and right (and dragonfire is specifically mentioned as capable of destroying most rings). In Boorman's movie, Excalibur breaks (and is consequently mended).

And that's just magic items. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of non-magical equipment getting damaged or destroyed in fantasy fiction.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;693718I am fine with all those except vi, which seems like a real snap judgment over a minor difference of the character.

I'm with you there, but mostly because of how it was worded. If the Paladin killed an orc kid holding a sword, the alignment shift would be warranted.

Using "Deprotagonisation" as a term has always felt like entitlement to me. There's a style of play that prefers that the main characters be given plot immunity, that they never have a bad day, and that trait-enhancing ice cream and rainbows fly out of their butts when they spend a metagame fart token.

That last bit shows my bias, but really, it's a matter of different strokes. The important thing is not to conflate a style of play that allows power to be taken from the the players/characters with bad GMing. Not everything has to be on easy mode.*

*Ironically, I play most video games on easy mode, because in those I'm most concerned with getting the prescripted story without hassle. RPGs are different.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;693882Using "Deprotagonisation" as a term has always felt like entitlement to me. There's a style of play that prefers that the main characters be given plot immunity, that they never have a bad day, and that trait-enhancing ice cream and rainbows fly out of their butts when they spend a metagame fart token.

That last bit shows my bias, but really, it's a matter of different strokes.

Agreed that it is a matter of different strokes. I don't care much either way. The alternative to your rainbow farts are armchair heroes who think that a few torn-up character sheets proves something about their bravery or manhood.  

As for "entitlement" - it's a fucking game! I in fact am entitled to have fun in the games I choose to play, and don't think that I should have to slog through un-fun stuff to prove myself and earn the right to get to the fun part.

That said, I often do find that character tragedy and death can be fun for me as a player - I am a Call of Cthulhu fan, for example. I just don't like the idea that playing through magic elf hardship earns me anything or proves something.

Quote from: jhkim;693923The alternative to your rainbow farts are armchair heroes who think that a few torn-up character sheets proves something about their bravery or manhood.  

Bravery? Manhood?

Hardly. A large pile of deceased characters is nothing more than a monument to poor decisions.

Quote from: jhkim;693923Agreed that it is a matter of different strokes. I don't care much either way. The alternative to your rainbow farts are armchair heroes who think that a few torn-up character sheets proves something about their bravery or manhood.  

As for "entitlement" - it's a fucking game! I in fact am entitled to have fun in the games I choose to play, and don't think that I should have to slog through un-fun stuff to prove myself and earn the right to get to the fun part.

That said, I often do find that character tragedy and death can be fun for me as a player - I am a Call of Cthulhu fan, for example. I just don't like the idea that playing through magic elf hardship earns me anything or proves something.

Well, yeah.  If you don't like a start low/get strong type of game don't play it, and  you've always been pretty good about not crapping on other people's game choices.

But in deference to Monster Manuel, I've run into the occasional player who really does not want ANYTHING bad to happen to their character, and I hate that, too.

Meanwhile, somewhere a middle listens to emo music, paints its fingernails black, and writes bad poetry.

Quote from: jhkim;693923That said, I often do find that character tragedy and death can be fun for me as a player - I am a Call of Cthulhu fan, for example. I just don't like the idea that playing through magic elf hardship earns me anything or proves something.

Yeah, I guess the part I posted about Easy mode might have given the wrong impression about my opinion on the matter. It's not about being hardcore, per se, it's about being immersed in the setting. If you're playing gods, I'd expect that death would either be an inconvenience, or off the table. I just don't think that every game should strive to make things as easy on the players as possible. It seems like some people do (calling GMs who change PCs after play begins "bad".), and that's where any snark in my post might have come from- protectiveness over a style of play I enjoy-on both sides of the table.

Quote from: Bill;693767I thought items saved when the character failed his save, or have I been doing this wrong for 25 years?

Well, OD&D doesn't specify so you can't do it wrong.

I usually do it "If you make your save your stuff you're wearing is OK, if you miss your save but survive your stuff is OK, if you die your stuff has to save."

Frankly, I use it a lot MORE for treasure; "The monster is crisped by your fireball.  You find a huge pool of molten gold mixed with silver, some (roll roll) shattered gems ruined by the heat, and * roll roll* what looks like it might have been a suit of armor before it melted.  And some shards of what might have been glass bottles full of liquid.  * roll roll * And a sword."

Quote from: Old Geezer;693940Well, OD&D doesn't specify so you can't do it wrong.

I usually do it "If you make your save your stuff you're wearing is OK, if you miss your save but survive your stuff is OK, if you die your stuff has to save."

Frankly, I use it a lot MORE for treasure; "The monster is crisped by your fireball.  You find a huge pool of molten gold mixed with silver, some (roll roll) shattered gems ruined by the heat, and * roll roll* what looks like it might have been a suit of armor before it melted.  And some shards of what might have been glass bottles full of liquid.  * roll roll * And a sword."

*Thunks a huge pile of molten gold and silver on the sjopkeepers counter* "What? it's ELECTRUM"

Quote from: Kiero;693810It certainly can be played that way, but sounds really fucking boring to me. But then I find everything relating to gear and loot extremely tedious and adding nothing fun to the game.

We have already established that you and I find what is fun so different it's amazing we live on the same planet.

I don't see a Helm of Alignment Change as deprotagonizing. Every time I've encountered one in game, it didn't take long for the Players to figure out what it was, and then it didn't take much longer before it began to be used as an offensive weapon against almost every enemy leader type. If anything, it made the party a greater protagonist.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693848I don't think one automatically means the other. When I began playing D&D    the goal of play was to amass wealth and power and trying to survive. XP for GP was a big driving force in this type of play.

Magical items got lost, and destroyed and new ones were found. It was just part of the game. Even death was not 'unacceptable'. It happened, you rolled up a new character and kept playing.

The whole idea that your characters were something special and nothing bad could permenantly happen to them didn't occur to us. A dead character was like going bankrupt in Monopoly. The difference was that in D&D if your thimble went bankrupt, you could generate an iron, and keep playing in the same ongoing game.

Or to put it slightly differently, "D&D was an odd variant of a wargame, but a wargame nonetheless.  And one of the first things you learn in wargames is that you WILL lose units."

Quote from: Warthur;693814I have come to the conclusion that "deprotagonism" and "protagonism" aren't necessarily helpful terms, ...

I think you're overthinking it. If my character's actions are the result of my decisions, protagonism. If the result of someone else's decisions, deprotagonism.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693820My position was one of suprise really becasue the guy I want to play is the guy that I created and if shit happens to him through play that makes me want to play him more not less as he becomes more intertesting and richer as a character.

And what about when the "shit that happens to him through play" makes you want to no longer play the character? I signed on to play Angel, I'm not interested in playing Angelus.

QuoteMaking up an Evil knight is okay making up a paladin who through a terrible curse becomes an evil knight is probably more interesting.

For some people, sure. For others, it's a dealbreaker and you've effectively killed the character with no save.

Quote from: TristramEvans;693829Deprotagonizing - When a WHFRP Protagonist switches careers to Beggar.

*Slow clap.*

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693848The whole idea that your characters were something special and nothing bad could permenantly happen to them didn't occur to us. A dead character was like going bankrupt in Monopoly. The difference was that in D&D if your thimble went bankrupt, you could generate an iron, and keep playing in the same ongoing game.

And my shining hero Paladin has effectively been killed by a magic item. Why is responding by ripping up the character sheet (or handing it to the DM) and rolling up a new character not a valid response? My character is Galahad, not Loki. You just killed Galahad and replaced him with Loki, I want to play Galahad, not Loki. Why should I have to continue by playing Loki rather than by rolling/stating up a new character?