Side note: a failed resurrection attempt producing undead is official AD&D rules ... in Ravenloft.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;984362Side note: a failed resurrection attempt producing undead is official AD&D rules ... in Ravenloft.

Oooh... No that's something that's really interesting. I love it when shit goes wrong in RPing!

Quote from: darthfozzywig;984355Again, the same tired false argument. Guess what? No one has ever said character death is the only measure of failure. We use all the other (capture/ransom/consequences/poverty/et al) outcomes as well. We just keep death on the table as a final possible consequence.

There have been statements and insinuations in this thread that low death campaign are campaigns were there are no consequences for failure,

I'll be contrary and say that a magnificent TPK is a sure sign of an awesome game. Going out with a blaze of glory like Butch and Sundance or Thelma and Louise...priceless!

Quote from: Nexus;984412There have been statements and insinuations in this thread that low death campaign are campaigns were there are no consequences for failure,

I'd bet there is a high correlation between low death campaigns and functionally no consequences for failure, but correlation is not causation. I'd say GM-driven plot is more often causation.

Nevertheless, it's nonsensical to argue that allowing characters to die means no other consequences exist.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;984355That's just dumb. The world doesn't need to change to match some new character. The world is the world. Characters deal with it. TPK? The world moves on. Make up new characters. Maybe they are interested in pursuing what happened to those other fools (a common Call of Cthulhu trope), or maybe you don't railroad the players into doing the same thing.

Look, yes a world tends not to change in a broad way.  It's a matter of scope.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;984355Of course, if you're concerned with some plot narrative you've created, then I can see why it would be inconvenient. That's why RPGs aren't good vehicles for telling stories, they're good for generating them.

This is a false argument, though.  Look, let's pick on Fantastica Generica, and the party left the main city IMMEDIATELY, they didn't care to stay or even bother with NPCs.  That's OK, so they went 'Right' on the map.  So the GM details the all the stuff before hand, you know things like ruins, dungeons, villages and various types of monsters he wants to populate the setting.  None of that has anything maybe beyond a cursory background, just things to do.

And after a series of adventures it ends.  Badly.  Everybody dies.

But the players like the world and want to continue, so they make new characters.  Now, because going Right on the map went badly, they decide to go Left.  But the GM didn't bother with anything left of City Fantastica Capitalica because the players didn't  care to even go back.  So now the GM has to sit down and do all the work for a new area, and effectively ignore what's on the Right Side of The Map, because story and consequences and having 'reoccurring villains' smack too much of the dreaded STORYGAME!

That's a lot of work, especially when you effectively have to start from scratch because the types of encounters and adventures players had last week, or even a few hours ago might be too hard for these new guys.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;984355Again, the same tired false argument. Guess what? No one has ever said character death is the only measure of failure. We use all the other (capture/ransom/consequences/poverty/et al) outcomes as well. We just keep death on the table as a final possible consequence.

It's been implied a lot that if players 'can't die' (which no one has said, just that they dislike killing PC's and try to avoid it) then 'you're doing it wrong'.



For those of you who DO think that not being able to die is somehow an 'I WIN' button...

Example, I once had a 'superhero' more like a vigilante, possessed by a demon, who was effectively unkillable.  He had regeneration, the ability to phase and teleport via shadows, and to actually kill him, you had to magically separate him from his demonic companion.

So yeah, very hard to even hurt.  Did that mean he never failed?  I once took a look at the success rate via the GM's notes, and I think it worked to something like 29% victories.  And almost 75% death rate for innocents.  Survival is not always a win, depending on the game system.  Just because he can't be killed doesn't mean he can't be distracted, fooled, slowed down or otherwise messed up.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;984440But the players like the world and want to continue, so they make new characters.  Now, because going Right on the map went badly, they decide to go Left.  But the GM didn't bother with anything left of City Fantastica Capitalica because the players didn't  care to even go back.  So now the GM has to sit down and do all the work for a new area, and effectively ignore what's on the Right Side of The Map, because story and consequences and having 'reoccurring villains' smack too much of the dreaded STORYGAME!

GM should have started new group in the middle of the sandbox, not on one edge.

Also, IME sandboxes work best when they're already designed for a variety of groups of different power levels. My Ghinarian Hills sandbox has PCs up to 19th level, but we started a new group at 1st level there recently and they are adventuring in level-appropriate areas.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;984418I'd bet there is a high correlation between low death campaigns and functionally no consequences for failure, but correlation is not causation. I'd say GM-driven plot is more often causation.

Nevertheless, it's nonsensical to argue that allowing characters to die means no other consequences exist.

It is just a silly to accuse and insinuate that because we don't like killing off player characters frequently or for what we feel are pointless reasons that there are no consequences for failure and the PCs are coddled or that we're running railroads, particularly when its been said otherwise in this thread. You can bet anything you like, but if you're going make sweeping assumptions based on biases, bristling they're made about you is hypocritical.

Everyone isn't running sandbox dungeon fantasy games for roaming bands of  adventurers, all settings and genres don't run the same way. And death not being a major options isn't an I win button or 'coddling' the players and somehow meaning the game is driven by the GM's plot. Those are just some BS assumptions about a different play style.

Quote from: S'mon;984469GM should have started new group in the middle of the sandbox, not on one edge.

Also, IME sandboxes work best when they're already designed for a variety of groups of different power levels. My Ghinarian Hills sandbox has PCs up to 19th level, but we started a new group at 1st level there recently and they are adventuring in level-appropriate areas.

So your saying that published sandbox 'adventures' are better than making shit up because they will have done all the work for you?  If you are, I see your point.  I don't particularly like it, as I personally like world building but you have a legitimately have a point.

Here's the thing, for ME, because I'm crippled and unemployable, I have a LOT of time to work on settings and ideas and if I wasn't as lazy as I am, I could easily flesh out an entire sandbox.  Except for one small issue.  I'd end up tossing out about 80% of my work because my players, and because one of the funnest things I find is watching my friends deal with situations in RPGs, would go in a way that would not utilize most of the information.  Hell, I had that situation happen, back in my youth.

Now, assume that the average person has other obligations, like family and work, and you expect them to sit down and spend potential hours to rifle through books for information on a particular setting, or just creating potential maps and adding monsters that may never see the light of day?  Really?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;984440This is a false argument, though.  Look, let's pick on Fantastica Generica, and the party left the main city IMMEDIATELY, they didn't care to stay or even bother with NPCs.  That's OK, so they went 'Right' on the map.  So the GM details the all the stuff before hand, you know things like ruins, dungeons, villages and various types of monsters he wants to populate the setting.  None of that has anything maybe beyond a cursory background, just things to do.

And after a series of adventures it ends.  Badly.  Everybody dies.

But the players like the world and want to continue, so they make new characters.  Now, because going Right on the map went badly, they decide to go Left.  But the GM didn't bother with anything left of City Fantastica Capitalica because the players didn't  care to even go back.  So now the GM has to sit down and do all the work for a new area, and effectively ignore what's on the Right Side of The Map, because story and consequences and having 'reoccurring villains' smack too much of the dreaded STORYGAME!

Mistakes the Fantastica Generica Campaign ref made (great name for a campaign btw)

I. He from what you say only created details on one side of the city, instead of putting the city at the middle of a 100 mile radius area. There should be at least something up front in every direction they could go for at least some distance. Now if they take off on 500 mile trip to get completely outside the area that they have even vague knowledge then you wing it and between adventures you use what time you have to build. (Players don't often do this of course) Again you should prepare cursory background in more than just one direction from where you start the players.

II. Of course the players don't take their shiny new first level characters to somewhere that they now know is too difficult, they go someplace else and they can go back to the first place when they think they can handle it(whatever handle it means for that place). That is smart play, feature not a bug.

III. The conclusion in the last sentence is illogical, why would you want your players to commit suicide over and over, do you really have fun when your players are too stupid to make better choices?

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, death being on the realistic list of possible consequences means that it happens relatively infrequently.  I've run both ways, with plot immunity and without it.  With it, players do stupid stuff (or properly cinematically daring, depending upon your perspective) constantly.  Sometimes, this tendency pushes things a little too far into implausible territory for me to enjoy the game.  I like me some over the top, but not as a constant diet.  Without plot immunity, players spend a lot of time investigating, scouting, thinking, and so forth.  For me (and our group), that kind of activity being required is part of the fun.  And no, it's not the same thing if you investigate, scout, and so forth with plot immunity.  That's just going through the motions.

Quote from: Dumarest;984413I'll be contrary and say that a magnificent TPK is a sure sign of an awesome game. Going out with a blaze of glory like Butch and Sundance or Thelma and Louise...priceless!

Strangely my players in D&D4e would have agreed with you. I ran, and we all played, that version of the game more as a competitive miniature wargame with some roleplaying to connect the battles. With this, a TPK was almost certain to occur eventually, so you might as well have fun with it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;984306Also, character death is not nor should be the only measure of failure.  It's lazy to think that way.

Left here for reference.

Quote from: Nexus;984412There have been statements and insinuations in this thread that low death campaign are campaigns were there are no consequences for failure,

Yes. And people have responded to it multiple times. Myself two or three times. These other respondents managed to do so without (possibly accidentally) implying* that the opposing side were lazy thinkers. There are a myriad ways of coming into a conversation, posit that one does not agree with a widespread position, and present counterarguments. Some are better than others.
*yes, implying, as in I'm aware that that was not actually said.

But you are not wrong. There is definitely a pissing match going on. Same as with the storygame thread. There's a bit of 'there's no right way to roleplay (but my way is awesome)' going on. But it's 1) kinda unavoidable, 2) not one-sided, and 3) if you give in kind, you're just like your opposition.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;984440That's a lot of work, especially when you effectively have to start from scratch because the types of encounters and adventures players had last week, or even a few hours ago might be too hard for these new guys.

Agreed. It is a lot of work. Putting in work for anything that you don't end up getting to use is always going to be a lot of (often frustrating)work, and having to do so multiple times will magnify that workload. The absolute minimum amount of work one can put in is a absolute railroad with player survival and success predetermined--because you literally only have to populate the scenes you know the players will be involved in. On the opposite end of the spectrum is either genuine random roll or made up on the spot world (which is limited by your ability to generate quality product in real time), or an infinitely detailed world premade. Everything any of us has ever played in is pretty much somewhere between these theoretical extremes.

As you correctly point out, that's not an unreasonable consideration. And to head off some theoretical jibes, it is not some namby-pampby whiny whiners kind of complaint or anything. A given DM, given a certain amount of time and competence, will turn out better quality material if they have less to produce. That's true at all levels of gamer manliness or whatever.

The question becomes, 'are the benefits to workload worth the consequences of what removing/reducing-in-frequency does to the way that the game plays out?' I think this is the real crux of what we're talking about, and it involves a lot of intangibles.

QuoteIt's been implied a lot that if players 'can't die' (which no one has said, just that they dislike killing PC's and try to avoid it) then 'you're doing it wrong'.

And, again, you've implied that people who use character death as a/the primary measure of failure are [strike]doing it wrong[/strike] lazy thinkers. That's just tit-for-tatting.

QuoteFor those of you who DO think that not being able to die is somehow an 'I WIN' button...

Example, I once had a 'superhero' more like a vigilante, possessed by a demon, who was effectively unkillable.  He had regeneration, the ability to phase and teleport via shadows, and to actually kill him, you had to magically separate him from his demonic companion.

So yeah, very hard to even hurt.  Did that mean he never failed?  I once took a look at the success rate via the GM's notes, and I think it worked to something like 29% victories.  And almost 75% death rate for innocents.  Survival is not always a win, depending on the game system.  Just because he can't be killed doesn't mean he can't be distracted, fooled, slowed down or otherwise messed up.

Superhero games are actually a really good example (similar to my Ghostbusters one). They are inspired by comic books, which absolutely often have nonlethal consequences (depending on era and genre). The evil not-joker knocks out not-Batman and not-Robin with sleeping gas, and they wake up tied up suspended over a tank full of sharks we no they aren't going to get eaten by. It's a classic. So it does depend on what game you are trying to play.

But it sounds like that was part of the shared table understanding of what the game was about. In the OP's scenario, it sounds like the players think they are playing in a game in which their characters can die (at least, he asked them if they were okay with characters dying, so they undoubtedly now think that's on the table). That bugs me a bit because it seems that... well, they could reasonably believe that they are improving their skill at surviving within the rules of the game (when in fact the DM just won't pull the trigger), so that seems like a bit of a disservice to them.


So I'll restate my initial comment with a qualifier. If people are having fun, and have an informed understanding of what type of game they are truly playing, then there is no problem.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;984539I don't know about anyone else, but for me, death being on the realistic list of possible consequences means that it happens relatively infrequently.  I've run both ways, with plot immunity and without it.  With it, players do stupid stuff (or properly cinematically daring, depending upon your perspective) constantly.  Sometimes, this tendency pushes things a little too far into implausible territory for me to enjoy the game.  I like me some over the top, but not as a constant diet.  Without plot immunity, players spend a lot of time investigating, scouting, thinking, and so forth.  For me (and our group), that kind of activity being required is part of the fun.  And no, it's not the same thing if you investigate, scout, and so forth with plot immunity.  That's just going through the motions.

This is an excellent explanation of why plot immunity is a bad idea.

This

QuoteThat's just going through the motions.

is exactly what what plot immunity means. I also

QuoteI like me some over the top, but not as a constant diet.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;984539I've run both ways, with plot immunity and without it.  With it, players do stupid stuff (or properly cinematically daring, depending upon your perspective) constantly.  Sometimes, this tendency pushes things a little too far into implausible territory for me to enjoy the game.

Plausibility seems to be a separate spectrum though. In movies, people can fall 15, 20, even 30 feat (and not onto conveniently placed soft objects) and get up and run/fight/etc. That's not realistic--any of those distances you are at least injured. But if a far enough fall can still kill you, you don't have plot immunity. It's just up-scaling what a life-threatening fall looks like. Extrapolate that out and you can have cinematic daring without plot immunity.

My (as a player) current Mad Max-inspired game is a great example. PCs jump from one moving car to another and fight with enemies on top of the moving vehicles all the time. But it's not really them doing stupid stuff--they are making tactically sounds, smart decisions inside a universe with physics that support such things.