Quote from: therealjcm;709098Seeing as even TBP generally greets forgist language with disdain

Has it been challenged at all lately?

Quote from: therealjcm;709098I think the forgies are too crazy to fool anyone for long.

That's why the forge is gone and shared narrative gamers are trying to put as much distance between themselves and edwards as possible. Nonetheless the momentum keeps them going.

Quote from: The Traveller;709102Has it been challenged at all lately?

Well I haven't gone there at all in the last few months, but it used to be challenged fairly quickly when I saw it brought up.

Who knows though, that site has become a creepy mockery of itself - so activist moderators banning people for finding "rpg theory" to be kind of silly wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Quote from: atpollard;708845It was literally months before I felt like playing again.

Pathetic wanker.

Quote from: Spinachcat;709094Pundy, if you want a RPGsite entry on Wikipedia, then write one up. You are smart enough to write a clear, accurate entry without any histrionics and smart enough to include a plethora of documentation.

We've already explained that such an entry would be deleted for (a) non-notability and (b) self authorship. Does not matter how much documentation you have.

Quote from: S'mon;709165We've already explained that such an entry would be deleted for (a) non-notability and (b) self authorship. Does not matter how much documentation you have.

Has that already happened, or is it an assumption?

And why is Wikipedia suddenly being regarded as a reliable source of info?

Quote from: atpollard;708845That is really a hard question to answer ... even just what would I want for my dead character.
I think that the answer is generally, no.

**********

I once had a Cavalier that was my pride and joy and had a retainer and glorious adventures and defeated the final foe in an epic man-to-man combat and as we were heading out, the temple started to collapse. He ran back to save the retainer who had been badly wounded in the fight and was crushed by a million tons of stone. It was literally months before I felt like playing again.

Was letting the circumstances stand worth a month of depression?
I don't know.
What I do know is that saying "that never happened" would have felt like cheating and ever after tainted the character.

On the flip side, letting the entire party miss the dungeon adventure because a bad die roll caused the thief to fail to detect the secret door that was the only way in or out of the dungeon ... I would change in a heartbeat.

One of the cinematic tools that I have used to good effect is the old 'obscure death' rule. If you don't recover the body at the moment of death, then you don't really know for sure that the character is dead. For the Cavalier, the Referee played it straight from the module and I made the stupid move (it was the right move in character, but still a stupid move). Were I to Referee the same adventure now with some other player, I would probably use GM fiat to declare that everyone saw the temple collapse on them, but the floor below them gave way and they fell into a natural cavern complex below the temple. Carried along by the icy torrent, they find themselves cold, wet and alone in an underground cavern. The NPC slowly dies in his arms, and the Cavalier must now struggle alone to survive and escape.

The player would probably never know that I had fudged the rolls, but I think that the adventure would have been made better for the fudge, not worse.


*********

Sorry, that's kind of a wishy-washy answer, but it is the best that I have.

It's perfectly legitimate, and you shouldn't feel the need to justify your playstyle as long as you're not taking potshots at others.

Quote from: TristramEvans;709176Has that already happened, or is it an assumption?

It's happened to plenty of other pages for stuff a lot more notable than therpgsite. It's what Wikipedia 'editors' do, with rules justifying it. It's particularly certain where a topic has SJW enemies. Eg when I wanted to find out about prominent men's rights advocate Karen Straughan recently I had to go to the tvtropes wiki, which had a comprehensive entry. Despite the popularity of her youtube channel, Internet radio stuff etc there is no wikipedia page. As an anti-feminist, she is officially 'Not Notable'.

Quote from: TristramEvans;709176Has that already happened, or is it an assumption?

And why is Wikipedia suddenly being regarded as a reliable source of info?

Yes, it happens sufficiently often on Wikipedia that it is gradually becoming its own trope. I do occasional edits and fixes over there and ever so often will bump into the self authoring being used for terms of deletion. There was even a news article up a few years ago where I believe a reporter had a wiki entry and discovered it deleted because he, a reporter wasn't notable enough.

The one I first ran into was when they flagged a popular Swedish comic artist as not notable. Because Sweden had no electronic evidince that this guy, who has been in comics in the US as well, existed.

And no. Wikipedia isn't remotely reliable. Movie companies will edit pages to skew things in their favour. Games Workshop has been dilligently sweeping under the rug any attempts to point out their ill deeds.

And now I have no idea how to punt the ball back into court...

er... um...

Dont fight kobolds armed with daggers when you are a 1st level MU!

There...

Quote from: TristramEvans;708589

Well that's the thing, isn't it? Both sides are imagining.

The Regular RPG gamers want to Imagine that they are adventurers in a real fantasy world.

The Storytelling Swine want to Imagine that they're profoundly mature intellectuals by pretending to be adventurers while staying fashionably detached from it all.

The only difference is that when Regular RPG gamers stop the roleplaying session, we KNOW we're not real fantasy adventurers; while Storytelling Swine actually never stop playing makebelieve that they're artistic/intellectual geniuses and wake up to the fact that they're just untalented pretentious losers who've wasted their lives.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;709210Well that's the thing, isn't it? Both sides are imagining.

and you're imagining you're the heroic defender of the hobby against the [strike]communists[/strike]storygamers and their plots to sap and impureify it's precious bodily fluids. glass houses=>stones ;3

What was this discussion about anyway :?
Edit
Well answering the OP, Mortality rates are really an issue of personal taste and desired experiences. There's totally a scale of PC awesomeness that goes from investigators(who are generated quickly and frequently die or get unreconizeably changed) to superheroes (who take a long time to create and tend not to die as often). Where on the scale a game sits is an issue of personal taste.

Quote from: atpollard;708845I once had a Cavalier that was my pride and joy and had a retainer and glorious adventures and defeated the final foe in an epic man-to-man combat and as we were heading out, the temple started to collapse. He ran back to save the retainer who had been badly wounded in the fight and was crushed by a million tons of stone. It was literally months before I felt like playing again.

Was letting the circumstances stand worth a month of depression?
I don't know.
What I do know is that saying "that never happened" would have felt like cheating and ever after tainted the character.

I would have been bummed by something like this as well, and saying "that never happened" would actually have HUGELY disappointed me if I were playing that game. What I would have done instantly after the character's death would have been to wonder how I could use this event to come up with a new character and make the best RP-wise out of it. Sometimes it means that creating a character related to the dead PC or linked with the death or circumstances surrounding it will be best. Other times it'll mean creating a fresh character that gets into this situation and finds out what happened. Whatever the case may be, I'll try to use the event to rebound and come up with something cool to play next.

Quote from: atpollard;708845On the flip side, letting the entire party miss the dungeon adventure because a bad die roll caused the thief to fail to detect the secret door that was the only way in or out of the dungeon ... I would change in a heartbeat.

That is the kind of thing which, to me, should be utterly avoided when coming up with the adventure scenario, place of exploration, etc, in the first place. Having a bottleneck the PCs HAVE to go through in order for them to survive and/or the adventure to continue: bad. Period.

I go on about it at length in my advice to build the megadungeon and the campaign around it, if you are interested.

Quote from: atpollard;708845One of the cinematic tools that I have used to good effect is the old 'obscure death' rule. If you don't recover the body at the moment of death, then you don't really know for sure that the character is dead. For the Cavalier, the Referee played it straight from the module and I made the stupid move (it was the right move in character, but still a stupid move). Were I to Referee the same adventure now with some other player, I would probably use GM fiat to declare that everyone saw the temple collapse on them, but the floor below them gave way and they fell into a natural cavern complex below the temple. Carried along by the icy torrent, they find themselves cold, wet and alone in an underground cavern. The NPC slowly dies in his arms, and the Cavalier must now struggle alone to survive and escape.

That's the kind of thing I hate to see happen in a game. I absolutely despise these sorts of things. If I play my Cavalier and for role playing reasons I make the dumb mistake to get back in because I want to save my henchman and that MEANS something to me, the danger and potential death situation, then if the walls collapse and the dice indicate a catastrophy, PLEASE, DM, KILL MY CHARACTER. That's why what I did was so stupid and meaningful to me as I played it in the first place.

If you save my character by changing the world, if you switch the tables on me and make this a situation where there was no actual danger to lose my character in the first place, you are ROBBING me of that decision I made, and ROBBING me of that moment I really wondered whether I'd do it or not to decise "yes, fuck it, I love this guy, I'm going to try, rush in, and save him if I can." That's MEANING. By switching the tables on me and making it so that my character survives, you're ensuring that this situation will NOT happen in my mind in the future, because I will know that if I fuck up badly or make a fateful decision that you happen, for whatever reason that has fuck all to do with my own reasons, to disagree with, you are going to save my character again. So it's POINTLESS for me to role play my character as though there was an actual risk of death in this game anymore.

Quote from: atpollard;708845The player would probably never know that I had fudged the rolls, but I think that the adventure would have been made better for the fudge, not worse.

First things first, I WOULD know. No matter how clever the GM thinks he is, I will know when that happens, trust me. I might miss the first time if the GM is like the Houdini and Master Illusionist of RPGs or something, but I won't miss the second and third, I can tell you that. And that WRECKS my pleasure playing the game, as far as I'm concerned. I really hate this type of things: if I want to read a book and empathize with the hero, I can do that by reading a novel, thank you very much. I play role playing games because my decisions, smart or dumb, have consequences, including paying the ultimate price that is the character's death. If you are robbing me from this, you are stealing a HUGE part of the enjoyment I derive from playing role playing games. I might stick around to play with my buddies, but subconsciously at least, I'll give up on the game.

To be clear here, atpollard: you are totally entitled to your own answers and if you have fun that way at your game table, then cool, again: rock on, that's fine. I am indicating what my own reactions are as far as the same situations are concerned, were I in your place, so that you can see how different my take is from yours.

We had a GM who would always ask us how many hit points we were on, if we had taken a pounding and had just been hit again. None of the players ever told him and after the third or fourth time, he knew well enough to leave the dice where they fell.

He was always a good GM, but once that one thing was ironed out, he was a great one.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;709137Pathetic wanker.

First response: I am a lot older now than I was then (and potentially less of a 'pathetic wanker'.)

Second response: "Those who chain their passions, do so because their passions are small enough to be chained."

Quote from: One Horse Town;709231We had a GM who would always ask us how many hit points we were on, if we had taken a pounding and had just been hit again. None of the players ever told him and after the third or fourth time, he knew well enough to leave the dice where they fell.

I ask my players how many hp their PCs have left so my monsters can target the weakest ones.

Quote from: Benoist;709227I would have been bummed by something like this as well, and saying "that never happened" would actually have HUGELY disappointed me if I were playing that game. What I would have done instantly after the character's death would have been to wonder how I could use this event to come up with a new character and make the best RP-wise out of it. Sometimes it means that creating a character related to the dead PC or linked with the death or circumstances surrounding it will be best. Other times it'll mean creating a fresh character that gets into this situation and finds out what happened. Whatever the case may be, I'll try to use the event to rebound and come up with something cool to play next.

99% of the time, me too ... it's that other 1% of the time that I would consider intervening. Since most of my fantasy RPG experience is 'back in the day playing AD&D 1ed', it tended to involve inexperienced or semi-experienced players and referees using old school modules. This included experiencing a lot of bad module design and fail one save ends the adventure moments. Back then, I was obsessive about doing things by the book. Now I can see that a bad roll or book had stolen more opportunities for having fun than I am now willing to part with.

I really can understand the desire to do everything 'however the dice fall' ... no matter what, but I can also see some merit in placing fun higher on the scale than simulation verisimilitude. So I have no stones to throw at either camp.

QuoteThat is the kind of thing which, to me, should be utterly avoided when coming up with the adventure scenario, place of exploration, etc, in the first place. Having a bottleneck the PCs HAVE to go through in order for them to survive and/or the adventure to continue: bad. Period.

100% agreement. Unfortunately, time limitations sometimes force us to suffer through a published adventure ... Which have been known to contain a few less than ideal design elements from time to time.

QuoteThat's the kind of thing I hate to see happen in a game.
[snip]
To be clear here, atpollard: you are totally entitled to your own answers and if you have fun that way at your game table, then cool, again: rock on, that's fine. I am indicating what my own reactions are as far as the same situations are concerned, were I in your place, so that you can see how different my take is from yours.

Yup. That's why ice cream comes in so many flavors. So each person can enjoy his favorite.