Goodman Games

Hamakto wrote: The reason I am mentioning this is that you see in classic literature that the Hero gets hit by a spell, but they resist it and slowly break the enchantment and surge back into action.

As you may have guessed I take a simpler view of things. To my way of thinking this is the definition of succeeding at the saving throw. Getting hit by a spell has an effect. Succeeding at the save means the hero is able to break out and surge back into action rather than taking the full spell effect. The rules that get applied when Ulgar the Magnanimous makes his save against the Spell of Ultimate Doom aren't what make the situation cinematic. It is the description that the players and DM come up with to describe what happened when Ulgar the Magnanimous shakes off the effects of the Spell of Ultimate Doom that makes it cinematic. One saving throw determines the outcome, then the people at the table describe the outcome.

My way of thinking says that the rules don't model Appendix N situations. The rules provide a framework so that the people at the gaming table can tell a group story that models Appendix N situations.

fireinthedust wrote:

Ravenheart87 wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:The only thing I would add to a Save or Die situation is that if your character does die, you get a Last Gasp maneuver... A chance to do something with the death that could aid your party. Giant tentacle dragging you down into a vast crevasse, never to be heard from again? There's a chance you could drag another of the tentacles with you, by using that chain over your shoulder, and lessen the threat to the survivors -- with a good roll.

When dying a "normal" death, maybe, but what about the enemies? Can they do that too? It would suck for the party. If not, well, then that means the PCs are special somehow, favored by the fate - something I usually don't like. Anyhow, I don't see this work with Save or Die effects. A tentacle dragging you down is not a save or die effect. The deadly venom of a spider, the gaze of the medusa, getting hit by a spell that disintegrates you or stops your heart - these are save or die effects, and they are usually so quick or brutal, that you won't even have time to say "Holy sh*t!", not to speak of attacking!

I disagree about the tentacle: ever see the film "Dagon"? Okay, it's enough damage to auto-kill, but that's basically what Disintegrate is (or can be). Imagine designing a magical trap where, when triggered, you save or get sucked into the portal by a giant tentacle? This isn't a monster so much as a trap or spell effect (though yeah, it is a monster).

Yeah, I saw that movie. If you are talking about the girl at the end, it was the damage that killed her, just like in case of the tentacle pulling you down to a crevasse. In case of a tentacle pulling you into the void or acid, it is really a "save or die" effect - at least, this is how things work at my table.

fireinthedust wrote:

Ravenheart87 wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:The only thing I would add to a Save or Die situation is that if your character does die, you get a Last Gasp maneuver... A chance to do something with the death that could aid your party. Giant tentacle dragging you down into a vast crevasse, never to be heard from again? There's a chance you could drag another of the tentacles with you, by using that chain over your shoulder, and lessen the threat to the survivors -- with a good roll.

When dying a "normal" death, maybe, but what about the enemies? Can they do that too? It would suck for the party. If not, well, then that means the PCs are special somehow, favored by the fate - something I usually don't like. Anyhow, I don't see this work with Save or Die effects. A tentacle dragging you down is not a save or die effect. The deadly venom of a spider, the gaze of the medusa, getting hit by a spell that disintegrates you or stops your heart - these are save or die effects, and they are usually so quick or brutal, that you won't even have time to say "Holy sh*t!", not to speak of attacking!

I disagree about the tentacle: ever see the film "Dagon"? Okay, it's enough damage to auto-kill, but that's basically what Disintegrate is (or can be). Imagine designing a magical trap where, when triggered, you save or get sucked into the portal by a giant tentacle? This isn't a monster so much as a trap or spell effect (though yeah, it is a monster).

Okay, so part of the save or die mechanic is there, but that Last Gasp rule could come into play for a number of situations: if you're dropped so low that you're going to die, you get one last action. This cannot include an action that would remove you from harm, such as triggering a spell or moving out of the way; it can include an attack, tossing an item or backpack to a companion, breaking a staff of power for a retributive strike, or other similar actions. However, the assumes the completion and acceptance of the effect that kills the PC (crushed by a block, eaten by a dragon, falling in that pit, getting stabbed in the face). Opportunity for a Last Gasp is dependent upon GM approval (ie: won't have time to throw your backpack to the side when the Death Knight swings at you with his Vorpal Sword and cuts your head off).

Meh, could just be a sidebar or houserule, but it's neat. I like it.


The reason I worry is that my players really like their characters. My wife will be upset if her character dies, but I've told them: don't do anything stupid and you'll be fine. (everyone, not just the wife; I try not to use stupid in reference to the wife, and prefer using approval statements of encouragement (social services habit in light of the frequency of clients whose family/partners tear them down with cutting remarks)). I don't know that I've needed to do this sort of thing, as my group is fairly wise re: their actions. Only one of them does truly stupid things, and his characters die fairly quickly as a result.

Speaking of which: advice about death traps? I'm never sure if I'm challenging my players. I worry my traps and predicaments are too easy or predictable. I've *nearly* killed some of them, and had challenging fights with lots on the table at risk. However, I tend to write in ways for them to escape, or things they know not to do. They see things like this coming (ie: the one with the ring of water breathing was the one who got into the locked-room-filling-up-with-water; and I'd put the ring in there hoping someone would find the room and get locked in there).

I figure that's good design, and not everyone would search out the aides I hide elsewhere in the dungeon. Like, I think of some weird places to hide stuff, and they find them, and then use them well.

Hrm... need to fashion another dungeon, see if this continues.

I have to quote Joseph from Designer's Blog #1 here:

goodmangames wrote:What It Is, And What It Isn’t
...
It plays like a 1970s OD&D session.
...
It is built on the assumption that some characters will die.

It is built on the assumption that the strongest characters will provide long-term campaigns.
...

Death is a part of the game. Your players need to know that before they make characters. Death is going to happen. It will be quick and without warning. Several of my playtest characters bear this fact out.

I don't like Last Gasp. It nerfs SoD situations.

I'm fine with Last Gasp being my own houserule. I'm also fine with death being a prominent factor in the game, and with it being final.

dkeester wrote:My way of thinking says that the rules don't model Appendix N situations. The rules provide a framework so that the people at the gaming table can tell a group story that models Appendix N situations.

I agree with this. For me, there's a spell attack, there's a save, and there's a result; that's mechanics. But the narrative only needs to deal with the outcome of the mechanics*. If the result of the mechanics is "you die", the narrative could still include your character seeing that deadly beam heading his way, and possibly reacting -- just not enough to survive (mechanics already said he doesn't).

Real death leaves lots of things undone, unsaid, unresolved... If I'm playing a game, I'd like a shot at something a little more hopeful.





______
* As a sidebar on that idea, I've always wanted to play a fighter who was the biggest klutz in the world, while mechanically being a very sound design. He's successful, but not because he knows what he's doing: he trips while turning to flee from an ogre and stabs an orc in the face. Pulling his spear out of the orc's skull, he whacks another one in the gut. Jumping back in fear, he impales the ogre, etc. etc. etc. The mechanics say he's competent. The narrative is open to other ideas...

GnomeBoy wrote: * As a sidebar on that idea, I've always wanted to play a fighter who was the biggest klutz in the world, while mechanically being a very sound design. He's successful, but not because he knows what he's doing: he trips while turning to flee from an ogre and stabs an orc in the face. Pulling his spear out of the orc's skull, he whacks another one in the gut. Jumping back in fear, he impales the ogre, etc. etc. etc. The mechanics say he's competent. The narrative is open to other ideas...

And the fighter's name should be Clouseau!

Klutz, but unstoppable!

GnomeBoy wrote:If the result of the mechanics is "you die", the narrative could still include your character seeing that deadly beam heading his way, and possibly reacting -- just not enough to survive (mechanics already said he doesn't).

This is one of the reasons why I'm frequently annoyed by the pass/fail mechanics of traditional D&D. While I wouldn't hoist my preferences on the masses, I much prefer "degrees of success" -- where missing a save by a couple of points allows a character to do something exactly as you describe.

As the mechanics stand, there's no difference between rolling a 14 and rolling a 2 if you needed to roll a 15.

But I find life (and the fiction upon which this whole thing is based) is rarely so binary.

smathis wrote:...I much prefer "degrees of success" -- where missing a save by a couple of points allows a character to do something exactly as you describe.

As the mechanics stand, there's no difference between rolling a 14 and rolling a 2 if you needed to roll a 15.

But I find life (and the fiction upon which this whole thing is based) is rarely so binary.

Agreed. Now who's ready to hash out the Near Miss rules...?

JediOre wrote:And the fighter's name should be Clouseau!

Klutz, but unstoppable!

*eye twitches*

Trust me, there's no shortage of character deaths! Most via "mundane combat" but there are some save vs. death type mechanics in the game (and the modules). Ask GnomeBoy about his PC that got hoisted up by a tentacle and dropped into a bottomless pit of putrid mist...not quite save vs. poison but sufficiently lethal. But back to the point, I agree, there has to be some element of constant and lethal danger to bring the game back to "classic focus," and truly deadly portals, poisons, and perils are appropriate in the right measure.

On a similar subject, I've discovered via many playtests that there are two kinds of RPG gamers out there:

* People who still play AD&D, 1E, or other old-school games, and/or have clear memories of those games, and accept PC death as a fact of gaming.
* People who primarily play modern RPG's (4E or 3E and its variants), and are astounded that their character actually died in the first session.

The second category of gamers are the crowd for whom DCC RPG is a mind-blower. There's definitely a modern school of character generation which takes character death off the table -- it's simply not an option for DMs and is inconceivable to players. About half of these folks are clearly turned off from the game after seeing their PC die, which I can understand -- it's new for them, and tough to accept.

The other half love it and are eager to roll up a new character.

goodmangames wrote:Trust me, there's no shortage of character deaths! Most via "mundane combat" but there are some save vs. death type mechanics in the game (and the modules). Ask GnomeBoy about his PC that got hoisted up by a tentacle and dropped into a bottomless pit of putrid mist...not quite save vs. poison but sufficiently lethal. But back to the point, I agree, there has to be some element of constant and lethal danger to bring the game back to "classic focus," and truly deadly portals, poisons, and perils are appropriate in the right measure.

On a similar subject, I've discovered via many playtests that there are two kinds of RPG gamers out there:

* People who still play AD&D, 1E, or other old-school games, and/or have clear memories of those games, and accept PC death as a fact of gaming.
* People who primarily play modern RPG's (4E or 3E and its variants), and are astounded that their character actually died in the first session.

The second category of gamers are the crowd for whom DCC RPG is a mind-blower. There's definitely a modern school of character generation which takes character death off the table -- it's simply not an option for DMs and is inconceivable to players. About half of these folks are clearly turned off from the game after seeing their PC die, which I can understand -- it's new for them, and tough to accept.

The other half love it and are eager to roll up a new character.

It should come as no shock that I fit into column A with clear memories of character death. It is my hope that this game can convince a few of the people in column B to accept and learn to enjoy character deaths.

dkeester wrote:It should come as no shock that I fit into column A with clear memories of character death. It is my hope that this game can convince a few of the people in column B to accept and learn to enjoy character deaths.

I'm a card-carrying member of the first group as well. However, I have a clear memory of some degree of nastiness in the '80s with antagonistic DMing. That's why I try to give fair warning when I can. Even if it's just a village rumor. I seed an adventure with information so that when that "save or die" happens the player has no one really to blame but themselves. On the occasions where a party ignores clues/hints/rumors or on the occasions where they throw themselves headfirst into something way above their pay grade, well, so be it.

I had that happen recently when a group decided they'd go into a swamp and slay a Great Beast that lived there. The halfling tribes warned them not to go deeper into the swamp and even pointed out that they packed up and lived on the other side of the swamp when the Beast moved to an area close to them. Did the party listen? Nope. They thought everything on their plate was "level appropriate". One PC died outright in the first round when the Beast bit him in half. After the second round, the party decided to flee. That first attack revealed the beast did 5d8+11 damage. It was a modified Tyrannosaurus Rex from the C&C Monsters & Treasures book.

The party perked up their ears after that to stories of thieves that had died of fright at the ruined temple's door. Or village women who had miscarried at the entrance of a "haunted cave". Although they still have an annoying tendency to delve into whatever hole-in-the-ground they find. and they still mostly believe in the fallacy that the reason things are so dangerous is because they aren't 15th level. But, oh well. One step at a time...

But that's why I'm a proponent of "fair warning". It trains players to use their brains, IME. Whereas random deathtraps just train them to be turtles. Again, in my experience.

I'm also on the side of getting the most bang for your buck out of character death. Sometimes, death is just this thing. A big rock falls on the thief's head. He drops. And won't get back up. But other times I feel character death should be dramatically meaningful. That's a reason why I pitch things like that Wounding system and the idea of a "Near Miss" (and a "Just Barely Made It") on saves. Both of those are tools, IMO, to allow a player to decide whether they want this particular character's troubles to have a greater meaning.

Or if they'd rather that character go on to his Great Reward. I've also used a variant of a rule in Dread:FBoP regarding character death. In that rule... If a character "dies" in a scene, then their hit points are restored to full and they recover all spells and abilities for use during that scene with the understanding that the character dies when that scene/combat ends. It's sort of an heroic surge sort of mechanic. It's a bennie I'll give to characters that were colorful and meaningful. And it gives the player the chance to have one last hurrah with a character they loved, as well as act out the death scene in some instances.

For me, it's all about fun and what makes the players perk up and have a great time. Sometimes random death is just funny. And I've had quite a lot of it. But other times, it happens unexpectedly to characters that the group has grown fond of. And in those times I like the players to have tools at their disposal to pull things out against all odds (as with Wounds or the Near Miss thing) or to make a character's passing something that is worthy (like with the Last Hurrah thing).

So I guess I'm group one. But I'm a mutant.

goodmangames wrote:Trust me, there's no shortage of character deaths! Most via "mundane combat" but there are some save vs. death type mechanics in the game (and the modules). Ask GnomeBoy about his PC that got hoisted up by a tentacle and dropped into a bottomless pit of putrid mist...not quite save vs. poison but sufficiently lethal. But back to the point, I agree, there has to be some element of constant and lethal danger to bring the game back to "classic focus," and truly deadly portals, poisons, and perils are appropriate in the right measure.

On a similar subject, I've discovered via many playtests that there are two kinds of RPG gamers out there:

* People who still play AD&D, 1E, or other old-school games, and/or have clear memories of those games, and accept PC death as a fact of gaming.
* People who primarily play modern RPG's (4E or 3E and its variants), and are astounded that their character actually died in the first session.

The second category of gamers are the crowd for whom DCC RPG is a mind-blower. There's definitely a modern school of character generation which takes character death off the table -- it's simply not an option for DMs and is inconceivable to players. About half of these folks are clearly turned off from the game after seeing their PC die, which I can understand -- it's new for them, and tough to accept.

The other half love it and are eager to roll up a new character.

I actually think that there is really a 3rd group out there. That they love brutal and dangerous adventures. Because they are dangerous, they do understand death is something that can happen during the adventure. But death is not a forgone conclusion.

In our last campaign that ran six years (it was 3e, so resurrection is possible), we had one character die four times. He spent a long time at one character level!

When I rotated out as DM, my toon died three times in a 12 month period. Some funny stories there. So death is not a foreign concept to our group. But as you gain in character levels, the 'joy' of re-rolling a new character becomes less as you become more attached to your existing character. You will find that true of many gamers out there.

Many people enjoy playing RPG's to escape from the real world and they do become invested in their characters. We have had people write novels about their character histories and motivation. Work with the DM to integrate that into the group and move forward into the campaign world. Willy-nilly death is disruptive to the crafting of of an epic campaign. (i.e. how would of the LoTR turned out if Frodo died in the first book?)

Once a character achieves hero status... level 5+ the odds of random death start dropping (unless player stupidity takes over). Otherwise long term campaigns can start to be disrupted if the main characters of the story start getting replaced every adventure.

Hamakto wrote:But as you gain in character levels, the 'joy' of re-rolling a new character becomes less as you become more attached to your existing character. You will find that true of many gamers out there.

I agree about the "third type". We're probably both in that category to some extent. And I think any game that ignores the text quoted above does so at its own peril.

It's one thing for games to be all willy-nilly, death-around-every-corner at 1st level. But once a player has gotten a character out of the depths, so to speak, there is an emotional investment. It's hard to deny that, ESPECIALLY in games that are so lethal.

That's why I offered solutions like Wounds and other suggestions in this thread and elsewhere that can be guided by the player's emotional investment in a character. Some players have no problem with a 5th level character dying off. For others, it's a big issue. Some players would rather take a Critical Wound than see their character die ignominiously. Others would rather die and roll up another character than face such a huge long-term penalty.

But I'm not sure if "new rules" are the best approach. Or if a section of DM advice would work better. My suggestions are obviously tailored to my preferences and my experience with various games over the decades. I don't pretend that they're universally applicable. So maybe just telling a prospective DM a few things would work better for the masses.

smathis wrote:Or if they'd rather that character go on to his Great Reward. I've also used a variant of a rule in Dread:FBoP regarding character death. In that rule... If a character "dies" in a scene, then their hit points are restored to full and they recover all spells and abilities for use during that scene with the understanding that the character dies when that scene/combat ends. It's sort of an heroic surge sort of mechanic. It's a bennie I'll give to characters that were colorful and meaningful. And it gives the player the chance to have one last hurrah with a character they loved, as well as act out the death scene in some instances.

I am so using this in my campaign that starts in April! Also, your 'fair warning' musings are pretty much what I'm planning for this campaign, as well; rumors abound, some may be inaccurate, some may be flat-out wrong, but disregard them at your own risk...

This talk of 'which group do you fall into?' hits upon a D&D/DCCRPG dilemma I have with my group. When I joined them in 1992, the norm for them included such things as buying magic items and readily found/acquired resurrections. It took me a year or two to reconcile myself to that, and it still chafes somewhat. It's a great group of guys, the games are very often very fun -- but the games don't fit the mold that I cut my D&D teeth on, and which persists in my head, i.e. death is standing over you all the time, magic is rare and priceless, characters are not 'adventurers' they are greedy or curious or need something, etc.

Switching them wholly or majorly to DCCRPG is probably impossible -- I think an occasional 'change of pace' one- or two-shot is the best I can expect. But maybe when I hit them with a character death that they might not expect (not that I'll be gunning for them, per se) (or will I?) and then throw this rule smathis mentions (from whatever 'Dread: FBoP' is), they may get some good times from that, and I can sway them over time...

Hamakto wrote: In our last campaign that ran six years (it was 3e, so resurrection is possible), we had one character die four times. He spent a long time at one character level!

When I rotated out as DM, my toon died three times in a 12 month period. Some funny stories there. So death is not a foreign concept to our group. But as you gain in character levels, the 'joy' of re-rolling a new character becomes less as you become more attached to your existing character. You will find that true of many gamers out there.

I can't help but think that it is not really death unless it is permanent. The ease of healing and resurrection in 3.x and 4.x make death a non-issue. I think it also makes the successes less valuable. The "the whole party almost died" scenario means much, much more when healing potions are scarce and resurrection spells are almost non-existent.

This is just my opinion, but I think this is not a third option. I think this is what Joseph meant when he mentioned "modern RPGs" in his post.

Everyone who has experience with OSR games has characters who died in bad ways. Characters which they were attached to. Sometimes losing a character really sucks, but it is a fundamental part of the game in those older systems. It made achieving 15th level a monumental achievement.

To be honest, I would say 3.x and beyond nerf death. Yeah, I have had characters die in 3.x. Basically that means I am out some gold and maybe will take a hit to my stats. Boo hoo.

If you make it to 9th level in an OSR game it means you have to play smart because death and a new character are right around the corner if you don't play smart.

GnomeBoy wrote:Switching them wholly or majorly to DCCRPG is probably impossible -- I think an occasional 'change of pace' one- or two-shot is the best I can expect. But maybe when I hit them with a character death that they might not expect (not that I'll be gunning for them, per se) (or will I?) and then throw this rule smathis mentions (from whatever 'Dread: FBoP' is), they may get some good times from that, and I can sway them over time...

I'm in the same boat. My most regular gaming group are all into 4e. That's what they love to play. They like the kewl powerz and such. I find it banal. But different strokes... The best I can hope for is also short mini-campaigns.

It seems there's a dichotomy between gamers such as myself that look at the JOURNEY as the fun part -- going from Level 0 to Level 10 and everything that happens between. And those that look at the powers and abilities and items as the fun part. I'm more likely to talk about what a character has DONE. Whereas the other guys are more interested in what their character CAN DO.

I think part of that may be generational. I came to RPGs directly from the fiction. Most of it in Appendix N. I wanted to live and breathe in those stories. My first campaign world was Hyboria. And most of our adventures were re-skinned Conan stories.

A lot of the other guys in my current group came to RPGs directly from computer games -- and much of their leisure time is absorbed in those. If they read fiction, it's most likely a D&D series. It's all self-referential. Few of them know who Robert E. Howard is. Most have seen the LotR movies but never read Tolkein. And they have the most fun when they're playing in something derived from Legend of Zelda, not Roger Zelazny.

I see where their fun comes from. But I fail to find it fun after the first 3-4 times I use a spell/power/magic-item and the same thing happens as it always does. And, ironically, the most memorable stories come out of stuff our characters do -- often instigated by one of my poor sods. Everyone remembers the time my Avenger walked into a temple and handed the high priest a dagger and warned the high priest he would return one day and plunge that dagger into his heart. He never got a chance to, but that's the other part of his story.

No one remembers that time the Assassin did 45 hit points of damage on a non-crit. Or the time the Cleric took out three monsters in one round with only melee basic attacks.

Different approaches. Different paths to fun. I'm not sure DCC could or should appeal to both. I think 4e does a good job of offering kewl powerz and Christmas Trees. I don't think DCC is going to appeal to the gamers who think 4e is the best thing since 3D graphics cards. I'd rather it be its own thing than try to appeal to everybody and please nobody in the process.

And "Dread:FBoP" is a rpg. It's full title is Dread: First Book of Pandemonium. I recommend it but have had a hard time getting a group to play. Mostly because it's fairly limited in its appeal. But the mechanics are SOLID. And it does a great job of emulating what it wants to emulate in a way that's tailored for table-top fun.

I'm hoping my group will be open to playing the heck out of DCC when it comes out. The Wounding rules are already fun for them, so if I carry those over who knows? But 4e is new and shiny. Even though I frequently get compliments over how awesome these games are and how fun it is to "roleplay" -- including one jubilant proclamation that "This is the Best Game Ever!", they still go back to 4e. Time and again. That was my highest compliment ever, by the way.

dkeester wrote:I can't help but think that it is not really death unless it is permanent. The ease of healing and resurrection in 3.x and 4.x make death a non-issue. I think it also makes the successes less valuable. The "the whole party almost died" scenario means much, much more when healing potions are scarce and resurrection spells are almost non-existent.

I frequently prohibit the use of Raise Dead in my games. Resurrection from death is an epic adventure in itself that might happen once in a few campaigns.

On the flipside, I try to make death meaningful when the situation warrants it. I'm more likely to kill off retainers randomly than characters. But characters do die. Some nobly, some not.

I treat characters as the protagonists of the adventure in a story that's being written in real-time. I agree that death should be permanent (in most cases) but I try not to make it trivial. I've never run or played in a game where people were dying and being raised a dozen times. It's hard to say if DCC is the kind of game that would draw those sorts of groups in.

dkeester wrote:I can't help but think that it is not really death unless it is permanent. The ease of healing and resurrection in 3.x and 4.x make death a non-issue. I think it also makes the successes less valuable. The "the whole party almost died" scenario means much, much more when healing potions are scarce and resurrection spells are almost non-existent.

This is just my opinion, but I think this is not a third option. I think this is what Joseph meant when he mentioned "modern RPGs" in his post.

Everyone who has experience with OSR games has characters who died in bad ways. Characters which they were attached to. Sometimes losing a character really sucks, but it is a fundamental part of the game in those older systems. It made achieving 15th level a monumental achievement.

To be honest, I would say 3.x and beyond nerf death. Yeah, I have had characters die in 3.x. Basically that means I am out some gold and maybe will take a hit to my stats. Boo hoo.

If you make it to 9th level in an OSR game it means you have to play smart because death and a new character are right around the corner if you don't play smart.

I do not disagree with what you said. When death becomes just an inconvenience and XP loss, then the fear of death is not there. But that was a byproduct of playing in a 3e campaign. Easy to die... easy to come back. SoD were not a big deal, because resurrection was not difficult to do. It was annoying to lose a level, but that was not even critical because of the ability to level up easier.

The point that I was was trying to achieve earlier was to provide a slight alternative to SoD. Bridge the gap between OD&D and 3e (hate 4e's saves). Yes, they exist. Yes you have to fear them (i.e. do not just charge in at the Banshee w/out preparing). But a single random bad roll will not kill your character. Plus, as you gain in levels and experience the likely hood of failing two rolls in a row start to dramatically decrease. This in itself leans to a mechanic where SoD can exist in the campaign at high levels and players can feel the fear, but still not die all of the time.

Let me put it in a RL/marketing manner. Classic SoD always worked in OD&D, 1e, and 2e games because of the demographic age of that group of players. Most of those players were younger (under 20)... --- note I said MOST. They had time to kill and to be killed.

Now your target game market consists of people OVER 20 years old. We do not have time to burn, but instead we get together periodically to play. If the game is too brutal at higher levels, you will lose out on your continuing campaigns as people will give up or no longer feel the need to show up because their favorite character bit it AGAIN.

Part of game design is building a game that captures the feel you are trying to get and convey that to the people participating in the game. SoD's do need some change or DCC RPG will not survive in the market today.

Hamakto wrote: Part of game design is building a game that captures the feel you are trying to get and convey that to the people participating in the game. SoD's do need some change or DCC RPG will not survive in the market today.

You and I seem to see things very differently. I hope my posts don't come off as me attacking you, because that is very much not my intent.

That being said, I am going to disagree with you yet again. Shocking, I know.

I will use as my counter example the Call of Cthulhu RPG. It is a VERY deadly game to the PCs involved, yet it still sells well. It is currently in its 6th edition and has been constantly in print since 1981. The rules state in more than one place that guns won't solve anything and that resorting to combat will end up with a bunch of dead PCs. It is about setting expectations. Thus, if DCC RPG sets expectations correctly, it will attract the right audience and do well. It will never replace 3e/4e, nor should it. It is also aimed at a different audience, one which is only partially served by 3e/4e if it is being served at all by those games.

Hamakto wrote:The point that I was was trying to achieve earlier was to provide a slight alternative to SoD. Bridge the gap between OD&D and 3e (hate 4e's saves). Yes, they exist. Yes you have to fear them (i.e. do not just charge in at the Banshee w/out preparing). But a single random bad roll will not kill your character. Plus, as you gain in levels and experience the likely hood of failing two rolls in a row start to dramatically decrease. This in itself leans to a mechanic where SoD can exist in the campaign at high levels and players can feel the fear, but still not die all of the time.

Or, as a sidenote, use some form of "Skillburn" as others have called it. So that way, that 9th level character can somehow take ability damage to boost that low roll.

Or, and you've heard this one before, take a "Wound" as Skillburn -- a Critical would give a character a +16 on that saving throw. But, honestly, we're probably talking about a Severe or Light Wound (a +8 and +4 bonus, respectively).

It would "end" the character's delve -- for sure -- but the character would live to fight another day. In fact, Save-or-Die might be one of the only applications of "Wounds" for higher level character. Feature, not bug.

Giving options like this allows the choice to be left to the player. Maybe the player feels it's an appropriate end for the character. Maybe not. It's the player's decision.

Overall, though, I don't care for systems that act in place of a player. Give the players the option to make that save (at a cost). That way those players who have a character that's really important to them can have the experience of pulling that character through against the odds -- a great play experience, btw. Or a player can chuck that character sheet because he was tired of playing a dwarf and really wanted to try out a Magic-User.

I've seen both attitudes at the table. Hell, I've HAD both attitudes at the table. So I'd rather not have an approach that assumes I feel one way or the other all the time.

dkeester wrote: You and I seem to see things very differently. I hope my posts don't come off as me attacking you, because that is very much not my intent.

That being said, I am going to disagree with you yet again. Shocking, I know.

I never get offended. And if we all agreed, then I know something would be wrong. I think a good healthy debate is necessary to make sure we have all the basis's covered.

That being said... 'on-guard messieurs pussycat'

I will use as my counter example the Call of Cthulhu RPG. It is a VERY deadly game to the PCs involved, yet it still sells well. It is currently in its 6th edition and has been constantly in print since 1981. The rules state in more than one place that guns won't solve anything and that resorting to combat will end up with a bunch of dead PCs. It is about setting expectations. Thus, if DCC RPG sets expectations correctly, it will attract the right audience and do well. It will never replace 3e/4e, nor should it. It is also aimed at a different audience, one which is only partially served by 3e/4e if it is being served at all by those games.

Right. But DCC is being billed as a dungeon crawl style (combat) game system. You will solve a large your problems via combat... or via running away like a yellow-bellied-liver-eating (alive) gnat.

SoD are part of it... Spells, traps, etc... can have them happen. You do not even really have to be stupid or do something wrong to be hit by one. They need to be in the game to achieve the feel that is being attempted. I am just looking for a way to not make them quite as arbitrary and absolute. At low levels with poor saving throws, it will be arbitrary. But as characters gain levels, it will become much more likely that their greater experience will achieve a lesser effect.

Low level characters dying are not that big of a deal. High level characters dying are a far bigger deal to most players. Look at raw numbers...

Use 1e style ST's...

1st level fighter has a 14 save vs. poison (ok... I don't have the numbers here so bear with me).

by 20th level he has a 3 or a 4.

If by 9th level he has an 8. that means he has a 35% chance of failing death for a Poison SoD. If we go with a 2x Saving throw model... that becomes 12.25% chance of actual death. Or a 35% chance of some middle result.

A 1st level character would have a 65% chance of one failure or a 42.25% chance of full death.

smathis wrote:No one remembers that time the Assassin did 45 hit points of damage on a non-crit. Or the time the Cleric took out three monsters in one round with only melee basic attacks.

Great phrasing. I agree completely. The memorable moments are always the unpredictable, role-played events - the ones that swayed the flow of the session. Not yet another roll of dice with a +16 modifier.

smathis wrote:Different approaches. Different paths to fun. I'm not sure DCC could or should appeal to both. I think 4e does a good job of offering kewl powerz and Christmas Trees. I don't think DCC is going to appeal to the gamers who think 4e is the best thing since 3D graphics cards. I'd rather it be its own thing than try to appeal to everybody and please nobody in the process.

Glad to hear that. This is my goal: DCC RPG will be "its own voice." It definitely won't appeal to everyone. But I'm pretty sure it will appeal to some people quite a bit.

I hope the use of Christmas Trees isn't derogatory. Why, the noble Christmas Tree is a sign of joy and peace, goodwill towards men, okay will towards women, and the one time of year even bachelors have what equates to air freshener actively brought into their homes. Puppies! Misfit Toys finding a home!!! ...sob.


Ahem.


SoD is one way, though I recommend there also be traps that just plain to a lot of damage. Disintegrate is a spell that does piles of damage on a failed save. For most it will be SoD, but it's not automatic.

Maybe we could introduce another mechanic: Save and Survive? If you're about to die (ie: brought below -10) you can save and just be Unconscious and Bleeding (ie: the Dying condition). You have X# rounds until you simply bleed out. Maybe 3? 1/Con bonus minimum 1?

I like the idea of character death. I hate it when *my* character dies; yet I DM all the time, go figure. I've had a handful die, usually due to my own stupidity, and I twist and squirm as hard as I can to avoid it. Still, that's how I learn.

However, I do have favourite characters. I wouldn't want them to die, but by the same token I don't play them in a way that they *would* die. Usually I can avoid death by just not doing anything stupid. For them I'd say that I just wouldn't want to die in a stupid, arbitrary way (ie: walking through a doorway that teleports whoever goes through 3rd to the air over a pit of lava, no save death).

I'd rather die due to good DMing/adventure design than die due to bad DMing/adventure design.

fireinthedust wrote:I hope the use of Christmas Trees isn't derogatory. Why, the noble Christmas Tree is a sign of joy and peace, goodwill towards men, okay will towards women, and the one time of year even bachelors have what equates to air freshener actively brought into their homes. Puppies! Misfit Toys finding a home!!! ...sob.

LOL - Nothing derogatory at all. I love Christmas trees... until players light up like them.

SoD is one way, though I recommend there also be traps that just plain to a lot of damage. Disintegrate is a spell that does piles of damage on a failed save. For most it will be SoD, but it's not automatic.

DCC is not going the direction of 3e or 4e with this. The spells are Die if you fail.

Maybe we could introduce another mechanic: Save and Survive? If you're about to die (ie: brought below -10) you can save and just be Unconscious and Bleeding (ie: the Dying condition). You have X# rounds until you simply bleed out. Maybe 3? 1/Con bonus minimum 1?

Interesting concept. But I would rather have 2 ST for SoD effect to have a lesser effect than a fail and out.

However, I do have favourite characters. I wouldn't want them to die, but by the same token I don't play them in a way that they *would* die. Usually I can avoid death by just not doing anything stupid. For them I'd say that I just wouldn't want to die in a stupid, arbitrary way (ie: walking through a doorway that teleports whoever goes through 3rd to the air over a pit of lava, no save death).

I might of misunderstood what you are saying here, but you play very similar to the way I play. Careful calculation to avoid death. But from what I have read on the forums and examples of what people are posting, they want to move DCC more towards action and taking chances... not calculated dungeon crawl. This would be accomplished by MDoA, ability checks and other rules to promote fast and 'literary' game play.

EDIT: Removed extra text mistakenly quoted.

Hamakto wrote:Interesting concept. But I would rather have 2 ST for SoD effect to have a lesser effect than a fail and out.

I don't think I mentioned it earlier and I apologize for my negligence on the matter. But I really like the 2 Saves idea on a Save or Die. Maybe include a lasting penalty for failing the first save?

fireinthedust wrote:
SoD is one way, though I recommend there also be traps that just plain to a lot of damage. Disintegrate is a spell that does piles of damage on a failed save. For most it will be SoD, but it's not automatic.

The first thing I did in my Pathfinder game was revert disintegrate, et al back to save or die.