Continuity of Character

[angelfromanotherpin]

Wow, so I lost internet for like three days, and the 'Healing Surges...' thread gained like eight pages of Elennsar-related fail. So, I'm going to try again: specific goals, specific methods for achieving those goals.

Since Elennsar will not honor requests not to post, I am instead requesting that if s/h/it does post in this thread, pretty please do not dignify the nonsense with a response. It will only divert energy from useful activity. Thank you in advance.

Okay, I proposed these as the sorts of things people were looking to see and not seeing:

• Support for PCs as protagonists with a story arc, not just playing pieces?
• Characters pressing on while injured and generally taking bigger risks, rather than playing it safe?

...and nobody said I got it wrong or added anything to the list. I also assume that we're looking for a sort of capsystem which can be grafted on to Tome D&D as we know it. Let me know if that's wrong.

Preliminary thoughts...

Let's start with one of the best bits from 7th Sea:
1: PCs do not die, they only lose.
This is in many ways the case in D&D already, what with the existence of resurrection magic, but let's cut out that ugly middleman.

An individual PC who would be 'killed' is only 'out-of-action.' Like Boromir getting one-shotted by the cave troll, they'll be up and about again if the party wins the fight. Hell, even if they were separated from the group and put 'out-of-action' they'll turn up again. Exactly how is left to the imaginations and sensibilities of the players at the table.

If all of the PCs are 'out-of-action' at once, they still aren't dead, but the mission has failed. e.g. Sauron has won, and the next session is about what happens after he has won. You probably don't get your story-goal-based xp.

This next bit is from a few different games.
2. PCs can die, but only if they choose to, and it is awesome.
You as a player can choose to have your PC die. You can do this at any time, and they will die by the end of the scene at latest.

The upside is that your PC gets a power boost so they can go out in a blaze of glory. I'm not sure what that would mean, maybe they get all their per-day stuff back and a full heal, maybe they get that and a level as well. The point is that no matter how battered you were before that point, you are now as badass as you have ever been and can sell your life dearly.

That character is now dead. You get a new one at some point, because you didn't show up to just sit around. I wouldn't make him a lower level or anything, that's just annoying. Instead, the new character doesn't have the ability to die until the start of the next adventure.

That's very rough, of course. Thoughts?

[Elennsar]

Since Elennsar will not honor requests not to post, I am instead requesting that if s/h/it does post in this thread, pretty please do not dignify the nonsense with a response. It will only divert energy from useful activity. Thank you in advance.

A pity that lying is not the same as harassment. Then again the statement that whatever I post is nonsense probably is. More relevantly to the thread:

A serious question. If you don't want PCs dying, why not have "(Individual) fights are not to the death." (unless otherwise stated, such as when you find the six fingered man or whatever)?

Individual as distinct from group. What happens to a nameless Cardinal's Guard or ten may well be death (or not, player's choice), but when fighting another duelist or whatever, you stop short of the killing blow.

And they would as well, if they were about to deliver it.

That leaves the question of what to do if PCs are threatened by the mooks, but that requires figuring out if they're even supposed to be threatened (not the case in D&D) to begin with.

[Bigode]

What's the problem with revivify? As for the death power boost, just going nova (even with warriors these days) looks plenty. So I don't think anything in that front needs changing ... only making actual healing not be insulting.

[name_here]

Revivify isn't a problem, it's just that not dying pretty much works out to be the same and doesn't require obtaining components.

[TarkisFlux]

I actually don't remember how we got to those suggestions anymore...

Neither one really seems to preserve the ability to tell a pre-set story, since random failure or character loss is not planned into the story by definition. Either one would probably work to help create a more stable story arc than current rules though; one provides character continuity and one helps preserve plot continuity (so long as the plot is independent of the newly dead character).

Is there a reason why you can't or don't want to combine those two? In a sense having to give up a character or two to accomplish your goals is a loss, it's just a lesser loss than Sauron winning. And it gives the party a bit more choice as to the direction of the plot; even in failure they can choose how they want to go out.

You'll be tossing raise dead and ressurection magics right? Seems silly to keep them in a game with either of these as they're unnecessary in one and eliminate the cost and point of the other.

[MartinHarper]

An individual PC who would be 'killed' is only 'out-of-action.' Like Boromir getting one-shotted by the cave troll, they'll be up and about again if the party wins the fight. Hell, even if they were separated from the group and put 'out-of-action' they'll turn up again. Exactly how is left to the imaginations and sensibilities of the players at the table.

Hmm. I think there is some benefit in having characters needing to be "rescued". So if Boromir gets one-shotted by the cave troll, the other PCs need to drag him out of the way so that he doesn't get stomped further. Alternatively, maybe they need to apply some emergency first aid. I'm not sure how to do this, though. Low DC Heal checks work, for example, but then if the PCs are all put out-of-action then they all die, because there's nobody to stabilise them. And we want TPK to mean mission failure, not death.

I wouldn't make him a lower level or anything, that's just annoying. Instead, the new character doesn't have the ability to die until the start of the next adventure.

In 3e terms, I wouldn't want to have a blaze of glory death more than once every five levels or so. More than that, and characters start to feel disposable.
Also, I wonder if you should be able to choose to die at any point, or whether it's an option that's only available when you're close to death.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Neither one really seems to preserve the ability to tell a pre-set story, since random failure or character loss is not planned into the story by definition.

There are two goals listed in the first post, and those are the goals so far. 'Telling a pre-set story' is not one of them. If you'd like me to include that as one of the goals, you're going to have to unpack that phrase a bit.

Is there a reason why you can't or don't want to combine those two? In a sense having to give up a character or two to accomplish your goals is a loss, it's just a lesser loss than Sauron winning. And it gives the party a bit more choice as to the direction of the plot; even in failure they can choose how they want to go out.

The two parts are meant to be used together.

You'll be tossing raise dead and ressurection magics right? Seems silly to keep them in a game with either of these as they're unnecessary in one and eliminate the cost and point of the other.

I think you could keep them in if it's in-genre, because these rules apply only to PCs, who are explicitly speshul now. NPCs may still need to be brought back from the dead, for instance.

[TarkisFlux]

Neither one really seems to preserve the ability to tell a pre-set story, since random failure or character loss is not planned into the story by definition.

There are two goals listed in the first post, and those are the goals so far. 'Telling a pre-set story' is not one of them. If you'd like me to include that as one of the goals, you're going to have to unpack that phrase a bit.

You are absolutely right. Thread confusion on my part. I retract the point.

I think you could keep them in if it's in-genre, because these rules apply only to PCs, who are explicitly speshul now. NPCs may still need to be brought back from the dead, for instance.

The only concern I have with res magic still being around is that it eliminates the penalty for characters who nova at death, i.e. the loss of character. If there's no lasting penalty for dying nova, why would you ever get stuck with the other option of whole party loss? Just nova whenever things look bad and get raised at the end of combat.

Unless you want that, it's going to need to be limited in some way. I'm not partial to "NPC use only" stuff, changing the resource cost may or may not work (as the PCs are quite likely to have access to whatever resource is required and probably more willing to use it on a friend than save it for an NPC), and I was pretty much out of ideas at that point. So I just skipped all that and suggested tossing them.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Hmm. I think there is some benefit in having characters needing to be "rescued". So if Boromir gets one-shotted by the cave troll, the other PCs need to drag him out of the way so that he doesn't get stomped further. Alternatively, maybe they need to apply some emergency first aid.

Or what? He'll die? No, no, no. I don't remember anyone in the movie spending any on-screen time trying to save Boromir.

On the other hand, maybe being captured and imprisoned becomes the new horrible fate, and keeping the enemy from escaping with your pal's 'unconscious' form could be a real issue.

In 3e terms, I wouldn't want to have a blaze of glory death more than once every five levels or so. More than that, and characters start to feel disposable.

Season to taste, of course. I posited the narrative time limit of 'one adventure,' which could be longer or shorter than 5 levels, depending. I just recommend you come up with a specific limit ahead of time so it's not simply at the whim of the GM.

Also, I wonder if you should be able to choose to die at any point, or whether it's an option that's only available when you're close to death.

If the blaze of glory is fully restorative as an interrupt, why would you ever choose to use it if you were not close to death?

[angelfromanotherpin]

The only concern I have with res magic still being around is that it eliminates the penalty for characters who nova at death, i.e. the loss of character. If there's no lasting penalty for dying nova, why would you ever get stuck with the other option of whole party loss? Just nova whenever things look bad and get raised at the end of combat.

Unless you want that, it's going to need to be limited in some way. I'm not partial to "NPC use only" stuff, changing the resource cost may or may not work (as the PCs are quite likely to have access to whatever resource is required and probably more willing to use it on a friend than save it for an NPC), and I was pretty much out of ideas at that point. So I just skipped all that and suggested tossing them.

Ah, yes I totally get that. Yes, if res magic stays then the blaze of glory death is permanent. I'd say that just as the various rez magics require the consent of the deceased's spirit to return, invoking the blaze of glory includes the rescinding of the ability to grant that consent, ever.

But of course, I'm fine with tossing rez magic altogether, since it really only exists to counter the ridiculous amount of SoD that gets tossed around at those levels, and just not dying solves that issue. If the plot involves bringing an NPC back to life it can be pure plot-juju and I'm cool with that.

[cthulhu]

This reminds me of Left 4 Dead style hero closets, where in the co-op campagin if you get curb stomped in a fight, the heros will find you alive after the a bit.

[angelfromanotherpin]

A few more thoughts:

1. So, after a fight where a character was taken out of action, how beat up should they be? Put another way, how many healing resources should they consume before they're back in tip-top shape? Do we want the JRPG model where they stand up again with 1 hp? Or are they stable at -9? Or do they get half HP back?

2. Breaking the rules: 7th Sea has Villains able to kill people, so if the minions beat you they can't off you, but if they can drag you back to their boss, he can do it. I'm not sure that exact model is a good idea, but maybe there's room for something like it.

3. Problem: Getting Locked Up is Worse than Death.
Seriously, at least if you were dead you could roll a new character. If your character is just dragged back to an effective prison, you get to play 'Count of Monte Cristo: The Boring Years.' Not sure how to solve that.

[virgil]

If you're looking for using the system as an addon like the Tome series, you're in particular trouble with the fact getting capture is more expensive than death. You lose your gear when you're locked up, which costs more than any form of resurrection unless you're at low levels.

What if, instead of having a dying surge, you get a bonus to combat based on how damaged you are; such that there's a little bit of encouragement to not heal, even if it's at the risk of losing more easily?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Since Elennsar will not honor requests not to post, I am instead requesting that if s/h/it does post in this thread, pretty please do not dignify the nonsense with a response. It will only divert energy from useful activity. Thank you in advance.

A pity that lying is not the same as harassment. Then again the statement that whatever I post is nonsense probably is.

It's a shame that sometimes you're pretty reasonable, because you have a real talent for derailing threads. Ultimate troll?

[IGTN]

PCs who are captured do need a way to get their equipment, or equivalent, back, but that can be just put into the rules as a suggestion to DMs noted "ignore at your own risk."

I like the idea of a dying surge more than fighting better when low on HP, since the latter means you still have random death.

PC executions should be more cinematic. I don't think villains should be able to execute PCs right off. Executions of PCs should either allow a rescue to be set up by the others (easily and immediately), or conducted via easily-escapable deathtrap. Alternately, they can be stabbed/have their throats slit and have their not-quite-dead bodies be dumped off a cliff.

[Elennsar]

It's a shame that sometimes you're pretty reasonable, because you have a real talent for derailing threads. Ultimate troll?

Barging into a thread with no intent of any useful discussion at all to insult and lie about someone's position

Did you forget you're talking to Elennsar, for whom that argument's specifically invalid? Men aren't men to any meaningful extent if they don't suck next to elves; in that case, it's just a word on a character sheet.

in the Middle Earth: the RPG thread.

is not trolling or risking derailing, asking and disagreeing with why something should be done a certain way is?

You have the least useful definition of trolling I've read since knowing the term.

A suggestion/question for the idea of "we don't want hero death"

You cannot be killed (via hit point loss inflicting things, poison might be an exception if one wants it capable of killing people, etc.) until you are reduced to half health or more. Once you are, it is possible (if difficult and so on) to behead someone or whatever.

[CatharzGodfoot]

It's a shame that sometimes you're pretty reasonable, because you have a real talent for derailing threads. Ultimate troll?

Barging into a thread with no intent of any useful discussion at all to insult and lie about someone's position

Did you forget you're talking to Elennsar, for whom that argument's specifically invalid? Men aren't men to any meaningful extent if they don't suck next to elves; in that case, it's just a word on a character sheet.

in the Middle Earth: the RPG thread.

is not trolling or risking derailing, asking and disagreeing with why something should be done a certain way is?

You have the least useful definition of trolling I've read since knowing the term.

You misunderstand. I wasn't accusing you of trolling this thread, which is quite obviously an attempt to bait you. I was accusing you of being an incredibly effective troll (whether you mean to or not) with your debating style.

[Elennsar]

And your definition of trolling remains a complete failure.

[angelfromanotherpin]

You misunderstand. I wasn't accusing you of trolling this thread, which is quite obviously an attempt to bait you. I was accusing you of being an incredibly effective troll (whether you mean to or not) with your debating style.

Catharz, I said pretty please don't respond to E in this thread. Don't make me add the cherry on top.

If you must compliment E on his trolling skills, do me the favor of taking it to PM or MPSIMS.

[Elennsar]

Yeah, because you are incapable of handling actually respectfully asking someone to stay out if it unless they have something productive to say, because insulting them is so much more likely to work.

Strange. It isn't working. Maybe you need to insult more.

Or deal with suggestions as valid or not and look at this:

You cannot be killed (via hit point loss inflicting things, poison might be an exception if one wants it capable of killing people, etc.) until you are reduced to half health or more. Once you are, it is possible (if difficult and so on) to behead someone or whatever.

on its own merits.

[angelfromanotherpin]

On the equipment topic, as long as the Book of Gears is in place, it shouldn't be too hard for people to get their level-appropriate gear back. Honestly. I'm far more concerned about imprisoning being boring for the player at the table.

The problem with the fighting bonus based on injury is that it's very complicated and weird. I mean, some things don't even injure you, or do weird forms of injury like Charisma damage. And what is the bonus to that it benefits as many characters as equally as possible? All attributes, maybe? I wouldn't even know how to begin writing that as a system.

[ckafrica]

God it's been good to avoid the BS for the past few days. Well as I'm waiting for a ferry to Le Nido I'll chime in.

I think the "blaze of glory" thing is good. I don't mind the idea that characters die, but D&D makes it hap hazard and insignificant most of the time. I'd like to have the chance to right out a character in a way that shines, not fizzles.

But it should never be necessary. If no one wants to Bon Jovi, than they can just fail the encounter, and face the consequences.

Nor do I think it would be a class ability but instead a series of common effects that players can seek to initiate that are level appropriate.

For any of this to work though resurrection needs to make a swift exit. It might be a cinematic effect that can occasionally come in to play (maybe with Wesley being mostly dead, but really not even that..I can't think of a good example really) but it should be wiped from character abilities entirely.

[TarkisFlux]

Enjoy ck. I was there last January. Good times.

[Draco_Argentum]

People should be able to do the Star Wars scene where Obi Wan dies holding Vadar off. I'd suggest that blaze of glory turns you into a hardcore road block rather than letting your team butcher the enemy super hard.

[shau]

Kamikaze charges are very anti-player friendly of a thing to include in the game. If the player uses it, they die. If the monsters use it against the players, the monsters become a disproportionate threat to the players.

Basically, it's lose/lose. As a player, I would very much be against the inclusion of any such rules.

-Username17

I'm still with Frank from the healing surges thread as to the whole last stand thing. But if you are going to do it then Draco Argentum has a good idea.

People should be able to do the Star Wars scene where Obi Wan dies holding Vadar off. I'd suggest that blaze of glory turns you into a hardcore road block rather than letting your team butcher the enemy super hard.

Otherwise players will set up teams of suicide soldiers and take turns going out in a blaze of awesome then rolling up a new human time bomb.