|
Author
|
Comment
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here for a while
(1/15/03 11:11:48 pm)
Reply
|
Lethality: How high is too high? When does it ruin the fun?
I have an interesting ongoing discussion with my players about the lethality of our game, that I wanted to share here, as I thought it could start some lively discussion.
As I try to do every six months, I asked the players for feedback on the campaign so far. I'll attach one of the replies I got below.
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here for a while
(1/15/03 11:14:31 pm)
Reply
|
Reply from one player - Peter
1. Of all the sessions in my campaign so far, which session stand out as your favorite and why?
I have to agree with Julien that the big temple battle was pretty fun, although getting our butts kicked at the end kind of spoiled it for me. The session after that, in which we rebuilt and ended up fighting the owlbears was fun too, though, particularly because we came out of it better off than we went in.
2. What is the best or most enjoyable aspect of the campaign?
Getting into really dodgy situations where everything's screwed up, and everyone's shitting their pants for one reason or another. The situation where we were coming down in the lift and that flying wraith thing was going to cut the rope sticks out as especially fun. In my roleplaying experience, chaos and screw-ups were par for the course and part of the fun, and tended to be a lot less lethal.
Characterization of NPCs is also very good. And the surprises--if they could be a little less deadly.
3. What is the worst or most frustrating aspect of the campaign?
Counting squares on a map. A combat system that takes too long even under the best of circumstances. Nitpicking about rules. Game mechanics that need to be constantly repeated (i.e. active searching). Anything, like Julien said, that generates a lot of down time for the non-scout/charismatic
character. Death. Dying. STAT DAMAGE. All those things that wipe out a sense of progress and send us back to town with our tails between our legs.
4. Any other general comments?
I think a lot of my criticisms are tied in with the new mechanics of 3e, which everyone seems to embrace but me. I personally think the whole strategic combat system is crap, and it makes fights take way waaay too long. Eliminating player hesitation might skim 10% off, but even so, you're
still talking about fights that take half a session to resolve--and to me, that's ridiculous.
Also, I think flexibility is important. While dice are important, I don't think their sacred. The object of the game is for everyone to have fun, and that's got to be taken into account behind the scenes.
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here for a while
(1/15/03 11:17:32 pm)
Reply
|
Comments from Alex
Alex:
1. Of all the sessions in my campaign so far, which session stand out as your favorite and why?
I’d say for me this was the early session where we first attacked the moathouse. Reason: the shock of running into the dragon and the subsequent battle. Also, I believe that no-one died that session...
2. What is the best or most enjoyable aspect of the campaign?
The sense that even if you’re born a lowly Druid, you can still be reincarnated as a Centaur and kick ass.
Just kidding — I think it’s probably been the NPCs, so far. I got a good sense of the various personalities in the campaign world, which helps me get into the rather complex plot.
3. What is the worst or most frustrating aspect of the campaign?
The plot is a bit tangled, and I always feel like we’re out-matched... Maybe that’s just because we suck (tactically) or because I’m used to a more “here come the heros to kick everyone’s ass” campaign from my last stint of role-playing 15 years ago. There seems to be a learning curve, on which we’re just starting to make progress.
4. Any other general comments?
I think that, with absenteeism and the other strains of role-playing in Tokyo factored in, things have gone quite well. I think we need a few sessions where we make some steady progress and nobody dies (or at least, not too many people die) to get us all going. The fresh blood of Joel and Jamey should be a good boost as well.
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here for a while
(1/15/03 11:34:30 pm)
Reply
|
Lethality...
Those were the two sets of feedback I got that touched on lethality. I've heard this from Peter before and I think he feels pretty strongly about it.
I think it is an interesting issue. As Peter says, the point of the game is to have fun. And if high lethality is killing the enjoyment for a player, you have to really think about it.
One thing I have always wondered about is the huge howler. Yes it is chained up, but it is incredibly powerful. And the properly advanced howler in the errata is much more powerful than the one in the module. Obviously it was playtested with the weaker version, and I wonder if the intent of Monte's design is to put such a formidable beast against a 5th level group.
My players definitely made some bad decisions, but the powerful advanced howler didn't give them much room to make errors, and that creature alone accounted for 2 deaths.
I also wonder about the culture on these boards sometimes. Every once in a while it seems DMs are comparing notches on their DM screens and taking some sort of perverse pleasure on how many PCs they have killed.
Just in case anyone is wondering, here are is the death count in my campaign so far, and my players just cleared the main gate (pretty much all of CRM A, but Terrenygit fled to the earth temple).
1. Paladin went to -9 by Chat's sneak attack, then the healer forgot to heal
2. Druid went down to the Hobgoblins in the old temple
3. Paladin went down again to the Hobgoblins in the old temple
4. and 5. Xaod and Terjon (both NPCs) went down to the Hobgoblins in the old temple
6. Rogue went down to the huge howler
7. Paladin went down to the huge howler
So I have had five PC deaths and two NPC deaths. On top of deaths, I have had:
1. Rogue stoned by cockatrice
2. Rogue and Fighter have their hands severed when captured by the hobgoblins, requiring regeneration
3. Three PCs suffer permanent stat damage from Wat's horrible visage attack and need restoration.
Anyway, above I have been arguing the other side of the coin so to speak. Below is the email I sent my players on lethality, which argues in favor of keeping the difficulty set to normal, so to speak.
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here for a while
(1/15/03 11:39:59 pm)
Reply
|
An email I sent to my players
This was a common theme and probably the biggest issue to come out of this, high lethality in the game (particularly a clear message from Peter that he doesn't enjoy all the death).
I think there are several contributing factors to the high lethality:
1) 3e is in general is higher lethality... critical hits, strength added to monster damage makes monsters hit much harder, etc.
2) This module in particular, as I warned everyone at the beginning of the campaign, is a meatgrinder. It's not very forgiving.
3) Player tactics and decision making has been sub-optimal, maybe not surprising considering how little play experience you all have
4) I think many of us remember campaigns in which we were younger, when DMs (ourselves?) were loathe to kill characters because they knew the player might cry
5) We have grown up on heroic literature, comics, and other media such as computer RPGs with their save-game plot immunity devices in which the heroes rarely if ever are in real threat of death. It's a bit of a paradigm shift.
On top of this I admit that my own personal aesthetic leans more towards the dark fantasy genre. Warhammer, The Black Company, Steven Erikson's novels strike a chord with me, as well as the Lovecraftian feeling that you are puny in power, that you could easily be overwhelmed by the greater powers in the multiverse if they turned their malevolent attentions to you. The heroes and heroics performed in these works are so much more respectable to me because these guys aren't superheroes, they don't have plot immunity. Fighting the good fight against evil is hard. That's why only heroes take up the swords. Putting your hand in a mass of goo that used to be their best friend's face, knowing you could be next, and expecting not to survive this ordeal in the long run, and then keep on going, that is heroism to me! And really RttToEE is written within that style, probably why it appeals to me.
But if this is really causing a problem for you guys and killing your enjoyment of the game, maybe I need to think about it. And try to turn down the difficulty setting so to speak.
After getting this clear feedback, I certainly won't do anything to increase potential lethality. But I sincerely hope that you guys consider it and then ask me not to make any changes and tone down the difficulty from the module as written. Why?
1) Because I think facing negative consequences makes you a better team and makes you better players. Do you think you would have implemented those effective tactics last session had you not had to face the consequences of your previous poor decisions? I don't.
2) I can't help that feeling that in the mid- to long-run it would negatively impact your interest, and somehow rob you of the satisfaction of doing a good job if you were never sure if I was pulling punches. Being in Japan shields you from this to a large degree, but RttToEE is a benchmark module. Lots of people in the states talk about it and compare death counts. If someone said they almost all died to the blue dragon, could you be as proud of defeating the blue dragon in the moathouse with zero deaths if you knew or even suspected I was taking it easy on you? Do you want to be saying/thinking "Yeah we had several deaths by the time we were about seventh level, but then we pulled together as a team, our tactics improved, and we started kicking their butts! Or, um, maybe it had to do with the fact that we asked the DM to reduce the lethality..."
I know I would never go for that, but maybe I am just more of a hard core type...
Also, on fudging, it was sort of suggested that I fudge (ignore the dice results) but I really don't believe in that except in special or extreme circumstances. First because it sucks the life out of a game if you know a GM is just making up results on their own. It kills any enjoyment for me at least. Secondly, I have seen it lead to favoritism where a GM subconsciously fudges more for the people he likes more. If I did change the difficulty, it would be more through toning down the enemy statistics, having enemies make worse decisions than I think they really would in that situation, having the wiles of chance go the way of the players more often (big bad meanie that might be a bit over your head right now just doesn't happen to be home right now) and so on.
So, should I as GM deliberately tone down the difficulty from what is written in the module, or keep it as is?
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here for a while
(1/16/03 12:02:29 am)
Reply
|
Final thoughts for now...
One thing I didn't point out to the players, is that me spending time on this board has also probably made the lethality of our games higher as well...
As far as fudging goes, I kind of lied a bit about my feelings on this to my players. I am not so 100% against fudging as I say I am. I don't want them to know that, though. But still personally I don't think it is something that should be happening multiple times in a session, or even every single session.
Anyway, I present my arguments both for and against above. As I said in my mail, personally I would never want a DM to turn down the difficulty and make it easier for me. That would really ruin my sense of accomplishment. I remember being mad at my Dad when I was a kid when I found out he was letting me win some of the games we were playing competitively, it's the same thing.
But still at the end of the day, you have to come back to the fact that the players need to enjoy themselves. That is what is most important. Maybe I have been concentrating too much on beating the players into a more efficient fighting force, and counting on their long term enjoyment to be higher as they realize how much better players they are, and overcome obstacles they know I am not softening up for them.
It sure is a hard balance to strike, but I don't think I will be throwing Vranthis at them just yet if they choose to go south, or maybe he will turn into a patron (even though I really don't like that idea so much, as green dragons are supposed to be territorial and belligerent).
|
Thrommel
Can't leave now (mod)
(1/16/03 12:20:39 am)
Reply
|
Re: Final thoughts for now...
It's too lethal when your players think it's too lethal. I've said this before, but it probably bears repeating: you have to match your style of game with your players expectations.
Sure, you can push the envelope a bit, but high fantasy players ain't gonna mix with a grim 'n' gritty DM.
Regarding the "one-up you" nature of these boards, I guess that's something that DM's need to be aware of. People have asked for better tactics for every major encounter in the module. But that doesn't mean you have to USE better tactics for every major encounter. Often a VERY powerful monster will be balanced out with suboptimal tactics (heck, just look at Big U for that).
If you come to the boards and repeatedly sharpen up the tactics, you get encounters with a deadly edge.
I'll tell you something: I TPK'd one of my parties twice within a couple sessions and they gave up. Quit. Enough of that, they said.
I have players who say RttToEE was a blast, I have others who say "What was Monte smoking?" But I can't shovel that blame off onto Monte -- that was me doing a bad job of amping too much stuff up.
I think it's good that you surveyed your players, because they're the ones you have to please. How much is too much? -- That answer is in their hands, not ours.
Just remember, killing PC's is easy. Making them enjoy it, that's the tricky part.
-Thrommel, who notes that deciding to go to bed is easy. Actually doing it, that's the tricky part.
|
Siobharek 
Still here? Wow.
(1/16/03 12:24:40 am)
Reply
|
Re: An email I sent to my players
Hmmm, that's tricky, because your players are basically telling you that it's too hard.
You might want to remember that most of the opposition is insane. The party won't find any coordinated opposition outside the bridge areas until they get to the Fanes. So errors are made on behalf of the clerics.
Furthermore, I think it would be all right to amp up the treasure a little. From what I've read here - and based on my own experience as well - the adventure isn't heavy on treasure, unless you give the PCs the opportunity to haul the masterwork armours and weapons to a larger town.
Which brings me to my last point: If you downplay the time aspect of the adventure, the PCs should be able to get to, say, Verbobonc (I strongly recommend Abelard's notes on items in Verbobonc in the BoB) in order to upgrade their equipment. You mention The Black Company in your mails. Damn, those guys have it rough! I think the lethality of RttToEE goes hand in hand with moments of triumph, nice treasure, and a stronger feeling of accomplishment.
As to Vranthis, have the group encounter some emissaries from the Fire Bridge. When they search their bodies, they'll find a rough map with the words: "The Dragon's name is Vranthis. Give it 50 gold and suck up to it like nobody's business or you're dead. Try and find out what it wants - but don't tell it that you work for the Masters!"
Your players seem to enjoy roleplaying and your NPC characterizations (kudos, BTW). Without being presumptious, I can't help bringing my post on the BoB about Verbobonc politics to your attention. Maybe your party would enjoy having a sponsor.
Whoa, long and winding post... Hope it helps.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
Cordo Crowfoot
Here for a while
(1/16/03 1:08:18 am)
Reply
|
Re: Final thoughts for now...
Quote:
It's too lethal when your players think it's too lethal. I've said this before, but it probably bears repeating: you have to match your style of game with your players expectations.
Sure, you can push the envelope a bit, but high fantasy players ain't gonna mix with a grim 'n' gritty DM.
Right... If I had clear agreement between all my players. But two players have already written replies telling me not to reduce the lethality, and a third told me over the phone he thinks the current lethality level is ok. But Peter clearly has a big problem with it as it is.
|
Siobharek
Still here? Wow.
(1/16/03 2:06:37 am)
Reply
|
Re: Final thoughts for now...
I really don't see any other altertnative except perhaps go a little easy on Peter's character. If you go on being equally lethal to all, he might up and leave, and as I understand your situation, that wouldn't be the best thing to happen to your campaign, being in Nippon and all.
Does Peter play a character that would justify going a little easy on him? Naturally, Peter might also be told that caution's the word. It may not have to be Thief or Hitman2 going for the Silent Assassin rating, but sneaking and slipping into th eshadows does work, on occassion.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(1/16/03 2:14:39 am)
Reply
|
Re: Final thoughts for now...
I know the feeling, because I am experiencing the same with one of the two groups. One of the players has developed an intense hatred for anything remotely looking like combat that lasts longer then 30 minutes. It was not the lethality he minded, it was the fact that there was so much combat and that several times it took the whole evening. Three other players actually are loving the scenario, the threat (with only three deaths I am not too lethal a DM - I tend to be a bit lenient when the PCs decide to run in letting them get away) and the fastness of it all. In the end we discussed openly together and we decided that if it really was such a problem for one player -who we all like as a friend- that we would start a new campaign better suited to his style of gaming, just as he would accept a long fight now and then.
In my personal experience, most players like a game best in which they win against all odds. The death of a PC should be rare, but the big fights should bring them to the brink of death. Such a fight though should not take place every session 
Luckily my other group, currently doing the Banewarrens have a very similar opinion on what is fun and what is not. We are having a blast and even the idea of stopping had them all protesting loudly, while in reality all I asked them was whether they wanted to continue considering we had not had a session in two months at that time.
For those interested in death numbers:
Campaign 1 (stopped after having destroyed the main entrance and the earth temple and forced the air temple into surrender):
1) Barbarian died under the claws of the umber hulks. It was a good death though, since he single handedly prevented the umber hulk from shredding the other confused PCs to bit (yes the whole party was confused).
2) Gnome rogue was bitten in half by xorn while fleeing from the Earth Temple forces while drawing AoO away with only 3 hps or so left (while the one he was helping would have survived such an AoO).
3) Bard shredded by dire ape before he knew what hit him (scoring a critical in addition to a rend tends to finish off bards - since that time they decided bards and wizards should stay in the middle of the group)
Group 2 (Moathouse and Temple done, currently doing Banewarrens before proceeding to CRM again):
1) Barbarian died after falling of the platform in the obelisk room during the fight with the Grell.
In the Banewarrens two more died, one by the hands of a girallon and one by an ogre mage cone of cold. More might die in the current fight (yes we stopped in the middle of fight that took over two hours already and 1.5 minutes gametime)...
|
msherman
Here for a while
(1/16/03 7:19:51 am)
Reply
|
Lethality and my house rule
Lethality has already become a big problem in my game, to the point that I've had to make a house rule about it. I considered using the Game Mechanics versions of Raise/Resurrect, but I think that might be too far in the other direction, allowing players to spontaneously heal the negative level with a saving throw, with no penalty for a failed save. So my simple house rule is that Restoration can, in fact, restore levels lost to death.
I needed to do that after only 1 death in the game, but it was decidedly not a "good" death, as madfox puts it: The wizard was assassinated by Chat's death attack, in the aftermath of the fight with Utreshimon. I tried to give the party lots of clues that Chat had disappeared in mid-fight and was stalking them, but it still ended up feeling like a deus ex machina killed her. This, coupled by the fact that the wizard and the f/r played by her boyfriend were already about a level behind the bulk of the party due to missed sessions (we have 6 players, so we don't always get a full complement), felt like it was going to be a big problem.
I'm thinking that with this house-rule, and the fact that I've been amping up the treasure enough to give the party the potential to buy some scrolls of Raise Dead and Restoration from Y'Dey before they leave for Rastor, I can run the game with the intended lethality level without having death suck too much enjoyment for the players. I must admit I'm a bit concerned that it will go too far the other way -- if they don't have anything real on the line for failure, how much enjoyment will they derive from success?
|
Thrommel
Can't leave now (mod)
(1/16/03 8:39:56 am)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
Something that you may want to include to mitigate the lethality is some sort of "Fate Point" system. (In fact, I believe madfox uses this, and I've heard others mention it.)
Basically you can burn a Fate Point to make a failed save, or turn any d20 roll into a 20.
Some people hand them out every level, some people hand them out as a reward for heroic deeds or roleplaying. Some people do both.
That's one way to keep the edge on the encounters, but not have a player death due to a fluke of the dice.
This may lessen Peter's worries about getting thrashed in every fight without everyone feeling like you're favoring his specific character.
-Thrommel, who hasn't used them, but probably should have.
|
ZansForCans 
Here for a while
(1/16/03 11:09:39 am)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
Quote:
I considered using the Game Mechanics versions of Raise/Resurrect, but I think that might be too far in the other direction, allowing players to spontaneously heal the negative level with a saving throw, with no penalty for a failed save. So my simple house rule is that Restoration can, in fact, restore levels lost to death.
I still haven't decided whether I'm going to use that yet, mostly because I want to see how attached my players are getting to their characters first. I bounced it off them, but got no definitive feelings one way or another. Maybe I'll make the first player to really die decide If I do use it, I tend to lean toward the other side of the healing negative levels bit though since I think curing with a spell is 'too' easy (just burns 2 slots instead of one for a high level cleric). Instead, I'm thinking about only allowing the healing of death neg levels through the rest and saving throw method so that dying and being raised 'in the field' still has negative consequences for at least 24-ish hours.
I haven't had a TPK yet, but several PC's have been below zero a few times. I just had a long, drawn-out battle with flying, ghoulish Festrath (log coming soon with lots of lethality issues actually...) that could have gone bad, but my players pulled out great tactics (as they usually do) after despairing for a few rounds first. I can't comment more on it yet because I'm just too early in the campaign, but have to agree that tailoring and even changing in mid-flight are probably best to keep everyone happy. The Q&A you sent out makes it seem like your campaign won't be a problem--communication is the best way to keep things running smoothly.
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
ronin
Here for a while
(1/16/03 8:33:15 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality
I think the replies here have been dead on. You have to judge this area by the group of players you have and be very flexible.
My players told me this has been the best game they had ever been a part of which is great to hear but I'll tell you there were some rough nights. Nights when they left the session and they all looked like they had been beaten physically and mentally. I had one player throw down his clipboard in disgust when he was in a helpless situation (and an RP one to boot!).
I always wanted the PCs to be successful. My goal was to give them the success but to make them work to get there. Of course this meant to push the edge of what the players could handle which turned out to be quite a fine line. At times I threw too much at them and had to back off in the end (they were insane anyway). Other times they ended up in situations where I had to struggle to not end up with a TPK. There were also times they walked thru all my plans without hardly any troubles.
Amazingly enough we got thru the entire adventure and it only took us about 16 months. Parts of the adventure got a little tedious and I made every effort to tailor the game to my players tastes. It was a LONG haul but I believe we have played an adventure that we will talk about for years to come. Hopefully you can have the same kind of outcome in your game. The material is there to use we as DMs just have to make the best of it as we can.
I believe you are on the right track. A good DM listens to what his players have to say and asks questions such as you have asked your players. As long as you stay on that track I think you'll be fine. It may take a few counseling sessions as it did my players but it will all work out in the end. Have fun while it lasts.
ronin
|
TrinityDM
Here for a while
(1/16/03 9:44:14 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
I've been intending to look at the issue of level-loss when being raised for a while now. Several members of my party have been raised multiple times now, putting them quite a bit behind others who haven't been raised. This presents problems when trying to keep the same party playing a prepublished adventure where certain parts are designed for certain levels (they can't go back and do the lower-level parts again, and ramping things up presents its own problems).
I brought this up to my group, getting the players' opinions. One of them just sent me an interesting alternative penalty for dying, and I thought I'd get the Hivemind's opinion. Instead of losing a level, you merely don't gain any XP for the session in which you died. This would still leave a penalty for dying, since you would still wind up with fewer XP than someone who didn't die, but it has the following advantages:
1. It's less likely that a player will wash his hands of the character for game mechanics reasons, abandoning any history he (or you) have built up around the character.
2. It avoids the whole issue of "do I apply gained XP before or after I lose the level from being raised?"
3. It's much easier for the player to simply not apply new XP than to subtract XP for level loss, then add XP for the session, then adjust all abilities (see point 2 above).
I just don't know if this is penalty enough... perhaps combining the zero-XP gain with a negative level would be enough of a deterrent? It also doesn't address what happens if you die multiple times in a session, but I hope that problem doesn't crop up very often.
As a side note, I do implement a fate-point system as well (one point allows auto-stabilization or +20 on any d20 roll, points gained in parallel with ability scores every 4 levels). It hasn't proven to be imbalancing, but I find my players often forget they have them until after they're dead. 
|
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(1/17/03 1:39:22 am)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
I don't use the fate system, though after having start reading d20 Modern I am contemplating using the action points they use in that game. One action point can be used to add 1d6 to the d20 roll, the player determines to use it after the roll but before the DM anounce the results.
Anyway, I think that not handing out experience for that session is not the way to handle it. I don't hand out the same amount of xp each session. It is highly modified by the amount of roleplaying and combat that takes place during a session. So sometimes that would mean a PC would hardly lose any xp at all, while another time it would be a lot. I do agree though that level loss is really painful for the campaign in the long run. While one death is not a problem, multiple deaths by the same character though are problematic. I have already caught myself at fudging a roll because I did not want a particular PC to die because of the negative consequences it would have for the campaign.
|
Siobharek
Still here? Wow.
(1/17/03 2:09:08 am)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
My players have taken to fork out the 6K+ for a True Ressurrection. No level loss there.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(1/17/03 2:23:14 am)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
Your PCs probably have reached the teleport level and they know a cleric or two who can cast and is willing to cast true ressurection then. As a 9th lvl spell true ressurection is not always an option until you pass level 10 and even then I am not sure my players would want to be at the mercy of the highest ranking clerics of a faith they do not share.
|
Grumgarr
Here for a while
(1/17/03 2:28:17 am)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
I've gotta say that the issue of death and experience loss has not slowed up my campaign vastly.
I use the alternative XP rules where average party level is no part of the calculations: each PC earns his share of the XP for an 'encounter', whether it be RP, problem-solving or combat, based on its CR vs, his level. This means a lower level character for a while if you die, but a larger XP haul while you're lower level, meaning you catch up quickly.
One character (the group's only Cleric) has been raised three times and is (again) 11th level (group levels 11, 11, 12, 12, 13). The other 11th level character (PsyWar) was 8th when the rest of the group were 11th level, more or less.
My players don't like their characters to die, of course, but it's far from rare in 3e, RttToEE or not, and my group's biggest accolade of my DMing is that I don't throw them lifelines when it gets tough - they really do earn their victories. It would cheapen their victories if death didn't come at a price, but the price is falling behind 'for a while'.
I don't use fate points either, but have included a feat from The Wheel of Time - The Dark One's Own Luck - which allows a PC to reroll one die per day...only one PC in our campaign world has selected this feat, but it has kept him alive to reach 12th level in the Brutal Temple of PC Mashing
One other thing.
TrinityDM, you say
2. It avoids the whole issue of "do I apply gained XP before or after I lose the level from being raised?"
Officially, if the XP hasn't been awarded yet, you first lose the level, then apply the XP you earned - this is in the Death and Dying section of the DMs Guide.
Grumgarr
|
msherman
Here for a while
(1/17/03 7:11:00 am)
Reply
|
Re: Lethality and my house rule
Quote:
If I do use it, I tend to lean toward the other side of the healing negative levels bit though since I think curing with a spell is 'too' easy (just burns 2 slots instead of one for a high level cleric). Instead, I'm thinking about only allowing the healing of death neg levels through the rest and saving throw method so that dying and being raised 'in the field' still has negative consequences for at least 24-ish hours.
You know that in the Rules Mechanic's version as written, the negative level can be cured immediately by a Restoration, right? You plan to strike that clause from your campaign?
I've been thinking about your point, and I agree it would be nice for that level loss to stick around. I think what I'm going to do is modify my house rule a bit to say that when Restoration is used to restore a level lost due to death, it requires an 8 hour ritual, so that it can't be used in the field, or when the party is under time pressure (like, say, because the wagon from Rastor is arriving tomorrow at 3pm...) I figure if the party ever does cast Raise Dead in the field, I'll give the raised character the option of taking a negative level instead of actually losing a real level, just to ease the bookkeeping.
|
|
Okay -- Your Turn
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands