|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Jan 24, 2015 15:02:08 GMT
I would not want to see "random tragedies" between PCs under any circumstances except the ones I outlined above. If that sort of thing tickles your fancy, I would only want to see it when a PC defeats an NC.
My position on PCs is that, as a player, I'm investing considerable time and effort into having an engaging game. And even more so than in more traditional adventuring RPGs, the format for this game relies on the PCs generating and sustaining storylines. If I put in several months worth of effort into building up a story around my character, I do not find it at all interesting to have all that effort come to naught because of "random tragedy".
The advantage of the SIFRP system is that the consequences of defeat are never random, and as long as everyone can be relied upon to play in a gentlemanly manner (again, as I outlined above), I need not fear sudden, unexpected death or being forced out of the game by being sent to the wall. And of course, if I happen to have enough DP on hand at the moment of tragedy, I can prevent the worst even if another player is determined to finish off my character. But I like to think that if matters have reached that level of animosity between PCs, then my character will not be in a fight with his opponent without both of them knowing that this time, it's all or nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Jan 24, 2015 15:35:08 GMT
Damon, that's what DP are for. I agree that we should in general play in a gentlemanly manner, but this is not a friendly world. Bad things happen even when nobody wants them to. If you want to make sure your character does not die unexpectedly, make sure you have a DP available. That's the beauty of the DP system - it lets you maintain some narrative control in the face of random events. Adding in low probability random events would not change that at all.
|
|
Harwyn Storm
House Tullison
Sharpening arrows for tomorrow's hunt.
Posts: 126 
|
Post by Harwyn Storm on Jan 24, 2015 15:52:12 GMT
I'd go for as much realism as we can offer.
Death is a part of this world, and I don't think our characters should be privileged just because they are created by us. It would diminish the pleasure I get from the game, frankly.
In combat, we have a yield option, as well as possibility to run away. If anybody, PC or NPC wants to kill me - go ahead. I don't think being defeated by Mountain would lead to anything but death, providing he doesn't have a reason to keep me imprisoned.
IC somebody could and probably will have a reason to poison me, cut my throat while I sleep, or assassinate me in any manner. If they are to succeed, the game would feel meh if it doesn't result in death.
Of course, DP's are there for manipulating the narrative, but I don't feel like we should add extra safety measures beside them.
Now, I would never kill somebody just for the sake of it, but if there is a IC reason - sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Jan 24, 2015 17:27:34 GMT
Damon, that's what DP are for. I agree that we should in general play in a gentlemanly manner, but this is not a friendly world. Bad things happen even when nobody wants them to. If you want to make sure your character does not die unexpectedly, make sure you have a DP available. That's the beauty of the DP system - it lets you maintain some narrative control in the face of random events. Adding in low probability random events would not change that at all. No, by the rules bad things happen only when someone wants them to. You're advocating adding an extra level of deadliness with your "random tragedy" idea. DP are already an insurance, and I don't see the point in being forced to spend them in more situations than the rules already call for. What you're proposing adds nothing to the game other than forcing players to stockpile even more DP. |
|
|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Jan 24, 2015 17:31:36 GMT
I'd go for as much realism as we can offer. Death is a part of this world, and I don't think our characters should be privileged just because they are created by us. It would diminish the pleasure I get from the game, frankly. In combat, we have a yield option, as well as possibility to run away. If anybody, PC or NPC wants to kill me - go ahead. I don't think being defeated by Mountain would lead to anything but death, providing he doesn't have a reason to keep me imprisoned. IC somebody could and probably will have a reason to poison me, cut my throat while I sleep, or assassinate me in any manner. If they are to succeed, the game would feel meh if it doesn't result in death. Of course, DP's are there for manipulating the narrative, but I don't feel like we should add extra safety measures beside them. Now, I would never kill somebody just for the sake of it, but if there is a IC reason - sure. Being defeated by the Mountain always leads to death, because he uses a greatsword, which has the Vicious quality.  BTW, if you equate bad things happening to your character with realism, all you have to do is not spend DP when defeated and let your opponent inflict whatever consequnce he wants on you. Presto - bad things will happen. |
|
Harwyn Storm
House Tullison
Sharpening arrows for tomorrow's hunt.
Posts: 126
|
Post by Harwyn Storm on Jan 24, 2015 17:48:48 GMT
Oh I would spend a DP for sure. Just want to weigh in my opinion on the debate because I wouldn't want to see them (DPs) become the ultimate deus ex machina. Example: It is ok if I am to be beheaded, burn the DP and the executioner trips, thus allowing me to try and escape.
But i don't want to be able to burn the DP and be guaranteed to escape execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Jan 24, 2015 17:48:47 GMT
Yes, by the rules bad things happen only when someone wants them to. That's why this thread exists.
However, the rules are not the world. The rules are not even the game. The rules (in theory) model the world, and provide a framework for the game.
Yes, it would a modicum of extra danger. Realistically though, how often is a player defeated? There have been a few in the melee and in the joust, but not many. Why would you need to stockpile? If you are going into a situation where you may face defeat, hold one in reserve. It's a good idea anyway, just in case your opponent feels that your character dying makes for a good story. If the random chance is appropriately low, even someone who gets defeated a few times is unlikely to get a random death.
It shouldn't lead to stockpiling unless a character is getting defeated in combat regularly, in which case they are probably (a) getting into more fights than they should and (b) getting into tougher fights than they should. In a world such as the one GRRM has created, that is likely to get you killed, fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Jan 24, 2015 20:10:54 GMT
Oh I would spend a DP for sure. Just want to weigh in my opinion on the debate because I wouldn't want to see them (DPs) become the ultimate deus ex machina. Example: It is ok if I am to be beheaded, burn the DP and the executioner trips, thus allowing me to try and escape. But i don't want to be able to burn the DP and be guaranteed to escape execution. The uses of DPs are actually quite strictly delineated. Unlike many other fate point systems, it's not a question of "spend your point and decide what happens" (or the GM decides what happens). Burning a DP (p. 72) allows you to avoid certain death, but the result is that your character is presumed dead and removed from the story until the narrator finds it appropriate for you to return. So unless the narrator reinterprets this, you won't get a chance to escape. However, you may turn up later in the game having miraculously escaped off-stage (but probably worse for the wear in some manner). When burning DPs to avoid the consequences of defeat (p. 165) all it lets you do is choose a different consequence than the one the winner stated. So your only two options for getting away without permanent injury are to choose unconscious or ransom (or taking the black, but that effectively removes you from play anyway). And as stated for unconscious, you're knocked out for 2d6 hours and anything can happen to you in the meantime. The only reprieve is that you are "left for dead", so the original winner won't be the one to kill you. |
|
|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Jan 24, 2015 20:32:12 GMT
Yes, it would a modicum of extra danger. Realistically though, how often is a player defeated? There have been a few in the melee and in the joust, but not many. Why would you need to stockpile? If you are going into a situation where you may face defeat, hold one in reserve. It's a good idea anyway, just in case your opponent feels that your character dying makes for a good story. If the random chance is appropriately low, even someone who gets defeated a few times is unlikely to get a random death. It shouldn't lead to stockpiling unless a character is getting defeated in combat regularly, in which case they are probably (a) getting into more fights than they should and (b) getting into tougher fights than they should. In a world such as the one GRRM has created, that is likely to get you killed, fast. For a character like yours or mine, specifically designed to avoid defeat in our favorite form of combat? We should do swimmingly in most situations. Seriously, only an opponent with Fighting 6 or better stands even a small chance of knocking you off your horse in a joust (IIRC your Passive Riding is 24 before modifiers?). A character with Fighting 5 is lucky to manage 1 DoS. Once you've bought your full plate, you don't even need to worry about damage from 1 DoS. But our characters, and Roland Hite, (possibly Talos as well) are the extremes. Primary NCs are the equal of most other fighters in this game, as they should be, and stand a decent chance of defeating them. Even Secondary NCs should challenge most of the more modestly built fighters. There is no way to determine ahead of time which is which, or how much better or worse a fighter an NC will actually turn out to be. So it is not the case that everyone can just avoid a fight with superior foes, or even be certain of avoiding a fight at all. Why is it necessary to make things more deadly for them? They can already be killed or severely injured by RAW, especially if they've spent their DP before the fight or during the fight. And of course, as Harwyn said, there are plenty of ways to be killed that don't involve you getting to fight at all. So, once again, I see no real argument for making death or random maiming any more common. And as former Warhammer player, I don't find a 1 in 6 chance (which I believe you suggested) to be a low chance at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Jan 24, 2015 21:11:10 GMT
The 1 in 6 chance I was suggesting would be for *any* random consequence, of which death would be only one possibility (perhaps only on a 1 of a 2nd 1d6, making it a 1/36 chance, less than 3%. There would always be a 5/6 chance of the normal, player-controlled consequences.
Other than death, any consequence can be recovered from. Maiming reduces an attribute by 1, which can be raised back to its original value for 30xp (and training time). The penalties of a drawback can be removed by burning a DP (50xp).
Yes, Symon is an expert horseman (5 AH, 4 Ride which can easily be deduced by his ride checks). He won't be just jousting though. I have no doubt that he will, at some point, be defeated in combat.
The point I was trying to make about not being defeated that much is that you only can be defeated once per combat. Even in war you are unlikely to be in combat more than once per day, and even that would be extreme. So again, stockpiling DP to prevent death from random consequences would not necessary. You are much more likely to get killed by a bandit or clansman that just doesn't care if you live or die, or by a vicious weapon. If those don't cause you to stockpile, this wouldn't either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Jan 24, 2015 22:47:29 GMT
The 1 in 6 chance I was suggesting would be for *any* random consequence, of which death would be only one possibility (perhaps only on a 1 of a 2nd 1d6, making it a 1/36 chance, less than 3%. There would always be a 5/6 chance of the normal, player-controlled consequences. Other than death, any consequence can be recovered from. Maiming reduces an attribute by 1, which can be raised back to its original value for 30xp (and training time). The penalties of a drawback can be removed by burning a DP (50xp). Yes, Symon is an expert horseman (5 AH, 4 Ride which can easily be deduced by his ride checks). He won't be just jousting though. I have no doubt that he will, at some point, be defeated in combat. The point I was trying to make about not being defeated that much is that you only can be defeated once per combat. Even in war you are unlikely to be in combat more than once per day, and even that would be extreme. So again, stockpiling DP to prevent death from random consequences would not necessary. You are much more likely to get killed by a bandit or clansman that just doesn't care if you live or die, or by a vicious weapon. If those don't cause you to stockpile, this wouldn't either. So then you're instead advocating adding an extra roll to the game for a very small chance that something random (possibly deadly) will happen. Forgive me if that seems like more of a waste of time than a useful addition to the game.  When you're defeated, you're defeated. DPs are used for a good many more things than just staving off unintended consequences in combat. All it takes is for you, on the day you get defeated, to find yourself without that all-important final DP to prevent death, and you're done. And remember, a DP spent this way is burned - you will have to wait till you can buy another DP or the end of a scenario to get a new one. That's a major setback at this point in the game, and will be for some time, when many of us are probably only sporting 1 DP to begin with. But anyway. I get that you think random tragedy is a cool addition to the game. I'm sure you see that I don't. Let's just leave it at that, shall we? |
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Jan 24, 2015 22:54:17 GMT
Well, the threat of random tragedy more than the tragedy itself, but yes, let's leave it at that.
|
|
It's set just before the historic Blacks v Greens period