Death Shouldn't Feel like a Punishment

[Xanthea]

I made no argument about power;

Any arguments about level are inherently about power, as that is the only thing which level relates to.

damaging narrative consistency

Which makes zero sense unless you assume that the entire NPC population of the world is level 1, or you have a complete lack of creativity with how to involve a former NPC in a party.

[FoamBats4All]

Join the plot with a level 1 PC. Any sane DM would give you absurd XP for surviving stuff way above your level, and you'll catch up and become useful before too long.

[Xanthea]

Any sane DM would give you absurd XP for surviving stuff way above your level

XP standards prevent this.

edit - in that risk is rewarded, but not significantly enough to make up the difference at anywhere near a reasonable pace.

[Heero]

If the partyll have ya, Id just make a new level 1 and hope for the best. Whats the worst that can happen -- another character death?

[Brokenbone]

I fondly recall Heero's svirfneblin who joined the Sword's Edge group in the UD at level 1 (not counting ECL). Hey that was mind flayers too!

[Heero]

I really thought that was going to work out. I tried to run, even, but was unfortunately kilt dead when that wall of fire manifested right in my escape route!

[Xanthea]

Sounds like that session was... well done.

[Ronan]

I agree with Xan that IC death should not be an OOC punishment, and that it often is because of level disparities with new PCs. Sword's Edge had this same issue when I killed a lot of them. I have other comments I'll post later, but...

2) Again, chose to die. I could have been captured instead with a high level of confidence that the DM would have worked me back in with the same PC in a few sessions and none of this would be an issue.

I can see how you might've thought this, but its wrong. The chances of you coming back from that with a playable character were extremely small. Like infinitesimally small.

Foam, I reward maximum or near-maximum XP for sessions where PCs died or nearly died. This means about half of my sessions involve maximum XP rewards. As a result a PC who takes more risks is not really going to level much faster than the base level of risk. Risk-taking is not rewarded with PC advancement in ALFA; just look at our higher level PCs.

[Xanthea]

Basically the thing I am saying here is that ALFA's ruleset disincentives a lot of things which it is theoretically in favour of, and that is bad game design.

What ALFA's ruleset does is encourage people to optimize their characters for survival and OOCly avoid taking any risks whatsoever, and I don't think that's what it wants to do.

[FoamBats4All]

Foam, I reward maximum or near-maximum XP for sessions where PCs died or nearly died. This means about half of my sessions involve maximum XP rewards. As a result a PC who takes more risks is not really going to level much faster than the base level of risk. Risk-taking is not rewarded with PC advancement in ALFA; just look at our higher level PCs.

I stand by what I said. A level 1 should get more XP for a CR 10 event than the level 8 PCs. This can help nudge PCs up towards their buddies.

What ALFA's ruleset does is encourage people to optimize their characters for survival and OOCly avoid taking any risks whatsoever, and I don't think that's what it wants to do.

Helps when you have more active DMs. shad0wfax has been DMing a ton, so people in his sessions are leveling quickly. If you only do a weekly event, there's far fewer opportunities for XP.

The thing is that ALFA just isn't a campaign server. It's a persistent world server. Starting a PC at level 7 sort of isn't fair to all the people who have to start at level 1. I'd suggest upping the starting level to 3, that's when D&D starts being an acceptable system anyway. A level 3 can at least contribute to a higher level party, and have a good time.

[Zelknolf]

I made no argument about power;

Any arguments about level are inherently about power, as that is the only thing which level relates to.

Seems odd, then, that the argument is still about assumpions of effort and investment, and not power.

damaging narrative consistency

Which makes zero sense unless you assume that the entire NPC population of the world is level 1, or you have a complete lack of creativity with how to involve a former NPC in a party.

I long to participate in campaigns you describe, where NPCs are held up to the same scrutiny and portrayed in the same detail as PCs, and where they have the same implications to a narrative.

But if such campaigns existed, this thread would be about how insignificant PCs feel, and how one could simply watch a movie to get the experience of having no control over (sometimes-compelling) events.


Pulling out part of a list to grump also does not invalidate the other items. Fairness of this sort of request remains a concern; undermining permadeath remains a concern; availability of low-level DMed content and the capacity to produce even more of it remain existing solutions to your current situation.


Should also note that a view of immersive roleplaying which encourages people to not fear for their lives and work very hard on managing their risk is decidedly not universal. Indeed, I tend to think that the people who risk horrible and immediate death for loot are behaving "OOCly" -- it is fun to take stupid risks with low-consequence proxies of stuff, in that very short-term visceral sense, but not very immersive. Would you, for instance, ship down to Mexico with four friends to clear out the holdings of a drug cartel (then, same question but there's a big bag of money waiting for you in the event of success)?

[dergon darkhelm]

This isn't a tabletop game with 1 DM and your 5 buddies who all play PCs and all progress together. In that situation I have often allowed players to roll a PC who died permantently to enter the game at Lvl-1 (of the lowest PC).


But this is a community where there are multiple DMs, multiple players PCs who, to some greater or lesser degree interact with each other.

To put in place some rule to the effect of "If you are playing in a regularly DMd game" (which is in and of itself an ALFA blessing btw) "and if your PC dies you can re-enter with a PC of similar level to the remainder of the party" would be viewed as horribly unfair to those players who are not in a regular game and gain their levels with a mix of static content, intermittent DM time, RP/XP and combat. Not only would it be viewed as unfair, it would perpetuate a reputation of cliquishness that is already a detriment to how our community is perceived externally.

I say roll up a new level one PC, play some hours between scheduled DM games (or maybe take a few weeks of play before presenting said PC to the group so you can have a couple levels under your belt) and start from scratch.

Thus has it ever been. Whether a voluntary death or going kicking and screaming. Whether a dramatic cliffhanger as the center of a DM plot or dying alone soloing a goblin cave. Whether a level 13 Wizard that failed a will save at the wrong time or newly rolled who just made lvl 2 yesterday and took a crit from a kobold. Whether the player loved by all in the community who gets 30 hours ofDM time /week or the unknown occasional login who just joined....

When you die you roll up at level 1.


That's the ALFA way of it.

[Heero]

Make a level 1 and then lets run the Rivermoot statics together.

[Xanthea]

Seems odd, then, that the argument is still about assumpions of effort and investment, and not power.

What other factor is involved in the starting level besides power? It is effort and investment, to reach a certain amount of power, in terms of character level. I suppose theoretically there are a few things involved in level which might not strictly translate into power, class abilities which have no direct combat application. "Ability" might be a better term, but that's incredibly nit-picky.

I long to participate in campaigns you describe, where NPCs are held up to the same scrutiny and portrayed in the same detail as PCs, and where they have the same implications to a narrative.

This really isn't as hard as you're trying to make it seem. A level 1 start no matter what is an exception, not a general rule to D&D and it is trivially easy to fit a new character into an existing party without any glaring narrative problems. Anything from an elaborate "This trusted NPC who has worked with us for some time is now joining us directly" to a simple "Well met, travelling priest. Our loyal companion has recently fallen and we need someone to be the heal bitch, thanks."

Pulling out part of a list to grump also does not invalidate the other items.

I was trying to avoid getting pulled into a quote stacking war, but, well...

Fairness of this sort of request remains a concern;

Hence the fact that this is not a prescriptive topic. This is a topic to point out an existing problem and bring it to the community's general attention to see if a fair solution can be found.

I will point out, though, that ALFA is already extremely unfair in multiple ways, just in different ways. ALFA benefits people who are mechanically competent. Alfa benefits people who have a significant amount of time to invest and people who have a high tolerence for boredom who can sit around grinding RPXP all day or running dull riskless statics.

and the capacity to produce even more of it remain existing solutions to your current situation.

I'll say it here and now. All static content in ALFA sucks. All of it, yes, even that one. It is not possible to create good static content in ALFA.

At best they're disposable one-shot ways to kill half an hour, with a party of friends. At worst, you have no friends around your level and you either effortlessly crush some goblin beneath your boot or watch your higher level friends do it, or you waste an hour of your life wandering up and down empty roads to deliver to mail.

Should also note that a view of immersive roleplaying which encourages people to not fear for their lives and work very hard on managing their risk is decidedly not universal. Indeed, I tend to think that the people who risk horrible and immediate death for loot are behaving "OOCly" -- it is fun to take stupid risks with low-consequence proxies of stuff, in that very short-term visceral sense, but not very immersive. Would you, for instance, ship down to Mexico with four friends to clear out the holdings of a drug cartel (then, same question but there's a big bag of money waiting for you in the event of success)?

What?

I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous to me. The name of the game we're playing is Dungeons and Dragons. The entire game is about a party of adventurers delving into dangerous dungeons, heroically battling evil monsters and acquiring treasure. The most iconic creature of the game is a horrible giant lizard that could easily bite you in half if your luck goes bad.

The reckless adventurer may charge recklessly into danger, the cunning adventurer may work up elaborate plots to defeat their foes, and the wise adventurer may sometimes retreat and regroup to fight again at a more prudent location or time. But none of them throw up their hands and go "Oh we might die doing this, let's go sit in a bar for the rest of our lives." The name of the same is adventuring and heroic fantasy, not "real life fantasy simulator".

And no, I wouldn't attack a drug cartel in Mexico. But I wouldn't agree to carry a virus laden USB drive into the heart of North Korea to sabotage their arsenal of nuclear weapons and prevent armageddon either. We are not our characters and the entire point is playing people far more heroic than we are.

And that's not even to say that I object if people want to play the Sims or something on ALFA, it's no skin off my nose, and it even provides some nice ambiance. But I strongly object to any notion that this sort of gameplay should be the focus of ALFA, or supported at all, with the ruleset or otherwise. If people don't want to partake in dangerous adventuring that's totally fine with me, but I think they should probably cap out around level 5 at max. That's not really the point of this thread though so I'm going to drop it before it goes any further.

[oldgrayrogue]

Foam said it, I've been saying it for a long time. Level 3 start does away with this entire problem. If those out there with high levels feel like its unfair then give every active player in ALFA an equal XP boost. I don't think it really should be necessary because, you know, we aren't supposed to be playing in a leveling or power progression race, but if XP is that important to people then let em have it. Give em some virtual gold too for their trouble.

I think the point of Xan's post is it sucks not being able to continue enjoying a game you have been playing with others for a long time. Especially one that is really a lot of fun. Its like when that great TV series you have been watching ends -- it sucks. We indeed experienced that in SE. It hits the casual player (Ksiel comes to mind), who really can only play that one campaign night due to RL, the hardest.

Yes, you can jump in with a new level 1 ala Heero, but it is real hard and you do feel kinda useless -- at least until you hit about level 3. This is probably your best option in ALFA Xan, if you want to continue in the same game.

Yes, you can join Adanu's campaign, or Shadowfax's lowbie stuff, or something else, and get your game that way. Zelk is right, encouraging game with other players and DMs through starting over is a good thing. Think about it Xan, I have done it recently and it can be a lot of fun. But if you have scheduled that one gaming night into your busy schedule as a casual player, it totally sucks. And yes it is a deterrent to playing. Last night my PC got involved in this campaign and when I logged off it was with the feeling of how much I miss playing with all of you guys. So yeah, it sucks to not be able to jump back in like in PnP.

Level 3 start solves all of that. You have just enough in your tank at level 3 to survive, even in a group that is much higher level. Level progression after 3 is slow enough that it all evens out in the long run. The point is, why force people who want to get back into the same game to grind it out to survivability (admit it most of us have done it) or go do something else? Xan is right, the consequences should be to the PCs, not the players. It truly does not make a lot of sense.

A level 3 start makes sense for a lot of other reasons too, number one of which to me is more robust story in your character backgrounds. Playing a fresh faced kid off the farm can be fun, and yes some start their adventuring life at an older age, but a bio with a few levels in it lends to a better story IMO, and allows you to tailor your PC to that backstory quite a bit more.

Finally, Level 1 sucks. Heegz and I debated this recently and I think he agrees with me now =D Level 2 sucks just a bit less. The game starts to get real fun at level 3. For me the reason is that too much OOC thinking about "survivability" creeps in to my game at those first two levels if I let it. When does that happen? When I really like the PC concept and want it to last a bit so I can continue to enjoy playing it. Its sort of backwards. if I make a "throw away" PC I feel like I have more freedom to RP ICly than when I make one I spend a lot of time on and really want to last. I hate playing really cautious and careful "adventurers." I feel that by definition these are people who do and should take risks, or live according to their principles regardless of risk etc. When I find myself avoiding stuff with my lowbie that I know the PC would do if calling the shots (ie immersive RP!) I end up feeling like a lousy RPer. So yeah, level 3 start I say.

Anyway, I doubt it will happen but I'll beat the horse a bit more.