Opinions on the Current Death System

[Adanu]

If the floor is removed I will remove death spells from a few of BG's mobs. In my opinion its catching of death spells is a feature, not a bug. I realize many people disagree with this, but in my opinion 3.5 was not balanced with our slow progression in mind. It was also not created with our strong culture of not raising dead PCs and our requirement to start over from level 1..

I can totally agree with this. I'd prefer death magic be something, say, the big bad of a campaign uses for this very reason. It should be rarely used, and when it is, you know to get your shit together and shut that caster down quick.

[kid]

Finger of death should randomly cast by general shopkeepers from time to time.

("Hey there, good shopkeeper, I have come for my mithral armor. I'm sure like every shop, you have one, right?"
"Why yes, and we also have . . . this!" *ZAP* The shopkeeper drags the poor adventurer to a back room and strips him bare to sale all his worldly possessions. The End.)

[dergon darkhelm]

Finger of death should randomly cast by general shopkeepers from time to time.

("Hey there, good shopkeeper, I have come for my mithral armor. I'm sure like every shop, you have one, right?"
"Why yes, and we also have . . . this!" *ZAP* The shopkeeper drags the poor adventurer to a back room and strips him bare to sale all his worldly possessions. The End.)

On TLR there were shops with randomly cabinets and chests that had deadly fire traps on them.... just in case PCs got too curious ..


(( I lost my second ALFA PC to one said trap ))

[Brokenbone]

<SNIP>in my opinion 3.5 was not balanced with our slow progression in mind. It was also not created with our strong culture of not raising dead PCs and our requirement to start over from level 1.

OGR, I agree that PC turnover is healthy for the project, but only if new PCs have plots and things to become involved in.

While like I said, I appreciate a dose of super scary death magic in mind here and there... it's true that in general, ALFA progression is slow whether you're talking gp or xp. Maybe just the idea ought be that death magic outside of DM'd events, DM NPCs etc. is super rare. Or maybe only to be found in known super dangerous environments as static spawns (like if we had better working beholders with stuff like disintegrate, fine, you might find that eleven maps deep into the Underdark... or yes, you might find a Bodak wearing a lot of tattered elven clothing in the Castle of Skulls). Why I mention "slow progression" and "DM events" in the same breath is really just about the DM knowing relative strengths / weaknesses of a party and being able to craft appropriate challenges, or adjudicate proper ways for a party to avoid or run away ("Oh, you two who just drank invisibility potions and who are running... are you going to attempt to move silently, if so, roll for me. If just running and clattering away, let me know that too and I can start rolling vs. concealment for the hostiles.")

Second comment about turnover... yeah. That is true too. "Oh my old concept is played out, I need a change, there's nothing really for my PC to do...", well, starting over if without maybe some fellow players and ideally, some prospect of getting involved in a story, not a lot of point. Turns out though ALFA is lots of fun when a group all starts with common levels, goals, DM sponsorship etc. I guess though we call those campaigns.

[Ithildur]

My thoughts lately have involved the element of new incoming/prospective players, and their adapting to ALFA. We've had MS open for a while, and BG just reopened/removed password, and I've had conversations with about 4 NWN2 players that wish to investigate ALFA; Dalelands apparently is going through a mini Quake of their own and players are dissatisfied with some of them looking for something more hardcore. I do not think this is the time to be thinking only about maximizing enjoyment for our current circles of players, especially when discussing a rule change that will impact everyone who plays here at a deep level.

As others have said starting out hardcore at lvl 1 is fun, but upon further thought I have to agree, it's not that fun if there are no players/DMs in your timezone/schedule/server. There's a reason why people take 'breaks' and are gone for long stretches other than just RL getting busy. So at this point, mine is a qualified agreement with the idea that starting over is fun; when I see posts from HEEGZ saying he's going to actively support low lvls on BG then I say that sounds like a great opportunity for new PCs, and campaigns are, well, campaigns. Outside of these kinds of things, our game largely isn't all that attractive to new players, as evidenced from our retention track record. And we kid ourselves if we think it's because all these new players just aren't good RPers.

tldr version: turning up the notch on deadliness so veterans in campaigns (one with an abundance of healing as the DM himself noted) enjoy the game more needs to be balanced against the rest of current and future population.

Having said that, I've been a supporter of removing the floor myself. It's definitely a homebrew we came up with to be kinder and gentler to folks, and there's a lot of situations where it's just plain stupid. My main beef with the current system is twofold: death effects not being death-y and the ability to bounce back multiple times if you were unlucky enough to, say eat two 100dmg crits in the same battle and got rescued by the floor more than once.

I'd support changing these elements, but atm I'm not so sure about removing the floor entirely. Looking at the poll thus far, the answer to the question I asked in the other thread 'Do most ALFAns feel that our current system is fundamentally broken (disregarding improved coding/implementation and such)?' seems to be a no so far.

[kid]

Just a deeper negative would work (double con, whatever. -25).
It shouldn't effect low level play or newcomers.
Have not met any death magic anywhere without DMs, so if it's there (hiding in the bowls or the earth) it shouldn't effect newcomers.

[causk]

I think the main plus of the deathfloor is equalling out extremely bad luck. I remember great concern about greataxe wielding ogres, that could oneshot mid level characters even if they dideverything right( in a group, healing and good coordination). Considering how much time and investment most people put into their pcs, its endlessly frustrating to see that undone not due bad decision making but lets say a double twenty. Furthermore, we usually have a mixed level range and damage floor allows lower levels to join in on sessions with a high levels present that the ruleset isnt really designed for. I think the rule actuall encourages people to go out and adventure because it improves the risk reward relation if you have help with you. If the risk-reward relation is getting more unfavorable, it will likely be only the extremely risk averse players/characters that make it to the higher levels and i dont really see how that fits in whole dungeons and dragons inspiration.

[thinkpig]

To the whole "...oh, but when my high level character dies, there is nothing for my new character to do/be involved in, whine whine"

Finding a game or building one is just part of ALFA. You can complain that you don't have anything to do, or you can seek one of the DMs eliciting characters for a campaign, join the Selunites, the Knights Draconis, the Gullykin group, Ascension... Are we arguing there is nothing to do? If you don't like one of the existing campaigns you can always start a new one. It takes a lot of work, sure, but thats how every existing faction/campaign started-- someone did a lot of hard work recruiting players, etc.

2) In 3.5 D&D, death effects kill you if you fail the save. Getting bailed out by the neg 6 floor should be regarded as a privilege, IMO, and most of us regard it as a right. People feel like they have the right to a survival chance no matter what kind of stupid shit they try. If you went somewhere where something that casts death spell spawns with no DM on, and you got killed by a death spell, well, that's the risk you take adventuring somewhere you should have been afraid to go. The place that spawns a death spell caster randomly is probably somewhere most characters wouldn't be caught dead visiting if Ronan was logged in as a DM. When you go there looking for loot because there isn't a fresh batch of server reset goblins to pillage and get your powergaming ass handed to you, well, that' ALFA!

perma death = Pillar.
-6 floor = house rule.

Are we playing D&D or Barbie Dolls?

That said, I think the -6 floor is great, it gives good roleplayers (vs. power gaming solo artists) who are careful with their characters a really good chance to survive to high levels.

I think it's silly that it saves you from death effects and the day one of my own PCs gets hit by a death spell and gets saved by the floor, I will ask the DM that my PC simply die like he should.

Tying all this together--

I think the reason most people die is because they don't get involved in groups. Without question the primary cause of PC death is soloing, right? No problems there, no arguments for solo toons to get a break, or a bigger break? And the "random adventurer" you rolled doesn't have a group that is hardcore about helping them survive, they mostly bounce from group to group game to game etc. playing with allies all over the loyalty spectrum.

When you see that ogre with a big axe, you can always turn around. What would your character really do? What would you do?

If we really want to carebear our game out, it would make a lot more sense to me to do something like double the XP gains across the board for levels 1-10 so anyone can get in game and get a well rounded playable character that doesn't get pwnd so easily in a month or two of play, and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE for the sake of meaningful stories with consequences can we

REMAIN HARD CORE PERMA DEATH? :O :O :O

[thinkpig]

I'm reminded that ALFA-izing Reincarnate ought be done someday. Even if it's just "if you roll an unplayable race as a DM, just roll again." I've seen Reincarnates IG, odd races off the table like half-drow when it was a Slyth Druid in the UD doing the spell, and a few times I've seen gender switches. It's cheap and low level too though in relative terms, 1000gp and Dru 4, rather than 5000gp and Cleric 5. Even a lowbie adventurer party may be able to pass the hat for a beloved companion and shake out that much coin (hypothetical quartet of 5s, one has a prized +1 weapon, but prizes their ally more... vendor time!)

Anyhow I come out on the "play, yet lenient" side. Death magic is my main sore point. Death magic is hated and terrifying, one bad save and you're toast! But again in ALFA, it's Bleed Magic. So while a PnP Bodak: fearsome, ALFA Bodak: hey whatever, I have partymates and we've got lots of healing we're packing. So it's like death monsters take a back seat to say, petrify monsters like medusa or basilisk and whatnot. Just a little off putting.

A similar thing disliked about the death system is foes "losing interest." I saw cartoons as a kid where if Bugs Bunny played dead, sure, a bear might ignore him. Maybe that works in RL too. But sometimes you'd figure an ornery bear just keeps on mauling, and digging a muzzle into tender guts to grab tasty organ meat, even as it bats away a second man with a pointy stick. Take this into intelligent foe territory and consider "unconscious guy is a wonderful coup de grace target for band of goblins, even if there is still one human adventurer tangling with them." Sure, four out of five goblins may keep engaged with the adventurer, but one snivelling goblin goes over and stomps a big flappy foot on downed guy's throat, dead. Yes it sucks but if even just a small % chance for "animal or intelligent NPCs sometimes make sure disabled actually means dead" might add some urgency to getting a buddy back on feet, not just "he got a cure minor, hope no one has AoE spells kicking in soon..."

+1 on the reincarnate, I guess I didn't know about that.

regarding the rare occasions where the bear keeps mauling etc., sometimes it just happens! on those rare occasions I think the PC should stay dead. The only time I have ever seen Mr_Duncan's character die was when a pirate in a skaug cave attacked his PC Umpurri multiple times in the same round. A two-hander or a guy with multiple attacks sometimes gets the next attack off and kills you before losing interest. Unless you cry to the right care bear DM, you do not get a tech rez. Duncan didn't get one.

[Twin Axes]

Having prompted the subject in the Brainstorm thread, I suppose I have to go for the second to last option. Although I am generally ok with the system, maybe lethality could stand to be increased. I agree with OGR that removing the floor for PCs over level 3 or so might be a way to go. If the 20 second autopause was instituted for PCs hitting negatives even without DMs logged in, it would increase compatriots' chances to heal them, while preserving the possibility of instakill. And also maybe CON as your max negative instead of -10.

Note that the tweak proposed in my original post in Brainstorming assumed that the system in terms of the floor would remain the same.

[oldgrayrogue]

A timed autopause without a floor would be the best solution, but alas it is not technically possible.

On PC turnover, I disagree a bit that they need an ongoing story for the experience to be positive. In my view every PC a player creates comes with their own story for all of ALFA to share in. Every time a new PC is created, it is a new story for other players and DMs to enjoy. Players have responsibility for creating story, just like DMs. We write this book together.

Established high level PCs have their own stories too, to be sure. But it has always been my view that when a PC advances to the point where they essentially have attained the status of an NPC, then maybe they should be an NPC? Dealing with level disparity in sessions and campaigns is probably high up on the list of DM headaches too. So a system that provides for a bit easier advancement, and a little less lethality, in the first 3 levels, but then preserves the hardcore permadeath nature of our PW after that, is a system that promotes our core values and also creates an environment that keeps the stories fresh, open and inviting for all players, new and old, and tries to keep most players within the same manageable range of levels.

Now, every time I make statements like this on the boards, players of high levels respond, and I'd venture they think I am trying to persecute them in some way, or advocating that we rid ALFA of all PCs over a certain level -- I'm not. I have played with pretty much all of the higher level PCs on ALFA over the years and it has always been enjoyable (I hope for them too!). I have had quite a few PCs at or around level 10 myself. If what floats your boat is sticking with the same PC forever, then more power to you --carry on. But if we are talking about systems that are healthy for the gameworld, and promote our values and goals, then I would opt for one that makes attaining those levels much more difficult with a much higher risk of actually "permadying" over a certain level. And yes, I call that "hardcore" and perfectly consistent with our Pillar definition of "hardcore roleplay." I have played on many other respawn PWs. Really good roleplay can be had on those PWs, no doubt, but their basic shared shortcoming is that pretty much every established player has at least one PC at or near level 20 (or above!) with uber gear etc. The environment this promotes is one where new players, or new PCs, engage in a power leveling race so they can get up to everyone else's level and feel relevant. Not a lot of roleplaying goes on until that "comfort zone" has been achieved. Once it has been attained, then the roleplay starts, and the PCs are so powerful that DM events are like something out of a "Clash of the Titans" movie. That is not what we want to promote, in my opinion. The proposed change to the death system helps with that.

Frankly, the reason I have often advocated for a level 3 start, is that I often see ALFA players doing a variety of the above. They spend the first few levels doing lots of statics to earn enough gold and XP to have a fighting chance at survival. When DMs are around they roleplay. When they are not around they focus on character advancement. I admit I have fallen in to this trap myself from time to time, especially when playing solo. That's why I feel we should just start at 3 and get on with it. Get everybody focused on roleplay right from the start without being distracted OOC about concerns over PC survival. Or make the starting level an option. If you enjoy RPing those first few levels then carry on! But especially for casual players it is hard to fit back in to an ongoing campaign or even a player group with a new level 1, which I think is why so many people avoid death and choose rezzes at all costs. IMO level 3 to 7 is the optimal range for really fun roleplay for DMs and players alike. I think our systems should be geared toward most PCs who are actively roleplaying being in that level range. Will there be outliers? Sure. To each his own. But if you are talking about designing systems, that is what we should shoot for, and making actual PC death more likely (over level 3) is one way to do that.

[thinkpig]

You make some great points OGR, about level disparity and DM headaches, and about the RP issues surrounding getting comfortable in a new character, and how badly that goes on respawn power game servers.

The thing I want to point out is that roleplaying those first few levels, especially the first one, is kind of a challenge, but I think it's a good one, and conducive to developing well-played characters. Now OGR I have seen you play and I want to say I think you are a phenomenal RPer, one of ALFA's best, so I use "you" in the relative sense here, not addressing you specifically. The general "you" gets in game with a level one PC. You have to fight the urge to power game, accepting your puny level 1 status, and chill out and RP, or risk dying doing dangerous things while you try to power game to level 2. There is a lot of gray are and I've played it in various parts of the spectrum myself. Recently I played a tiefling, avoided all combat/danger for about 10 days, wrote about four thousand words of fiction describing my level 1 RP, attacked an NPC I shouldnt have, and died in my first ever round of combat with ~2000xp. That character is dead, and the loss stung, but I did choose to roll the dice. That's one end of the spectrum, the power gamer who grinds hard toward level 2 is the other extreme. Unless you are a well equipped warrior or cleric, most level 1's have poor AC and next to zero hit points; you literally choose to risk near-certain death or chill out and roleplay unless you intentionally built your character to powergame to level 2. This challenge gives power gamers, especially new players, a chance to really get used to hardcore roleplaying. If you can suck it up and roleplay being a weak level one, you will have the RP tools/skills and the character development necessary to begin a potentially compelling story, and DMs are likely to take an interest in you while you are RPing so carefully, and probably even plan you stories as you progress. With a little luck, by the time you do get to level 2, they'll have enough of a feel for your personality and such to join you in crafting a quality story. Starting at level 3 removes this challenge, and just creates a new plateau from which the competitive power gamer attitude feels the need to grind to relevant mid-level, which would only make the problem worse and deny power gamers who need the level one challenge to develop a strong character (many of us, IMO) that opportunity.

We already give a 200xp bio bump. Starting at level 3 is a bit extreme; if we really think it's too hard why don't we just make it a little bit easier to get there? removing the challenge entirely would do our story harm, IMO

[oldgrayrogue]

The PGers will always PG regardless of starting level. A level 3 start lets the people who are interested in hardcore role play do so without the distraction of all the OOC fear of survival you so aptly point out in your post Piggy. It also allows people whose PCs die -- like your tiefling -- to jump back into an ongoing campaign or other game immediately.

To me, playing "hardcore" means playing a PC the way I conceived him. If my PC is an adventurer who lives by the sword, and I have rolled him up to be a risk taker, then I need to play him as a risk taker. Rolling up some belligerent Barb or Fighter who spends his first month of play in a tavern is OOC to me. Of course, you can roll up a careful and calculating PC who takes very few risks and RP him that way. But what I tend to see is that demeanor changes once a player OOC feels the PC has attained enough power. Could this be a legitimate IC development? Sure, your PC is more powerful so feels more confident. But I tend to think it is more OOC and player driven than character driven. I still think though that removing the OOC thoughts from affecting your initial RP frees you up considerably. It also makes for a much more enjoyable initial experience for new players joining ALFA for the first time. How often have we heard the story of the new player excited about the prospect of hardcore story based role play who spends tons of time on a character concept, rolls a level 1, dies quickly to a lucky crit and quits?

That's why I say keep the -6 floor for level 1 to 3, or just start at 3 and do away with the floor all together.

[kid]

tl,dr: We can remove floor.

Doing away with the floor is good. (Ogre axes are scary and so they should be)

I once suggested (and got no real response) we should consider limiting our game at level 8 or even 6 and use some e8 system or something, which is very cool imm. and would keep everyone playable at all times with nearly everyone.
But then we have the players that say FR is not like that, and epic magic is readily available, etc. *Shrugs*

Anyways, I can't see the problem with someone wanting to play a high level, especially when they can keep that high level in some other server and start a fresh noob to play with others these days, while still keeping that high level story option on a back burner.

Not sure if we need to even keep the floor at level 1-3. floor wont save you if you solo, and kobolds are unlikely to crit you for 20 damage.
If you solo you'll bleed and die most likely anyways.
If you don't you'll make it anyways.
While soloing (and I have done so many times in my early ALFA years when I was the only dude online in my timezone) I never once was saved by the floor. If I hit negatives I died. each time. (Though I do remember OGR fleeing from some dazed Redcap while hitting negatives soloing...)
I think we can do away with the floor altogether, I doubt it will help any noob.

I would not mind deeper negatives possibly (-20, whatever) to accommodate for real time and pathing and what not.

I wouldn't like to start at 3, I like the low levels and the challenge they pose, but I wouldn't mind if others want that.

And lastly, that mean OGR wants to ruin my fun and kill my lv14 toon,
I hope we ban him forevers.

[boombrakh]

A dying creature is unconscious and near death. Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions. On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.