Adventures would likely have an approved XP and loot parcel.
This would work. I'm personally not too worried about maintaining perfect balance between players, so long as it's ballpark. The mix-and-match system should tend to even things out anyway.
Question for you prospective players. Suppose this: If your character dies, you can either prevail on one one of your high-level friends to cast a Raise Dead for you, or you can roll up a new character at level 1.
Would you as players appreciate that risk being there? Death is relatively rare in 4E to begin with, and the more time you'd spent playing your character, the higher her level would be and the more likely she is to have access to Raise Dead. It also opens the opportunity for quests to resurrect dead comrades. Or, would you be happier with the security of just creating a new character at the same level?
Adventures would likely have an approved XP and loot parcel.
This would work. I'm personally not too worried about maintaining perfect balance between players, so long as it's ballpark. The mix-and-match system should tend to even things out anyway.
Question for you prospective players. Suppose this: If your character dies, you can either prevail on one one of your high-level friends to cast a Raise Dead for you, or you can roll up a new character at level 1.
Would you as players appreciate that risk being there? Death is relatively rare in 4E to begin with, and the more time you'd spent playing your character, the higher her level would be and the more likely she is to have access to Raise Dead. It also opens the opportunity for quests to resurrect dead comrades. Or, would you be happier with the security of just creating a new character at the same level?
Raise Dead abundancy always irks me personally, since it trivializes things and makes the setting hard to believe, impacting story everywhere. It's just a really inconsistent or bizarre world for most plots and characters since you tend to ignore raising the dead (assassination? pfft, we'll just raise him) or gets murky if you do address it, getting silly like trying to compensate for wizards 3e style etc.
In my past games I usually just let people reroll at one level lower, but having a player reenter the game at roughly the same level of play should be fine. If you have been questing and reached epic tier and then die, you don't have to start heroic all over again (unless you wanted to!)
Bringing back the dead should be incredibly rare and hard to do, and definitely not just a matter of hitting up high level friends. Ideally you could get a DM willing to run an adventure with the goal of bringing you back to life. (An all-ghost adventure with only dead players trying to escape New York - er, the underworld - sounds like it would be awesome.)
ronrab on
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Raise Dead abundancy always irks me personally, since it trivializes things and makes the setting hard to believe, impacting story everywhere. It's just a really inconsistent or bizarre world for most plots and characters since you tend to ignore raising the dead (assassination? pfft, we'll just raise him) or gets murky if you do address it, getting silly like trying to compensate for wizards 3e style etc.
In my past games I usually just let people reroll at one level lower, but having a player reenter the game at roughly the same level of play should be fine. If you have been questing and reached epic tier and then die, you don't have to start heroic all over again (unless you wanted to!)
4e specifically addresses this though. The players are easy to raise, other people are not. It doesn't do it in a very convincing way, but it at least provides some way out of the hole that all previous editions have had.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Raise Dead abundancy always irks me personally, since it trivializes things and makes the setting hard to believe, impacting story everywhere. It's just a really inconsistent or bizarre world for most plots and characters since you tend to ignore raising the dead (assassination? pfft, we'll just raise him) or gets murky if you do address it, getting silly like trying to compensate for wizards 3e style etc.
In my past games I usually just let people reroll at one level lower, but having a player reenter the game at roughly the same level of play should be fine. If you have been questing and reached epic tier and then die, you don't have to start heroic all over again (unless you wanted to!)
4e specifically addresses this though. The players are easy to raise, other people are not. It doesn't do it in a very convincing way, but it at least provides some way out of the hole that all previous editions have had.
It still isn't consistent enough for me personally is all, and having it common for players still isn't my preference as I like to offer rerolls on par as mentioned.
This is definitely something we need to decide on across the board though.
In my own games raise dead is rare to the point of non-existence, but I don't habitually run 4E. When I say to hit up a high level friend, I don't mean to imply that the Raise Dead scrolls (or whatever) themselves aren't rare treasures. They should be at minimum slightly rarer than player death. I just mean that a high level character is the only one likely to have access to that sort of magic, and the higher your level the more likely you or someone you adventure with is to have something of that sort stashed away for emergencies.
I would be happy - eager, even - to limit resurrection to something attainable through difficult quests for forgotten magic and pacts with dark entities. But then, I would also be happy to have players reroll at level one if they die, to put a healthy sense of fear into all you miserable gadabouts. If a player doesn't want to start over, well, time to get cracking on that resurrection quest (I've already got one RP possibility I intend to put into the game, either way). I figure I may be unnecessarily bloodthirsty in both cases.
(An all-ghost adventure with only dead players trying to escape New York - er, the underworld - sounds like it would be awesome.)
Agreed. It is most unfortunate that death is so often seen as being the end of adventures, when it just as well may be their beginning. In the event of a TPK, the campaign may simply enter the planes, beginning with the land of the dead. It would probably be simplest to merely reskin the campaign with high contrast black-and-white background, and weapons crafted from souls of the condemned. Or, one might take a page from the Aeneid, in which those entering the land of dead receive the most august greeting.
"In front of the very Entrance Hall, in the very Jaws of Hades, Grief and Resentful Care have laid their beds. Shapes terrible of aspect have their dwelling there, pallid Diseases, Old Age forlorn, Fear, Hunger, the Counsellor of Evil, ugly Poverty, Death, and Pain. Next is the Sleep who is close kin to Death, and Joy of Sinning and, by the threshold in front, Death's harbinger, War. And the iron chambers of the Furies are there, and Strife the insane, with a bloody ribbon binding her snaky hair."
The party could elect to either try to return to the land of the living, or could continue their adventure in the land of the dead, having been given a second chance to remain in the narrative.
A single player death, or even a partial party kill is more complicated. Assuming the DM could convincingly sustain a story with a common geography in the lands of the living and the lands of the dead (not at all easy, but hardly insurmountable) the party would need interact with each other across the Veil. The living could seek out the skills of a medium, perhaps all gaining forbidden knowledge of necromancy to better facilitate a more normal interaction between members. There are a variety of options available for characters of such a mixed party to interact with each other. The dead could appear as shades of their old selves for brief times (such as during combat encounters or other occasions of significant roleplaying), regaining healing surges and the like not by extended rest, but by consuming the flesh and blood of the recently deceased. Or they could be more limited, such as being reduced to learning rituals that allow them to reach across into the land of the living and manipulate objects, effect possessions, increase movement difficulties on surfaces by causing blood to ooze from walls and floors, or other similarly indirect means. Similarly, the dead characters may have useful insight into opponents. They may have an easier time identifying the evil necromatic wizard trying to pass himself off as a baker, or perhaps demons, devils, the fey or other creatures of a similar order leave trails through the land of the dead that can be followed or studied.
Of course, a character or group of characters reputed to be haunted would likely gain a new set of enemies and allies of convenience.
-Apo
Apophatos on
- Apo
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
In my own games raise dead is rare to the point of non-existence, but I don't habitually run 4E. When I say to hit up a high level friend, I don't mean to imply that the Raise Dead scrolls (or whatever) themselves aren't rare treasures. They should be at minimum slightly rarer than player death. I just mean that a high level character is the only one likely to have access to that sort of magic, and the higher your level the more likely you or someone you adventure with is to have something of that sort stashed away for emergencies.
I would be happy - eager, even - to limit resurrection to something attainable through difficult quests for forgotten magic and pacts with dark entities. But then, I would also be happy to have players reroll at level one if they die, to put a healthy sense of fear into all you miserable gadabouts. If a player doesn't want to start over, well, time to get cracking on that resurrection quest (I've already got one RP possibility I intend to put into the game, either way). I figure I may be unnecessarily bloodthirsty in both cases.
This is how I do it too, but I didn't want to propose it here because of trying to keep the setting as standard as possible to keep it inclusive.
DEAD IS DEAD might be interesting, but I don't know how many people it would frighten off.
Letting players remake characters at n-1 sounds fine to me though. Or even n. The glory here is keeping your character alive through adventures, not experience levels.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Dying in 4E is hard enough to do all ready. I think it'd be best to play the Dead is Dead card and have them remake a level 1 character. It makes for more cautious players who care more about their characters.
For me, TPKs don't even always mean death. In one game I ran, the loss of a battle simply meant that the party was rendered unconscious and captured (except the one who failed all his saves during the fight. He dead), effectively creating another branch in the storyline.
I don't really know how I feel about resolutions to death, but I'd like the freedom to decide they aren't actually dead if I feel it serves my adventure and the players better.
Definitely interested as a player, and probably interested as a DM once I get some experience as a PbP player. I think the "episodic adventure" vibe that I am getting from this work great for a lot of people, myself included.
Like maybe January. Not now. But we are making progress, where your naughty eyes can't see, don't worry.
Aroused Bull on
0
Options
mightyjongyoSour CrrmEast Bay, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
I would be interested as a player. I like the idea of having a consistent character that isn't dependent on any single DM continuing a full-fledged campaign. The death issue would be consistent across the world, right? It wouldn't be something a DM or the players could decide on a per-adventure basis?
I would be interested as a player. I like the idea of having a consistent character that isn't dependent on any single DM continuing a full-fledged campaign. The death issue would be consistent across the world, right? It wouldn't be something a DM or the players could decide on a per-adventure basis?
Whatever ends up being decided, it will be consistent across the collab setting.
There's the new campaign setting I just started planning out on wikidot. I like their website best, but then... I've been using it for years now and am very used to their syntax, which isn't the same as other wiki's.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
I haven't played in years, and have yet to attempt a PbP game, but it was Rend's collaborative dungeon design thread three years ago that first got me registered on these forums, and I was just thinking how I'd like to try something like that again. I would definitely be interested in developing locations and hooks to explore, whether or not I end up actually running adventurers through them. Do you have the kernel of the setting already established somewhere, or is that still to be established by whatever core group of DMs you start with?
We have a core group of DMs who are (leisurely) working to establish the kernel of the setting before we start. As of right now I think we've got the concept decided, so it's just a matter of filling in enough information to work with. Once Infidel has the wiki up we can start fitting the different bits together. Anything beyond that basic starting point will be written by DMs adding to the setting after we start.
Posts
Question for you prospective players. Suppose this: If your character dies, you can either prevail on one one of your high-level friends to cast a Raise Dead for you, or you can roll up a new character at level 1.
Would you as players appreciate that risk being there? Death is relatively rare in 4E to begin with, and the more time you'd spent playing your character, the higher her level would be and the more likely she is to have access to Raise Dead. It also opens the opportunity for quests to resurrect dead comrades. Or, would you be happier with the security of just creating a new character at the same level?
Raise Dead abundancy always irks me personally, since it trivializes things and makes the setting hard to believe, impacting story everywhere. It's just a really inconsistent or bizarre world for most plots and characters since you tend to ignore raising the dead (assassination? pfft, we'll just raise him) or gets murky if you do address it, getting silly like trying to compensate for wizards 3e style etc.
In my past games I usually just let people reroll at one level lower, but having a player reenter the game at roughly the same level of play should be fine. If you have been questing and reached epic tier and then die, you don't have to start heroic all over again (unless you wanted to!)
4e specifically addresses this though. The players are easy to raise, other people are not. It doesn't do it in a very convincing way, but it at least provides some way out of the hole that all previous editions have had.
It still isn't consistent enough for me personally is all, and having it common for players still isn't my preference as I like to offer rerolls on par as mentioned.
This is definitely something we need to decide on across the board though.
I would be happy - eager, even - to limit resurrection to something attainable through difficult quests for forgotten magic and pacts with dark entities. But then, I would also be happy to have players reroll at level one if they die, to put a healthy sense of fear into all you miserable gadabouts. If a player doesn't want to start over, well, time to get cracking on that resurrection quest (I've already got one RP possibility I intend to put into the game, either way). I figure I may be unnecessarily bloodthirsty in both cases.
Agreed. It is most unfortunate that death is so often seen as being the end of adventures, when it just as well may be their beginning. In the event of a TPK, the campaign may simply enter the planes, beginning with the land of the dead. It would probably be simplest to merely reskin the campaign with high contrast black-and-white background, and weapons crafted from souls of the condemned. Or, one might take a page from the Aeneid, in which those entering the land of dead receive the most august greeting.
"In front of the very Entrance Hall, in the very Jaws of Hades, Grief and Resentful Care have laid their beds. Shapes terrible of aspect have their dwelling there, pallid Diseases, Old Age forlorn, Fear, Hunger, the Counsellor of Evil, ugly Poverty, Death, and Pain. Next is the Sleep who is close kin to Death, and Joy of Sinning and, by the threshold in front, Death's harbinger, War. And the iron chambers of the Furies are there, and Strife the insane, with a bloody ribbon binding her snaky hair."
The party could elect to either try to return to the land of the living, or could continue their adventure in the land of the dead, having been given a second chance to remain in the narrative.
A single player death, or even a partial party kill is more complicated. Assuming the DM could convincingly sustain a story with a common geography in the lands of the living and the lands of the dead (not at all easy, but hardly insurmountable) the party would need interact with each other across the Veil. The living could seek out the skills of a medium, perhaps all gaining forbidden knowledge of necromancy to better facilitate a more normal interaction between members. There are a variety of options available for characters of such a mixed party to interact with each other. The dead could appear as shades of their old selves for brief times (such as during combat encounters or other occasions of significant roleplaying), regaining healing surges and the like not by extended rest, but by consuming the flesh and blood of the recently deceased. Or they could be more limited, such as being reduced to learning rituals that allow them to reach across into the land of the living and manipulate objects, effect possessions, increase movement difficulties on surfaces by causing blood to ooze from walls and floors, or other similarly indirect means. Similarly, the dead characters may have useful insight into opponents. They may have an easier time identifying the evil necromatic wizard trying to pass himself off as a baker, or perhaps demons, devils, the fey or other creatures of a similar order leave trails through the land of the dead that can be followed or studied.
Of course, a character or group of characters reputed to be haunted would likely gain a new set of enemies and allies of convenience.
-Apo
This is how I do it too, but I didn't want to propose it here because of trying to keep the setting as standard as possible to keep it inclusive.
DEAD IS DEAD might be interesting, but I don't know how many people it would frighten off.
Letting players remake characters at n-1 sounds fine to me though. Or even n. The glory here is keeping your character alive through adventures, not experience levels.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
_____________________________________________
HoTS: Schmutz#1686
I don't really know how I feel about resolutions to death, but I'd like the freedom to decide they aren't actually dead if I feel it serves my adventure and the players better.
Color me interested.
Whatever ends up being decided, it will be consistent across the collab setting.
There's the new campaign setting I just started planning out on wikidot. I like their website best, but then... I've been using it for years now and am very used to their syntax, which isn't the same as other wiki's.