Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by greyorm, March 22, 2003, 12:35:47 AM
Quote from: greyormBut in a curtsey to regular D&D, I imagine one could optionally state that going below 2x Stamina in wounds means character death without some sort of "Saving Throw"...but with a twist: your next character takes all that character's demons upon itself (homage to the idea that a slain character is replaced with one of equal level). I'm not certain I entirely like that idea, but it's out on the table for discussion.
Quote from: greyormLet me repeat that: your character cannot die.
QuoteAnother thing I should mention is that characters will likely not be going up against other sorcerers: after all, adventurers are sorcerers, and the main villians are almost never "also" adventurers. Quite honestly, the main villians would regularly be Persons of Power, while other sorcerous groups (ie: other adventuring companies) would serve as rivals and foils for the character's plots. Note that in a typical tournament scenario, these competing adventuring companies usually never directly engage in conflicts with each other, though they may attempt to mislead, trap, or tip the odds against their rivals.
Quote from: DaR...the brutality of Sorcerer combat. In fact, it can make it worse. Because more important than dying, in terms of game-play, is that your effectiveness degrades dramatically. For the period of time until you can heal back up to your normal levels, you end up not being able to do anything heroic or impressive with any chance of successes.
QuoteYou become a deprotagonized spectator trapped mostly helpless inside a ruined shell of a body, because in order to do anything you've got to make that will roll to get any dice at all. While that make for fun roleplaying for a little while, if you end up like that after every other fight, it gets boring pretty quickly.
Quote from: greyormThe interesting thing about all this is that the moral decisions are taking place not on a character-level -- the character, as is true in D&D, is unaware of levels and experience points, and is actually engaged in the activity for some personal, motivating reason -- but on the level of the player. It is the player who is taking the moral authority and his or her choices and feelings about the question that are actually highlighted by play: simply, what is the cost of protecting my creative investment, and when does the cost of protecting the investment destroy the creation through that protection?
Quote from: Ron EdwardsUmmm ... Raven, you might want to check the rules.
Quote from: Rob MacDougallI wonder if it might come across in play as kind of didactic, though: Are you basically setting it up so you lose Humanity for making Gamist decisions, and preserve Humanity by making Narrativist ones?
QuoteThe interesting thing about all this is that the moral decisions are taking place not on a character-level -- the character, as is true in D&D, is unaware of levels and experience points, and is actually engaged in the activity for some personal, motivating reason -- but on the level of the player....Which I find personally fascinating, because such a game ends up being about the players, and their relationships to their characters, rather than the characters and their relationships to other characters.