Interesting stuff.
They aren't different arguments, it's an end the argument has come to from the same exact argument, that PC death is usually due to a failure of some sort on the part of the DM and that it's consequences are not a thing people enjoy.
Your stated solution to the issue of death causing story inconstancies (such as previously non existent people of the appropriate level contrivedly ending up in the right place at the exact right time) is that death shouldn't be permanent.
You are literally saying, 'well if you don't like it when high powered people show up contrivedly you should just not let the players die. You should have seeded some NPC or magic items into the story to essentially take death off the table.'
Even better this leads back to you insinuating that their lack of taking death off the table (by providing magic items or NPCs for the party to pay for a rezz) is the DM's failure. You've literally circled around to inadvertantly supporting the position you started off opposing.
Also fun fact, I'm a quick study and I've read the source books for every version of D&D because they were available to me in my last house, and people kept trying to pull this 'you don't know what it was like back in the day' BS on me all through the play test. I can't visualize those older ones off the top of my head. I'll give you that, but I've read them and know a lot of the things you are saying, and seemingly GM does as well. Again the length of time you've been playing for is inconsequential.
maybe in your mounty haul games... in mine the way people come back from the dead is pretty much just if PC are high enough to do so. (Not all the time but most) and that BOTH as a DM and as a player.So I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that playing without any real risk is boring, *and* by the time someone does happen to reach high levels, they have plenty of options to bring those PCs back to life.
You are incorrect. Not sure how more clear I can make this.
"Playing the game without the fear of a PC death is boring" and "By the time a PC reaches level 17 or so, they should have plenty of options to raise that PC" are not conflicting or hypocritical statements. Why? Because:
* 99.9% of gameplay is played well before level 17 by most gamers, so it's two completely different styles of play, each with it's own statement I made
* I don't even like to play at super high levels for several reasons, so I'm not conflicting my statements since the level range I do like, permanent death is still a risk
* my first statement is a subjective preference, and my second is objective fact that we can look at by looking at the books. They're two completely different types of statements, let alone being mutually exclusive or not.
So I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that playing without any real risk is boring, *and* by the time someone does happen to reach high levels, they have plenty of options to bring those PCs back to life. It's like saying "Racing a Ferrari sucks" and "If you're driving a Ferrari, it goes really fast." Those are not hypocritical or contradictory statements.
Oh my. Where is the giant roll eyes when I need it. Did you seriously just say that people who were actually there can't tell you what it was like, because you read the books? If you can't see what's wrong with that statement, then I don't know what to tell you. I read a book about Australia, so Australians can't tell me what it's really like being there. Good lord...
First you make a horrible claim that it's a DM error if a PC does happen to die through means they didn't ask for, then you have no idea what the word "impartial" means, then you have no clue as to what a living world means, and now this?
So has anybody had a chance to try these options at the table yet? This weekend I'm planning on opening up this UA (and the stuff from SCAG) to my group and letting them retcon (within reason) their existing 4th level characters to use it if they want. It would be nice to know what to expect based on some actual play experiences.
Of course its possible nobody will use the options, but if they do, would be handy data.
maybe in your mounty haul games... in mine the way people come back from the dead is pretty much just if PC are high enough to do so. (Not all the time but most) and that BOTH as a DM and as a player.
Hopefully some of your characters decide to go with it.
My guess is Close Quarters Shooter is very likely to get grabbed by the ranger, and maybe Deep Stalker though she has previously stated a fondness for Beast Master (in spite of its issues). I could see the Shadow sorcerous origin being attractive to both the Necromancer *and* the Assassin as a multiclass option, but *probably* not something they would dabble in until a little later. Put I can't really predict what they will want to play when given the option so it will be an interesting point in the game session.
17th is rare, but in general 14ish normally takes about 60 games for us... then again we normally (not withstanding 4e) start between 3rd and 5th so 9-12 levels in 60 games, each game about 4-6 hours (depending on how quick we start and if we have to pause to eat) so maybe 300ish hours of play... I don't think that's quickLevel 17 PCs take a long time and a ton of adventuring to get to that point.
Well, normally. Apparently you just zip your way right up there, going from one combat to the next to test out your various builds or something.
yea, and it normally goes about 40% exploration, then 20-30% social, and 30-40% combat...It is literally unfathomable to me how you can routinely get PCs up to the high teens or even level 20 without having done a single thing in the game to have access to something like raising dead outside of the individual party member him or herself. There are three pillars to the game you know.
I have the pleasure to have played with a few people from back then (One who up until he got cancer played in even my 4e games, who started in college with a photo copy of the orginal pamphlet in mid to late 70's)Hate to tell you this, but the culture in the 70s was a lit different than it is now, and had a major impact on how gaming was done. Something you wouldn't have a clue about from just reading a book. Seeing as how you just totally didn't factor that in just proves it. But even if culture was the same, it doesn't change the obvious fact that reading something doesn't mean you know how it was implemented. If I never saw a chess game, and read the rules, I still wouldn't have a clue about how the game is played by actual people.
my first campaign petered out around 9thish (back then different charts meant different characters were different levels) but I did run a spell jammer game that made it to use the 'high level campaigns' book... 3.5 was when we got the most use out of high level stuff...And I'm not making up BS statistics. Not only was it super rare to have a PC in the low teens let alone the high teens in AD&D, even the very recent survey put out by Mearls has confirmed that the vast majority of gamers play at levels below 15.
My guess is Close Quarters Shooter is very likely to get grabbed by the ranger, and maybe Deep Stalker though she has previously stated a fondness for Beast Master (in spite of its issues). I could see the Shadow sorcerous origin being attractive to both the Necromancer *and* the Assassin as a multiclass option, but *probably* not something they would dabble in until a little later. Put I can't really predict what they will want to play when given the option so it will be an interesting point in the game session.