4,453
edits
Changes
m
→Ratings
::::::This is the point, I have played such. I get them. So I get this as well. The fact you specify "this is designed for X Y and Z" helps you. It lets you know exactly what this is intended for. If you will, "Don't say your fork is a useless creation of no value ever when you are looking for a bowl of soup." -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 11:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::::The real irony here is that the part of the article that Ghostwheel critiqued, and the reason for his rating is one of the things that I still need to finish. I didn't actually intend for the curse to be incurable, or rather, I intended to suggest several sets of mechanics related to the curse depending on the nature of the game the DM intends to create and the mindset of the players. One choice set would be that it would be hard or impossible to cure, but the softer variants would lead to it being removable by a simple remove curse spell, or similar abilities that would be readily available to players or that are sufficiently represented within the player characters' environment. In a sense it depends on how pivotal these Dead are to the plot. If they're a one time encounter then I would suggest the softer variant. I tried to do something more or less similar in the preliminary article ([[Dead (3.5e Monster)]]), but there your rating boiled down to not trusting DM fiat, so I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place to start with. After having heard about the type of games you DM I can understand your distrust for DMs, but that's beside the point. Anyway, one day you altered the explanation of your rating of that article by saying that it is bad design for there to be only one spell that few classes have access to to be capable to remove such a dangerous effect, which was an outright falsehood since the only core class that can't remove curses is a ranger, but justifiably intimate with the subject matter to preclude you from having to alter your opinion on the article. So that was my reason for my mildly annoyed response to your rating.
:::::::Personally, I think that horror and survival are some of the most enjoyable forms of gaming, for several reasons that I will try my best to explain. In my opinion, overinvestment in one's characters is a ''paralytic''. It stops many actual games from happening the way they should. People start to question every move they make. They subscribe to the 'What if' style of gaming. What if something dangerous is down this dark corridor? What if there is a deadly trap in the room? What if that monster has a lucky roll and crits my ass for three times damage? Not only can you let go of all those inhibitions when you let go of those attachment and play a survival horror type game, but failing or losing is not necessarily the end of the game. Why do many people still have such fondness for roguelike video games? They like to be challenged, but the challenges must stay fun. The example I gave - the Tomb of Horrors - is what I would call the logical conclusion of that style of gaming. The hardest of hard-core survival games. If you think this article is as unforgiving as the Tomb of Horrors, then I guess there is nothing I can do to change your opinion on the matter, since it wouldn't be based on facts, and the fact is that it isn't nearly quite as bad as that. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] ([[User talk:Sulacu|talk]]) 12:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
