Talk:Expanded Dead (3.5e Monster)

Ratings

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	A disease that makes you into the enemy that can never be removed makes this actively be bad for the game in my opinion.

The curse is now a blight, and entirely removable. This rating is no longer valid. --Sulacu (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You can block a rating that is invalid by adding "|block=NewVersion" to the rating Sulacu. Dropping it in there after the name parameter works and is pretty easy. You are required to notify them of the block on their talk page though, either through writing your own message or using a template like {{BlockNotice|<-article name (with identifier)->}}. More information on the ratings page. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 16:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And yet I'm still going to continue working on it, since I have the feeling a lot of players don't quite understand the nature and tropes associated with survival horror games. Also, please do not rate articles with a Pending or In Progress status. I will gladly accept all of your vitriol when the article is Finished. --Sulacu (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want things commented on or rated, keep them sandboxed. And if you want to run a "survival horror" game, it's best to use a system that actually and actively supports that type of gameplay. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Carry on Sulacu. Some of us want to see where this goes and how far one can use the system to achieve different ends. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good to know someone understands! Because after all, isn't the fact that some things aren't 'actively supported' by the game the reason we started homebrewing in the first place? And isn't that sort of thing decided on a game by game basis, to begin with? Plus, if the game of Dungeons and Dragons supports things like the Tomb of Horrors, then I see no reason why it can't support a hard to cure curse that turns its victims into the undead over a generally extensive period of time. --Sulacu (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Tome of Horrors is terrible for the game. It promotes a lack of investment in PCs, a PC vs. DM mentality, a distrust of the game, and a disconnect between players and their characters. It's bad for the game for these reasons and others. I'd say the same about this. Of course, if you think PCs should be created and thrown away paranoia-style, that PCs and DMs should be fighting it out and screwing each other over on purpose, that PCs should fear every tile they step on and that anything could kill them at a moment's notice, and that they shouldn't relate in any way to their characters because they're going to be gone by the next session anyway, then both this and the Tome of Horrors are excellent for promoting that kind of system.

But that's not the kind of system I think is best for a healthy game, and it's what Tome of Horrors (and these rules to a certain extent) actively promotes. --Ghostwheel (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already talked about this with Ghostwheel so this is less a reply to him and more a counter-critique on the nature of games, for others.

I counter it in that these types of games can be quite fun. Yes, you often have a good deal more fatality in the system and as a result, often less investment in an individual character. However, you trade deadliness for paranoia, tactics, and terror. It becomes, if you will, more wargamey. You are trying to survive for as long as possible against impossible odds, using what tools you have (your current character as well as your party). The focus of the game then is on the gameplay aspect rather than the story of Charley the Cop and his year long epic to defeat the necromancer of doom. That's not to say you can't have RP. In fact, the deadly nature can form a very tight knit team who mourns their losses and seek to protect each other. RP between players in these situations isn't impossible and I encourage it. It, however, is not the point. Often these are one shots designed to be self-contained, rather than multiple episodes over a long time like your classic campaign.

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." -- 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. --Sulacu (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You straight up say that this is intended for a survival horror feel Sulacu, even mentioning that you will include guidelines for additional balancing for that playstyle (side note: the inclusion of that balance addendum means this might be better as a variant rule with monsters for clarity purposes). Ghost's rating seems to be discounting the intent of the article and is instead criticizing a playstyle; his rating indicates that he doesn't like the trappings of the goal rather than indicating that the article doesn't achieve the goal well. It actually looks like a violation of the merit guidelines to me. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)