Sure DMs should be somewhat careful, but like any game, there should be a reward for doing a good job, and a penalty for abject failure.
If the party is 12th level and they decide they don't need a rogue and die to traps, is it my job to take all the traps out of my dungeon? Nope.
If the party is 6th level and surprised at night while encamped, the paladin on watch is wearing no armor and engages the enemy with the ranger 30' from the sleeping wizard and cleric, is it my job to say "you awaken to realize the watch has disappeared?" Nope.
If given a chance to parley with a powerful magistrate and instead the monk attacks him because he has knowledge that the government is corrupt, is it my job to save his life after he takes the magistrate (a 6th level aristocrat) down? Nope.
Etc.
The problem with PCs trying to die, is that once they are dead and you tell them they can't reroll, you now no longer have any players. Suddenly you realize that they are playing a new game somewhere else and you arent invited.
So yeah, easy solutions such as "Don't kill them!" take the challenge out of the game. Especially for my players. They look to me to challenge them, if they aren't afraid of death, then they just do crazy whacked out things.
No, it's different. You ought to be smart enough to look for traps. You don't have any possible reason to be responsible because a creature you lost a fight with just happened to go towards the village instead of 7 other directions that would have caused it bypass the village that you probably didn't even know about. How is a party supposed to know every village in a bloody forest just because they are passing through it?
If you're going to alleviate responsibility of the consequences of failure in other areas, you might as well alleviate the consequences of failure in death as well. You don't blame murder victims for being murdered. If a monster attacks a bunch of adventurers wandering through the forest and you call it the player's fault for dying, that's effectively what you're doing.
Maxperson wrote:
No, but it's not at all on the same level. They'll just come back better prepared(which counters monster preparations) and start off at the same balance point they left at.
But the secondary consequence could be the fact that while they were gone, the monsters moved the hoard to a different location, so the adventurers will not get as much money as they might have prior (and may have to resort in looting corpses and hawking everything that isn't nailed down to make ends meet).
Maxperson wrote:
I agree. I've been saying that just stopping the campaign is bad. A DM should be able and willing to adjust the campaign, and in my opinion, be willing to kill characters if the situation warrants it(ie. stupid actions by the characters, tough boss fight where rolls weren't bad, etc.)
But my point was that death isn't the only option to punish players out there. If it's not the only option, then there's no reason that DMs have to resort to killing players off as a punishment for severe failure. Remember that D&D is just as much narrative as it is gameplay, and much like any narrative you usually at least know some of the outcome. You don't read the first Harry Potter novel and place bets on whether he'll die by the end of the book.
I think I'll interrupt the debate about death and failure to interject one of the methods I've used to make resurrection different.
Basically, to begin with you can be raised a number of times equal to your Con score--start with a 12, and the 13th time you die resurrection doesn't work. Every time you want to raise someone, roll d%; on a 0-10, you use up an extra life (meaning 1 rez counts as 2), on an 11-90, it works as normal, and on a 91-00 someone (or something) else is brought back in your body.
It adds a bit of suspense to resurrecting a character (Will this rez leave me with too few lives? Will I come back?) but doesn't cause a permanent or even temporary penalty noticeable to the character. If you use up an extra life, you can be raised one fewer time, but the PC doesn't know that; if a monster comes back in the PC's body, kill it and try to get the real PC back again. I wouldn't suggest this for a general rule, but it was a nice change of pace for one world.
IMO, permanent death isn't much of a threat in D&D, beyond the fact that most players don't enjoy it. You can't play the character that you grew attached to. Now you get to think up a new character and get attached to this one instead. It is the DM who actually gets the worse end of the deal here, because now "story arcs" that were meant for the dead PC can be scrapped.
It becomes more of a threat if you take away something from the new character (such as bringing him in at a lower level) but that can be (and was) applicable to resurrection as well. Personally, I never really cared for that solution, as it makes the character all the more likely to die, potentially leading to a compounded problem and a useless character. If you put a cap on the level loss, you simply delay the point where death becomes mostly trivial.
Of course, you can make death rare (or even impossible), but that makes death fairly meaningless as well. If I can only die if I screw up massively, then all I have to do is try not to screw up and I can play worry-free.
I've played in campaigns that had high death and some that had little threat of death. In some games there was no chance of death and in one in particular (a real meat-grinder of a campaign, though there was a lot of excellent role-playing despite that) raise dead was as easy as planting 100 gp at the base of a special tree.
As far as I'm concerned, unless the player of the character who died has to leave the game, death isn't much of a threat with or without the possibility of resurrection.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy investing depth and character to my characters. It's just that if a character dies, either the party gets him rezzed or I make a new character and invest in him.
Admittedly, recalling a few of those meat-grinder-esque campaigns that I've participated in, I'd say I invest less in a character if I expect that, likely as not, he'll be dead within two game sessions. Mostly just because creating an in-depth background is a significant (albeit enjoyable) amount of work, and doing so for a character who's just going to die two games from now is a lot of work for minimal reward.
Let's say the party is fighting the BBEG and has to make a tactical withdrawal after Eshram dies. Is there really much of a difference when they return for a rematch if they bring Eshram, returned from the hereafter, or his replacement Kundi? Aside from the fact that Eshram might hate good old BBEG even more than he did before, I'd say no.
I agree with those that say that the real threat of failure lies with the story. Admittedly, dying isn't fun regardless of whether or not you'll eventually be raised, but what players really hate is defeat, irrespective of death. If the PCs' hometown is destroyed because they couldn't halt the warchief's horde; if the cultists sacrifice the children because the PCs weren't strong enough to stop them- those players will see red and redouble their efforts not to fail again.
My experience is that, regardless of how death (and resurrection) are handled, they are a mildly unpleasant side-trek at the worst. I like the threat of death, but only because it is often the most direct way to allow failure to happen (the PCs are forced to retreat because Eshram dies, and now the BBEG is one step away from completing his evil plan).
The best example I can think of was our "Realms" campaign. The premise was that the core of our planet had gone dormant and needed to be restarted. After a long and arduous campaign, we faced the final boss: a planet devouring entity that had come to eat the core of our planet. The fight was extremely long and hard (the entity was MEAN as the 9 hells!), but for the most part we were excited and determined. Then, while we were still fighting the entity, a millenia-old vampire who had been our constant nemisis throughout the campaign showed up. When he realized we had the upper hand, he teleported down to the core (we were fighting on an island just above it). A sudden look of fear gripped all of us as we realized what was about to happen- if he couldn't have the planet he would make certain that no one would. Almost the entire party peeled away from the entity and we barely stopped the vampire in time to save the core. At no point during our battle had there been as tense a moment as that one. We all knew that our characters stood a very real chance of dying (and this was a campaign where resurrection, while not unheard of, was very difficult for PCs to obtain), but the only time that we all felt truly threatened was when the core, what we had fought so long and so hard to restore, was about to be destroyed. If that had happened, I have no doubt that we could have killed the entity and the vampire, and still felt utterly defeated because now the planet was going to die and there wasn't anything that we could do to stop it (the DM had already determined that this would be the last session of the campaign).
YMMV, as always, but I say if you want your players to feel the threat of failure, threaten them with failure. Death (permanent or otherwise) is a poor substitute.
I think I'll interrupt the debate about death and failure to interject one of the methods I've used to make resurrection different.
Basically, to begin with you can be raised a number of times equal to your Con score--start with a 12, and the 13th time you die resurrection doesn't work. Every time you want to raise someone, roll d%; on a 0-10, you use up an extra life (meaning 1 rez counts as 2), on an 11-90, it works as normal, and on a 91-00 someone (or something) else is brought back in your body.
It adds a bit of suspense to resurrecting a character (Will this rez leave me with too few lives? Will I come back?) but doesn't cause a permanent or even temporary penalty noticeable to the character. If you use up an extra life, you can be raised one fewer time, but the PC doesn't know that; if a monster comes back in the PC's body, kill it and try to get the real PC back again. I wouldn't suggest this for a general rule, but it was a nice change of pace for one world.
I still prefer penalties that don't necessarily affect character values, and instead have bigger ramifications on the game world itself. My newest mechanic has got to be my favorite so far (someone must be sacrificed to resurrect someone else) because the potential story and character consequences could be vast. I mean sure, you could theoretically capture a nearby goblin or something to do the job, but what if that's not a possibility? Do you sacrifice somebody from a local town to bring back another player? The fact that higher tier characters require more sacrifices to bring back to life enhances the consequences of it down the line as well. An entire village disappearing so you can resurrect a friend in the epic tier is going to attract attention.
Putting in character penalties creates a death spiral effect, wherein which death becomes easier and easier to occur until eventually you can't help but die. That doesn't really teach players to avoid death so much as tell them that it's going to become more unavoidable.
Death in the real world sucks. Not only do you have to bury your paladin, but you are also going to have to pay for the lot, headstone, and lawsuits from the goblin matrons and cheiftain who can prove that your party didnt have any warrants to enter the warren, nor proof that any of the NPCs killed therein were even evil, or in any way connected to Farmer John's crop theft and family massacre. Plus the fact that John had been killing gobbie children for years in true kneejerk reactionary fashion (the guy would shoot his Xbow first and ask questions later... is a turnip worth a life?). Next of kin must be notified, sobbing grief stricken siblings demand explanations for why WHY OMG WHY!!!! All the while blaming you and your party for the death of a beloved friend. "All Jonny every wanted was a fair shake, to go to college, maybe become a magistrate... but then he runs off with you to fight evil??? You should all be jailed!"... etc.
QUOTE]
Heh, can i use this for a quote elsewhere? It's funny and fits with the idea for a location in my campaign. I think im gonna have an npc quote this verbatim.
If one of my players' dies and they get up, knocking over their chair and sweep the table clear of all papers, dice, pencils, and booklets in a fit of anger then I know I've done my job as DM.
If you want to make resurrection interesting, try the "Coming Back Wrong" rule from the 3e book Heroes of Horror (pages 79 & 80). Basically, add a hard Heal check (+1 to the DC per day the creature was dead) to the "Raise Dead" process. If the caster fails the check, the character comes back, but with something irrevocably changed about them (roll randomly on a chart to see what).
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
I'm seeing a couple of different approaches to role-playing games coming out in disagreements over the meaningfulness of playing a character without risk of permanent death.
1. Challenger: This player sees a big part of the game being a test of skill, a process of elimination, one that only the best of the best win. You are going for the gold. Success or failure is the name of the game, and the only real failure is death, because anything else can be overcome if you just keep trying.
2. Experiencer: This player sees the biggest part of the game being the overall epicurean experience of it. Risks are good if they support this experience; bad if they detract from it. Have character; will travel. The experience desired can be virtually anything, but permanent character death is rarely one of them.
So the question to ask one's self then, is which is more important to your enjoyment of the game, risk of *losing*, or an overall type of experience that may not depend on that sort of risk? And this is purely a personal preference (although it can be nice to encourage people to try new things) so it's hard to have a meaningful debate over it. Might as well debate which is the more right way to enjoy one's self: playing chess or listening to Mozart.
Now, on to some points that can be productively discussed. Both types may be able to be perfectly satisfied with the same game, if there are ways of losing that are meaningful, but don't end the *character's* career--just like losing a Superbowl is pretty meaningful, but doesn't automatically cause all the players to retire.
One point of suggestion for the Challengers may be to consider looking at the "win condition" as being something else than "character still breathing." A character can live and lose. The meaningful wins and losses then become campaign events, ones that can have a lasting or permanent effect on the game world, which adds to the experience of the world either way, and provides a real sense of accomplisment or failure. It's also possible for each point along the way to be meaningful without death being the cost of failure. Each failure on the road to the Superbowl can increase the chance of losing the Superbowl, as well as having it's own campaign consequences. A point of suggestion for Experiencers may be to consider in-character losses as a valuable part of the experience. This seems to me a way of looking at the game that both types could enjoy.
Yes, by the way, I'm simplifying by assuming people are one type or the other. It's not really oversimplification because it does what it's intended to do and showcases two view points.
For my campaign, I'm still trying to work out a way to deal with raising the dead that allows for a bit more suspension of disbelief regarding the rest of the world. By the book, there is little to no reason for the rich and famous NPCs not to get raised all the time. They can afford it. They have reasons to want to be around. And you can sure bet that the evil villain isn't going to stay down if he has a group of devoted followers, until you hunt down every last one of them and erase his name from the collective memory of humanoidanity before some upstart villain-to-be decides to find a way to raise his famous "hero."
Okay, so the evil villain one isn't such a big deal. In fact, it adds to the story if the players have to find a way to make sure that his death is permanent, or trap him (or his soul) somewhere for just such a reason. Other NPCs are more problematic
I like the idea suggested earlier in the thread of some sort of nebulous mystical consequences to being raised that aren't represented in the game mechanics. I'm not sure exactly what they should be, but I want something that is going to make being raised from the dead something primarily experienced by adventurers and avoided like crazy by people in positions of rulership and responsibility (ie, the others in the world who could do it.) And whatever possible consequences are so dire (or socially detrimental) that PCs are way more likely to risk them than anyone else, should occasionally pop up for a fun adventure. :-)
I have run a few campaigns with so many different ways of dealing with death and ressurrection. I have learnt not to show any favouritism... (made a few mistakes on that front). Whatever decision you make for your campaign keep it consistent and make sure all of the players agree to the consequences.
I am currently working on a concept that the 'Lord of the Dead' does not like having souls removed from his realm. He believes they are his possession and he does not like anyone stealing his possessions. If the party raises a companion from the dead then the 'Lord of the Dead' will send an apropriate undead creature to re-gather his possession and the creature will also slay anyone that was involved in stealing the soul from his realm.
As soon as the player is raised from the dead he/she will feel a dark shroud around him/her. A dark presence can see him/her all of the time and knows of their location. The creature will be a powerful elite undead creature and prove to be a very tough foe for the party to overcome. It will hunt them down and look for the best opportunity to do it's masters bidding. I am thinking of making the undead creature immune to the attacks of the soul that has been raised (too harsh??)
Most people are aware of the consequences of raising the dead so only the very brave attempt it. Stories are told of whole villages being slain by undead creatures simply because a rich noble could not bear the death of a family member.
