|
6 months ago ::
Dec 15, 2012 - 11:44PM
#1
|
|
|
STOP! Before you release the Kraken on me, please understand that by good I mean fair and by fair I mean that a DM shouldn't feel guilty if a PC dies whenever s/he runs out of hit points. I've always come to the table knowing that rolling dice meant that there were certain outcomes that even the DM couldn't control and that gaming was risky business -- I might loose my own PC or I might be responsible for a friend loosing theirs. It was an unwritten contract. I posted a thread last week that has me reeling about the concept of PC death. If you look here ( community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...), I admittedly like the logic behind several of the responses, but I can't depart with this idea that "a good time for a PC to die is whenever s/he runs out of hit points." Without the real risk of PC death, the game has lost some of its luster. Why is PC death so strictly forbidden? Have I gamed in a bubble for the past 20 years? Did something change? Why's everyone so sensitive about PC death these days? Yes, there are a lot of exciting alternatives to simply allowing a PC to die and I'M ALL FOR THOSE OPTIONS WHEN THEY FIT IN WITH THE STORY, but I'm having a hard time seeing anything "wrong" with allowing a PC to die when they mechanically reach that point. It's a great part of the game. If you read the referenced thread above, a strong argument is made for why "game math" alone shouldn't kill PCs -- and my party is struggling with one of these consequences right now -- but if the dice don't kill PCs, why do we even use them? IDK, this aversion to mechanical PC death just isn't sitting well with me. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 12:01AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
The dm gets thousands of monsters to attack the players. Often times outnumbering the players or having monsters that use daily quality powers that recharge during the fight. The dm also has total control over what type of monster, and how powerful.
The players get what, two or three characters? Their powers are finite, and they have no control over strength and their initial class choice. Heck, it's the dm that allows characters to even get stronger.
You want to talk about fair? Let your players have 10 people each, and let them go against the dungeon you set up for 1 each. Your dungeon would be slaughtered because you did not set up the thing for 50 player characters.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 12:08AM
#3
|
|
|
You're going down a different path. I'm assuming PC death is reached within the confines of the suggested encounter building protocol as per DMG.
Assuming both parties play according to the rules, what's the problem with mechanical PC death.
---
Maybe what I should be posting is a thread on the benefits of mechanical PC death.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 12:44AM
#4
|
|
|
You're putting the cart before the horse, Steven.
The question is when it is appropriate for people to run out of hit points, and the answer is "rather uncommonly." (Or "whenever, but we have non-HP endurance measures", in the case of 4e, but let's not overcomplicate things...)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 1:04AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Depends what you mean by 'a good time'.
And by 'run out of hit points'.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 1:04AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2012
|
I've never understood why PC death is so controversial. If you've ever read Chris Perkins' articles he makes it seem so casual as he mentions every now and then just how many times some of his players have died. I like his approach and tend to follow it. Every time session zero occurs I advise my players that character death is not something to fear, and so, even in my current game they all have back ups just incase. This way they can be interjected some how, some way in the case of sudden death.
Some times back up can even be temporary as I also tell my players that their characters will never be gone for ever unless they absolutely allow it. Such as being resurected, the party going to the netherworld to save them (penny arcade) or a sorceress saving their soul an dplacing it in a construct, thus becoming a warforged.
All the same I don't do any hand holding when it comes to death. If a player dies in an encounter, (HP to zero, and fail the saves) they die. I keep them involved by either tossing in their back up some how or allowing them to control NPC's / Enemies. And then I allow the group in game to find a way to either bring them back or seek a new companion. My players don't have any problems with this.
I've only had one death so far in my current campaign. The leader of the group got captured and executed. He got captured at the end of one session so on the next session I involved his back up in the story via a plot twist, and they then witnessed their ex leaders execution, and his back up became his main (fyi, he was only executed because the player approved)
I think a campaign with out PC death halves the emotion and the experience. Due to their ex leaders death they have pretty much declared all out war on the city, which makes it all the more dramatic because they were the original founders and the reason the city flourishes. PC death can drive the story in new directions. ex; character dies to a standard orc during an encounter due to bad luck. he opts to use a back up but is fond of his now dead character so he expresses out of game he wouldn't mind if they later found a way to bring him back. Suddenly the story has two new objectives. A generic orc encounter has become about revenge, the DM toss a spin on it and suddenly the Orc Killer is a son of the cheif of an orc clan in the area, and now the party must wipe them out! Only to discover in the cheifs employ he has a hag, a hag that dabbles in necromancy, who can bring back their fallen comrade, etc yadda yadda.
I personally find that way more interesting then "oh your character died." "But I don't wanna" "okay he's just unconcious." "yay"
Maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 1:19AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
I thought of an idea. What if they create a character name Maked Soldier #1. That way you won't feel bad killing them. If that player feels that soldier is important, he can remove the mask and give him a new name.
if I am in your game and I have a fighter name Maked Soldier #1, you have my full permission to put him through hell.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 1:25AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2008
|
There's sufficient character death in my campaign as well. I think I've hit the mechanical 'death' point two times now and each of those times it resulted in actual character death. It has never de-railed the campaign or been picked up by a player as somehow being 'unfair' or 'unfun'. Each of the times I asked the players whether they would like to continue with their character or they want to roll up a new one.
There's a movement of DMs here that seem to oppose character death with all their might, because it causes unfun things to happen to their game. However, I and my players view death as a somewhat random part of the game which can either result in interesting scenario's, not have that much of an impact or be a chance to try a fresh character. I encourage any DM to ask their players whether death should be a real thing in their game, or whether they would like to have any death be handwaved into some other scenario. And to ask himself this as well.
Heroic Dungeon Master
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 2:15AM
#9
|
|
|
The question is when it is appropriate for people to run out of hit points, and the answer is "rather uncommonly."
Yes, it's rare that a party should "run out of HPs" if the DM follows the guidelines for encounter building as per the DMG. But I respectfully disagree, both personally and mechanically, that this is the question that needs answering. Let me explain --
Personally, as noted in another post, a game devoid of PC death lacks a significant aspect of emotional involvement and experience. If the player knows *ultimate* failure is NOT an option the DM is willing to consider with any kind of regularity, then the game lacks any real penalty for completing a quest. Adventurers can fall into a pattern of "yeah, that sucks, now it's gonna take longer, but we'll still accomplish x" anytime they fail. Somewhere along the line, a party has to realize, "wow, we aren't going to accomplish x, ever."
Mechanically, the game's main (if not sole) representation of chance are the dice. They oppose the PCs power increase over time and are an invaluable constant throughout a campaign. Even if a DM is unwilling to put the PCs in situations where death is very real possibility, s/he has a responsibility to allow the dice to represent the chance for death to occur. Here's something else to consider, the game contains an entire section on PC death; if the game wasn't designed to have PCs die [regularly], then why is it addressed at all?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 2:17AM
#10
|
|
|
I thought of an idea. What if they create a character name Maked Soldier #1. That way you won't feel bad killing them. If that player feels that soldier is important, he can remove the mask and give him a new name.
if I am in your game and I have a fighter name Maked Soldier #1, you have my full permission to put him through hell.
Look, I assume players don't want to loose their PCs, especially if they've tried their best and still failed. What I'm trying to say is that as DMs, we can't take PC death off the table as a distinct possibility when they walk into a dragons lair. Because, as we all know, sometimes the dragon wins. . .and he eats you.
|
|
|
