Interesting that I would happen upon this thread. Last weekend, two of the party's players that I DM died.
Holy crap I hope you mean their CHARACTERS died! :P
They died to a large Gelatinous Cube elite monster.
Now I REALLY hope you mean there characters otherwise what were they doing that close to Rosie O'Donnell in the first place?!
It wasn't an encounter meant to run a risk of death per se, but apparently the combination of events and player decision caused it to take the lives of two characters. The Cleric and the Ranger fell while the wizard almost did and the other two survived.
The two deaths happened within two rounds and did actually catch me by surprise, along with the group I believe. However after it happened, I didn't get a feeling that the group was angry or that they found in unfair. One player in fact stated that he believed it had been a very fair encounter and that "**** happens".
I've never been against player death as, to me at least, it feels like it's a part of the game. You play with hp amounts, hp means that when it drops to zero something should happen. It doesn't have to be bad and can actually be positive for the story, RP, etc..
I agree. It is like taking a loss in any other game...a player that enjoys the game will take that, learn from it and seek to do better while also respecting the game itself and simultaneously the nature of the world. When one respects the challenge presented by the game (world) it lends far more weight to ones accomplishments in said game (world).
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
To put it as directly as possible, it is as unbelievably retarded to claim there is no failure but character death as it is to say that the only way the hero of a novel could lose is if the book caught on fire.
The fail condition for any given character is permanent death.
Wrong. Characters are often motivated by things more valuable to them than their lives.
If a character sacrifices himself, and in doing so, successfully kills the BBEG, foils his plans, and saves the world, did he really fail?
To put it as directly as possible, it is as unbelievably retarded to claim there is no failure but character death as it is to say that the only way the hero of a novel could lose is if the book caught on fire.
The fail condition for any given character is permanent death.
Wrong. Characters are often motivated by things more valuable to them than their lives.
If a character sacrifices himself, and in doing so, successfully kills the BBEG, foils his plans, and saves the world, did he really fail?
Considering that character can no longer gain in power/influence/wealth? Then yes, by the mechanical design of the game, they have "lost". That this might be divorced from the narrative is neither here nor there excepting that it can be perfectly acceptable to derive joy from not-winning in a game.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
I think death should always be a possibility, as if it wasn't there at all then there'd be little point to the combat. A couple of points I'd like to add:
1) The way I have started every game is to ask the players how they wanted to deal with character death and new character creation. Character death has never completely disappeared from my games, but I'll adjust the challenge of the combat players face depending upon how much risk they want.
2) If a character is in danger of dieing, I generally point it out to the playerss. "The orcs are closing in on your Elf sorceress, someone might want to help her." If they don't (potentially for a good reason, like trying to accomplish something quest oriented), then I'll let the rolls dictate what happens to the character.
3) I have a relatively small party of players (three). The death of a single character substantially reduces their ability to continue on. When I used to play with larger parties, I was much more willing to see players die.
4) Optional battles: I throw optional battles at my players wherein the fight is substantially challenging harder, but with reward (you've rescued the merchants daughter from the dragon's lair, but the beast lies further within, along with his horde of treasure). They know if they take chances, they have to bear the burden.
5) I don't like the idea of characters dying randomly. Due to the hit point system in D&D, it is a bit rare, as players should be able to tell when they are on the verge of death and act accordingly (compared to other systems where I've seen characters die by attacks that never should have even hit). I try to challenge my players, but sometimes I throw a little too much at them (usually when learning a new system, which happened a lot when we switched to 4th edition). In such cases I'll fudge die rolls if needed.
6) Sometimes not having fun is necessary in entertainment. The moments of challenge, of tension, and of loss, make the victories that much sweeter.
But combat and encounters are more than just the possibility of character death. Its about goals and choices, not just numbers on the die. If the probability of death is the only point to combat, why not just run away?
As for #6, entertainment is fun. If its not fun, then its boring. Challenge, tension, and loss as driven by a combination of goals and mechanics create fun, not take away from it.
I am going to jump on a bandwagon i heard the OP mention earlier. I let my players decide if they want to die or not. If they feel there would be no fun without the risk, then I let them choose thier own death every time. I have a few players at my table that enjoy the characters they invest in and the story they create with those characters, and character death is both frustrating and wholly unsatisfying for those players. There is normally something more interesting than death for those characters (or most characters) anyway.
HTH
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. -Revelation 21:6
Before I get in too deep, let me preface with the campaign I am currently playing.
We are doing a massive dungeon crawl, with 9 major bosses. Defeating the bosses spells victory. The six players around the table represent the final 50 heroes in the entire world. Should one of our PCs die, we roll up a new one from the pool and keep plugging along. If we run out of heroes, we lose.
In short, it is entirely possible we will see 30-40 pc deaths in our campaign.
With that in mind, please note I only condone player death when certain conditions are met:
Player knowledge - players should be acutely aware of the threat level posed by what they face. Should a DM tell me I am facing a level 1 wolf, it is poor gaming for said wolf to do 10d10 damage on an attack. If that same DM tells me I face what 'appears' to be a level 1 wolf, and no one bothers to check if it's an illusion and it does 10d10 damage, that is the players lack of seeking information and I would not consider that the DMs fault.
Good math - nothng the DM throws down on the dice should be a surprise or secret if you want death to be viable. Nothing is more disconcerting than being told you got crit twice when no one saw a single roll. While I thoroughly trust my DM and would believe him if he said such, it can lead to a very poor experience for a player to die a mathmatically suspect death.
If a DM can be clear on those two areas, death can be on the table. Note I do not say it should or must be, but can be.
Finally, the above can be ignored when a player chooses to make a heroic action. We all know those moments. If it is obviously expressed by a player that they know death is possible and choose to go forward anyway, death is fair game.
I work with young people for a living, and nothng is more infuriating than when someone wants to punish a kid for something the kid never knew was wrong. If the DM fails to *point out that the iron is hot, it is not fair for them to roll damage when someone picks it up.
*there should either be description ahead of time, or some hint and mechanic by which players can discover that danger lurks.
To put it as directly as possible, it is as unbelievably retarded to claim there is no failure but character death as it is to say that the only way the hero of a novel could lose is if the book caught on fire.
The fail condition for any given character is permanent death.
Wrong. Characters are often motivated by things more valuable to them than their lives.
If a character sacrifices himself, and in doing so, successfully kills the BBEG, foils his plans, and saves the world, did he really fail?
Considering that character can no longer gain in power/influence/wealth? Then yes, by the mechanical design of the game, they have "lost". That this might be divorced from the narrative is neither here nor there excepting that it can be perfectly acceptable to derive joy from not-winning in a game.
In addition to what YagamiFire already mentioned, I'd like to point you out to this little post.
Basically, you're pointing out a story-related success, while ignoring the fact that death is objectively the game's "game over" screen (which makes Raise Dead and the like a sort of "Continue?" option). Some groups find this difference irrelevant -- a success is a success, regardless of cost -- while other groups consider the story-related success a mere consolation prize (if it's even worthy enough to consider in the first place).
Now while I have no right to dictate which group is "right", "wrong", or "more right", when looking at Dungeons and Dragons as classically played, the story success is ok, but you still died and must now make a new character... or wait until someone raises you from the dead, with nothing else to do while waiting. Sure, the DM can improvise and allow him to continue adventuring as a spirit or what not, but that is something that is outside the game as originally designed, and which is exactly why D&D has never worked too well as a storytelling system**.
People make derivations of D&D all the time because of how D&D rules are written: as cold, hard facts where the one DM will be running everything as is no questions asked***. It takes a specific know-how or a blatant reading and re-reading of Rule 0 to break that sort of playstyle, and that changing of playstyle results in derivations of D&D.
[ 13th Age actually cheats at this a bit, again by having the rules tell the DMs that whatever their best judgement is, goes... as well as providing the system laid out in such a way that changing stuff is built-in, not an exception. ]
** this is a bit related to YagamiFire's No "Wrong" Way To Play" thread. My basic position on it: if you play a game as is, then you're playing that game; but if the way you interact with the game is far enough, you're playing a derivative of that game. Derivative vs. OriginalShow
It's like how you can play Monopoly as written in the rules, or you can play a derivative of Monopoly wherein you use the same stuff but in a different manner, or you can play a derivative of Monopoly wherein you're using a completely different set of rules with the same tools. So if you play D&D as how it was supposed to be played, then you're playing D&D, but if you change the rules, change the way you play it [e.g. heavy investigation with minimalist (usually accidental) combat], or downright ignore the rules, you're playing derivatives of D&D, and not necessarily D&D itself. Which is exactly why even if you have a system that works similarly to D&D (Pathfinder), the fact that Pathfinder is not a product by those who have the D&D franchise makes it [i]objectively a derivative of D&D.
Claim all you want that it's D&D 3.75E, as long as it is titled "Pathfinder" and not "Dungeons and Dragons", you're playing Pathfinder, not Dungeons and Dragons. It just so happens that Pathfinder is a D&D derivative that takes an already-popular D&D edition's mechanics and "updates" them.
It's that simple.
NOTE: stuff like "gathering together to paint minis and counting it as playing D&D" would still be playing a derivative of D&D, one which involves a very specific aspect [minis]. As for "ignoring rules and using a host of rules from other systems and counting it as playing D&D", I'd say that the only reason why you could even consider it as valid is if you use a ver specific aspect [lore]. Once that aspect is off the list, it's obvious that you're not playing D&D, yet labeling your system as such.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Now while I have no right to dictate which group is "right", "wrong", or "more right", when looking at Dungeons and Dragons as classically played, the story success is ok, but you still died and must now make a new character... or wait until someone raises you from the dead, with nothing else to do while waiting. Sure, the DM can improvise and allow him to continue adventuring as a spirit or what not, but that is something that is outside the game as originally designed, and which is exactly why D&D has never worked too well as a storytelling system**.
Why do you assume that D&D should still cling to its miniature wargame roots? I like to think that the game has evolved quite a bit by now.
Now while I have no right to dictate which group is "right", "wrong", or "more right", when looking at Dungeons and Dragons as classically played, the story success is ok, but you still died and must now make a new character... or wait until someone raises you from the dead, with nothing else to do while waiting. Sure, the DM can improvise and allow him to continue adventuring as a spirit or what not, but that is something that is outside the game as originally designed, and which is exactly why D&D has never worked too well as a storytelling system**.
Why do you assume that D&D should still cling to its miniature wargame roots? I like to think that the game has evolved quite a bit by now.
Also to be fair, let's call it like it is...the game has "changed". "Evolve" is a loaded term implying improvement.*
*note I don't disagree that the game has improved in many ways, but "evolved' is definitely loaded terminology.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
