Dark Sun: The Dwarf died! How do I resurrect him?

[pemerton]

Yet by seeking a way to negate the result the whole mechanics becomes irrelevant anyway.

Not really. There's a big difference - in mechanical terms, in story terms, in experience at the table - between "I didn't die" and "I died but was raised." Here's an actual play example from my own game.

It doesn't really matter (at least in my eye) if PCs never die or die and are immediately resurrected with hardly any effort spend to do so. So just say than when you "die" you are just knocked out and miss out some XP for the fight like in a video game.

From my point of view, that's getting things exactly the opposite way round from what I see as the 4e default: it's treating "death" (ie being dropped to zero hp) as largely meaningless in the story but as a penalty at the metagame level (because you miss out on XP); whereas the 4e default, which is also how the OP seems to be handling it, is that PC death is not a metagame penalty, but has the potential to carry quite a bit of story significance.

Not to mention that the DM is in final control of what happens in the game either by controlling the monsters they fight and by interpreting the rolls (aka fudging).

<snip>

Even "plot failures" are normally just speedbumps as "the story must go on". Hardly anyone will have the entire campaign become unsolvable when the PCs fail at one part of it.

Fudging, and the theory of unlimited GM force that goes with it, is a highly contentious technique. My own preference is closer to [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s above - ie I'm strongly against it.

I know that others like it, but I am curious - how do you reconcile your apparent insistence (upthread, at least) on the significance of challenge and failure, with your advocacy of unlimited GM force? If the ultimate story outcome is always a funcion of GM force (including GM force used to negate contrary mechanical outcomes) than in what sense are the players challenged, or able to fail? It looks more like they're just along for the GM's ride.

I find the idea of "plot failures" similar - that implies that someone (presumably the GM) has already plotted the game. (Also, if the GM has unilimted force, and has already plotted what will happen, why would there be "plot failure"? The GM would just make sure that action resolution produces whatever the outcome is that the plot requires. In this sort of play I would see the players as adding a bit of colour and PC characterisation.)

That is a lot less hassle than to kill them and then search for ways to negate that result.

As I read the OP, the GM has a plan for a situation to set up and run - "You learn a mystical ritual from an illicit source that may bring your friend back to life, but may have other consequences too! How do you proceed?". That doesn't look to me like "searching around for a way to negate a result". That looks more like "The ingame situation has evolved to this point, and given where it's at this would be an interesting and enjoyable way to push things along". From my point of view, that's not hassle, but rather is about 90% of the creative side of GMing! (For more on this approach, you can check out S'mon's "Pemertonian scene framing" thread.)

in my opinion whenever someone talks about alternative "failures" to PC death they actually mean speedbumps. The typical scenario is the "You are all captured and have to escape" scenario as alternative to a TPK. But is that really a failure? The game still goes on, the PCs have an adventure and in it earn XP and loot.

That doesn't really answer my question, though. Are you saying that if a player has his/her PC die s/he must drop out of the campaign?

That would be one way to play, I guess - it would give D&D a sort of competitive dimension, with the early stages of a campaign something like the round-robin heats before non-finalists and then non-winners suffer elimination. But it doesn't seem very viable for the more recreational approach to RPGing that I suspect is closer to the norm.

 

[Derren]

Fudging, and the theory of unlimited GM force that goes with it, is a highly contentious technique. My own preference is closer to [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s above - ie I'm strongly against it.

I know that others like it, but I am curious - how do you reconcile your apparent insistence (upthread, at least) on the significance of challenge and failure, with your advocacy of unlimited GM force? If the ultimate story outcome is always a funcion of GM force (including GM force used to negate contrary mechanical outcomes) than in what sense are the players challenged, or able to fail? It looks more like they're just along for the GM's ride.

I don't. But when you are already removing the challenge from the game by not wanting the PCs to die and when they do provide very easy means of resurrection then you can also go all the way and make sure that the PCs don't die in the first place. As I said, that way is much less hassle for practically the same outcome.

As I read the OP, the GM has a plan for a situation to set up and run - "You learn a mystical ritual from an illicit source that may bring your friend back to life, but may have other consequences too! How do you proceed?". That doesn't look to me like "searching around for a way to negate a result". That looks more like "The ingame situation has evolved to this point, and given where it's at this would be an interesting and enjoyable way to push things along". From my point of view, that's not hassle, but rather is about 90% of the creative side of GMing! (For more on this approach, you can check out S'mon's "Pemertonian scene framing" thread.)

You should read the OP again. The primary concern of the OP is to resurrect the dwarf and thus he invented this situation. It didn't evolve in game, it appeared because he wants to negate the outcome of the last combat. And having to come on a online forum and ask for help to rationalize your resurrection ritual is in my eyes "hassle".

I find the idea of "plot failures" similar - that implies that someone (presumably the GM) has already plotted the game. (Also, if the GM has unilimted force, and has already plotted what will happen, why would there be "plot failure"? The GM would just make sure that action resolution produces whatever the outcome is that the plot requires. In this sort of play I would see the players as adding a bit of colour and PC characterisation.)

That is just my experience with many DMs. The plot already stands and it is pretty much impossible to fail it except in the last battle. A TPK? You get captured instead. Now you have to escape and the plot continues like normal.
You fail to enlist the aid of the Genie lord? Doesn't matter, you can still continue.
Such things are not "failures" in my eyes, yet those are the things people come up with when talking about alternatives to death.

That doesn't really answer my question, though. Are you saying that if a player has his/her PC die s/he must drop out of the campaign?

That would be one way to play, I guess - it would give D&D a sort of competitive dimension, with the early stages of a campaign something like the round-robin heats before non-finalists and then non-winners suffer elimination. But it doesn't seem very viable for the more recreational approach to RPGing that I suspect is closer to the norm.[/QUOTE]

No, either he makes a new character or the group searches for a way to resurrect him. The difference is that I would not create such an opportunity just around the corner when it becomes necessary. Depending on the world finding a way to raise the death can be found rather easily or it is nearly impossible. But such opportunities do not simply appear out of thin air just because a PC died during combat.

 

[Jhaelen]

And here I thought this was a thread about Darksun and instead it's yet another thread about Derren!
Why doesn't just everyone put the guy on the ignore list?
[MENTION=6704531]Cherno[/MENTION] & D'karr: I love your encounter ideas!

 

[Cherno]

Because roleplaying games are serious bizznizz!

 

[pemerton]

And here I thought this was a thread about Darksun and instead it's yet another thread about Derren!

Sorry! And yes, good ideas in this thread.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Does the player want their character to return as a Dwarven Warpriest or are they open to evolving the character? If they are open to change the character could be brought back to life as a Shaman after being instilled with primal spirits or they could be resurrected by one of the Sorcerer-Kings and return as a Sorcerer-King Pact Warlock. Or you they could come back as an undeadish race, like a revenant or deva.

You could have the character simply stand back up as if they'd never died and turn his spontaneous resurrection into a long-term plot arc of the campaign. (Spoiler--

Spoiler

the dwarf is really the smoke monster!

)

 

[Cherno]

I assume the smoke monster is a reference to Lost

You ideas of "coming back wrong/right but different" is cool, however I will probably pass, I like the Shaman as a character class but for our group it's not a good choice since both players already control two characters each adding a spirit would make things more complicated And introducing the Sorcerer Kings would open up a whole new can of worms As I said these a great ideas, I am currently pondering wether to give the Dwarf some kind of secret twist that isn't apparent at first. Maybe he has become allergic to sand? Who knows!