Raise Dead etc.

[Hypersmurf]

Only Mordfane knows the other situational circumstances...

... unless you've played through the module in question

I'm not sure where you're getting 'trap' from, though. There's no mechanism or malice involved. It's a bridge.

I don't see how it's different to "The dwarf decided to jump off the ship and swim across to the pirate galleon, in rough seas; with the armor check penalty from his half-plate and a couple of bad Swim checks, he drowned."

Would you call that an 'unjust death'?

-Hyp.

 

[Steel_Wind]

... unless you've played through the module in question

I'm not sure where you're getting 'trap' from, though. There's no mechanism or malice involved. It's a bridge.

It's an obstacle in the dunegon to be overcome with a skill check and deadly damage taken in the event of failure.

They serve the same function in game terms - they just test a different skill. They are both "traps."

I don't see how it's different to "The dwarf decided to jump off the ship and swim across to the pirate galleon, in rough seas; with the armor check penalty from his half-plate and a couple of bad Swim checks, he drowned."

Would you call that an 'unjust death'?

No I would not call it an unjust death. I'd call that death as a result of:

• when the PC is otherwise engaged in plainly stupid play and you have telegraphed a potentially dangerous result or otherwise warned the PC of the consequences of this sort of reckless behavior before recently ( or this time specifically) (The RPG version of the Darwin Awards).
  

Trying to swim in half-plate is plainly and obviously stupid.

If you are saying the module presents the danger of the bridge as plainly obvious trying to cross it in armor as the equivalent of a Darwin Award, then your impression of the appropriateness of the result makes sense.

But that's not what Mordfane said; moreover, it's pretty clear that's not what the player thought either.

If you care to drop me a note at my e-mail address to give me the module title, I'd like to see if I have it to give it a read - as I am now intrigued with the context & nature of the threat of the obstacle.

 

[Saeviomagy]

• "killing the player with a trap when the presence of the trap is or ought to be plainly known and the lethal nature of the threat it presented was obvious and avoidable"

Which - as I have already stated, is a "just" death.

I saw it as this:

• "death from an unavoidable trap which was plainly unfair;"
  
• "death during an ignominious activity by random result;"

Only Mordfane knows the other situational circumstances, which would serve to clarfiy the matter, but the reaction of the player speaks volumes.

Actually, from the module in question (I'm pretty sure I know exactly which one it is), there are a couple of problems.

1. The rope bridge problem itself is one which can be solved by anyone with a brain and elementary caution. Tying a rope around oneself is simple, easy and basically foolproof unless the DM is a bastard about it and demands a use rope check of 50 to perform or something.

2. The rope bridge in it's entirety is totally bypassable.

3. A drop of 60' (ie - the most distance the dwarf can see) is hardly a piffling thing. I'd say that qualifies as being obviously lethal. The description of the rope bridge is similarly obvious in it's implications - take care when you cross the bridge. I'd say that qualifies as an obvious 'trap' or dangerous situation.

You on the other hand sound like you'd be annoyed to die to any form of trap which didn't have a large neon sign above it which flashed the message "warning, lethal trap", and even then you'd probably complain that your character might have had his eyes shut.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I think it all comes down to the way it was described:

If the player knew he was going to cross a rickety rope bridge and just strode out there in their clumsy armour... then they kinda deserved everything they got. As others have said - a simple bit of rope and a few knots would have made it all do-able.

If it was just described as 'a bridge' - the player may be imagining a 3 cart wide bridge with nice high sides. The '2 Balance checks. Failed. You die.' bit would then seem really unfair to them? I've witnessed this from both sides of the screen and it can be very unfortunate.

If I felt I was at fault or that it was an honest misunderstanding I'd consider a 'time rewind' on that one occasion and make damn sure they asked more clearly if they didn't 'get something' in the future!

Anyway - 'I want free res' isn't a fair response. 'only 1 character per session' indeed. Quite right not to give them that!

 

[Eccles]

The arguement does not become a moot point however, because of the true ressurection spell.

My God! Raise Dead is one thing, but there are probably only 5 or 6 benign NPC capable of casting True Resurrection in the whole of the Forgotten Realms! Why on earth would they cast one on some random low level dwarf? Especially one who didn't tie himself to anything before going across...

Nah. Player was definitely pushing his luck.

Besides, all of my group would (I'm certain) rather have a new character than resurrect their old one stark naked and with no equipment.

As for the "you grab a root halfway down" - I'd allow this. But only if the PC passed a fairly hard Ref save... And only if they were near the edge to start with. 200ft from the centre of the bridge is a definite "whee, splat!" moment.

I believe I ran this module, but with different monsters. 2 PCs fell into the crevasse; both were knocked unconscious by the fall, and both were rescued by an enlarged, flying teammate. Could've been two deaths, but teamwork overcame.

 

[Garlak]

 

[Henry]

Steel Wind, I'm in agreement that unavoidable deaths are no fun to players and should be avoided, but in the case of a "thin, unsafe rope bridge" over a deep chasm that you can't see the bottom of (or you can see is Waaaaay Down), I'd call that properly telegraphing a "potentially dangerous result."

The Dwarf crawled it by his own actions. He was not walking down the hall with no obvious signs when suddenly the floor dropped out and he fell 200 feet to his death. Even if there was an innocent life being threatened by a villain on the other side, it's still his choice to make to attempt to be the hero and crawl over the bridge, or to talk the villain out of his action, or even say, "forget it" and walk. Also, there are preventative measures (e.g. the safety rope, there's inching along on hands and knees with no armor, there's spells that can be used, etc.) and if the characters were not prepared to deal with a common situation, then it's not unfair to still present it and expect them to adapt.

"Fair" deaths include:

• ...when the PC is otherwise engaged in plainly stupid play and you have telegraphed a potentially dangerous result or otherwise warned the PC of the consequences of this sort of reckless behavior before recently ( or this time specifically) (The RPG version of the Darwin Awards).

 

[Mordfane]

If you care to drop me a note at my e-mail address to give me the module title, I'd like to see if I have it to give it a read - as I am now intrigued with the context & nature of the threat of the obstacle.

The adventure module in question, is The Forge of Fury. It is encounter #3, "The Rift Hall", on page 7. It was standard, by the book D&D. Both player's were wearing full plate armor. At the time the fighter/dwarf tried to cross the bridge, there were 2 orcs on the other side, useing pillars as cover and firing arrows at the pc's. The orc archer's were irrelevant in the dwarf's death however, as they never got a chance to fire on the pc, who fell during his turn.

Fare Thee Well!

 

[Arnwyn]

I saw it as this:

• "death from an unavoidable trap which was plainly unfair;"
  
• "death during an ignominious activity by random result;"

Only Mordfane knows the other situational circumstances, which would serve to clarfiy the matter, but the reaction of the player speaks volumes.

Nope, can't agree with you... I sure didn't see it that way. I'm with Henry and Hypersmurf on this one.