Victory *and* death: Would you enjoy this?

[Lord Zardoz]

I am not very big on story intensive D&D games myself, but I do have one suggestion.

Rather than engineer that specific ending, present it as a player choice. Save the world or save themselves.

On door number one, the players can choose to save the world by some mechanism that would cause them to die. Players are dead but all the other people on the world get to live.

But with door number two, the players can get the hell out of dodge. They can turn their back on the world and let everyone die, but they manage to escape to another plane of existence. Or they get to become gods of a new world. Or whatever else sounds suitably appealing.

If you frame the choice correctly, it becomes 'do the right thing or be class A dickheads'.

D&D should fundamentally be about the players being able to choose what happens. When you turn players into spectators for attempt at creating a Lord of the Rings style epic, they usually do not have as much fun.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[jollyninja]

I would infinitely preffer this ending to most that I have encountered. If I was playing the appropriate character type and the scenario fit that ending as the way to make the biggest difference, I'd be all over that. It's better then dying in a random encounter or having the conclusion feel like it has no impact. I have had so many campaigns leave a bad taste in my mouth at the end because it felt like there was no impact on anything at the end. I recall watching two gods fight it out at the end of one campaign because my character's diety showed up to save the day as opposed to the DM letting us all die for having the tremendous gall to challenge Bane. None of us expected to live but we all went anyway and to have that be the way it ended made us all wonder why we had bothered.

 

[Slife]

Maybe. Depends on too many things not included in the OP.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If it's my choice to sacrifice and die at the end of the game, that's cool. Otherwise, not really, no.

 

[Tessarael]

Maybe you succeed in saving the world, but you must sacrifice yourself to do so. [..]

Would you find this sort of ending to a campaign dramatic and fun to play? Or frustrating and unfair? Would you enjoy this, assuming it was a change from the norm and not something that happens all the time? Or would it bother you that your character died, even though it was the last game of the campaign anyway and he accomplished something grand in the process?

It depends on the campaign and the character.

I would generally prefer that a character die in an iconic, heroic fashion rather than a meaningless one. For example, I have no objections to the high AC party tank going down in melee battle versus the BBEG, or perhaps holding the line versus mooks (less heroic, but if vital, still nice), but I would object to them dying from falling down a pit or say being hit versus a save or die spell.

The character that I have currently is a high level, very paranoid Elven Rogue. He tends to try and exit stage left when the going gets too tough. Consequently, I don't think it would be iconic for him to die in battle. I would probably prefer to see him captured, tried for spying, and rot in a dungeon somewhere, or for him to fritter away his days into old age, as empires crumble. If it was something major like saving his race or one of their cities, I can see it going down as a great dramatic moment, but again he's more likely to try and avoid it at the last minute.

So I think you need alternative options. What happens if the heroes aren't really up to being suicidally heroic? That shouldn't ruin the entire campaign, though maybe the outcome is less heroic and darker.

This sort of question revolves around story line immunity questions: what things don't you want happening in the storyline for your character? For example, torture might not be okay for many, but it would be appropriate for my Rogue to suffer it. What things do you want to happen in the storyline for your character? What are your character's goals? Generally, story line immunity from say death would be boring, but storyline immunity from a meaningless death may be very important for many campaigns; though in a gritty campaign, potential random death may be an important threat.

 

[kanithardm]

Depends on whether there was every any other possible alternative. If it was completely scripted than I wouldn't enjoy it as much. If it was the natural consequences of player actions and how things just played out, I'd think it was pretty awesome.

I concur.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

If the campaign world is highly developed and "The" Capaign World for most of the adventures and things like associations from the PHB II we a routine part of the game, then yes I would enjoy that very much.

The reason I would enjoy it is because every time you wanted to relive that memory and make that fight out to be the glorious martyrdom that it was you could search out that association and relive it with the people who were involved. [I'm thinking the Jedi Knight Order for example, since the OP uses Obi Wan's death in their OP]

In that case the memory living on would mean so much to the future games and it would make the world come alive because part of the significant history of the world was created by the palyers. And that is a very good thing!

If it was a world that was never to be touched again, though, I would hate it. It would be one of the biggest downers ever. I think it would even be a bigger downer than a character death mid-campaign. Because a character death mid-campaign can be raised, or you get to make a new one and finish the job. The quest that ends with both death and the job being finished in an imaginary world never to be visited again just leaves an empty feeling inside.

I think one of the greatest reasons that Obi Wan's death was accepted is because the memory of Obi Wan lived on in all the movies. His voice made many appearances and his spirit made an obvious appearance in the end.

I hope this helps, Ari.

 

[Merkuri]

I agree with what seems to be the general consensus. It would be an excellent end to a campaign to have my character or the entire party sacrifice themselves in order to achive a Greater Purpose. However, it has to be done correctly. If it doesn't feel like the natural end of things then it won't be as cool. It has to feel like the character's idea, and it has to be voluntary. If the characters end up being ritually sacrificed to an elder god, and sacrificing them to the god pacifies him enough that he won't try to destroy the world for another millenia, then it feels less heroic and more what-the-heck-did-we-get-ourselves-into? If, however, they activate a magical anti-doomsday weapon that drains their very souls--robbing them of not only their lives, but their afterlives--in order to destroy said elder god, then that would be awesome. A bitter success, but a cool one.

Of course, you need the right type of campaign for this, too. The campaign has to have a "feel" of self-sacrifice. The players, along with their characters, have to be ready to doom their characters while they save the world. If the campaign started off very lighthearted and fun, then evolved into a darker story that ended up requiring their sacrifice then it will be kinda jarring and anti-climactic. Kinda like how the mood of the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie drastically changed tone from the first. If you're expecting a fun, playful tone from a game or a movie and are presented with a much darker theme you're not going to like it as much. I'm still arguing with myself over whether I liked Dead Man's Chest or not because of this tone conflict.

 

[Templetroll]

I like the idea that a character's end can be heroic, can have some effect in the game world beyond the actual battle that caused his death. What does the Alamo, the Charge of the Light Brigade, Pickett's Charge mean to you? The men there knew they were likely to die in each case but they fought on and are remembered for it. In The Lord of the Rings Frodo had damage to his life that was akin to death; yet he still struggled on to succeed and bring about the end of Sauron.

More recently, we all have a better understanding of what a First Responder is, what kind of courage some people have just going to 'work' to protect others. If I can emulate that in a game, then it would defintely be satisfying.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Did it to end a 1e campaign as a player, and would do it again if it was a good story. I'm all about that hero stuff.