Death and Storytelling

DMMike said:

But protagonists suffer setbacks all the time. Usually at the end of the second act The GM always has a choice, whether you know it or not: put the rules first, or put the story/fun first. If you put the rules first, you might be lucky enough to see the player's eyes well up with tears, realizing that his character was not, in the end, THE protagonist.

I think those obvious efforts are called Death Saves.


Soooo avoidable (at first level):

• PCs can choose to run away from fights.
• If a fight is unavoidable, PCs can throw down their weapons and beg for mercy.
• PCs can enlist help to attain overwhelming odds.
• GMs can provide level-appropriate encounters.
• GMs can play opponents intelligently, to include using realistic morale.
• GMs can provide non-combat encounters. (Yes, they exist.)
• PS maximum 1st-level hit points. And death saves.

No fudging or nerfing necessary. Unless your definition of nerfing is "modifying encounters to be something other than suicide-death-pacts."

Click to expand...

Regarding this...

"But protagonists suffer setbacks all the time. Usually at the end of the second act The GM always has a choice, whether you know it or not: put the rules first, or put the story/fun first. If you put the rules first, you might be lucky enough to see the player's eyes well up with tears, realizing that his character was not, in the end, THE protagonist. "

Depending on system, its not even a case of rules vs story but rules allowing you to choose...

One example from the world of D&D

"Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

If you are gonna run a story-tied-pc game, choose ruleset and setting definitions to let pc death not be the enemy.

Rule, setting, story, pcs etc should all go hand in hand, not compete or conflict with each other.

5ekyu said:

If you are gonna run a story-tied-pc game, choose ruleset and setting definitions to let pc death not be the enemy.

Rule, setting, story, pcs etc should all go hand in hand, not compete or conflict with each other.

Click to expand...

If the point you are going to make is, "if the game isn't written for it, don't do it," then I think your point is made, and you are done here. Thanks for your input.

If, instead, you want to recognize that this hobby has a 40+ year history of home-brewing and adjusting games to meet our needs, then please take part as if modifications, adjustments, and accommodations are reasonable approaches.

Because, you see, with a little thought, I expect Rules, setting, story, and PCs can be made to work together, even if that wasn't a specific things written into the rules by a designer years ago.

DMMike said:

No fudging or nerfing necessary. Unless your definition of nerfing is "modifying encounters to be something other than suicide-death-pacts."

Click to expand...

Allow me to first remind you of the original statement I've been responding to:

Imaculata said:

During the early levels, all encounters are fairly balanced, so that deaths are just not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Also, please note that [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] is playing D&D 3.5.

Now, to address your points:

DMMike said:

[*]PCs can choose to run away from fights.

Click to expand...

Yep, they can do that. As a DM I may even suggest it. But it's not under my control whether they actually do try to flee or not.

DMMike said:

[*]If a fight is unavoidable, PCs can throw down their weapons and beg for mercy.

Click to expand...

See above!

DMMike said:

[*]PCs can enlist help to attain overwhelming odds.

Click to expand...

See above!

DMMike said:

[*]GMs can provide level-appropriate encounters.

Click to expand...

There's a very clear definition how difficult encounters should be in the 3.5 DMG (page 48, I think). Unfortunately, I'm away from my books and failed to find the exact text. I only found the Encounter Calculator that is based on these assumptions. I.e. 10% of all encounters should be 'easy', 50% should be 'Challenging', 15% should be very hard, 5% should be overpowering. IIRC, the remaining encounters should be 'very hard', but there should be a way for the PCs to turn it into a 'challenging' encounter if they approach it in a clever way.

DMMike said:

[*]GMs can play opponents intelligently, to include using realistic morale.

Click to expand...

Playing opponents intelligently can make things better or worse for the PCs. IME, playing opponents intelligently will actually increase the mortality rate of PCs. This involves the use of guerilla tactics, focusing fire on the most threatening PC, using coup-de-grace on downed PCs, creatures dragging away and eating unconscious PCs, etc.

DMMike said:

[*]GMs can provide non-combat encounters. (Yes, they exist.)

Click to expand...

Well, in D&D 3.5 there's very limited official support for ways to gain xp outside of combat. But it's also a bit beside the point, since it doesn't change how difficult or deadly combat encounters are. (Anecdote: After the initial TPK in my 3e campaign, I actually had an idea I considered quite funny: The new PCs were hired to investigate what had happened to the PCs that had gone missing-in-action. They carefully scouted the area surrounding the dungeon and found the exit of an underground waterway. This sparked the idea of building a dam to flood the dungeon to kill or drive out most of the inhabitants. Since I thought that was a rather clever idea, I went with it and granted them a big chunk of the xp they would have gained for defeating all of them in battle. Basically, only a few undead remained that they needed to defeat after that.)

DMMike said:

[*]PS maximum 1st-level hit points. And death saves.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're talking about D&D 3.5 here. TBH, I don't recall if max hit points were an official rule in D&D 3.5. But even if they were, it won't always save you from dying by being hit with a lucky crit: A 1st level orc warrior (STR 17) does 1d8+3 (x3) damage. This can one-hit-kill even a barbarian PC who was at full hit points.

Umbran said:

If the point you are going to make is, "if the game isn't written for it, don't do it," then I think your point is made, and you are done here. Thanks for your input.

If, instead, you want to recognize that this hobby has a 40+ year history of home-brewing and adjusting games to meet our needs, then please take part as if modifications, adjustments, and accommodations are reasonable approaches.

Because, you see, with a little thought, I expect Rules, setting, story, and PCs can be made to work together, even if that wasn't a specific things written into the rules by a designer years ago.

Click to expand...

Telling other people they are or may be done here... Wow, how did you get that job? Was there an application process.

But since it serms that for some it has to be spelled out clearly...


Choosing the ruleset your campaign runs on can if you wish include house rules... Not just RAW.

Gosh.

Jhaelen said:

Well, in D&D 3.5 there's very limited official support for ways to gain xp outside of combat.

Click to expand...

Indeed. There was a chapter in the DMG that covered story-based xp awards, which I guess also covers non-combat encounters. But unlike with combat encounters, 3.5 didn't provide an xp table for the non-combat ones. The text in that chapter is lengthy, very open to interpretation, and mostly amounts to a few suggestions.

Jhaelen said:

I don't recall if max hit points were an official rule in D&D 3.5.

Click to expand...

Although our group always uses this rule, I can't remember if it was an official rule either.

Jhaelen said:

But even if they were, it won't always save you from dying by being hit with a lucky crit: A 1st level orc warrior (STR 17) does 1d8+3 (x3) damage. This can one-hit-kill even a barbarian PC who was at full hit points.

Click to expand...

In 3.5, there's quite a few CR1 opponents that could kill you in one attack if you're only level 1.

It bears keeping in mind that PC death doesn't impact all players equally. Some players have a million ideas for PCs and don't invest strongly into any particular one. Some of these get bored easily and drop their old PC in favour of a shiny new one at the drop of a hat. Killing off the PC of a player like this probably doesn't bother them and could even be a reward. These players mostly aren't interested in long term plot so often don't get targetted by it or look for it.

Some other players highly invest in their PC. Some of these write backstory and make up short-term, mid-term and long-term plans. Some of these players are good targets for long-term plot, as they tend to stick around unless life stuff happens or the PC dies/retires.

So the effects of PC death on their player and the campaign in general vary a lot. For me, one of the signs of a bad DM is not caring about this difference. I've seen more than one campaign fall apart when the central PC got killed, and more than one mystified GM who didn't understand why their campaign fell apart afterwards.

There have been lots of macho statements on this thread like "let the dice fall where they may" etc. But there are real downsides to that sort of playstyle. IMO the more common, random and arbitrary death is in a setting, the more players learn not to write backstories, invest in characters or form attachments to the setting. I find that high casualty rates discourage players from investing in anything but character survival, and maybe not even that.

If everyone is fully informed and on board with the consequences, there's probably no problem. Sometimes this isn't the case. A player is surprised that he actually cares about a dead pc and the threat to all the plots connected to that pc.

I run long turn games with long running plots, including personal plots. This can require some level of script immunity, or the fallback of resurrection magic. The upside is that pcs and/or players can form emotional attachments to the setting and the range of stakes to be played for can increase exponentially. This sort of play requires that the players trust the DM not to casually take cruel advantage of these connections. It can take just one massacre of a loved NPC to guarantee that player never takes the risk of investing emotionally in NPCs in future.

Jhaelen said:

Also, please note that [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] is playing D&D 3.5.

Click to expand...

Enough said. With the exception of the D&D 5e rules (death saves and max hp), I was using a general RPG perspective.

Obviously, I hope, low-level PC death is not completely avoidable in D&D 3x. I mean, if you don't fudge the rolls, you might say that 1 out of every 20 attacks (from anything larger than a goblin) is going to be a lethal critical hit that will probably take out an average PC...or the party wizard who wasn't smart enough to actually stay far away from sharp things.

3x implemented some nice defensive tools to assist - cover, concealment, full defense, fight defensively (whatever that is) - but when the DMG recommends 5% of encounters be overpowering (good memory, I referenced the 3.0 DMG), low/1st level PCs face a TPK whenever that 5% comes up.

I'd rather see a different conversation though:
Why is PC death an issue, when

Skyscraper said:

Conan, Drizzt, Bilbo, (and) Aragon(sic)

Click to expand...

don't even do that much fighting? Drizzt, Aragorn, sure, lots of fighting. But Bilbo? Not exactly a hard charger. I think he had a lot of deus ex machina on his side too. Just watched Conan the Barbarian, and I recall him doing a lot more sneaking around than fighting. Were King Arthur's knights knee-deep in combat? In Game of Thrones, characters tend to die when they fight. Dirk the Daring died. A LOT. And wouldn't you know it: he wasn't part of a book. He was part of a game.

In this light, there's no reconciling to do between PC death and storytelling. If fights happen, death happens.

Imaculata said:

Although our group always uses this rule, I can't remember if it was an official rule either.

Click to expand...

I'm 99% sure max h.p. at 1st is official in 3.0 but I've no idea if it carried forwatd to 3.5.

Aenghus said:

So the effects of PC death on their player and the campaign in general vary a lot. For me, one of the signs of a bad DM is not caring about this difference. I've seen more than one campaign fall apart when the central PC got killed, and more than one mystified GM who didn't understand why their campaign fell apart afterwards.

Click to expand...

The GM in this case need only look in the mirror while saying "Hey, dummy - next time, don't build the whole campaign around one character and you won't have this problem."

Lanefan said:

The GM in this case need only look in the mirror while saying "Hey, dummy - next time, don't build the whole campaign around one character and you won't have this problem."

Click to expand...

This can happen by accident when casualties lead to only one PC being connected to the plot and/or caring about it. For instance one dedicated player and a bunch of casual players who are along for the ride. It can also happen when the DM wants to run plots and only one player habitually bites. I have found no reliable way to make all the players care about a particular plot. DMs need to work with the players they have, not the players they would like to have (unless it's got so bad they need a new bunch of players). I expect only a subset of the players to care about any particular plot, sometimes only one player does, and some plots just don't gel and die on the vine.

There can be moments of relevation when the players have to remind the GM that none of the surviving PCs were connected to the plot(s) the GM cares about, or have any investment in it.

Alternatively you can have players who become plot-shy and deliberately avoid plots, connecting to NPCs and ostensibly care only for group survival or maybe personal PC survival. I find this leads to a very limited game, as the only stakes the players seem to care about is if their PCs survive or not (and in some cases not even that)

Umbran said:

If the point you are going to make is, "if the game isn't written for it, don't do it," then I think your point is made, and you are done here. Thanks for your input.

If, instead, you want to recognize that this hobby has a 40+ year history of home-brewing and adjusting games to meet our needs, then please take part as if modifications, adjustments, and accommodations are reasonable approaches.

Because, you see, with a little thought, I expect Rules, setting, story, and PCs can be made to work together, even if that wasn't a specific things written into the rules by a designer years ago.

Click to expand...

With respect, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], I believe that [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] 's input is constructive, even though he appears surprised of something that appears to be rather the common default approach.

In fact, if you're willing 5ekyu, you could provide some practical example of how you implement post-life story into your setting?