Your character died. Big deal.

[AndrewRogue]

I, on the other hand, feel that character death is in fact a big deal. *shrugs*

Character death carries a lot of ramifications. At the basic level, there's the personal general annoyance of losing a character and the work required to come up with a completely new character.

Beyond that, though, is the problem with RP being an interactive fiction medium. Simply put, character death severely disrupts the process. Yes, it can create new drama. At the same time, it creates plenty of new headaches. Plotlines crumble, interpersonal party dynamic gets thrown on its head and a lot of potential and direction generally goes to waste. Even worse, the introduction of new characters into an established group is often difficult in the best of circumstances and, in some cases, requires incredible stretches and strains of RP to make it work.

Glyfair said it best really. There're upsides and downsides to all styles.

For the heavy RP/character interaction style game I run, PC death being able to occur out of nowhere at any time because of a single incident of bad luck is incredibly disruptive and very permanent. We've had games where the RP simply fell apart because we had a revolving door of new PCs who'd show up and then leave later for RL reasons, and thus caused tons of issues. The ONLY reason the game survived as long as it did is we had a strong, centralized cast who, shock, stayed around and didn't die.

For a more game style game, then yeah, death works. Its just like a game over. *shrugs*

Play how you like, and I'll play how I like. I like my death flags.

 

[Treebore]

I, on the other hand, feel that character death is in fact a big deal. *shrugs*

Character death carries a lot of ramifications. At the basic level, there's the personal general annoyance of losing a character and the work required to come up with a completely new character.

Beyond that, though, is the problem with RP being an interactive fiction medium. Simply put, character death severely disrupts the process. Yes, it can create new drama. At the same time, it creates plenty of new headaches. Plotlines crumble, interpersonal party dynamic gets thrown on its head and a lot of potential and direction generally goes to waste. Even worse, the introduction of new characters into an established group is often difficult in the best of circumstances and, in some cases, requires incredible stretches and strains of RP to make it work.

Glyfair said it best really. There're upsides and downsides to all styles.

For the heavy RP/character interaction style game I run, PC death being able to occur out of nowhere at any time because of a single incident of bad luck is incredibly disruptive and very permanent. We've had games where the RP simply fell apart because we had a revolving door of new PCs who'd show up and then leave later for RL reasons, and thus caused tons of issues. The ONLY reason the game survived as long as it did is we had a strong, centralized cast who, shock, stayed around and didn't die.

For a more game style game, then yeah, death works. Its just like a game over. *shrugs*

Play how you like, and I'll play how I like. I like my death flags.

I am given the "green light" to kill a players character when they play in my games.

If they don't like that they are as free to go as they were to play in the first place.

When I join a game I am automatically giving them the "green light" to kill my character. If I don't like it (how they go about killing my character) I am as free to leave as I was to play in the first place.


Death=permanency? I don't get that, unless the game doesn't allow for raising of the dead in the first place. If a player wants to keep playing their PC, I make it happen, which is why I try to establish "friendships" between the PC's and high level NPC's who can "make it happen" within the context of the campaign setting and cast of characters.

 

[apoptosis]

Death=permanency? I don't get that, unless the game doesn't allow for raising of the dead in the first place. If a player wants to keep playing their PC, I make it happen, which is why I try to establish "friendships" between the PC's and high level NPC's who can "make it happen" within the context of the campaign setting and cast of characters.

In this case is death really 'death'.

When i talk about death being on the table i really mean and ending to the character. If raise dead or resurrection or easy to come by (eg having high-level NPCs readily available) then death is much less well 'death.'

now obviously D&D has mostly always had resurrection possible but the permanency of it is probably a crucial part of this discussion.

 

[Treebore]

In this case is death really 'death'.

When i talk about death being on the table i really mean and ending to the character. If raise dead or resurrection or easy to come by (eg having high-level NPCs readily available) then death is much less well 'death.'

now obviously D&D has mostly always had resurrection possible but the permanency of it is probably a crucial part of this discussion.

Death is as permanent as the player and DM want it to be. The posters in this thread seem to have a problem with the "permanency" of death and how it screws up their campaigns story line. This makes it sound like to me they create their own problem by not allowing raise dead, etc... to be viable solutions.


As for is "death truly death", I find it depends on the player. They can either treat it like a "restart" like in a video game save, or they can look at it "realistically", the PC now knows that the gods are real, and that the "after life" is real, because they have been there and been brought back.

So the answer is obviously in how it is perceived by the player and/or GM. I perceive it as the "after life" is real, and the PC now knows it. So I think PC's that die should be very religious afterwards, they were raised by the will of a god. They saw the afterlife, they experienced it, possibly for days or weeks, depending on how quickly they were raised or resurrected.

They may have even spent time as an undead creature, were destroyed, and then resurrected.

So it is however it gets treated.

 

[Glyfair]

Every since I began playing, when you bring a character into a campaign, there's an implicit understanding that you are putting that character at risk of death, dismemberment or worse...

This is one thing that a few people are misunderstanding here. In a campaign where a PC death requires player permission, it's agreed in advance. Players don't just suddenly expect to impose that rule on a campaign they join. It's part of the social contract for that campaign.

... and the only way to keep them safe and unblemished is to retire them.

In my games, once you retire you are part of the campaign world. I control it as I control the rest of the world. I might ask a player what there character might do in a certain situation, but the world around the active PCs are mine to do with as I choose (which can include giving PCs some input and control over some elements).

This makes it sound like to me they create their own problem by not allowing raise dead, etc... to be viable solutions.

In my experience these campaigns tend to be for groups that want strong storytelling elements in their game. For some the regular raising of the dead breaks their connection to the world. They often prefer death to be permanent and important in the game. Raising the dead hurts this.

In fact, that's often why they prefer the player control of PC death. That way when their character dies it will be an important, dramatic part of the campaign. It won't be a random death that doesn't really serve the story.

And don't think that PC death doesn't occur in these games. Players who play in this game often want to die a dramatic death.

 

[Treebore]

This is one thing that a few people are misunderstanding here. In a campaign where a PC death requires player permission, it's agreed in advance. Players don't just suddenly expect to impose that rule on a campaign they join. It's part of the social contract for that campaign.


In my games, once you retire you are part of the campaign world. I control it as I control the rest of the world. I might ask a player what there character might do in a certain situation, but the world around the active PCs are mine to do with as I choose (which can include giving PCs some input and control over some elements).

In my experience these campaigns tend to be for groups that want strong storytelling elements in their game. For some the regular raising of the dead breaks their connection to the world. They often prefer death to be permanent and important in the game. Raising the dead hurts this.

In fact, that's often why they prefer the player control of PC death. That way when their character dies it will be an important, dramatic part of the campaign. It won't be a random death that doesn't really serve the story.

And don't think that PC death doesn't occur in these games. Players who play in this game often want to die a dramatic death.

Well, I tried this pre arranged death idea. However, ignoring the fact that the fireball took their PC to -28 HP, or that the Giants hit took them to -18, was just as fake, and broke the "reality" of death just as much as using raise dead and resurrections do. So I went back to using these spells, and setting up NPC connections as soon as I can, so that PC death can be handled as realistically as possible within the context of the campaign and the rules set being used.

Granted, everyones sensibilities are different, and different things break things for them to varying degrees, and I have simply chosen the way that ruins things the least for me.

 

[WayneLigon]

Okay, I have a quick question for those who ascribe to the "green light" character death philosophy... does this apply to any of the DM's NPC's? I mean if you have an NPC who has tons of story potential or is integral to your campaign, or you just like using as a recurring villain for the characters. Does he/she only die at a narratively appropriate time? And if so who decides this and do your players know about it? Just curious.

It does for mine, unless the players come up with a really inovative and 'cool' method of defeating or disposing of said villain.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

xkcd - A Webcomic - Aeris Dies

This is exactly what this thread makes me think of.

Also, the idea that character death BREAKS RP is absolutely absurd. I even have troubles explaining why it's so absurd, because it just seems like common sense. Every single thing in the world can build up cool roleplaying potential, and if something as big as a player dying can't, then...what? My brain shuts down at that point.

When nobody dies, without approval, I honestly don't understand why you're even playing the game. I'm not saying that to be mean or insulting - I simply cannot comprehend what the point is when you remove the consequences of a game. By "saving" the characters too much, it VERY greatly removes the tension and it softens they fun of succeeding.

 

[Runestar]

That said, I would like to ask another question.

How many of you actually make backup plans for when your character croaks, before the 1st PC actually dies? I mean, he has stats, and is this mortal, and can be killed. So the question is not so much of if he will die, but rather, when.

In my games, my PCs have no special status or immunity to death just because they are supposed to be heroes. Back in 3e, you failed your fort save vs the medusa, got critted for 200+ damage (stupid scythe...) or got stunned by the mindflayer, it was really good-game, and we just pretty much took it in our stride. I mean, well - crap does happen. Just a day in the life of a typical adventurer.

So if one PC dies, we either just get him raised, or insert his backup at some point.

 

[Barastrondo]

When nobody dies, without approval, I honestly don't understand why you're even playing the game. I'm not saying that to be mean or insulting - I simply cannot comprehend what the point is when you remove the consequences of a game. By "saving" the characters too much, it VERY greatly removes the tension and it softens they fun of succeeding.

I played Teenagers from Outer Space a lot. It is impossible to die in that game. Literally. You cannot die from having machine guns fired at you; you either pass your Cool check and stand there unfazed as the bullets miss you, or you fail and you dive for cover like a scared marmoset, your outfit getting tattered and ruined as you look like a goof. Are there consequences in a TFOS game? Absolutely. They just aren't lethal ones.

Fun is a variable. For some, the possibility of having a character permanently removed from the game doesn't really make success any sweeter. It's more like a temporary reprieve than actual success; the only way to "win" is to stop playing your character while you're ahead, and the surest way to "lose" is to be stopped from playing your character via death. It's just one of those ways that people vary, same as how not everyone plays Nethack or Hardcore-mode Diablo. For some, death is absolutely the preferred consequence of choice, because it's so universal. For others, it's just not as interesting as having to live with other consequences.

Depends on what you favor, naturally, but the answer varies a lot from game to game, and I'm not at all surprised that it varies even within the same game system. People are inspired by different things.