Your character died. Big deal.

[Fifth Element]

Basically agreeing that no matter how crazy, stupid, or thoughtless an action a player may take... I can't kill him unless he says so.

But you're taking it out of context. Of course such a system doesn't work if the players do stupid stuff ("I jump off the 500' cliff"). It only works if the players are in the right mindset, and don't abuse it with metagamey, "I know I can't die so let's do this" actions.

 

[Barastrondo]

Since we're talking about consequences other than death, I'll bring up one that I think may resonate:

Having to live with humiliation.

Let's consider a game in which character aren't necessarily going to be in peril of death unless the game's moving to a climax. But in such a game, even minor maneuvers that end in failure can result in your character being humiliated. Worse, you can be humiliated in such a way that you cannot simply kill everyone who was witness, or who heard the rumors. And unless it's a samurai chambara flick (and that's probably high-lethality anyway), you're not going to kill yourself rather than live with the shame.

You can fight your way back from this sort of thing, of course. But restoring your good name with crucial people — the aristocracy, the girl you're crazy for, the thieves' guild — is probably going to be harder and more work than shelling out for a raise dead spell.

Personally, I know players who would rather risk death on a random die roll than risk their characters being shamed. I tend to play with others, though, who are more interested in a high-stakes social aspect to a game to go along with the high-stakes mortal combat aspect. In a way, some "old school" campaigns flinch away from consequences like living with shame or humiliation in the same way that low-lethality campaigns shy away from random death. Does this mean that the people who are all "Death before dishonor!" are cowards, ready to quit the game rather than suffer a lasting setback that might make them look less than heroic? I don't think so. But it's a good example of how lethality is just one of many categories of risk that isn't for everyone.

(Edit: Completely forgot to even talk about people who refuse to establish social links with NPCs: you know, who are orphans so the DM can't use their parents against them, who don't want to forge a relationship with an NPC just because they fear betrayal, who don't want to have a romantic relationship because maybe the DM will kill off their intended, etc. That's yet another category of risk that some people embrace and others avoid at all costs.)

 

[Fifth Element]

I thought we are discussing the way death and resurrection was handled in 4e?

Sort of. We're discussing the dislike some people have of save-or-die, which can be removed from editions previous to 4E by using, you guessed it, house rules.

 

[Raven Crowking]

2 Rolls you don't have any control about. They happen immediately after each other, without you making any decisions in between. (And of course, traps don't require rolling Initiative - or skill checks. Only a rogue (or other classes with the Trap Sense feature) is allowed to detect certain traps at all, and he usually has to consciously search for them.).

Because there were no choices or rolls that got you to that initiative roll, right? Pardon me if I think these sorts of circumstances are largely mythological.

Yay for pedantism!

I aim to please!

See Mustrum_Ridcully's reply above.

See my reply.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I said it before, and I feel compelled to say it again. You shouldn't automatically feel entitled to "benefits" such as "no deaths" just because you are a hero.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and read that as "this is how I prefer it" rather than the way it's written, which is "this is they way you should prefer it."

But I'd suggest being more careful with how you word things. People might think you're telling them how to have fun.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Basically agreeing that no matter how crazy, stupid, or thoughtless an action a player may take... I can't kill him unless he says so.

This is a problem.. if it's a problem. It assumes
1) There is actually a player playing his character this way
2) The group or at least the DM do not like where this leads the game (bizarre world?)

In other words, it becomes a problem if the play styles between DM and player don't match. Imagine if the same player would continually play such characters in your campaign - every time he plays his character stupid and mindless, and if his PC dies, he just rolls up another character that acts the same way (or gets him raised). If you don't like it with the Death Flag, you won't like it without it.

I guess I could see this more if it applied equally to players and DM NPC's (but I'm getting the general impression this is not the case in these types of games)...then yes we are choosing to tell a collaborative story (Like tv, novels, etc.) and the main villain won't die early because you were smart or lucky or played well, he will die when I, the DM, feel it is naratively appropriate just like your PC's.

Well, as others have said, Death Flags for NPCs are a possibility. Especially if this is a house rule, you can do it how you prefer anyway, and some groups might definitely prefer to meet their arch villain multiple times (I sometimes miss this opportunity. The satisfaction of defeating a recurring villain is potentially a lot larger then just defeating the villain of the session)

I am not running any "Death Flag" games, but I always considered to use a certain meta-game mechanics to facilitate the story in certain ways. Some games allow the DM to offer "amping up" the risks (or even force it) for the PCs, but has to reward them. But if the players disagree, they might have to spend some game resources to decline this option. You could do the same in a villain encounter: "You know guys, this villain is pretty important. You get one action point, but the villain can't be killed. Don't like it? Raise your Death Flag, and the guy can be killed - just like you."

 

[Fifth Element]

Because there were no choices or rolls that got you to that initiative roll, right?

Of course there were choices. The same types of choices that lead to any encounter, regardless of whether it has the possibility of save-or-die effects. Since these choices are the same either way, they are irrelevant.

 

[Mallus]

What drama can there be when my party gets ready to fight the tarrasque if they know that victory is already in hand, and the actual battle is but a mere formality, where everyone simply goes through the motion of rolling dice, landing hits and taking damage?

None, if nothing else is at stake. The death-lite approach makes the assumption that other consequences for failure exist, that there are other things at stake (such as the PC's kingdom getting destroyed if they don't stop the tarrasque).

If all you do in a campaign is kill things and take their stuff, then death-lite is the wrong technique to use.

 

[Runestar]

Think about it - why shouldn't I? What's the reason? Is it morally wrong? Do I hurt somebody doing it? What if I enjoy it more this way? What if I have even tested the alternatives (and I bet most people with such provisions have done so, because few "traditional" games - including D&D - actually support or assume something like a Death Flag mechanic), and I like it more?

If you wish to phrase it that way, then obviously nothing heaven-shaking is going to come out of running dnd your way. The earth is not going to stop spinning on its axis as a consequence or anything...

To me (and no offence), it just seems like running a lv20 character in a 1st lv game, and then boasting when you steamroll over the opposition. Yeah, there certainly is nothing stopping you from running your game in said manner, but that sure begs the question - why do you even bother?

Dnd is a wargame first and foremost. The main aim of the game is to kill stuff and loot their belongings, and then somehow attempt to rationalize your own actions with some storytelling (in a nutshell).

Basically, I just feel that if it is less of a tactical wargame, and more of an immersive, storytelling experience you are after, I believe there are easily better alternatives rather than dnd which would suit your purpose better. It is not so much that I am so totalitarian that I expect everyone else to play dnd the same way I do, but more that it seems that you would be missing out on a lot by not playing it the way the designers intended it be run.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What drama can there be when my party gets ready to fight the tarrasque if they know that victory is already in hand, and the actual battle is but a mere formality, where everyone simply goes through the motion of rolling dice, landing hits and taking damage?

There is no victory if the entire party is trampled on by the Tarrasque and awakes a few hours later to see that their home town has been obliterated - and after searching for survivors, all they find is the chewed on corpses of their allies, lovers or parents...