Your character died. Big deal.

[Raven Crowking]

I still think that dying is not the only element of the set losing. You can get captured and then used as part of the evil ceremony letting Tharizdun out of his prison. You can not get the princess out of the castle. You can get lost in the maze of the dungeon surviving on nothing but rats. Having to stick another quarter in the life machine doesn't necessarily make the game fun for everyone.

Sure.

But is there anything about getting captured and then used as part of the evil ceremony letting Tharizdun out of his prison that prevents one from using the same arguments about "unfun" that are used in relation to character death?

Likewise getting lost in the maze of the dungeon and surviving on nothing but rats?

Likewise any form of failure at all?

Surely if, as a player, I can take death off the table, I can also take getting lost in the dungeon off the table?


RC

 

[malraux]

But with all of those, the story of the character can keep going. You can start working on how to escape. You can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them. But if you are dead, you can't do any of that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But with all of those, the story of the character can keep going. You can start working on how to escape. You can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them. But if you are dead, you can't do any of that.

(1) With character death, the story of the campaign world can still continue. The game still continues. You can start working on a new character. Your new character can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them. There really isn't that much difference.

(2) Assuming that every story comes to an end at some point (because the character dies, the campaign ends, what-have-you), then we are talking about the player taking authorial control as to how that story comes to an end. In this case, why not also take authorial control over whether or not you can get lost in the dungeon and live only on rats?

(3) What qualitative difference is there between having the character die, or having the character lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions? If you answer, as I do, "very bloody little", then surely you would see how a person who thought characters should not die without player consent would also quite possibly argue that the character should not be lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?


RC

 

[jensun]

Likewise getting lost in the maze of the dungeon and surviving on nothing but rats?

Getting lost in the dungeon and having to survive on rats while avoiding being eaten by the minotaur clan hunting you until you reach the exit at the far end of the complex introduces new and interesting complications.

Dying in random encounter number 4 when an orc shoots you through the eye in the first round of combat is dull and tedious. The game ends for that player, possibly for quite a while and all of the story complications introduced by that character fall away.

Now, I can understand that some people like that mode of play. I am not one of them and neither are my players so we make changes to remove it.

 

[jensun]

(3) What qualitative difference is there between having the character die, or having the character lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions? If you answer, as I do, "very bloody little", then surely you would see how a person who thought characters should not die without player consent would also quite possibly argue that the character should not be lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?

Your use of excessive hyperbole isnt helping you to make your point.

 

[Imaro]

But with all of those, the story of the character can keep going. You can start working on how to escape. You can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them. But if you are dead, you can't do any of that.

Which begs the question of...are these "consequences" for failure in any way meaningful to the player? Or are they just steadily more convulted ways for a player to avoid any sense of "real" responsibility for the actual choices he made for his character by displacing the consequences of his acions on a totally imaginary "character" instead of accepting them himself.

I don't know, to me this path seems to at the least partially ignore the "game" part of a roleplaying game in that most games have consequences (loosing a turn, being out of the game, having to restart) for the actual player.

 

[Mallus]

(1) With character death, the story of the campaign world can still continue. The game still continues.

We're specifically talking about the desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story using the same character, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Assuming that every story comes to an end at some point (because the character dies, the campaign ends, what-have-you), then we are talking about the player taking authorial control as to how that story comes to an end. In this case, why not also take authorial control over whether or not you can get lost in the dungeon and live only on rats?

We're specifically talking about giving players authorial control w/r/t character death. That's it. Death-lite isn't about allowing players to circumvent in-game challenges, it's about allowing them to face those challenges using the characters of their choice.

What qualitative difference is there between having the character die, or having the character lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions? If you answer, as I do, "very bloody little", then surely you would see how a person who thought characters should not die without player consent would also quite possibly argue that the character should not be lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?

You can do better than that, RC. No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures.

 

[Mallus]

Which begs the question of...are these "consequences" for failure in any way meaningful to the player?

The death-lite approach assumes that the players and DM communicate openly and have reached some consensus as to what's meaningful to the characters/players.

Or are they just steadily more convulted ways for a player to avoid any sense of "real" responsibility for the actual choices he made for his character by displacing the consequences of his acions on a totally imaginary "character" instead of accepting them himself.

Huh?

I don't know, to me this path seems to at the least partially ignore the "game" part of a roleplaying game in that most games have consequences (loosing a turn, being out of the game, having to restart) for the actual player.

Would you be satisfied if the DM slapped a player whenever their PC died?

Also, forcing a player to restart the game, with a character that's just as powerful (or very, very close) seems pointless. How is that a meaningful consequence? I mean, in 3.5, if a player replaces a dead monk or bard with a live cleric or druid, then the net effect of their character's death is 'get a stronger character'. Is that what you mean by consequence?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dying in random encounter number 4 when an orc shoots you through the eye in the first round of combat is dull and tedious. The game ends for that player, possibly for quite a while and all of the story complications introduced by that character fall away.

Let us say that we run different sorts of games.

Being chased around a dungeon by a minotaur while eating rats can be as dull and tedius as getting killed by an orc.

The game does not have to end for that player.

The story complications introduced by that character do not have to fall away. In fact, had I been DMing Star Wars, and Luke died in Empire Strikes Back, I can guarantee you that the story complications introduced by his parentage would have long and striking effects for many sessions to come.


RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Again, I'm not trying to attack the playing style, and I apologize if it seems that way. I simply cannot wrap my head around why a person would be so adamant about the whole death thing.

Edit: Oh, and I think the TV comparison is a really bad one. You watch TV, you don't play it. You have no control over the TV show. At no point in time do your feelings matter in the context of that show, nor can you do any action to change things the way they are. Watching TV is, well, watching it - you just sit there and listen/watch what other people are doing, without any input or output from yourself. That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."

Oh, or better yet, play Baron Munchausen. That game's PERFECT. No, not "perfect in this context," I mean it may be the greatest game ever created in the history of mankind.