Your character died. Big deal.

[Imaro]

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.?

The characters and players are not the same thing, that's exactly what I'm getting at. The fact that a player has made it so that his character will not die...speaks volumes about what is "meaningful" to that player. Now as far as what's important to his/her character...the character doesn't really exist.

Huh?

Just read what I wrote above.

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

Go...go...hyperbole!!

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?

I have seen more people in this thread talk about how annoying or booring it is to have to sit out of the game for a period of time as the major con against death...how about that as a "real" consequence. Yeah you messed up, something bad happened in most games that means a detrimental effect for that player. Does that clarify things a little better?

 

[Starbuck_II]

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.

Wait, why can't you get the Princess: is she in another castle?

So that was why Mario had those extra lives...

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

I am sorry that you are reading my points as "excessive hyperbole". They are not.

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.

Indeed.

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.

The desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story using the same character is no more important than the the desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story while not being lost in the dungeon, eating rats, and being chased by a minotaur.

If we say, X is a consequence of failure, and you say "I don't like X; let's just have Y", why would it not be equally valid to say "I don't like Y; let's have A" (where each letter is progressively less of a consequence as one descends from Z to A)?

Obviously, these would all be equally valid. What is the qualitative difference between them? None. Why is "giving players authorial control w/r/t character death" the cut-off line?

In fact, if "No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures." then I submit that the cut-off line we are discussing is not and cannot be simply character death.


RC

 

[Barastrondo]

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."

Consider this: Someone approaches roleplaying with the idea that "It's like TV or writing fanfiction, but better. It's interactive!" Now, such a person may not go all the way into "And you can get killed off at any time!" as one of the advantages over TV or writing fanfiction. But they like the interactivity, the complications introduced by other people, better.

It's a false presumption to say "all [you] want to do is tell stories about yourself." It's not all they want. They want the things that are unique to roleplaying games. But they don't want all you want. They don't say "Well, with the bonuses of interactivity I also absolutely want the risk of having my character terminated in a fashion I would find unacceptable." There's this middle ground that lies between writing fanfiction and playing your favorite style of RPG. And it's pretty vast.

 

[Scribble]

In fact, if "No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures." then I submit that the cut-off line we are discussing is not and cannot be simply character death.

It's not just about death. It's about managing the level of randomness, and putting more focus on the player's choices, and ability to play.

Take a game like poker.

Poker is based on a random hand of cards being dealt to each player. A good poker player, can then look at his hand, and get a rough idea of the percentage chance of it being a "good" hand based on what cards they are. He then decides whether to continue betting, knowing when to hold em, and when to fold em...

A D&D player can do a similar trick with his PC. He can look at his stats, current HP, powers etc, and know roughly what his chances of survival are, with a level of randomness based on dice rolls.

The poker player is pitting his ability to play the game vrs his opponents. The D&D player is doing a similar thing. he's pitting his ability to play against teh challenges the DM tosses at him.

A good poker player uses his knowledge of the game/cards/math/opponents to his advantage.

A good D&D "player" does the same. He knows his character, his abilities, his teammates.

Even if he "looses" he might be a bit upset, but overall it's a challange to do better.

Save or Die would be akin to adding a card into the poker deck that says "fold now."

While it might be interesting for a bit, overall it doesn't really add to the player's invlvement of the game. There's nothing the player can really do to account for it, aside from hope he doesn't get dealt the card. Even if he's got all his math down, knows all the strategies in the world, and could be considered the "best" poker player, drawing the fold now card invalidates all that. Blam... sucker!

Since there isn't a way to really compensate for it, it just kind of sits there as a thing the player just hopes doesn't happen and the player feels kind of cheated when it does. All that time and energy spent becoming a better player is pointless.

I'd be wiling to bet that the majority of gamers out there prefer the game to challenge their ability to play it, and not just determine their level of luck...

 

[Fifth Element]

I do have a problem with those for whom the idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is not a strawman. And I think we both know that they exist.

They might well exist, but I haven't seen any of them here. You're addressing the arguments of posters in this thread. It's poor form (and just plain confusing) to argue against a hypothetical person's hypothetical argument while doing so.

 

[Mallus]

The fact that a player has made it so that his character will not die...speaks volumes about what is "meaningful" to that player.

Really? What do you think it says about the player? Other than that they would prefer it if there's something else at stake in the campaign beyond simple survival.

Just read what I wrote above.

I tried. I think you're saying that someone who prefers a death-lite campaign is trying to shirk some sort of responsibility they have for getting their made-up avatar killed, or rather, that they are secretly trying to set their made-up avatar as a fall guy. Which can't be right because it doesn't make any sense.

Go...go...hyperbole!!

I thought it was funny.

I have seen more people in this thread talk about how annoying or booring it is to have to sit out of the game for a period of time as the major con against death...how about that as a "real" consequence. Yeah you messed up, something bad happened in most games that means a detrimental effect for that player. Does that clarify things a little better?

Yes. I that's perfectly clear. I completely disagree, but at least I see what you're saying. As DM, I have no interest in making one of my friends 'sit out' because they 'messed up' in-game. This isn't hockey. There's no need for the penalty box. I prefer to have my players engaged for as much of the game as possible.

 

[Mallus]

You watch TV, you don't play it. You have no control over the TV show.

The point is you still watch adventure programs on it where you know full and well the main characters won't die.

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.

Thanks, but my group will just keep playing D&D (with a hearty dash of Baron Munchhausen sprinkled in).

 

[Fifth Element]

I thought it was funny.

I did too, for the record. True LOL.

 

[Eric Tolle]

The desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story using the same character is no more important than the the desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story while not being lost in the dungeon, eating rats, and being chased by a minotaur.

No, it's not the same thing at all. If my character is lost in a dungeon, then that's part of the character's adventure- it becomes just yet another challenge to surmount. If my character dies, that's it for that character, and that's it for any story that I tell with the character.

It's also the end for my participation in the game. When my character's done, I'm done. Why should I be expected to go to all the trouble and fuss of making a new character, just because you consider your silly little game world to be more important than my character?

In fact, if "No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures." then I submit that the cut-off line we are discussing is not and cannot be simply character death.

Who's saying that? All I'm saying is that you get ONE chance to entertain me. I'm a busy person, so your game gets exactly one character of mine. If you kill off that character, then you better give me a damn good reason why I should take the time to make a new character for you.

Of course if you have a tendency to throw boring adventures at me, especially if it's for no good reason than it fits the story you want to tell, then that's another problem all on it's own. You'd better just give up the damn DM Manual and let me drive.