Ressurection and Drama "Don't worry, we'll rez you after this"

[Treebore]

Interesting. I agree with you for the most part, but also feel that it's not so... I don't know, black and white. As a player, I want the possibility of failure so that success feels sweeter. But I don't want to fail! And when I fail, or in the process of failing (dying,) I want to use every tool at my disposal to avoid that failure, and would probably start advocating the existence of raise dead even if I was against it as the beginning.

The ideal situation and what would really happen is certainly different for me, I'm willing to admit.

So your saying if your PC dies you don't know you failed if you get brought back?

I know when I fail plenty of times, and dying wasn't even involved.

 

[Jack99]

After my first campaign, I expect I will be disallowing Raise Dead and the powers that bring people back from the dead permanently. Either that or make it a once per lifetime deal, coupled with a huge quest.

I am not a huge fan of the whole rezzing.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I've banned it for a long time now. But always with the caveat that Ressurection is possible, just very difficult, needs a very good cause, etc etc.

I like a lot of the ideas here about how to spice it up though. Will mull these over for the next time I run a DnD campaign.

 

[fuzzlewump]

So your saying if your PC dies you don't know you failed if you get brought back?

I know when I fail plenty of times, and dying wasn't even involved.

I'm not sure Treebore, to be honest I've never had a character death, and while DMing I've never had a PC die. I agree with the DMG2's advice (or whatever it was originally from, of course,) to make both success and failure something fun. If you succeed in defending your NPC who carries the Fetish of Zzywatoir, then you can continue on into the Temple of the Four Winds. If you fail, you must recover the fetish from beings who fled into the deep jungles of the Feywild.

For my games, I feel like outside of this dynamic should be the possibility of dying. It should be not fun, it should suck, but it should also be significant. Like the 3.5 DMG says, no being run over by a cart to die. I wouldn't run it as a "ha ha!" to the player in question, I would allow him to play another character or just an NPC if he wanted. So really, it's still 'fun,' they still get to play the game, but the significance of death is still there. To be fair though, like I said, I haven't had a PC die under my watch, so this is all theory.

 

[Treebore]

I think its also important for DM's to remember this is a group game. Which is why I ask them. If they want death to be meaningful in the same sense as our real life world would view it, they can choose to not be resurrected. IF they want to embrace being in a world of the fantastic and miraculous, they can be raised.

Personally, if a DM wants to enforce "meaningful death" by getting rid of the spells that allow them to be raised, then they should go all the way and get rid of all the other "miraculous" magic, such as creating fireballs out of nothing, Cones of Cold out of nothing, and other the other miraculous and unrealistic magic in the game.

Personally I play D&D, a fantasy game where miraculous things are possible, and if you earn the levels, you can perform miracles. Whether those things are fireballs, meteor storms, granting wishes, teleporting, or bringing back the dead.

I often wonder why people who don't like being able to be raised bother playing D&D, an inherently high fantasy game. Maybe they should go with something like Warhammer if they want the PC's to stay dead. Which even then really doesn't kill you until you run out of points to avoid death.

I think most groups realize its more fun being able to keep on playing characters you enjoy playing than it is to be forced to quit playing it.

Heck, I even had one player who claimed he hated being allowed to raise dead. Then when his PC finally died at 8th level I gave him the choice. He chose to be raised. Its been 2 years and I still occasionally razz him about that.

 

[fuzzlewump]

IPersonally, if a DM wants to enforce "meaningful death" by getting rid of the spells that allow them to be raised, then they should go all the way and get rid of all the other "miraculous" magic, such as creating fireballs out of nothing, Cones of Cold out of nothing, and other the other miraculous and unrealistic magic in the game.

( . . . )

I often wonder why people who don't like being able to be raised bother playing D&D, an inherently high fantasy game. Maybe they should go with something like Warhammer if they want the PC's to stay dead. Which even then really doesn't kill you until you run out of points to avoid death.

I don't see what's inherent about resurrection, or why anyone "should" get rid of magic in general just because they don't like the raise dead dynamic. We have the technology, in real life that is, to basically create fireballs and cones of cold. Not out of nothing, but still. But we still can't resurrect people. No, I don't care about discussing technology, I'm just saying, if the real world can draw the line at resurrection (let's assume a God created the world and said it would be hard to return life to something that dies), so can the fantasy world. And even if we could resurrect people in real life, why should anyone have to have resurrection in their games just because other magic exists? That just doesn't follow.

Also, like your final example, players may want death to be a possibility then not want their characters to die. It's not really a black and white decision at the beginning as to who wants realistic death or not, people will probably change their minds at the moment of truth like you pointed out.

 

[Derren]

IF they want to embrace being in a world of the fantastic and miraculous, they can be raised.

Thing is, in default D&D where ressurection is common and cheap it wouldn't be a miracle any more. But people still treat it as such.
If you want a real interesting fantasy game create a world which embraces the possibilities D&D gives you and not one which pretends that thus options are not there.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I often wonder why people who don't like being able to be raised bother playing D&D, an inherently high fantasy game. Maybe they should go with something like Warhammer if they want the PC's to stay dead. Which even then really doesn't kill you until you run out of points to avoid death.

We all play D&D for very different reasons. Unlike a CRPG in which you're slaved to the rules, D&D lets you tinker. Sure, by RAW, D&D is inherently high-fantasy. But ultimately it's the GM who runs the show, ideally with the players' interests in mind.

If my group wants a world with permadeath, the GM can just take out raises and rezzes. If we want it even grittier, the GM can take out all healing or change the hitpoint system. If we want to play super-duper heroically, the GM can lower the cost or level of rez to make death a complete non-issue. We can play purely "let the dice roll as they may" or we can maximize player control with hero points, death flags, and the like.

D&D-- or any TTRPG, really-- is infinitely configurable to suit the tastes of the groups who play. IMHO, questioning the motives of those who play kind of misses the whole point of table-top gaming and its flexibility.

 

[Treebore]

Thing is, in default D&D where ressurection is common and cheap it wouldn't be a miracle any more. But people still treat it as such.
If you want a real interesting fantasy game create a world which embraces the possibilities D&D gives you and not one which pretends that thus options are not there.

That depends on perspective. The RICH may be able to afford to be raised. Adventurers can afford to be raised. The poor, who are the VAST majority of any given (published) worlds population never get resurrected.

So for 99% of the population, it is still a miracle. Its only diminished for the rich elite.

 

[Treebore]

We all play D&D for very different reasons. Unlike a CRPG in which you're slaved to the rules, D&D lets you tinker. Sure, by RAW, D&D is inherently high-fantasy. But ultimately it's the GM who runs the show, ideally with the players' interests in mind.

If my group wants a world with permadeath, the GM can just take out raises and rezzes. If we want it even grittier, the GM can take out all healing or change the hitpoint system. If we want to play super-duper heroically, the GM can lower the cost or level of rez to make death a complete non-issue. We can play purely "let the dice roll as they may" or we can maximize player control with hero points, death flags, and the like.

D&D-- or any TTRPG, really-- is infinitely configurable to suit the tastes of the groups who play. IMHO, questioning the motives of those who play kind of misses the whole point of table-top gaming and its flexibility.

Well, wanting to change the rules for your given group is fine. Just don't be surprised if I am being recruited to such a game I end up not joining. I play D&D with the assumption that most rules will be followed, and that house rules will effect only minor rules issues. Taking away my option to keep playing a PC when they get killed would be a deal breaker for me.

When I want such a game I play Warhammer or L5R or Shadowrun and other games that don't have such rules in the first place. They are fun in their own right anyways.