Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?

[Crothian]

Depends on the game and how it is run. We invest plots and NPC relationships in the game so if a Character dies it hurts the game. I set up a game were death is very rare but failure is always an option.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

True enough. Being killed by a trap sucks. Dying to save another...priceless.

Being killed by a trap usually DOES save another. And it often provides the impetus to come up with all kinds of pop culture references...

"I will say some words over your grave, like 'Didn't you see that?'"

"Sucks to be you!"

"Oooooooooh- that'll leave a mark!"

"It'll take more that THAT to kill me off...*URK*...that ought to do it."

I left Jergal, my half-orc tempest chainfighter, with the group and basically said, "Seriously. If he dies, it's okay. There are so many cool things I'd like to do, character-wise, that - as I said above - death just isn't a deterrent for me.


I like it for plot reasons. (See above, re: TPK's.) I don't generally want my own characters Raised. My players would usually rather make a new character, too. So I guess it all works out.

For me its only partly about plot reasons. I also have hundreds of PC ideas floating around in my notebooks & PDA that I'm just itching to play... But I can't indulge that impulse until the PC dies or a new campaign starts up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dying spectacularly is cool.

Dying ineffectually is not cool.

I disagree. I have had many of my own PCs die ineffectually over the years, and I am more than cool with that. Without that chance of dying because I did something stupid, I will never know if it was me or the DM who is responsible when I do something smart. I don't want plot protection.

Even dying because of stupidity can be a great story. Heck....dying because of stupidity is almost always worth retelling. That's why the Darwin Awards are so popular.

1) I think death is the least interesting result of failure. Dying is easy - you're dead and don't have to worry about the repercussions. When failure results in someone else dying, or something else happening that leaves you alive but much, much worse off, it's more of an impact.

2) Dying (at least in terms of a TPK) means you lost everything, typically the quest, etc. Usually it means a new campaign, rather than continuing.

Please note that if death is the least interesting result of failure, because it has the least consequences for the PC, saying that "Dying (at least in terms of a TPK) means you lost everything" implies that it might be the most interesting form of failure for the player because it has the largest consequences.

IMHO, of course.



RC

 

[Rechan]

Please note that if death is the least interesting result of failure, because it has the least consequences for the PC, saying that "Dying (at least in terms of a TPK) means you lost everything" implies that it might be the most interesting form of failure for the player because it has the largest consequences.

Well more it has the biggest consequences for the Dm and the campaign. Namely "START OVER".

That sucks. Usually because START OVER means that it's a whole new campaign and the stuff that was happening before isn't followed up.

Sort of like if you're playing a video game, you die, and you're not allowed to play that game any more - you are only allowed to play new games. Rinse and repeat.

An interesting failure, to me, is one that makes things more complicated rather than more simple (game over).

 

[Uder]

Not the mechanics (which makes it nearly impossible to die unless you're crushed to -30 hp) but the principle of fighting until you drop for good. We faced that this past weekend when facing an army of 1000 soldiers trying to arrest the city's baron. Half of the party was hesitant and wanted to look at other options - my barbarian wanted to toss in and have at 'er.

"Uh, dude, you'll be killed," they said.

"I know," was my reply. "You don't actually think we'll live through this, will you?"

The players were shocked that I willing to send my character into battle and potentially die. Why not? Where's the thrill of playing if you know you'll always succeed? I hate reading novels and comics where characters keep coming back from the dead - it's the entire reason why I stopped reading comics. Without death, where's the danger? Where's the thrill? Without failure, there's no accomplishment in success.

But I seem to be in the minority. Or am I? Anyone agree with me here?

There has to be a chance of failure, or else it's all just wanking. Whether that failure is death or not, depends on the game. I assume from your comments about difficulty reaching room temperature that you're talking about the latest edition of D&D, though. To me S&S games with no chance of death are like watching Filmation adventure cartoons or Sam Raimi fantasy TV shows. Since you know nobody important can die, the only thing at stake is the foregone conclusion that there will be another episode. From there it all descends into camp eventually.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Where's the thrill of playing if you know you'll always succeed? I hate reading novels and comics where characters keep coming back from the dead - it's the entire reason why I stopped reading comics. Without death, where's the danger? Where's the thrill? Without failure, there's no accomplishment in success.

But I seem to be in the minority. Or am I? Anyone agree with me here?

Well I could point out that not all stories revolve around death-defying thrills. But since I assume you're talking about games like D&D where risking life in some form is what it's for we've passed the need for that.

It still could be that some people treat the game more like a puzzle, with their PC being an integral part. If you take away the PC may then be the equivalent of pushing them back in the process of solving the puzzle, perhaps even back to the beginning. The possibility that the PC could die is okay because it's just another part of the puzzle, but the actual death isn't. Thus if PC death is a very real possibility this sort of player seems likely to want caution in order to avoid the puzzle getting messed with.

 

[Rechan]

Even dying because of stupidity can be a great story. Heck....dying because of stupidity is almost always worth retelling. That's why the Darwin Awards are so popular.

Perhaps I should amend my earlier statement.

I'm ok with dieing entertainingly. Cool, meaningful, hilarious, etc.

To me S&S games with no chance of death are like watching Filmation adventure cartoons or Sam Raimi fantasy TV shows. Since you know nobody important can die, the only thing at stake is the foregone conclusion that there will be another episode. From there it all descends into camp eventually.

Let's be honest now.

I can count on my hands the number of movies et al I've seen that ended with the main character 1) dead or 2) failing the mission and thus losing big.

So all media has the strong convention of the main character(s) going onwards. Typically audiences (at least American ones) do not like an unhappy ending. I mean, the only difference between one Bond movie to the next is 1) the villain and 2) How Bond Pulls It Off.

That doesn't mean it's any less entertaining.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My problem with PC death is that if it happens too often (assuming no rez - I don't even count it as death if you get rezzed) it's damaging to campaign continuity. You've built up all these relationships, plots, long-term goals, long-standing mysteries and such and it all gets shot to hell if not a single one of the original PCs is still alive. In fact it's not a campaign any more if there isn't that unifying element of character.

Apart from that, and it's a serious problem, I got no issue with death, even stupid random death. I (and afaics everyone else in Britain) like fairly cynical, selfish protagonists. We can't believe in Superman-types. So long as the PCs are sympathetic, at least a bit likeable, and not total dicks, they can be deeply imperfect, not even proper heroes. It somehow seems more fitting for people like that to die stupid deaths - such as a lucky crit from an orc or getting bit by a poison spider while sticking your hand up a chimney.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even dying because of stupidity can be a great story. Heck....dying because of stupidity is almost always worth retelling. That's why the Darwin Awards are so popular.

Amen!

I can probably only recount a few heroic deaths in my 30+ gaming career...but I know dozens of truly moronic or ignominious death stories.

 

[Rechan]

It still could be that some people treat the game more like a puzzle, with their PC being an integral part. If you take away the PC may then be the equivalent of pushing them back in the process of solving the puzzle, perhaps even back to the beginning. The possibility that the PC could die is okay because it's just another part of the puzzle, but the actual death isn't. Thus if PC death is a very real possibility this sort of player seems likely to want caution in order to avoid the puzzle getting messed with.

There's also the Old School style where you have to be cautious or you die, and if you die you should have had better Player Skill. The old "probe everything with a 10' pole" didn't arise because folks were fearless, it's because then you'd need 20 characters to finish the dungeon. By surviving, you "won".