Weak Deaths

[Zhaleskra]

Elephant brings a point up though that should be addressed. Why does, "You're character cannot die" suddenly make the game pointless?

Because Boring Invincible Heroes are boring.

 

[Iron Sky]

Back in middle school, I pretty much ended roleplaying for one of my friends. It was back in the 2e AD&D days and he had gotten a Paladin up to level 7. After they had murdered a group of gypsies because they thought they were vampires (another story) he ended up being a young woman's curse-bonded protector (yet another story).

Long story short, they were underground and had to swim through a flooded underwater tunnel to get to where they were going, the young woman started to drown, he went back to save her, and failed his swim checks 4 times. The monk dove in to drag him out, only to have him fail 5 more checks to recover from being drowned.

I guess the dice dictated that he die, but afterwards, my friend got up, said "I'm done with RPGs" and didn't play anything again for years. He's played once in a while when we run scifi games, but that was pretty much the end of roleplaying for him...

 

[Hussar]

Because Boring Invincible Heroes are boring.

It's only boring if you lack the imagination to create situations where dying is not the only source of failure.

If you play in games where kill or be killed is the only means of resolving anything, then sure, the heroes need to be vulnerable to death. OTOH, if your game doesn't revolve around kill or be killed, then a whole host of other failures await.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's only boring if you lack the imagination to create situations where dying is not the only source of failure.

I strongly disagree.

Death should not be the only source of failure on the table; there are many potential sources of failure that leave a character uninjured physically. For example, in my home game the PCs recently lost a magical sword and a 900 gp weregild for attacking a noble's (vampire's) estate.

OTOH, I strongly believe that, once death is off the table, there is a certain contrivance to the game that makes it boring. For me. YMMV.

(I feel the same if "equipment loss" is off the table, btw. Rust monsters for the win!)



RC

 

[Zhaleskra]

It's only boring if you lack the imagination to create situations where dying is not the only source of failure.

You seem to have some strange idea that people who don't like character death off the table don't have other forms of failure in the games they run/play. Quite simply this is a false problem.

Mostly what I don't like is the more and more contrived ways a GM comes up with to keep my character alive when the rules say he should be dead. I don't play RPGs to have the GM hold my hand. To put it another way I play RPGs for a different reason than I read books/watch movies or TV.

As far as I'm concerned, as a player, if character death is off the table I might as well be doing the latter. In the same way, I feel the GM should be writing a book, movie, or TV show if character death is off the table.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with Failure=Death is that the player never has to deal with the consequences of failure. After all, if failure=death, then every living character in a campaign has never failed.

Take a simple scenario. The party takes up the challenge to defend a town against some large force bearing down on the town. The party needs to accomplish a number of tasks in order to make the town strong enough to resist the force. None of these tasks need to be lethal - could be things like trying to improve constructions, training local levies, contacting neighbouring factions to lend aid. But, if the party fails at enough of these (for any number of reasons - poor execution, lack of time, whatever), the invading force will destroy the town.

Now, say that the PC's decide to stand the walls to defend the town. It's a suicide mission, since the PC's failed in their efforts to strengthen the town, but, they figure they'll stand up anyway. Invading force overwhelms the town and the PC's go down - the invading force is just that strong.

Now, you could let things lie there. TPK. Roll up new group.

Or, you could have the PC's awaken, lying some ways from the battleground where a friendly NPC had dragged them under the cover of the battle. Now they have to deal with the aftermath of the events and the knowledge that that aftermath is primarily their own fault.

To me, that's a much better way to draw the players into the game. They can't just ignore or blow off the consequences and roll up their next character. This is a great way to explore the character and give depth to that character.

Not that it's the only way. Too true. You could go the other way and let them be dead. Fair enough. In a game which primarily focuses on the world and not the characters, I can see this being the way to go. After all, in such a game, the character is relatively secondary. But, in a character driven game, where the exploration of the character is important, where developing that character's personality and history is more imporant than exploring the setting, then I think it's much better to use the second option.

It's all about getting what you want out of the game.

 

[Hussar]

Zhaleskra - if there are multiple forms of failure, then why should losing one, in this case, character death, ruin the game?

Why should being Indestructo Man matter unless failure=death is a primary source of failure in your game?

 

[Zhaleskra]

Zhaleskra - if there are multiple forms of failure, then why should losing one, in this case, character death, ruin the game?

Why should being Indestructo Man matter unless failure=death is a primary source of failure in your game?

I think it would do you well to reread some of my previous posts in this topic. Even as early as AD&D2E there was an onus against "oops, yer dead" style traps.

When the GM goes out of his way to keep my character alive, or suddenly has an "oops" look when I tell him my character is down (not necessarily dead), I feel like I'm being coddled. Yes, I'm playing a game, and I'm not here to be treated like a toddler. Because I know I'm going to get dogpiled for that sentence, that's how I feel in that situation, not a judgment on anyone.

 

[Celebrim]

It's all about getting what you want out of the game.

Is it?

Is there any other class of game out there that is all about getting what you want out of the game? Chess? Poker? Monopoly? Dominion? Pac Man?

Even in Solitaire we have to accept that sometimes we don't win the game.

Games are interesting primarily because we don't always get what we want of them. That's why we play them. They are hard, but fair. If we always got what we wanted out of them, they'd cease to be games.

Or, you could have the PC's awaken, lying some ways from the battleground where a friendly NPC had dragged them under the cover of the battle. Now they have to deal with the aftermath of the events and the knowledge that that aftermath is primarily their own fault.

The problem with this is that at some point, the DM has taken full control over this story and left the players pretty much only observers. Also, the player's can just ignore or blow off the consequences. They have a gaurdian angel that will rescue them from their choices. It doesn't matter what happens, they are going to wake up the next day, bailed out of whatever situation they found themselves in. Whatever the aftermath may be, they can be bailed out of that eventually too. I suppose that its possible that freed from the need to ever worrying about their own deaths that they find something else to care about, but I find it just as likely that freed from worry about their own deaths they'll not worry to much about anything but their own glory. They live in a world that is neither hard nor fair, and which doesn't seem to follow the rules associated with a game. If I know that death isn't possible, you can gaurantee I'm going to fight to the death no matter what I percieve the odds to be. Retreat? I laugh at the grim reaper! Surrender? Not in this lifetime! Negotiate? Over my dead body!

In most RPGs, the GM tries very very hard to balance the situations that the players find themselves in such that these situations are slightly in the players favor (although, the good DM makes most of these situations in fact look overwhelmingly in the foes favor). The GM is forced to do this because if he doesn't, then quite soon the player's characters are dead and the game can't continue. But the GM in a game where death is not a likely consequence of failure, need little concern himself with such things. Regardless of the situation the player's find themselves in, the GM can rescue the players by fiat and then put them in some other situation by fiat. Playing the game then is less about controlling the situation you are in, and more about generating the impromptu theater demanded when the director suddenly changes the scenario. It's more like 'Whose Line is it Anyway?'

Now, I'm not against consequences to failure that are less harsh and more nuanced than death. I'm not against having varying degrees of victory or defeat. Retreating, surrendering, being captured, suffering confinement, being maimed, being tortured, losing equipment, losing honor, witnessing the deaths of innocents, suffering the deaths of loved ones, betrayal and so forth are all things which I think can occur and sometimes make for interesting stories. Sometimes they occur whether or not they make for interesting stories. Sometimes they occur precisely because the alternative is clearly death. Sometimes they occur by chance and ill-fortune. There isn't anything wrong with that. But if they occur by fiat, and if death doesn't occur simply because of DM fiat, then I do lose a bit of my emotional investment in the game and start to wonder why we make a pretence of simulation or game when telling the story since - in point of fact - it doesn't seem like we pay any attention to the simulation or game part that we are spending so much time working out to a nicety when it doesn't give us what we want. Why don't we dispense with the rolling the dice, which is such a waste of time, and simply decide to have what we want?

 

[Nagol]

The problem with Failure=Death is that the player never has to deal with the consequences of failure. After all, if failure=death, then every living character in a campaign has never failed.

<snip>

Actually, from my perspective, you have it backwards. Death is a form of ultimate failure since the player can't play the character any more. How much more consequential to the player can you get?

Other forms of setback are much more gentle on the player as he can continue to play his character albeit in potentially different circumstances.