Meh. If I'm playing with someone that goes from Tom to Tom II to Tom III, one of us is leaving the game.
Wait, so you
aren't actually okay with the revolving-door character? I'm
deeply confused now as to what you are and aren't in favor of, with regard to character turnover.
Raise dead is only a 5th level spell and money is plentiful. The PCs can just do it themselves or hire someone to do it
What does this do to the permanency of death? Doesn't this imply that there truly are NO permanent consequences whatsoever, by your own arguments? Death just requires scraping up some resources and handing off responsibility to your friends, which is WAY easier than
befriending a bloody DIETY. Or so I should bloody well hope!
I'd rather move away from the 'Fear of Death' conversation and focus on the 'Fear of Permanent Loss' one.
Permanent losses should always be possible. Not necessarily likely, not necessarily unavoidable, but possible. That's one of the ways you create uncertainty. I, at least, have not disputed this at any point in the thread.
Many in here have mentioned they prefer no-death campaigns because other consequences can be just as meaningful or even more so.
Yes. I said this because, as I've said repeatedly, an irrevocable (and, in particular,
random and purposeless, terms I have repeatedly used in this thread) PC death erases a story. That story no longer matters, by definition; the character is dead, and can no longer do
anything, can no longer grow or respond in any way. Total stoppage of development, I argue,
can be less meaningful than continuing to develop, but never knowing for sure where the development will take you.
So I wonder, do you let campaigns end in failure or loss? <snip> If it is not [acceptable], why not? Why no hard non-death fail state for the party as a whole?
It's on the table. It's not going to be very likely, because that implies a hardcore downer ending, and I don't think my friends and I would enjoy that. Several of us have depression, so "the thing you put three years of your life into just went up in flames and now Sucks Forever" would
not be a particularly good thing....most of the time. But I allow for it, as a remote but still extant possibility, because I want to make good on my assertion that the world I run is "bright but under threat." It's a fairly nice place to live--not perfect, absolutely not, but pretty good for being inspired by the Islamic Golden Age and Al-Andalus. E.g. unlike the real world in those times and places, slavery is
not okay; the dominant religious institution really
is primarily concerned with helping the masses and stopping both internal and external abusers; the ruler of the main city-state the PCs live in is a genuinely just and kind woman, and fairly wise for her young age; there are both honest and crooked businessmen, and there's a Robin Hood-esque thieves' guild in addition to more unsavory ones; etc. But all of that COULD change. It really, genuinely COULD all be ruined, with hundreds of thousands dead, good leaders assassinated, the benevolent religion replaced with a horrible assassin cult, etc.
Heck, I introduced a memetic mind-virus spirit, the Song of Thorns, which can spread purely by
reading or hearing the titular Song, and which both warps reality and the bodies and minds of people affected with it, turning them into bestial pre-sapient beings. Had the Song broken out (which would have been VERY easy, the ritual to reach the plane it was trapped in is incredibly simple), it would have devastated the world, and that would have permanently defined the campaign from there on out. This
didn't happen because the players stepped up, and succeeded (with flying colors, I might add!) at defeating it and destroying its spirit-essence so it could never infect anyone again. Some of my players were very anxious about facing it, but we talked it out, and they gave it a go. Good times were had by all.
On number 2: Can you elaborate on this a bit? With the players you've had, what sorts of situations have they seen such a conclusion as acceptable? What situations have they not?
I haven't ended any campaigns with my group yet, so I can't really say (this is only the second campaign I've ever run). However, based on what stuff I've done with them, I could see it being acceptable to have the equivalent of a "moral/symbolic TPK" if, say, the Sultana married one of the villainous characters (she is a highly eligible bachelorette) and, as a result thereof, felt they could no longer trust her or her decisions. That would be a pretty devastating blow, but it's something that COULD come out of things naturally, and which they would feel hard-pressed to try to change, because that would require causing some kind of harm to her, and the whole point would be to
protect her from harm. There are also some other apocalypse-level threats that could potentially apply (the Song of Thorns above
was an example, but they defeated it), but that would require they learn more about the threats in question, because they don't really know what all of the bad-guy factions WANT.
I guess I am just curious as to what other parties view as an Acceptable 'We screwed up, we lose' scenario. Does it entirely depend on if it creates a 'satisfying story'? Or can they accept the loss due to screw up/bad decisions even if it ends in an ignoble tragedy for the party?
I'm very certain that if my players did something really really dumb, having ignored my "Are you sure you want to do that?"/"Did you actually say that in character?" type questions (which I have explicitly told my players is my tacit warning, "That might have consequences you won't like, are you
really really sure?"), and understood why their really really dumb choices caused a particular consequence, they would accept that with good grace. We all strive for respectful, adult interactions, and owning up to "...oh boy, we really DID break the world, didn't we?" is, I hope, a part of that. Even if it isn't strictly narratively satisfying.
I guess the standard is that it needs to "make sense." There needs to be a rationale or a purpose to it. If it makes sense that a character should die as a result of their actions--and the player(s) and I agree that it should make sense--then it does, even if we were hoping to see more. Late last year, I had a player feel the need to bow out, trying to keep maximum availability open for job-searching--it was a hard decision, but we understood. The druid played by this player did something bold and dangerous, and his player told me, "Yeah, I expect him to die here." I, on the other hand, didn't feel that that made sense--so we talked it out. The character in question instead went on permanent hiatus, being "taken away" by a powerful (but nominally friendly) being for purposes unknown. This left his allies needing to clean up after the contract he made with a devil, which was a serious consequence. After we talked it out, the player definitely agreed that this was a much better, more sensible choice than killing off the character--especially because it meant that there was at least the
possibility that he could come back, but absolutely no guarantee.
If you've ever played Dungeon World (which is the system we use), it's sort of like how several moves say something to the effect of, "This lasts until the end of the scene
or when it would make sense" (emphasis added). Sometimes, it's sensible that an effect should last into another scene, even though normally it wouldn't. Sometimes, it's sensible that something should not last even for a full scene. What "makes sense" isn't easily tied down to what feels satisfying, nor to what is logical
per se. It's the product of reasonable discussion between individuals who respect each other--which, I'd argue, all good games are.
I think that broadly, adventure is the goal of the game. Combat is a part of those adventures, but it's not the main part. You have to explore to find dungeons and places where monsters wander. The game involves interaction with NPCs to get quests, learn information, etc. I don't see any part of those three as inherently greater than the others when we play the game. More specifically it's a table decision. If a table wants combat to be the focus of their adventures, then that's what the game is about. If a table wants social interaction to be the focus of their game, then that's what the game is about. Same with exploration as the focus or a mix of equal parts.
Exploring to learn about the unknown is absolutely a huge motivator for my group. They are enthusiastic about finding the answers to questions and uncovering hidden truths. (Multiple players have alignments moves
specifically about that, actually.) One of the things I've found is a very very effective loss/setback is, as the DW rules put it, "Reveal an unwelcome truth." For example, when a player fails a Discern Realities roll (the closest equivalent of Perception), I tell them to still ask one question from the list, and they know I will answer that question truthfully. But the truth will be something they DON'T want to hear, something that shows their enemies are better prepared than they thought, or that the threat is much more immediate, or some other Bad Sign.
You might be joking, but seriously I am one of those people: if the map has borders or the program has limits I want to go beyond them; and if the program doesn't allow for that I'm disappointed.
Alright. What happens when the limits aren't programmed racetracks, but being a respectful and rational participant in a group activity? If someone asks you to play chess, do you make illegal moves because you're annoyed that only knights can pass through allied pieces, for example? If playing charades, do you decide to start shouting words while it's your go to make gestures, because limits are dumb?
I'm buying in to playing my character to the reasonable best of its abilities, such as those may be. (I'm neither munchkin nor powergamer, hence "reasonable best")
I disagree. Responding to my expressed gesture of respect and positivity, my "I won't take your character away from you for light and transient causes" (a phrase I literally used in the OP) by interpreting that as, "Aha, so I can do literally anything I ever want, and it'll never negatively affect my character's health and wellbeing? SWEET, time to jump in lava!" is pretty clearly munchkin behavior. It isn't necessarily
powergaming (you aren't strictly
optimizing here), but you ARE, as Wikipedia puts it, behaving "at the expense and disregard of [your] teammates," which includes
me, the DM.
If the game gives me the ability to not die, it's kinda dumb of me not to use it.
That isn't what I said. I said I wouldn't do it for light and transient causes, that I wouldn't engage in random, purposeless permadeath. All of that was in the OP. I even EXPLICITLY said, slightly later in the thread, that if you intentionally do incredibly stupid things, I'll eventually give you what you want. BECAUSE you are blatantly exploiting my generosity (supporting your continued participation and character development) by intentionally doing anything and everything to press the envelop as much as possible. That's disrespectful, frankly, and there's a limit to how much disrespect I'll tolerate from my players. (It's a fair amount, admittedly, since I only run games for friends, but the limit exists.)
That's just it - I am buying in to a central concept of the campaign, that being that PCs can't die. At the same time, I'm trying to point out just how horribly bad that central concept is.
No, you aren't.
That's the whole point I'm making, and have made, repeatedly, both in the OP and since.
To behave that way is flagrantly disrespectful.
My response: Whether or not we meant to make it into Looney Tunes, the very fact that PCs can't die makes it so by default, which means we made a dumb decision. All I'm doing is pointing that out in an extreme enough manner to make y'all sit up and take notice.
So...you somehow DON'T think this is being flagrantly disrespectful and abusive?
Or the PCs can, if they're less heroic, simply walk away from the town or NPC they failed to save and try their luck somewhere else. Curses are harder to shake, ditto quests or geases.
As mentioned, I have explicitly told my players I would allow them to do this. I have also said that, if they DID decide to leave, I would feel very disappointed both about the decision generally and in myself specifically, because it would be conclusive proof that I had failed them as DM. But I would support them and attempt to come up with new adventures nonetheless. Being perfectly honest, it might kill the campaign in the long run, simply due to dampened enthusiasm on my part, but I would do my level best to avoid that.
However, I still think the addition of significant individual failure or hard-loss possitilities (e.g. death, level drain, magic item meltdown) adds a lot more than it subtracts.
I am absolutely okay with level drain (well, it'd have to be translated to work in Dungeon World terms, but still) and DEFINITELY okay with effects that might damage or destroy magic items as consequences for failure. I never, ever said I wouldn't make costs, sometimes painful ones. (In fact, I said almost precisely the opposite, multiple times.) I'm just removing ONE, and ONLY one, of those things from happening unless my player(s) and I agree it makes sense.
Nuh-uh. Not die means not die, period. Black and white.
Okay. I'm legit actually mad at you now, Lanefan. You have the gall to say this, after already (in this very thread) saying that I was taking things YOU said far too seriously? I have explicitly, and repeatedly, rejected this notion. I have explicitly, and repeatedly, said that rationality, behaving like an adult, and showing respect for your fellow players and the spirit of the game are part and parcel of this process. I did not ever, and would not ever, say that it is flat impossible for characters to die in my game.
For the love of God, stop pretending that I'm an idiot, and actually respond to the limits I've explicitly mentioned from literally the very first post.
Otherwise you're into judgment-call territory as to whether a death is "good" or "bad", which puts the DM in a really bad spot.
In my experience, it doesn't. We come to consensus about what makes sense, because we're friends, who can communicate respectfully and forthrightly with one another. Doesn't your group do the same?
I once ran a one-off gonzo game where the most efficient way to earn loads of xp was to die; and there was a little prize for whoever got the most xp that day. Never have I seen players so eager to chuck their PCs into every combat they could find!
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's also not what I'm offering. I am explicitly--as I've said since the very first post--offering, "You don't have to suffer anxiety about whether you'll lose your character." I have explicitly and repeatedly talked about how this is about reducing player anxiety and encouraging players to do creative or unusual things. Please, please,
please consider that.
Because it's so barn-door-wide open for it.
So, anything that depends on being respectful toward your friends and their shared interests is abusable? Good Lord, you must live in a terribly depressing world.
