D&D 4E 4e How Should PCs be allowed to Die (Cinematically or Like Everyone Else)?

[Sundragon2012]

Here is a question I NEVER in a million years thought I would be posting in a Dungeons and Dragons, heroic fantasy RPing forum such as this. As I come to it, I am still scratching my head that this question can even be asked and that there are those that believe that PCs shouldn't be able to be struck down by an orc's critical hit with his battle axe, a medusa's gaze, an assassin in the night, a disintigration spell effect, a rockslide, a pit trap, or any of a number of what might be construed as "uncool" ways to die.

Now I am going to post a quote demonstrating this position, so that I cannot be asked to bring proofs that some feel this way. This way hopefully the thread will not be derailed by pointless discussions. Here is the quote (I'll only name the poster if he OKs it but trust me he exists):

Regarding death generally,

In my games, character death happens 1) when players screw up, 2) when players choose to accept extreme risks, and 3) in climactic battles. After every death, a player should be able to say something like the following:

1) "Uh, I guess climbing out on the slippery roof to chase the fleeing wizard wasn't such a great idea with all this armor on... So much for Reginald."
2) "GUYS! We totally could have taken that dragon if we'd followed through on the plan! If you go back, maybe you can cut enough of Reginald out of the dragon's stomach to resurrect. Guys? Guys!"
3) "Its ok. I held the pass long enough for the villagers to escape. Reginald goes to the gods with pride."
4) "Woah! That was some fight! We barely won, and Reginald didn't make it!"

The players SHOULDN'T be saying things like this:

1) "Stupid rogues. Stupid coup de gras while I'm asleep in my own home."
2) "Stupid petrification. Stupid medusas disguised as peasants."
3) "Stupid random encounters. Stupid x3 criticals that do all my hit points in one attack. I can't believe he confirmed that! He needed a 19!"

So how should the risk of death be maintained in ordinary encounters where the players haven't screwed up and haven't intentionally accepted unusual levels of risk? How should the dice just rolling badly for you be handled?

The question is then if you, gentle reader, feel this way how can D&D present real and relevant deadly risk without in some way allowing for heroes to get accidently wacked just like the mooks? Of course it will happen less often because heroes have better saving throws than mooks, but it will happen.

What options are there really?

1.) Remove all deadly poison effects
2.) Remove all save or die spell effects
3.) Remove all save or petrify effects
4.) Remove all save or polymorph effects (being turned into a bunny rabbit and then being cut in half can be construed as "unfun."
5.) Remove all save or paralyze effects (coup de grace can be unfun)
6.) etc.

In other words this kind of cinematic plot protection would require a fundamental reworking of the way the game is played, which monsters are allowed in a DMs setting, which spells can be cast ("No Elminster, I Mystra have forbidden the researching of spells that would kill outright anyone unable to resist its effects.") and IMO it would dramatically diminish the heroes roles as heroes and instead presume to keep them alive while they go wading through entire tribes of orcs with the potential for death only coming once the face the orc chief and his hand picked bodyguards.

Should the "heroes" (I use the term as loosely as possible in this case) get the same experience while benefitting from this plot protection as when they don't? I think in a metagame sense it would be a joke.

IMO this seems entirely unheroic and borders on ludicrous in a game claiming to pit heroes against life and death risks for the sake of great rewards, honor, prestige, etc. I call this plot protection but instead of DMs doing it to favor a pet NPC, some seem to wish the 4e rules to lessen the risk fo death for PCs in situations that are uncinematic or "uncool" (no one gets bragging right about going down in flames from dying in a pool of green slime....distinctly uncool).

I understand that players want their characters to be like the heroes of fantasy fiction and whatnot, but in D&D this is earned through taking real risks, even the risk of dying like a punk because you didn't check for traps. Characters in stories do what they do because they are written that way, there are no dice involved when R.A. Salvatore writes the cool final battle between Drizzt and the BBEG of the novel. There were no dice involved when Conan battled the manifestation of Set.

In D&D there is, like in life, an element of luck to survival and sometimes the hero would have died if the bullet was one inch to the right instead of to the left. In D&D the dice are lady luck and sometimes no matter how good you are, you roll.....DEAD.

Feel free to discuss.



Sundragon

 

[Branduil]

Save-or-die spells should be replaced with either save-or-be-hindered-and-die-soon and/or save-or-receive-massive-damage spells.

 

[gizmo33]

The problem IMO is that cinematic effects are in direct contrast with random effects. The more random you make your game, the less control you have over how cool the outcome is. The less random the game, the more a certain kind of gamer is going to feel that the game is built largely around DM fiat.

Most DMs have some sort of fiat regarding PC death. I don't know of any DM that has ever randomly rolled on a list of possible bad things that could happen to a PC at the beginning of each day. It might be realistic for a PC to randomly get cancer but it's not part of the game system. So in this way all DMs use fiat to narrow the list of possible ways to die.

The traditional approach though, has been to accept the possibility of death anywhere that the possiblity of damage exists. A random crossbow bolt fired by a kobold, because it can cause damage, can also theoretically kill PCs. This is the approach I take. Without that possibility of death (or consequences really - see the resources arguments for details) there's no reason to waste anyone's time rolling for the crossbow attack by the kobold.

 

[Wormwood]

Characters in our game only die when their player decides they do.

At any time their character would normally die, they can spend a few Action Points to save them (even going into 'negative points' and paying them off later).

If they choose to save their character's life in such a fashion, the character is still unavailable for the duration of the encounter (partially petrified, knocked out and bleeding, etc).

edit: That said, there has only been one PC death in this campaign, when my wife sacrificed her beloved elf rogue to activate a trap which brought the temple complex down on the Aspect of Lolth (and herself in the process).

 

[Aloïsius]

I approve. It's more easy for the DM to fudge some unwanted roll than to bring back all the cool "save or die" effects if they are removed.

I wan't an encounter with a basilisk to be frightening. I don't want this beast to be made into some silly lizard without power.

 

[Patlin]

Ressurecting a dead character is pretty normal at most levels of play, to the extent that it causes story problems if overanalyzed. Having characters spend an action point or something to avoid death and instead be knocked out for the remainder of the encounter wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion.

 

[The Human Target]

Once again you've created a very hostile thread, which insults anyone who has a differing opinion than yours right out of the gate.

In general, you're going to get two responses to this thread.

A) People who agree with you and will defend your behavior on the grounds of camaraderie.

B) People who disagree with you, who are going to feel very hostile and defensive considering the way you worded the original post.


So this thread is probably going to be devoid of productive discussion.

 

[Doug McCrae]

'Heroic deaths only' is a fairly common preference though I don't subscribe to it. I don't think it's crazy or weird or 'not D&D' or anything. It usually seems to be associated with a more storytelling or fiction emulating style of play. In the past it has been supported by the GM fudging so PCs don't die to a mook's critical but now there are explicit rules for it in some systems (not D&D yet).

 

[gizmo33]

So this thread is probably going to be devoid of productive discussion.

I've tried to make the case that DM fiat exists at some level in all playing styles of DnD when it comes to player death - simply because the DM chooses which elements of the game are dangerous from the set of all possible elements.

I think anyone who's been on the internet long enough has to know by now that some people don't kill PCs unless there is a story-supported reason for it. There's nothing wrong with that, though I would argue against it being the assumed style for 4E, I would expect an equal argument from the other side of the issue. As long as people are developing their arguments and being respectful I don't see that the subject itself is incapable of being the foundation for a productive discussion (productive doesn't mean anyone's opinion will change).

Maybe everyone with a different playing style should use a different font - that way we don't waste time talking at cross purposes without realizing it.

 

[Remathilis]

The big difference comes down to...

a.) death by player action (stupid maneuvers, bad tactics, epic battles, poor judgment)
b.) death by die roll (save or die, random crits, bad die rolls)
c.) death by DM (assassination while sleeping, dropping a moon on you, no-save, just-die effects)
d.) death by plot (akin to death by DM, but usually a more scripted out method with player consent)

We (almost) all agree a.) is acceptable, Player actions should have consequences or the game is pointless. Most people agree c.) is unfair and usually bad form. d.) is permissible within certain groups (usually because its joint with the player) but not always for everyone.

When you come down to it, b.) is the only controversial one. Some players/dms like the idea of random death happening by "gambling" (aka dice rolling) and thus keeping it is intregal to the game. Others dislike the idea of dice completely overriding the PC/DM's actions and that luck is as equal an element in the game as skill (when skill should be much more important than luck in that mindview).

At the end of the day, the only argument about PC death comes down to "should the dice be able to kill you even if you've done everything right?" If yes, you typically favor a harsher view of the RAW, but if you say no, you're more at home with action points/hero dice/dm fiat.

I'm not sure they can make a core-rule set that will appease both audiences though...