Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 8233123" data-attributes="member: 6988941">No. Character deaths happen. Generally speaking, of course you don't kill characters when their players aren't present. In this case, however, it seems like the die was basically cast on his death before he left. While you might have come up with all manner of ways to alter plans on the fly to save the character, and I'm sure some of those ways would have done a reasonable job of not undermining the immersion or stakes of the encounter, an actual DM running an actual encounter in an actual session is generally juggling too many things in their head to perfectly adapt to every once in a blue moon curveball that comes their way.If you were such a &quot;never kill a player character without the player there&quot; hardliner that you were unquestionably willing to prioritize that over the immersion, stakes, continuity, etc. of your game then sure, you would have come up with some deus ex machina solution to save the character, or just had the enemies mysteriously lose track of them, or whatever. But for those of us who feel a need to balance preserving the player's relationship with their character against other fundamental game concerns, you had a tough situation and adopted a perfectly reasonable solution.I'd also note that if you had come up with a solution that led to a different character dying after receiving the attacks that you blatantly intervened to save the rogue from then you might well have a worse situation on your hands.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benjamin Olson, post: 8233123, member: 6988941"] No. Character deaths happen. Generally speaking, of course you don't kill characters when their players aren't present. In this case, however, it seems like the die was basically cast on his death before he left. While you might have come up with all manner of ways to alter plans on the fly to save the character, and I'm sure some of those ways would have done a reasonable job of not undermining the immersion or stakes of the encounter, an actual DM running an actual encounter in an actual session is generally juggling too many things in their head to perfectly adapt to every once in a blue moon curveball that comes their way. If you were such a "never kill a player character without the player there" hardliner that you were unquestionably willing to prioritize that over the immersion, stakes, continuity, etc. of your game then sure, you would have come up with some deus ex machina solution to save the character, or just had the enemies mysteriously lose track of them, or whatever. But for those of us who feel a need to balance preserving the player's relationship with their character against other fundamental game concerns, you had a tough situation and adopted a perfectly reasonable solution. I'd also note that if you had come up with a solution that led to a different character dying after receiving the attacks that you blatantly intervened to save the rogue from then you might well have a worse situation on your hands. [/QUOTE]

Verification