Closing the Rotating Door of Death

[ExploderWizard]

"Random" is why I use dice, so I'm sorta puzzled.

Characters can be killed due to random die rolls. Unless all the decision points leading to those die rolls were either random or compulsory then the death itself wasn't random.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Characters can be killed due to random die rolls. Unless all the decision points leading to those die rolls were either random or compulsory then the death itself wasn't random.

Gotcha. A little philosophical in expression for my tastes, but I think we're on the same page in practice.

 

[JustKim]

I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at either, EW. Random death is a natural consequence of a game where you roll dice to see whether things die. My suggestion is to replace death with a different sort of failure, and I was under the impression you thought that was a dumb idea.

 

[Ainamacar]

No it isn't. In a game that allows players to make meaningful choices death shouldn't be random.

"Random" is why I use dice, so I'm sorta puzzled.

If we're rolling then clearly it's random, but it's not like randomness is some monolithic thing. For example, "swinginess" influences the feeling for many people: going from hale and healthy to dead with a single roll can feel a lot different than being worn down over the course of combat before succumbing. (I'm reminded of that massive thread about "save or die" from a while ago.) Which is to say, even randomness has structure (the probability distribution) and that structure matters. Don't say that to a slaad's face, of course.

My usual preference, apart from setting considerations, is to leave the door open for the player to hope a dead character can return without making it a foregone conclusion or penalizing the the character when they return. In my experience, some players choose not to bring a character back, even if they could, due to loss of experience/Con/whatever. I don't particularly like that reaction, but I do understand it: it takes what could feel like a victory over death (more compelling, IMHO) and makes it a mechanical punishment for dying.

Some ways I've thought about doing the above:
1) A basic system-shock check. The body either survives and comes back without other penalties, or is lost for good.
2) Using "Soul points" that are rolled secretly when a character is created, and modified by their Charisma or other appropriate stat. The player knows they can probably get a few rezzes, but exactly which life is their last is a big question mark. This can be combined with various sorts of rolling, if desired.
3) Use a cosmology where great heros and those with purpose can actually fight their way back from the front steps of the afterlife. If the challenge is significant enough and kept narratively diverse, each death can be an exciting miniature adventure. Do not go gentle, indeed. Most people, however, have no ability to withstand the forces ushering their souls into the hereafter (i.e. would need to roll 6 20s in a row). Those who do, but find no one to actually raise them, become the lost and wandering mad souls of legend.

Edit: Gah! You guys worked everything out so quickly! What is the internet coming to?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at either, EW. Random death is a natural consequence of a game where you roll dice to see whether things die. My suggestion is to replace death with a different sort of failure, and I was under the impression you thought that was a dumb idea.

As I stated earlier, the death isn't a random one unless events leading up to the event were also random.

For example if the DM informs the players that they have arrived in town and (rolls die) a 20th level wandering asskicker decides he doesn't like them and proceeds to kill them all in the street with a single attack, that is a random death. There were no decision points for the players.

Replacing death with a different sort of failure can certainly work in some situations but I don't see taking it away as a possibility for an entire campaign in a D&D type game to be very appealing.

 

[Stormonu]

On a side note, when characters die, what do you do with their gear?

Prior to 3e, my groups redistributed the dead individual's gear to other party members and new PCs started with mundane gear only (wills were often ignored; the idea of burying someone with their favored gear didn't even cross our minds).

3E presented a problem with the wealth-by-level guidelines for repacements, and I never came up with a good solution to the "extra wealth" this could end up generating.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of my personal frustrations - as a DM yes, but also as a player - was the high magic involved with the demise of a character. If we were low level, and any of us survived the fight, just gather up the dead and head to the nearest temple - bammo, somehow in the middle of nowhere, in this 3 horse hick town 170 leagues from anywhere the one, lone priest was somehow powerful enough to Raise the Dead.

More of a DM problem than a system problem IMO. Why does a DM put a temple in the middle of nowhere with a 9th level priest?

Personally, as a DM I'd only have raise-dead capable people in a location which is likely to support them for some reason, and the price would not just be the cost of material components but plot points - a quest or some such favour required.

Thus I wouldn't expect to see any danger of revolving door death syndrome before the time which a PC priest could cast raise dead anyway - and if it became a big issue then I'd change the rules in one way or another - for instance, in Eberron you can't raise dead anyone who has been dead more than about a week by ANY means, because their soul has migrated from the plane of Dolor to whereever souls go after that... and it is too late to resurrect them. Similarly one could rule that raise dead needs to take place in a properly consecrated temple, so that people can't just pop up to life after a fight.

cheers

 

[Barastrondo]

So where does the sense of danger come from? From the failure of the characters to meet their goals, which is intrinsically more powerful than the inconvenience of being dead. If the characters are defeated, it potentially means their goal is not met. If some of the PCs are defeated, maybe the goal is met only partly.

Yep. The sense of meaningful consequences for failure is completely applicable in any game where the players have meaningful attachments to things other than their own characters' survival. I don't personally believe that death should regularly be off the table, but I have no trouble seeing how players can have a lot of emotional investment in the success or failure of their mission even in a game where they aren't likely to die via die roll.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

With death off the table, where does the sense of dangerous adventure come from?

" We better be careful in here. If those cultists catch us then we are getting chewed out big time AND they're gonna tell our moms!!"

I completely understand the no raising dead concept. Death as a permanent fate makes dangerous undertakings even more thrilling.

At the end of the day, "Character death, yes or no?" is the question you're effectively asking me. That's a fundamental playstyle issue.

In other words, the question about "where does the sense of dangerous adventure come from?" is bread-and-butter, part-n-parcel of the reason why I and the people I'm playing with are getting together for a game in the first place.

In old school D&D, it was much more the tendency for the GM to be challenging the players. How the players overcame that challenge was using the tools they had: their characters. The challenge took place in the game; not necessarily on the battlefield, but the game.

Sidenote: The reason I'm walking through this in this fashion is so that you can see where my reasoning; I know I'm not going to change your opinion and that's not my goal.

Because of course, characters could die before genuinely entering battle. Sneak attacks and traps being favored methods, an NPC terminating an uppity PC that mouthed off in negotiations (rp) being another one.

Basically, death was a penalty. _YOU_ the player screwed up, your toy/tool (the character) is taken away. Of course, as time goes on people really develop a fondness for a tool or another; just look at the non-rpg world and artists with their favorite pens and brushes.

Coming back from the dead is a do-over. A "Yeah, you screwed up but you've got so much invested in this character, I'll let you have another chance. But... there's a price for it; there's no such thing as a free lunch".

This is a mentality that still pretty much dominates D&D play.

I'm not making a judgment on the "validity" of that style of play, simply saying it's there, it dominates D&D, and it's one that I personally have moved away from.

"Where does the sense of dangerous adventure come from?" is "how do I make the players feel the danger and excitement of being adventurers?"

*shrug*

I really don't have an answer for you, because that's not why I and the people I play with are playing rpgs fundamentally. That doesn't mean that they don't feel excitement or that there isn't danger in the game; it just means that I'm not challenging the _players_ in that fashion.

Killing characters is a time-honoured and popular activity. As long as players are fine with it, it's a perfectly serviceable approach.

But 9 times out of 10, character death is "random". Sure, they made a decision that led to them being butchered by the critter; at the end of the day though, the GM created that creature and put it there. Maybe it was "bad luck" or "the players should have known better and avoided the encounter", but the GM has deliberately set up a situation where the player can be punished by taking away their character.

This is why I say that players and GMs need to actually commit. If you're going to challenge the _players_, then challenge them. And when their character dies (which there is a decent chance of happening if you're actually challenging them) they can suck it up and make a new character.

Because letting the character come _back_ to life is the same thing as not having killed them.

"Oh, but there's a price for it" or "bad things might happen when they come back" are both non-answers to me. You can charge the player (by taking away money or stats) just as easy without killing the character.

If characters can come back once, they can effectively come back an infinite number of times.

That being the case (remember, this is the assumption that I operate on and therefore I'm not saying it applies to all GMs/games) removal of "death" as a consequence makes sense.

It doesn't mean everyone is immortal. It doesn't mean players can fling their characters from 50 story roofs with no consequences; as always, the "don't be a jerk" and "players agree to respect the implicit assumptions of the world" rules are also in effect.

After all, the core rules don't say anything about having to use the bathroom.

And if a player wants their character to die? *shrug* Sure, why not? It's their choice. I as a GM will try and make sure that the death isn't going to be a knifing in some seedy alley and nobody will find the body for 3 days, but ultimately it's their choice.

For me and my group, death isn't a consequence for player failure. It's an outcome that suits the dramatic sensibilities of the story, the group, and the players. In-game, there's all sorts of reasons for why people die and stay dead and as a GM, I personally don't think gods would be really keen on letting people get a do-over on life. The internal cosmology of my game doesn't require me to kill a character though, unless the player is wanting it.

And if they do want it, that character _stays_ dead. Because the player has chosen to make a dramatic statement. And that statement is just as dramatic in terms of the in-game fiction too; here's a person that's scraped through so many things that have killed lesser folks, now dead and into the next realm.

Of course, there's something to be said for a Rotating Door of Death as well. You've got a pretty interesting world where that happens, just look at the Steven Brust novels. It's just that it's a different sort of world from the usual zero-to-hero, fight the evil overlord setup that most D&Ders play; it's not an incompatible one either, just different.

So.... yeah. It's all about the reasons for sitting down at the table in the first place. There's not a right or a wrong answer (despite what some folks might say) just a matter of being aware of _why_ you're killing (or not) characters in the first place.

The problems usually happen when either A) Not everyone is actually fine with that goal and/or B) When people _aren't_ actually aware of the reasoning for killing a character (either the GM or the player) and start introducing changes to legislate out-of-game group behaviour (or assumptions) with in-game punishments.

As I've said, my view isn't a _popular_ one; it's simply a very considered approach. And I don't bother philosophising with the players about it either. I just tell 'em "Look, we need to decide if character death is going to be on the table as a consequence for losing a fight. If it is, characters _stay_ dead. If it's not, then we've got a couple of ways of dealing with what might theoretically 'kill' a person in the world..."

 

[kitsune9]

At high level, death is just a 10 minute delay. I do see your point though.