Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Wicht]

Well uh...unless I'm mistaken...your own examples show situations where someone can "lose" without "dying." I never said I don't find loss exciting. I just think that the specific kind of loss associated with in-game death is rather...bland. A tradeoff between status quo and oblivion.

As death in an RPG is a fictional death, it is just a narrative manifestation of a mechanical loss - like dying in a video game, nobody has actually been killed. It is the natural and obvious way to lose in most RPGs, and when removed removes a large part of the actual potential for loss within the game, as few other things get so invested in as the characters.

Also, for the record - I don't like roller coasters, but do like horror stories and movies.

 

[tomBitonti]

I have to agree with death being about as exciting a stake as you can have in a game. I've played in games with other stakes (or where the threat of death just wasn't that big a specter due to the focus or premise) and those are fine. I have no problem with that stuff. But death is the ultimate stake in my opinion. Especially in games where returning from the dead is either an impossibility or more of a challenge.

Additional text omitted.

I think we may be running into an issue of what "death" means in a game.

There are games where a player death means sitting out for a while waiting for a time to bring in a new character. And losing narrative continuity because of the loss of the history tied up with the character.

In other games, a player death is quickly resolved with a replacement character, with either very little loss of story (say, the game is a long random crawl), or with a mechanism to bring a new character into the story that preserves the back story and game history.

Both are possible. Each is a very different stake than the other.

At a convention, say, where the game has an expected short duration (one to several rounds of play), and with lots of additional activities, the first meaning works, largely because of setting.

In a long running campaign with long play histories which are tightly coupled with the overall game story, the first works rather badly.

Thx!

TomB

 

[tuxgeo]

One: It's easy to say "it's not an insult to say X!" when X isn't being said to you, or about you/your preferences. Two: Most 4e fans I have encountered do not share your perspective on whether "4e is not D&D" is an insult. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's considered edition warring in some forums.

As has been stated before on EN World, saying "4e is not D&D" is considered to be edition-warring on EN World.

(not reporting innerdude for it, though, since mere ignorance should be addressed with facts, not moderation)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Additional text omitted.

I think we may be running into an issue of what "death" means in a game.

There are games where a player death means sitting out for a while waiting for a time to bring in a new character. And losing narrative continuity because of the loss of the history tied up with the character.

In other games, a player death is quickly resolved with a replacement character, with either very little loss of story (say, the game is a long random crawl), or with a mechanism to bring a new character into the story that preserves the back story and game history.

Both are possible. Each is a very different stake than the other.

At a convention, say, where the game has an expected short duration (one to several rounds of play), and with lots of additional activities, the first meaning works, largely because of setting.

In a long running campaign with long play histories which are tightly coupled with the overall game story, the first works rather badly.

Thx!

TomB

I'm thinking of character death in long running campaigns. I think you will find experiences vary considerably on whether is world badly or not. I find it works great. I don't mind sitting out while I make a new character and figure out a way to fit the character into the party. Sure that isn't something I look forward to, but the possibility of that occurring, really creates stakes and excitement for me (and I don't complain when it arises).

 

[Bluenose]

The fact that the game can come to an end is why it's such a great stake.

And, no, I don't think any other stake is as interesting in a game (not in dramatic fiction, a whole other form) as not getting to play the game anymore (or at least not gettng to play it in the same way). I challenge you to ame one.

"Duty is heavy as a mountain. Death is light as a feather."

Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question. Finding something that matters more to a PC than their life is usually not that hard, as long as PCs aren't portrayed as, well, murderhobos with no connection to anything outside themselves and perhaps their companions. Attack the things they care about, and you can make the PCs choose death or ruin - and in my observed experience death is more likely to be chosen. I've certainly done so.

 

[Manbearcat]

"Duty is heavy as a mountain. Death is light as a feather."

Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question. Finding something that matters more to a PC than their life is usually not that hard, as long as PCs aren't portrayed as, well, murderhobos with no connection to anything outside themselves and perhaps their companions. Attack the things they care about, and you can make the PCs choose death or ruin - and in my observed experience death is more likely to be chosen. I've certainly done so.

While this is a great post (hence the xp), I feel the point you've made is a patently obvious one. So I'm left wondering how we're this far out the gate before someone pointed out that the barn door wasn't barred.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question. Finding something that matters more to a PC than their life is usually not that hard.....

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What Zak was saying is (and he can correct me if I am misreading him) there aren't any stakes in the context of a game as interesting as character death. Sure, characters losing their family, their status, etc can all be interesting and important. But I don't think anything is quite as jarring for the player as the PC dying and the player being unable to play for a bit of time. A player can also be invested in the goals of the PC too. I have certainly felt the pinch when my character has lost titles or lost something else meaningful. But more often than not, these kinds of stakes are kindle for the character. They push the character forward, give the character motivation. You lose your kingdom and by golly you're gonna get it back if its the last thing you do. You die, you lose everything. It is all gone. You aren't playing that character anymore short of supernatural resurrection. And when this stake is genuine and acknowledged it makes it all the more compelling when a PC does sacrifice his or her own life on behalf of something they value more. This is why he distinguished between interesting results and interesting stakes. The "interesting" with character death, is the intensity of excitement it can generate as a looming threat.

 

[spinozajack]

As has been stated before on EN World, saying "4e is not D&D" is considered to be edition-warring on EN World.

(not reporting innerdude for it, though, since mere ignorance should be addressed with facts, not moderation)

I don't consider 4e D&D, despite the name. Does that make me a bad person?

I'm not warring in stating this opinion, and it is one shared by the multitudes concerning 4th edition. If saying that is prohibited here, I think I will let the moderators decide what's valuable.

If you want to know, I consider Tony Vargas' every post on this website to be either overt or covert edition warring, including in this thread where he said 4vengers only ever react and never instigated anything in the "edition wars". They never taunt OSR gamers when they say stuff like Casters and Caddies or BMX Bandit or any of the other anti-D&D slurs they constantly hurl.

The edition war is over. 5th is here to stay. Get over it, guys. I'm done with this thread now.

 

[Zak S]

Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question.

No, not to the PC, to the PLAYER.

Death means that you have to stop playing the game with a given character -- i.e. stop playing the game the way you've been playing for hours or weeks or months or even years.

So it's a genuine (not imagined) loss for the player. It's basically saying, "start over from zero if you mess this up). Like when Super Mario dies on world 8-3. It's about what the player has to go through.

That is why it is a great stake for players and exciting for people who (unlike Ezekiel) find that exciting.

Threatening things the characters find interesting makes the story interesting, no doubt. That is an established fact of storytelling. But we're talking about a game, which has a story AND players who are playing.

And players may or may not share their PCs concerns, but they are much more likely to care whether they have the PC at all.

 

[Zak S]

While this is a great post (hence the xp), I feel the point you've made is a patently obvious one. So I'm left wondering how we're this far out the gate before someone pointed out that the barn door wasn't barred.

See above.