Death, Dying and Entitlements.

[Kerranin]

And yet, none of them have any rule that insists the GM create campaigns or encounters where character death is a likely consequence.

I think the thing is not the danger of character death, but that players should act like character death is a possibility. (regardless of how that DM runs the game)

Unfortunately some players need the real threat of character death to act like it is possible.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think what it may boil down to is if you (in general) want PC death to be part of the story, well rigged in a way where all members agree and everything from the beginning to end is essentially planned out then D&D may not be the game for you. There are other games out there that handle this situation a lot better.

Sure you can house rule what ever you want in a game but if you have to house rule everything then what's the point.

From everything I am reading it is clear that the main reason people don't want death is because they worked too hard on their characters and they don't want that work to go to waste. Well it's very to create the twin brother if you have to have that character that bad or you make another one. Any accomplished DM can fit another character into the party very easy. In the middle of a dungeon, make him a prisoner that the PC's find.

In my 25 years of gaming I have never seen a story so locked down tight that a character dying ruins the whole story or another one isn't able to come in and take his/her place.. If you create stories that depend on the characters so much that dying isn't an option then I don't see the challenge and I don't see the point. If that is your idea of fun then that's great but I would recommend another game.

 

[Kerranin]

Unfortunately my experiences, in various different games, have been getting killed through the actions of other party members rather than my own.

I've seen situations myself where this has nearly happened, but, and this is not meant as an attack on you, 'is it possible that your expectations of the group, in that situation, are unrealistic?'

Biggest problem I have seen is when players are unconcious, and making death saves, and nobody in the group is helping them. Lets be fair here, you don't expect your defender to break off tanking the dragon just to go stabilize someone, but there are other people who could go do it.

 

[Barastrondo]

I think what it may boil down to is if you (in general) want PC death to be part of the story, well rigged in a way where all members agree and everything from the beginning to end is essentially planned out then D&D may not be the game for you. There are other games out there that handle this situation a lot better.

I don't believe this at all. There's really no way that anyone can say this truthfully without spending face-to-face time with the specific gaming groups in question and determining that the players are legitimately not enjoying themselves as much as they would be with another system. The argument seems to be based on a lot of misconceptions about how much fun a given group is having with a given system, or about just how much work they're having to put into it to achieve that level of fun.

(Or alternately, based on a fairly mean-spirited agenda of trying to exclude people who "don't play right" from calling themselves players of one's Game Of Choice. I'm sure that's not the case here, but any barometer of "entitlement" limited to one group's feelings about their PCs pales next to the entitlement born of expecting other, unrelated gaming groups to adhere to one's personal preferences.)

Sure you can house rule what ever you want in a game but if you have to house rule everything then what's the point.

That reads like one of those misconceptions. It doesn't take a single house rule to play a low-lethality game of 4e D&D, much less house ruling everything. I think you honestly have to work harder to make 4e a high-lethality game, but that doesn't require house rules either -- all it takes is careful encounter design.

In my 25 years of gaming I have never seen a story so locked down tight that a character dying ruins the whole story or another one isn't able to come in and take his/her place.

30 years here, and in my experience playstyles are just really varied, and have always been.The thing that makes a character "irreplaceable," at least to the point where a player would rather not replace them until some sort of closure has been achieved, are the things that make them unique. Some players simply prefer playing characters that are a distinctive experience, and the things that make said character a one-of-a-kind experience are tied into campaign elements that enable tragic consequences other than "roll up a new character" in the first place.

 

[Ryujin]

I've seen situations myself where this has nearly happened, but, and this is not meant as an attack on you, 'is it possible that your expectations of the group, in that situation, are unrealistic?'

Biggest problem I have seen is when players are unconcious, and making death saves, and nobody in the group is helping them. Lets be fair here, you don't expect your defender to break off tanking the dragon just to go stabilize someone, but there are other people who could go do it.

Oops, wrong comment for experience

My situation(s) aren't as you described. Off the top of my head...

- There was the situation in which the Thief went for that last cash grab, when we had decided to leave the building that we had infiltrated. He didn't check for traps, but opened the lock, triggering the trap that brought the roof down on my head. He got away, scot-free.

- Then there was the situation in which a Fighter-type taunted the enemies, who were on the spiral stairway a couple of floors below us, then jumped into a handy room and closed the door. The enemies' response, an area attack before I had a chance to act, fried me where I stood.

- And, of course, there's the infamous Wizard who tosses a fireball into a crowd of enemies, that just happen to be clustered around me. The word, "WHUMPH!" comes immediately to mind.

I don't include situations, like the ones you describe, as people need to handle what's in front of them first. I was a little annoyed when I got dragged into another room to be pounded on by three lurkers, bringing me to within 3-4 hp of death, but ultimately I was back on my feet before the coup-de-grace could be delivered. That's teamwork.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't believe this at all. There's really no way that anyone can say this truthfully without spending face-to-face time with the specific gaming groups in question and determining that the players are legitimately not enjoying themselves as much as they would be with another system. The argument seems to be based on a lot of misconceptions about how much fun a given group is having with a given system, or about just how much work they're having to put into it to achieve that level of fun.

(Or alternately, based on a fairly mean-spirited agenda of trying to exclude people who "don't play right" from calling themselves players of one's Game Of Choice. I'm sure that's not the case here, but any barometer of "entitlement" limited to one group's feelings about their PCs pales next to the entitlement born of expecting other, unrelated gaming groups to adhere to one's personal preferences.)



That reads like one of those misconceptions. It doesn't take a single house rule to play a low-lethality game of 4e D&D, much less house ruling everything. I think you honestly have to work harder to make 4e a high-lethality game, but that doesn't require house rules either -- all it takes is careful encounter design.



30 years here, and in my experience playstyles are just really varied, and have always been.The thing that makes a character "irreplaceable," at least to the point where a player would rather not replace them until some sort of closure has been achieved, are the things that make them unique. Some players simply prefer playing characters that are a distinctive experience, and the things that make said character a one-of-a-kind experience are tied into campaign elements that enable tragic consequences other than "roll up a new character" in the first place.

Our specific group is a collection of people who have played together for 10 plus years. Now there are a few other groups that I participate in but the first group is the main group. We play D&D strictly by the book, period.

What our DM does not do, and I am glad of this, is essentially write a novel with our D&D characters ahead of time. Drizzt lives because Salvatore doesn't want him dead and he is their main income. Now if you want to write a novel based on the experiences of a group of PC's that have already run their course then that's fine.

Predetermined outcomes are essentially worse than playing a video game because when this happens then there is no room for change. I always hated modules that wouldn't let you go and check out that old house over there because there was nothing written for it.

Now you could say that a DM can change things on the fly because his player's want to do this or that, well the same can be said for player's who died when they weren't really meant to story wise. It's things like that that make stories in the end that much greater. Just because that guy saved all those children from a burning building that doesn't mean he has a guarantee to live. He may walk out the door the next day and get hit by a car.

If you want to remove death from a game then that is perfectly fine, but you will be house ruling it. In reality the designers never really meant for death to be optional because if they did then they would have by RAW made death an option. Sure they give you tips in the DMG 1 and 2 but those are just ideas and not rules.

I have seen other games in my day that handle this style of play better than D&D does.

 

[S'mon]

And yet, none of them have any rule that insists the GM create campaigns or encounters where character death is a likely consequence.

Depends on your definition of "insist". 4e encounter design guidelines and (much moreso) Labyrinth Lord's guide to wilderness & dungeon encounters both make PC death a likely consequence. LL in particular by the RAW is extremely lethal. Call of Cthulu is lethal if you ever use the combat rules, the monsters, or hostile NPCs. WFRP likewise, alleviated a bit by the Fate Points. Apart from 4e you listed three high-lethality games.

 

[S'mon]

When I say negotiation, I mean:

"How does this sound?"
"Pretty cool. But can we change this little thing here?"
"Sure. Let's play."

And since playing something which does not exactly fit your preferences is a sign of maturity, are you saying DMs are exempt from the expectation of being mature?

Of course.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Fifth: Well the DM is the final say so as to what goes on in his/her game. A sign of maturity is not saying yes to everything and a sign of maturity is not saying no to everything. A sign of maturity is knowing that most RPG's have given the DM full authority as to what is allowed or not allowed. DM's are not going to say no for the hell of it and if they do then you don't need to play with them to start with.

Respecting your DM when he says no is a sign of maturity. While the DM shouldn't say no just to be an ass the player must understand this is a one way street. You don't tell your DM what to do, well I'm sure some player's do and the DM puts up with it, but in all fairness the DM doesn't have to.

There has to be an arbiter because it would end up with Cops and Robbers bang bang your dead, no I'm not. Everyone doesn't always agree and that is where the DM steps in.

 

[Fifth Element]

Fifth: Well the DM is the final say so as to what goes on in his/her game. A sign of maturity is not saying yes to everything and a sign of maturity is not saying no to everything.

Aboslutely. I just don't think you can hold players to a certain standard of maturity while not doing the same for the DM.