Do the PCs ever die in these playtest reports?

[RigaMortus2]

Ehh. From my experience a high death rate isn't a good thing and is usually the starting point for friction between players. Either because the player with the dead character blames the other players for the death

Ouch, you have to find better (re: more mature) players then if this is the case.

or because the player with the dead character doesn't play smart,

It happens. In these instances, they are usually new to the game, and this might be a time where the DM *might* want to consider fudging (and showing the player what they might have done wrong).

has more dead characters than most and starts playing "i don't care any more" characters that are there just to sow chaos.

This goes back to my first point... I've had a player like that. We got rid of them. The game is much better now.

 

[RigaMortus2]

You're really stretching this time, aren't you?

This time? When was last time? Did I miss something?

 

[RigaMortus2]

If the expression wasn't plastered everywhere 4e combat is being talked about, then the descriptor might have meaning, and I wouldn't have been bothered by it. At this point, it has become to be overused rather bland - almost every 4e combat I've read about has been described as a "knock-down, drag-out" fight, or similar.

You prefer they use the term 'cool' then?

We had a cool fight the other night.

 

[RigaMortus2]

DM: Okay, you take 20 damage.
Player: I'm dead.
DM: Oh, cool. We haven't had a chance to playtest that yet.
Player: Right on. So, what now.
DM: Well, you're dead.
Player: Okay. ... Am I still dead?
DM: Yup.
Player: What about now?
DM: Yup.
Player: What about now?
DM: Yup.
Player: What about now?
DM: Yup.

(much later)

DM: Well, they've certainly got realistic rules for being dead.

Ok, that made me giggle a little bit, but only in my mind. It wasn't an LOL, it was a LIQ (Lauht In Quiet).

 

[GnomeWorks]

You prefer they use the term 'cool' then?

We had a cool fight the other night.

"Cool" doesn't bother me. Honestly, for the most part, I don't particularly care how they choose to phrase things. However, when the same phrase shows up more than once, I begin to suspect that it has a consistent meaning, and in this case the particular phrase seemed to indicate that combat design had gone in a direction I'm not a fan of.

I would have the same issue if they had described the combat as "it was a bucket of bananas," rather than "knock-down, drag-out." If the phrase is used multiple times, that implies - at least to me - a consistency of meaning. My complaint was more about the meaning of the phrase than the words contained in it.

 

[Dausuul]

From what Mearlsypoo is saying here and what we've heard in other places (like W&M), I wouldn't be surprised if higher levels were actually a bit more lethal than heroic play, since death is actually less of a problem once you get up there and start ressing.

Ugh, I really hope this isn't the case. One of the things that drove me nuts about 3E play was the fact that at the higher levels, PC casualties became so frequent that resurrection magic was an absolute necessity. I want to be able to house-rule resurrection magic out of my games and not have to worry about high-level PCs dropping like flies as a result.

My philosophy is that PC death should be rare, but when it happens, you're dead and you make a new character; I feel that resurrection magic cheapens death by making heroic sacrifices and glorious deaths impossible. With raise dead and its ilk in the game, the only way a high-level character can die permanently is via a TPK, which is a lousy way to end a campaign.

 

[A'koss]

Ugh, I really hope this isn't the case. One of the things that drove me nuts about 3E play was the fact that at the higher levels, PC casualties became so frequent that resurrection magic was an absolute necessity. I want to be able to house-rule resurrection magic out of my games and not have to worry about high-level PCs dropping like flies as a result.

My philosophy is that PC death should be rare, but when it happens, you're dead and you make a new character; I feel that resurrection magic cheapens death by making heroic sacrifices and glorious deaths impossible. With raise dead and its ilk in the game, the only way a high-level character can die permanently is via a TPK, which is a lousy way to end a campaign.

Agreed.

I think I'd be okay with resurrection magic so long as there was a relatively easy way to keep a dead person... dead. Perhaps if raise/resurrection required the corpse to be intact, and that destroying the body (burning/dismembering) would prevent anything other than "undeath" revivification...

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Ugh, I really hope this isn't the case. One of the things that drove me nuts about 3E play was the fact that at the higher levels, PC casualties became so frequent that resurrection magic was an absolute necessity. I want to be able to house-rule resurrection magic out of my games and not have to worry about high-level PCs dropping like flies as a result.

My philosophy is that PC death should be rare, but when it happens, you're dead and you make a new character; I feel that resurrection magic cheapens death by making heroic sacrifices and glorious deaths impossible. With raise dead and its ilk in the game, the only way a high-level character can die permanently is via a TPK, which is a lousy way to end a campaign.

I have a somewhat different outlook. First, I am a tactical DM, and enjoy running fights. Even easy fights can take longer than I would like to play through, so when a fight happens, I generally wont waste time on cake walks. There are easy fights, but there is always enough firepower on the opponents side to be a non trivial risk. Because I am a tactical DM, I enjoy being able to push as hard as the situation will let me. The end result is that it is very possible for a player to die in a fight that is not at all plot critical.

Another thing I have noticed is that players can get pretty attached to their characters. If they roll up a character, and then eat a bad saving throw and die after only having the character a short time, the replacement character may as well be a clone. I may drop someones character in combat, but I will give them every chance to keep it. This means they can typically stabalize if they have an action point handy.

I do not mind raise dead magic being in the game. It should be somewhat rare, but ultimately, if a DM wants to, it is not too hard to create an excuse for a player to keep a character.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Ugh, I really hope this isn't the case. One of the things that drove me nuts about 3E play was the fact that at the higher levels, PC casualties became so frequent that resurrection magic was an absolute necessity. I want to be able to house-rule resurrection magic out of my games and not have to worry about high-level PCs dropping like flies as a result.

My philosophy is that PC death should be rare, but when it happens, you're dead and you make a new character; I feel that resurrection magic cheapens death by making heroic sacrifices and glorious deaths impossible. With raise dead and its ilk in the game, the only way a high-level character can die permanently is via a TPK, which is a lousy way to end a campaign.

Actually the easier way is to house rule that knowing sacrifice cannot be undone.

Bascially if its plot critical, and the PC dies - the Raven Queen will not release them (baring a quest of course), otherwise the PC can be restored. You don't really want PCs dieing randomly and not being able to be restored - its got to be dramatic and essentially a player choice to drive the PC into their death, not simply a matter of dice rolling.

 

[Lizard]

I can lay claim to the first PC killed in 4e, and the best part is that a second PC delivered the killing blow. A bugbear strangler popped out from behind a tapestry to garotte the ranger. The fighter/rogue ran to attack the strangler, the bugbear swung the ranger up as a living shield, and one crit later we had a dead ranger.
.

Hmm...

Is this sort of thing something there's rules for ("I grab character X and use him a shield!") or was it pure GM fiat ("Yeah, that'd be cool^h^h^h^ nifty?") 'Cause, if it's the former, you might have won a 4e convert... (I'm *sure* you've been kept up nights wondering "Why doesn't Lizard like 4e? I mean, we wrote the game just for him!")

(I can *always* handwave/fiat everything. I'm the GM. I'm God. But if I wanted to do that, I'd play Amber Diceless or Theatrix. I don't. I want rules. Big, crunchy, rules. And if they cover things like "The bugbear grabs you and interposes you" in a way that's fair (rules based), then 4e has, IMO, scored a serious Win Point.)