Favourite Mortality Rate by Edition

[darkseraphim]

Well, perhaps it's my pre-sentiments but I feel the poll is frontloaded to imply that character mortality is a bad thing.

I'm all for the play style in which the PCs are only slightly stronger than normal people, and need to organize henchmen and men-at-arms to enhance their survivability. Not only does that enhance plausibility and strategic thinking and thus (for me) immersion, it also allows the DM a more visceral role in the party's adventures. (It's a lot easier to be neutral and attendant to both sides when you're playing both the monsters and the M@A.)

And after all, D&D without mortality is just collaborative storytelling.

So, 1E style for me but actually earlier.

 

[Umbran]

And after all, D&D without mortality is just collaborative storytelling.

"Just" collaborative storytelling? As if that is some lesser activity?

In any case, it is not mortality that provides the differentiation - it is game play. And death is jus tone of many possible "lose conditions" available in the game.

 

[Ourph]

4e: If you die, it'd better be plot related

Huh?

I've had 12 character deaths in my 4e campaign so far. It would be kind of hard to call any of them "plot related" since it's a sandbox style campaign with no real plot. There is certainly nothing in the rules indicating to me when I should and shouldn't be killing characters. Characters die when the dice say they do.

 

[darkseraphim]

Yes, I would cite collaborative storytelling without mortality as a lesser form of play. Basically, if no PCs die, you already know the plot - the good guys win. It's then simply a question of filling in the details from point A to point B until the inevitable conclusion is reached.

It could be argued that dice rolling injects some uncertainty to the process, but if death were a forbidden factor, then the rolls become trivialized because again, no matter what the result, the good guys will eventually win.

Granted that's an extreme scenario but I would argue that the pleasure in the game is based on challenge, which implies conflict and the chance of ultimate failure. Games that still make it possible to die, but make it a slight inconvenience or an extremely rare occurrence, extract the challenge and therefore become an elaborate version of "let's pretend."

It's a fundamental and philosophical distinction that I know many do not agree with. I do like casual "get up and go" games where I never face serious consequences for a misstep, but when I get in those moods I typically play WoW. In my opinion mortality is the linchpin in D&D, the very real possibility that makes reward sweeter, instills drama and encourages skilled play.

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, I would cite collaborative storytelling without mortality as a lesser form of play. Basically, if no PCs die, you already know the plot - the good guys win. It's then simply a question of filling in the details from point A to point B until the inevitable conclusion is reached.

As is often quoted, "Its not the destination, its the journey".

To me its not about winning the game, its about my character changing and adapting to the challenges he faces. Will he become more heroic, will he become cynical. Will those he once called enemies become his friends, etc.

 

[Psion]

A player dies every 10 hours of gaming time in my 4e campaign so far.

A player dies? Sounds like a risky game to me. I supposed with that sort of population drain, 4e fans should be in the minority any day now.

 

[justanobody]

Wouldn't that be WHFRP?

Blue bolts are a signature D&D DM weapon since.....long ago.

 

[Qwillion]

I personally always liked the idea that if you did something wrong or stupid that death was but a roll away. Its no like there is no ressurection.

 

[Fifth Element]

And after all, D&D without mortality is just collaborative storytelling.

Umbran's valid questions aside, how does mortality have anything to do with storytelling? If the PCs all die, that can still be a story. I see no connection there. Seems like just a way to dig at those who prefer lower-mortality games.

 

[Treebore]

Umbran's valid questions aside, how does mortality have anything to do with storytelling? If the PCs all die, that can still be a story. I see no connection there. Seems like just a way to dig at those who prefer lower-mortality games.

Yeah, character death should be a plot point? Talk about being railroaded!

My plots are all decided upon with the assumption the PC's will live and win the day. Death is when the dice turn against you, or players make stupid decisions. I never plan for or want a PC death, I just accept it as a reality of the fact that this game is about chance. The chance means PC death is a possibility at any time.

If my PC dies I'll likely be bummed out about it, but I certainly don't want to play in a game where my PC won't die unless his death scene is written in.

I enjoy those adrenaline rushes where your PC is facing death square in the face and rolls that NAT 20! or rolls the right damage to kill the bad guy just in time. I can't get those rushes if I know my PC isn't facing his end. I certainly wouldn't feel any excitement knowing his planned death is coming up next. Boooring!