Getting Attached

[Ravellion]

1) The entire party was slaughtered by an Ettin. We could have easily killed the Ettin, but we were trying to subdue it. We failed. I didn't really get depressed over that character. He died a climatic death.

Sounds like you were playing "The Ettin's Riddle".

But yeah, get attached. Makes it more worthwhile IMO.

Rav

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I think it's a better game if players are attached to their characters. You're more likely to play the character well, be careful about rushing into situations where the characters might be killed etc.

I'm quite attached to the character I run in my main game. I'm also rather attached to her familair and her horses. We have one guy who gets so attached to his warhorses that he refused to get another one after he had two die in battle in a row. As annoying as it was for the rest of us to explain to him that he'd slow us down without a horse, I appreciate that he played his character as his character would be have.

(my character ended up getting a second horse and his character rides that one in non combat situations)

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I think it's a better game if players are attached to their characters. You're more likely to play the character well, be careful about rushing into situations where the characters might be killed etc.

Yeah I agree, if your not attached to your character then you really shouldn't be playing the game can I'm almost positive your not RPG it well. Everyone minus the kender should have a moment of fear/pause every once in awhile.

Of course this all goes up in smoke in a CoC game as you are going to die and attachment is mentally unhealthy.

 

[mythago]

Getting attached to your character is a good thing. But part of planning a character, IMO, is envisioning that character's end. He's an adventurer, fercryinoutloud, he's not likely to die old in his bed surrounded by loving grandchildren.

So, is your Noble Orc Crusader (in your ideal game) eventually going to sacrifice herself protecting innocents from a great evil? As a footsoldier in a great battle between the forces of light and dark? Ready to quietly fade into the sunset once the evil goddess of night is slain once and for all?

See, when your GM knows that you are willing to lose the character, it's easier for the GM to (even unconsciously) help set things up so that you can die a good death, not a bad one. He will be more likely to go easy on the poison traps but front-load the Armies of Unlight with the enemy who will, gloriously, slay you as the infant Sun-Child is spirited out of his eldritch grasp and into safety. Etcetera.

Losing a beloved character in a campaign- and character-appropriate way can be like finishing a good book. You're sad that it's over, but you really didn't want it to go on forever into tedium, right?

Of course this all goes up in smoke in a CoC game as you are going to die and attachment is mentally unhealthy.

Well heck, playing in a CoC game is mentally unhealthy to start with! But you know, there are far worse things than death in CoC.

 

[Kichwas]

The game runs a careful balance between attachment and potential loss.

You want players to grow into their characters and get involved in the story, but you don't want to coddle them and hold their hands through risks in order to try and force that attachment, or avoid the potential of loss.

I encourage players to take a 'develop in play' style and not enter the game with too much attachment to any one character. Let it grow as the character expands and improves in survivability. Focus your attachment on the game and story as a whole, with a subportion of that to each individual character.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

...

Losing a beloved character in a campaign- and character-appropriate way can be like finishing a good book. You're sad that it's over, but you really didn't want it to go on forever into tedium, right?

...

Except that your now-dead character gets left out of the sequel when everyone else's characters go on to do even more heroic things.

Obligatory Disclaimer Note: Everything written below this note is not a direct response to mythago, but is just speaking generally on the issue at hand after having been inspired by mythago's book comparison.

It's one thing if your character dies at the very end of the campaign, but it really does kind of suck to be the "red shirt of D&D" who dies in the first couple chapters, or just one of the minor support characters who dies somewhere in the middle just to prove that the author isn't afraid to kill off characters in a book.

I don't think all endings have to be melodramatic and painful to be good endings. Not all heros have to die in order to be a positive inspiration to others.

One problem with comparing D&D to a book is that books (except in the case of Robert Jordan) actually *do* end whereas a D&D campaign theoretically never has to end. It can end when the DM and the players are ready for it to end. There need not be a main plot to a campaign, but instead a conglomeration of many, many plots which have beginnings and endings as there is need.

Some of those plots might include permanent character death, but I don't believe they absolutely need to be forced upon a player who doesn't enjoy such plots when there are many, many other enjoyable and character-enhancing plots which could also exist and be explored in a game.

Character attachment is a wonderful thing which truly can enhance the roleplaying experience. I think you have to be able to trust your DM and the other players to a certain extent in order to fully experience this effect though. If your playstyle doesn't match the DM's style, then problems can occur and sometimes even snuff out the desire for roleplaying and/or character attachment. (For me, killer DM's and high mortality campaigns create in me this "why bother?" factor, but the reasons can be different for different people.)

In answer to the original question though, the best way I've found of detaching oneself from a character is to treat it like nothing more than a miniature with a stat card (character sheet) which helps you determine where on the battlemat the figure must move. This figure isn't a real person, it's just a game piece to use in order to "win" (hopefully). Don't bother trying to roleplay and only put the bare minimum of background (if any) on your character sheet...basically no more than the DM requires. Whether or not you enjoy such characters is an entirely different matter, of course, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do if you want to keep playing in that particular game.

 

[mythago]

It's one thing if your character dies at the very end of the campaign, but it really does kind of suck to be the "red shirt of D&D" who dies in the first couple chapters, or just one of the minor support characters who dies somewhere in the middle just to prove that the author isn't afraid to kill off characters in a book.

Good point! On the other hand, though, it doesn't necessarily suck to be the important character whose death changes the whole course of the story, or the heroic father whose son (*cough* REPLACEMENT PC *cough*) seeks out his former companions, joining them to avenge his noble sire's death.

Some of those plots might include permanent character death, but I don't believe they absolutely need to be forced upon a player who doesn't enjoy such plots when there are many, many other enjoyable and character-enhancing plots which could also exist and be explored in a game.

Absolutely. I know you weren't responding to me specifically, but I didn't mean that characters *must* die to make a campaign worthy. Only that death is generally a risk in most games, and so it's better if the player can accept that, and perhaps if the campaign is conductive to the PC dying in a manner that fits the character's history. Sir Egtheow is gonna be just as dead if he sacrifices himself for the good of the people as if he blows his spot hidden and falls into a bear pit the peasants forgot they dug last winter, but the former is probably less upsetting to the player.

The campaigns I"m usually in are made up of story arcs, where the PCs have overarching grand campaign plot themes, but there are smaller stories within that that have beginnings, ends, and even sequels, and of course each PC has his or her own little subplots going on. Those provide a natural transition if somebody blows a critical roll.

 

[Aztec Ace]

I was playing the same sorcerer from the beginning of a Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil campaign. He had already died once but was raised. Just before we entered the Outer Fane, he got killed with no chance of being raised. (Failed a save vs a Slay Living spell). We have been playing for over a year in this game and I guess I had become quite attached to him. Well now the whole campaign has lost it's fun. I built a new character but now that we are getting near the end. I don't get excited about playing in the game like I used to.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

Good point! On the other hand, though, it doesn't necessarily suck to be the important character whose death changes the whole course of the story, or the heroic father whose son (*cough* REPLACEMENT PC *cough*) seeks out his former companions, joining them to avenge his noble sire's death.

That's very true, but I think the player needs to be ready for such a transition first. They may resent having to take on the new character if they feel they haven't adequately been able to explore their previous character, or while they may be in the mood to play a new character, they may want to play something totally unconnected to their old one.

I'd likely allow the death to occur in such a case as otherwise it might seem a bit too unrealistic, but then work out with the player what should happen afterwards with the player's character in private. Maybe the player would have a really neat idea which I never would have thought about, but which could add a lot to the campaign and would be fun for us as well as the other players. Perhaps the character might find a way of returning in some form or another, or perhaps the character would remain dead, but in either case, the result would add to the story in some beneficial way as well as be reasonably agreeable to the player.

Absolutely. I know you weren't responding to me specifically, but I didn't mean that characters *must* die to make a campaign worthy.

I was pretty sure you weren't saying that too, but you did remind me of some of the conversations I've heard concerning books where if an author never kills off a main character, then the book automatically sucks and isn't worthy of a title any better than 'dreck.' Sometimes I get the idea that some DM's actually do think this kind of thing though when it comes to their game.

Only that death is generally a risk in most games, and so it's better if the player can accept that, and perhaps if the campaign is conductive to the PC dying in a manner that fits the character's history. Sir Egtheow is gonna be just as dead if he sacrifices himself for the good of the people as if he blows his spot hidden and falls into a bear pit the peasants forgot they dug last winter, but the former is probably less upsetting to the player.

I do think that if a player's character *must* die, it should definitely be in a way conducive to the character and as an enhancement to the story, so I'm fully in agreement here!

The campaigns I"m usually in are made up of story arcs, where the PCs have overarching grand campaign plot themes, but there are smaller stories within that that have beginnings, ends, and even sequels, and of course each PC has his or her own little subplots going on. Those provide a natural transition if somebody blows a critical roll.

These are actually my favorite types of campaigns.

 

[Sanackranib]

its really less about getting "attached" then anout getting "dead"
play as smart as you can and trust your party to bring you back if they can. there are really few occurracnes when a character cannot be brought back by ANY means