How to deal with death in RPG?

[S'mon]

@<i><b><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=78752" target="_blank">DMZ2112</a></u></b></i>

I'm posting that I don't have disappointing sessions. You either seem to not believe me, or . . . be angry about it? (I'm not sure.)

I think my style and situation is quite different from Pemerton's, but I don't (in the last 16
years) have disappointing sessions either. In the sense that I always enjoy them, and most (not all) the players always enjoy them, as far as I can tell.

I have a blog of my newest campaign here, with player-written session accounts - https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/

One of my players is a voice actor and did this narrative video of the early sessions (he's working on the sequel):

[video=youtube;_ktGY3mV2YI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ktGY3mV2YI[/video]

So you can see, my players seem to be having a good time!

Edit: I do remember running some really crappy games in the mid 1990s. It's not like I was always a good GM - I think I started decent in the '80s, got bad in the '90s, was ok-ish in the 2000s, and have been improving a lot since around 2010-2012. I feel my games are currently going really well, aided by 5e D&D being a very good system for me.

 

[Nagol]

I don't think this makes me depart from my earlier post, where I said my experiences are like what [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] described.

The "long, boring negotiation" that you describe, resulting in player frustration/dissatisfaction, isn't a part of my play experience.

Here's a simple example from an old Ars Magica game.

The players had determined through the surreptitious use of magic that the local lord and lady had no heirs because the lady was suffering from a common form of infertility that is fairly trivial to solve with magic.

The PCs conferred and agreed that this would be a sensitive and delicate topic, particularly since the local clergy had been pushing a strong "magic is wrong" angle (caused of players at the table using Whimsy Cards). They elected the only female mage to delicately broach the subject.

The PC was slowly bringing the conversation around to the issue. She had determined the lady was interested, but was fearful of the price that would be demanded by the mages. The players were told the lady knew of faerie deals and how "free" means "will cost anything I need in the future".

Another player was getting antsy that the discussion was taking too long and decided to move things along:
"We can guarantee you will have a child."
"At what cost, my immortal soul?"
"No price at all. It is free."
"Free! That costs the most of all!"

The discussion ended there.

 

[S'mon]

Here's a simple example from an old Ars Magica game.

The players had determined through the surreptitious use of magic that the local lord and lady had no heirs because the lady was suffering from a common form of infertility that is fairly trivial to solve with magic.

The PCs conferred and agreed that this would be a sensitive and delicate topic, particularly since the local clergy had been pushing a strong "magic is wrong" angle (caused of players at the table using Whimsy Cards). They elected the only female mage to delicately broach the subject.

The PC was slowly bringing the conversation around to the issue. She had determined the lady was interested, but was fearful of the price that would be demanded by the mages. The players were told the lady knew of faerie deals and how "free" means "will cost anything I need in the future".

Another player was getting antsy that the discussion was taking too long and decided to move things along:
"We can guarantee you will have a child."
"At what cost, my immortal soul?"
"No price at all. It is free."
"Free! That costs the most of all!"

The discussion ended there.

Is this meant to be a negative example? It sounds cool.

 

[Nagol]

Is this meant to be a negative example? It sounds cool.

I thought it was cool. The other players were much less impressed especially with the fallout. In effect, they had a complete failure of their gambit. They lost what had been developing into a promising relationship and created hostility where they were working for friendship.

It took years of time before the lords of the region would trust them to deal honestly.

A more violent example took place in a CHAMPIONS game. A nasty bad guy wanted the heroes out of the way for a period of time so he arranged for a powerful mook villain to kidnap a bunch of loved ones. The heroes quickly realised where the victims were (far from the nasty guy) and quickly developed a plan to infiltrate and catch the mook and his minions off guard.

One player was strongly against this plan so he walked up to the front door, slammed his hand against it a few times and bellowed for the villains to give up because they were surrounded. He went in alone and all the other heroes were caught off guard and out of position. The ensuing bloodbath had a bunch of loved ones die and the rebellious player got knocked unconscious at the beginning of the multi-hour fight. The nasty guy waltzed in and did his thing without interference.

 

[S'mon]

IMO player character failure & screw-ups often lead to the most interesting games!

If there's an issue, it's around the social contract of how should players deal with intra-PC conflict. Can you kill a PC who's just got your loved ones killed? I would say yes, but a lot of players are reluctant to have their PCs react realistically.

Edit: Thinking about it, as GM I tend to be reluctant to 'fridge' NPCs or have any really bad stuff happen to the PCs by pure GM fiat. So if anything I tend to rather rely on PC screw ups to make for
an interesting & dramatic game. I don't like imposing arbitrary setbacks - "While you were away, the orc horde burned down your castle" - but if the PCs themselves go rile up the orc horde THEN go off somewhere else, the castle becomes fair game. So you tend to see a fair bit of Hubris & Nemesis IMCs - or highly competent PCs who avoid screw ups and reap the rewards.

 

[S'mon]

Here's some great GMing advice - https://dmdavid.com/tag/how-to-yes-without-turning-your-dd-game-into-a-joke/

 

[pemerton]

He did some stuff I really liked, eg on anti-railroading - but I remember he has a big hate on for 4e D&D so not really your cup of tea Mr P. Of those I recommended, DMDavid is consistently great.

You're right re 4e. Also I don't like his "anti-railroading" that I've read eg his "node-based design" to me just looks like railroading under a different label - the outcomes are still all pre-deterined.

But I recognise that others like what he has to say - just as not everyone has found Paul Czege as useful for their relatively mainstream FRPGing as I have!

 

[S'mon]

You're right re 4e. Also I don't like his "anti-railroading" that I've read eg his "node-based design" to me just looks like railroading under a different label - the outcomes are still all pre-deterined.

Doug Niles in the 1e AD&D Dungeoneers' Survival Guide describes three modes of campaign play:

Open - ie sandboxing
Linear - ie railroad
Matrix - this is 'node based' play. It's intermediate betweem Open & Linear. There are choices of direction within the matrix, but they are limited, unlike Open campaigns.

 

[pemerton]

To the extent that [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s Ars Magica example is meant to be a negative example, the issue would seem to be one of pacing.

WIth the Champions example, again to the extent that it is meant to be a negative example, the issue would seem to be that the one player was able to make a choice that resolved the stakes for the other players. I think that can be a big issue, especially in systems that assume group play and so group win/loss.

 

[pemerton]

Doug Niles in the 1e AD&D Dungeoneers' Survival Guide describes three modes of campaign play:

Open - ie sandboxing
Linear - ie railroad
Matrix - this is 'node based' play. It's intermediate betweem Open & Linear. There are choices of direction within the matrix, but they are limited, unlike Open campaigns.

It's a long time since I've read that!