BiggusGeekus
That's Latin for "cool"
Somebody get this man a copy of Paranioa.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
I didnt let a PC die
- Thread starter Alaska Roberts
- Start date
EOL
First Post
It's funny because the crux of this debate is something that has currently become a big issue in my campaign. On the one had you have a player who I think honestly would have the most fun in my campaign if he never died, or if he does die there is no penalty for being raised. On the other hand is a player who feels that without death being a big penalty the game isn't fun, he also happens to be the DM I alternate with. My philosophy is basically that the amount of enjoyment the players have in my campaign is a pretty accurate measure of what kind of job I am doing, so do I protect the players as some have suggested and as the one player would hope or do I penalize the players as the other player and DM would like?
Last edited:
Rashak Mani
First Post
You can go the middle way... just dont make raising easy or the players lose all respect for Death...
Once dead if the PC is judged worthy by his Divinity he may be raised.
Once dead if the PC is judged worthy by his Divinity he may be raised.
Quickbeam
Explorer
You've asked a tough question here Alaska, and after a dozen solid responses you can already see there's a vast difference of opinion of your situation.
In general, I tend to agree with the views expressed by Piratecat and Black Omega -- the heroic death of a PC can add to your campaign in ways that are almost immeasurable in scope. However, reapersaurus also makes a very keen observation that isn't quite as popular -- namely, preserving the lives of your player's characters is sometimes necessary to maintain the heroic feel of their adventuring.
For me (and many others) I think the bottom line can be tied to two items:
1) Are the actions which have brought about the character's potential demise foolish or admirabable; are they silly or commendable; are they asinine or heroic? A brave and noble act on the part of the PC in question may be worth a bit of DM intervention to reward such behavior.
2) Will your players support the heroic death of their characters, or do they want a little "help" when chance leaves their PCs in dire circumstances? Each group is different, as is each player within the group...only you can fairly assess what outcome best suits the situation
.
In general, I tend to agree with the views expressed by Piratecat and Black Omega -- the heroic death of a PC can add to your campaign in ways that are almost immeasurable in scope. However, reapersaurus also makes a very keen observation that isn't quite as popular -- namely, preserving the lives of your player's characters is sometimes necessary to maintain the heroic feel of their adventuring.
For me (and many others) I think the bottom line can be tied to two items:
1) Are the actions which have brought about the character's potential demise foolish or admirabable; are they silly or commendable; are they asinine or heroic? A brave and noble act on the part of the PC in question may be worth a bit of DM intervention to reward such behavior.
2) Will your players support the heroic death of their characters, or do they want a little "help" when chance leaves their PCs in dire circumstances? Each group is different, as is each player within the group...only you can fairly assess what outcome best suits the situation
.The biggest problem of this situation is not whatever it is good or bad to use deus ex machina, but whatever the other players expect the same right next time they die; the reason that you used for saving the paladin is not a good one, really. Yes, he is interesting, but do you save him because he is interresting? What if one of your players cant make interresting characters? I think you have to be fair and consequent all the time. If this is how you use to solve things, good. But if it isnt, then you will probably have problems with this.
That said, I think death should always be a possibility, especially if the character behaves bravely or stupid. In my campaigns, there is no inherent reward in being good, the reward lies in doing good and brave deeds. The paladins will die young while the coward and egoistic rogues will live long and prosperous lives. I cant see my role as the players moral upbringer, and they still play good characters, but with a more "realistic" touch.
If you want a death to be more acceptable, though, add a good description of the beginning afterlife of the now dead character. You could tell the paladin in this example something like this (excuse the the English, its just my 2nd language):
"When finally dead, the Frost worm exploded into millions of tiny shards of ice, piercing your battle tired body. When you fall backward, you see a beautyful angel descending from the sky, reaching you her hand. You raise your hand, but not the hand of your massacred body, but a new hand, a hand of pure spirit, with none of the pain and weakness of your old, physical form. As you rise to the sky, you look down on the world you left, a world overcome with evil and greed, where the good die young and the evil rules the nations. Then you look up at a gate in the sky, leading to a golden city where all your pains will be relieved, and where you will get your final reward for living a pure life and never compromising with evil. You take a last farewell to your friends, even though they cant hear you know, and hope that you will meet them again in your new home. Then you release all bonds to the mortal world, entering the sacred paradise that will be your home until the end of time."
Then you can tell the other players something like this:
"When you find the body of [paladin's name], you can see a smile on his shredded face. He lived his like a hero, and died young like heros do."
I use the last method sometimes, od course the opposite way around when the greedy and selfish ones die.
That said, I think death should always be a possibility, especially if the character behaves bravely or stupid. In my campaigns, there is no inherent reward in being good, the reward lies in doing good and brave deeds. The paladins will die young while the coward and egoistic rogues will live long and prosperous lives. I cant see my role as the players moral upbringer, and they still play good characters, but with a more "realistic" touch.
If you want a death to be more acceptable, though, add a good description of the beginning afterlife of the now dead character. You could tell the paladin in this example something like this (excuse the the English, its just my 2nd language):
"When finally dead, the Frost worm exploded into millions of tiny shards of ice, piercing your battle tired body. When you fall backward, you see a beautyful angel descending from the sky, reaching you her hand. You raise your hand, but not the hand of your massacred body, but a new hand, a hand of pure spirit, with none of the pain and weakness of your old, physical form. As you rise to the sky, you look down on the world you left, a world overcome with evil and greed, where the good die young and the evil rules the nations. Then you look up at a gate in the sky, leading to a golden city where all your pains will be relieved, and where you will get your final reward for living a pure life and never compromising with evil. You take a last farewell to your friends, even though they cant hear you know, and hope that you will meet them again in your new home. Then you release all bonds to the mortal world, entering the sacred paradise that will be your home until the end of time."
Then you can tell the other players something like this:
"When you find the body of [paladin's name], you can see a smile on his shredded face. He lived his like a hero, and died young like heros do."
I use the last method sometimes, od course the opposite way around when the greedy and selfish ones die.
Numion
First Post
I'll grill you:
Why don't you just remove hitpoints from the game alltogether? I mean, they're only an indicator which tells you how near to death your character is from the gamemechanics POV. If death isn't risked at <0 hp's, what is? Unconsciousness? Have the monsters then deal just subdual.
If the loss of HPs isn't possibly lethal, I wouldn't use them. In a game that is in big part combat nullifying it isn't very wise. IMNSHO.
Why don't you just remove hitpoints from the game alltogether? I mean, they're only an indicator which tells you how near to death your character is from the gamemechanics POV. If death isn't risked at <0 hp's, what is? Unconsciousness? Have the monsters then deal just subdual.
If the loss of HPs isn't possibly lethal, I wouldn't use them. In a game that is in big part combat nullifying it isn't very wise. IMNSHO.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I'll ask a few questions:
When you first read the Hobbit, what did you think were the chances that Bilbo would get killed by Smaug?
When you first saw Return of the Jedi, what did you think the chances were that Luke would be killed by Darth or the Emperor?
When you first saw Die Hard, what did you think were the chances that Bruce Willis would die?
Now, lemme ask some more questions:
Was Bilbo's scene in Smaug's cave suspenseful? Did Bilbo come across as a sneaky hero?
Was Luke's fight against Darth and the Emperor exciting? Did Luke come across as a hero?
Was Die Hard just one big mindless action fest? Did Bruce come across as a hero?
If you answered the questions the way I did, you'll find that a real fear of death on the part of the "audience" isn't necessary for a story to be suspenseful, or for the protagonists to be heroes.
Now, gaming is different: the audience and the protagonist are one and the same. But as far as death is concerned, the DM is the ultimate author, and the players are the ultimate audience.
The players, I suggest, don't need to fear death for their characters in order for the game to be suspenseful or exciting, or to feel that their PCs are heroes.
The PCs, on the other hand, need to fear death.
For the first 15 years of my DMing, I don't recall ever killing a character. Yet people told me that my battles were pretty exciting, pretty suspenseful -- they regularly ended with only one or two party members standing. I often fudged results to achieve this: I'd add abilities, hit points, or spells to monsters to make them tougher, and I'd remove the same thing to make monsters weaker.
I saw my job to put fear of death into the PCs' minds, not the players' minds. The players could feel the fear vicariously and still have fun, just as they did when reading the Hobbit.
I'm still loathe to kill PCs too often, and I'll fudge on the fly to minimize death if I need to. In fact, I killed a PC three sessions ago, and the game has been so grim since then that the fun factor has gone way down, I think.
It's definitely an issue all DMs should think about, and it's an absurd issue to get up on a high horse about. Different types of games encourgae different approaches: a four-color action game can survive PC death, whereas a low-fantasy game with lots of angst can become unbearable.
Daniel
When you first read the Hobbit, what did you think were the chances that Bilbo would get killed by Smaug?
When you first saw Return of the Jedi, what did you think the chances were that Luke would be killed by Darth or the Emperor?
When you first saw Die Hard, what did you think were the chances that Bruce Willis would die?
Now, lemme ask some more questions:
Was Bilbo's scene in Smaug's cave suspenseful? Did Bilbo come across as a sneaky hero?
Was Luke's fight against Darth and the Emperor exciting? Did Luke come across as a hero?
Was Die Hard just one big mindless action fest? Did Bruce come across as a hero?
If you answered the questions the way I did, you'll find that a real fear of death on the part of the "audience" isn't necessary for a story to be suspenseful, or for the protagonists to be heroes.
Now, gaming is different: the audience and the protagonist are one and the same. But as far as death is concerned, the DM is the ultimate author, and the players are the ultimate audience.
The players, I suggest, don't need to fear death for their characters in order for the game to be suspenseful or exciting, or to feel that their PCs are heroes.
The PCs, on the other hand, need to fear death.
For the first 15 years of my DMing, I don't recall ever killing a character. Yet people told me that my battles were pretty exciting, pretty suspenseful -- they regularly ended with only one or two party members standing. I often fudged results to achieve this: I'd add abilities, hit points, or spells to monsters to make them tougher, and I'd remove the same thing to make monsters weaker.
I saw my job to put fear of death into the PCs' minds, not the players' minds. The players could feel the fear vicariously and still have fun, just as they did when reading the Hobbit.
I'm still loathe to kill PCs too often, and I'll fudge on the fly to minimize death if I need to. In fact, I killed a PC three sessions ago, and the game has been so grim since then that the fun factor has gone way down, I think.
It's definitely an issue all DMs should think about, and it's an absurd issue to get up on a high horse about. Different types of games encourgae different approaches: a four-color action game can survive PC death, whereas a low-fantasy game with lots of angst can become unbearable.
Daniel
I've been in that situation myself, and I am firmly in the "No death" camp. I don't have fun if I have to play a cautious PC all the time, always minmaxing and using paranoid tactics, always fearing that all my work (background, history, sketches) put into my PC might be for naught thanks to a "mistake" of the player. I don't want to put MY OWN tactics, mind and luck against the DM, I want to play a role. Don't bother to "challenge" me - I am not playing D&D to show of tactics, solve puzzles and optimize numbers - just let me take part in a captivating story.
If someone cannot roleplay a PC that fears death even thought the player knows the PC will not die (not without a warning before, and a way out) then I don't want that someone in my group.
If someone cannot roleplay a PC that fears death even thought the player knows the PC will not die (not without a warning before, and a way out) then I don't want that someone in my group.
Darkness
Hand and Eye of Piratecat [Moderator]
I dislike happy endings, having been spoon-fed too many unnecessary ones by Hollywood and the like... Rather, I prefer Greek drama and some Japanese genres. In which the protagonist usually dies - sometimes even without fulfilling his ultimate goal.
That said, dead PCs might make for very intense moments, but they can really hurt continuity. In one-shot games, this is not an issue, but in campaigns it is.
Thus, in the long-running campaigns that are the norm for D&D, it's usually a bad idea to let a PC die in a non-climactic scene. Of course, killing a PC or two every now and then in such a fashion can't be avoided if the players screw up, but otherwise, it should.
In the situation that you describe, Alaska, it's hard to say whether the paladin's death had been appropriate or not. On one hand, it was a very tense, exciting moment of battle and the death of fantastic creature. Letting the paladin die would have been very dramatic, and reinforced the heroic, epic feel of the scene. But on the other hand, modern-day western audiences aren't too accustomed to fantasy heroes dying in the moment of their victory. So there is no hard-and-faster answer to this situation.
But there is answer to the means you used to save the paladin's life. Direct divine intervention is no mean feat; it is some of the most epic, dramatic situations that can occur in a game. Myself, I just would have fudged some dice or left the paladin some other kind of escape - if I wanted to save him, of course. But you chose a much more epic path. I could talk at length about what this means for your campaign, but I shall instead point you to Piratecat's excellent post which expresses it better than I could without spending great effort on it.
That said, dead PCs might make for very intense moments, but they can really hurt continuity. In one-shot games, this is not an issue, but in campaigns it is.
Thus, in the long-running campaigns that are the norm for D&D, it's usually a bad idea to let a PC die in a non-climactic scene. Of course, killing a PC or two every now and then in such a fashion can't be avoided if the players screw up, but otherwise, it should.
In the situation that you describe, Alaska, it's hard to say whether the paladin's death had been appropriate or not. On one hand, it was a very tense, exciting moment of battle and the death of fantastic creature. Letting the paladin die would have been very dramatic, and reinforced the heroic, epic feel of the scene. But on the other hand, modern-day western audiences aren't too accustomed to fantasy heroes dying in the moment of their victory. So there is no hard-and-faster answer to this situation.
But there is answer to the means you used to save the paladin's life. Direct divine intervention is no mean feat; it is some of the most epic, dramatic situations that can occur in a game. Myself, I just would have fudged some dice or left the paladin some other kind of escape - if I wanted to save him, of course. But you chose a much more epic path. I could talk at length about what this means for your campaign, but I shall instead point you to Piratecat's excellent post which expresses it better than I could without spending great effort on it.
Rashak Mani
First Post
I think Darkness and Piratecat got it right on the head...
If you feel the DM is pulling punches and raising the dead easily... why play smarter ? Why should you be scared ? Afterall you will be up and playing again as soon as the clerics arrive...
I have played games where raising wasnt difficult and it was fun... its not necessarily always bad... but usually it shall be... but the DM pulling punches and the players knowing it is the worse part...
If you feel the DM is pulling punches and raising the dead easily... why play smarter ? Why should you be scared ? Afterall you will be up and playing again as soon as the clerics arrive...
I have played games where raising wasnt difficult and it was fun... its not necessarily always bad... but usually it shall be... but the DM pulling punches and the players knowing it is the worse part...
Similar Threads
