Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?

[Fifth Element]

'Push at the boundaries of the game' seems to imply all players inevitably become exploit-seeking lava-swimmers as soon as you dial down the campaign's lethality. That's just not my experience. I game with people who are more than willing to support and maintain the game's fiction, without needing to poke at every boundary.

That's a good point. One's perspective on this is presumably coloured by the players one has played with in the past.

 

[Mallus]

But, then, I am telling the story of the events which occurred, after the fact. I am not writing a story of events that will occur.

Aside from keeping the same protagonists, I'm not telling 'that which will occur' either. That's entirely up to my players.

 

[Nifft]

If by "genuine risk" you mean bodily risk to the participants, I would hope so.

Not quite. I mean risk to the participants, and that's not limited to bodily harm. Financial risks certainly exist -- gambling, playing for ownership of collectible cards, etc. -- as does reputation risk.

(And I do not agree that this risk is really "non-genuine".....it is genuine risk which is not risk of bodily harm.)

The distinction here has nothing to do with bodily harm. It has to do with risk to the characters vs. risk to the players.

But, just to be clear here, we are talking specifically about protection from a specific form of risk, where that protection involves "stepping down" the risk from a final form (PC death/TPK) to one which, to the participants, is "more interesting" but is certainly offers less risk.......just as a game which allows the same chance of PC death, but allows no means to restore the dead, is inherently more risky than the same game with Raise Dead added.

Only in systems where character generation is a chore. I recall when playing from the Red Box that we didn't much care about character death, because making a new one was so darn easy.

Losing a magic sword? That was a big deal. We couldn't just roll up a new one of those.

If a group of people state "A is B", and you are neither willing to believe them mistaken or lying, then the converse statement, "A is not B", must be viewed as suspect.

Nope. You're drawing a false dichotomy.

TPKs certainly are sufficient to end a campaign, but that in no way implies they are necessary.

Well, I can't answer for everyone

And yet you want to invoke their authority.

I'm happy to discuss this stuff with you, but let's let other people defend their own opinions. I'm fairly certain that those who have posted in this thread are capable of posting in this thread.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Odhanan]

Let's be honest now.

I can count on my hands the number of movies et al I've seen that ended with the main character 1) dead or 2) failing the mission and thus losing big.

So all media has the strong convention of the main character(s) going onwards. Typically audiences (at least American ones) do not like an unhappy ending. I mean, the only difference between one Bond movie to the next is 1) the villain and 2) How Bond Pulls It Off.

That doesn't mean it's any less entertaining.

That's why, to me, role playing games are most emphatically NOT movies, or stories.

When you play a character at my game table, you are expected to experience the game as an actual fictional world through your character, in terms of actuality, not storylines or plot. It's "like the real world". In RL, if you are careless and act stupidly, you die. There isn't some writer outside of the game ready to rewrite "the story", because this isn't a "story". This is actuality, reality from the characters' point of view.

 

[ggroy]

It's "like the real world". In RL, if you are careless and act stupidly, you die.

Or ending up in hospital or jail (or both).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not quite. I mean risk to the participants, and that's not limited to bodily harm.

No, not at all limited to bodily harm. And the minute you suggest non-physical risks are actual risks, the distinction between PC and player begins to get a bit hazy. Does character death entail an emotional risk? Certainly it does. Etc., etc.



Financial risks certainly exist -- gambling, playing for ownership of collectible cards, etc. -- as does reputation risk.

The distinction here has nothing to do with bodily harm. It has to do with risk to the characters vs. risk to the players.

Nope. You're drawing a false dichotomy.

Not at all. If I say, "A is B" and you say "A is not B", either I am mistaken or I am lying. If I say "A is sometimes B" and you say "A is sometimes not B", there is nothing logically incompatible with those statements.

Several people in this thread, and elsewhere, have suggested that there is a cost associated with character death. They are either mistaken, or lying, or neither mistaken or lying. If they are neither mistaken or lying, then the statement "there is no cost associated with character death" is, itself, incorrect.

If there is a cost associated with character death, which must be paid in the event of said death, then there is a risk involved with character death.

There is also a risk involved with losing a magic sword. But saying losing a magic sword is risky is one thing, and saying that this somehow mitigates against the risk of character death is another.

Again, a game that entails the possible risk of character death and the same risk of losing a magic sword as a game in which the only risk is losing a magic sword objectively has more risk. A + B > B, so long as both numbers have a positive value.

One may, of course, have a game in which the risk of death or losing a magic sword exists, but is substantially less than that of a game where losing a magic sword is almost a certainty. In this case, the second game (without PC death) may have greater risk.

But if that second game introduced any chance of PC death, without making any other change, it would also, by definition, be increasing the risk.

And yet you want to invoke their authority.

I'm happy to discuss this stuff with you, but let's let other people defend their own opinions. I'm fairly certain that those who have posted in this thread are capable of posting in this thread.

Surely you must be joking?

I am not "invoking their authority" -- I am pointing out that your question was answered before it was asked.


RC

 

[Mallus]

When you play a character at my game table, you are expected to experience the game as an actual fictional world through your character, in terms of actuality, not storylines or plot. It's "like the real world".

I approach role-playing from the opposite perspective. The 'actual fictional' worlds I want to experience are ones where the genre conventions associated with the actual fiction are in effect. In other words, they're not much like the real world at all.

In RL, if you are careless and act stupidly, you die.

But in most adventure fiction or a picaresques you don't necessarily. In fact, carelessness and stupidity are often rewarded with exciting escapades. This is one advantage the use non-lethal loss conditions have over permanent character death; they encourage swashbuckling and the playing of PC's that aren't required to be cautious hybrids of mercenaries and actuaries.

There isn't some writer outside of the game ready to rewrite "the story", because this isn't a "story".

A desire to hang on the same set of protagonists in no meaningful way implies a predetermined story. All it implies is whatever story does occur will be about those particular characters.

 

[Nifft]

No, not at all limited to bodily harm. And the minute you suggest non-physical risks are actual risks, the distinction between PC and player begins to get a bit hazy. Does character death entail an emotional risk? Certainly it does. Etc., etc.

I'm drawing a distinction between risks to participants and risks to characters. You can try to conflate them, but I suspect most people are able to tell one from the other.

Well, Jack Chick might agree with you... but I don't find his arguments very compelling.

Not at all. If I say, "A is B" and you say "A is not B", either I am mistaken or I am lying. If I say "A is sometimes B" and you say "A is sometimes not B", there is nothing logically incompatible with those statements.

Several people in this thread, and elsewhere, have suggested that there is a cost associated with character death. They are either mistaken, or lying, or neither mistaken or lying. If they are neither mistaken or lying, then the statement "there is no cost associated with character death" is, itself, incorrect.

Once more:
1/ a TPK is sufficient to end a campaign; and
2/ a TPK is not necessary to end a campaign.

The risk of campaign-ending failure is not the same as the risk of a TPK. The latter is a subset of the former.

You, and only you, are drawing this false equivalence, which leads to your false dichotomy.

There is no specific cost necessarily associated with character death. I've pointed out one example (from my experience) where character death was low on the group's list of concerns. That's going to vary by game system, by group, and by campaign.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

Losing a magic sword? That was a big deal. We couldn't just roll up a new one of those.

Which is why the only thing that seems to strike fear in the hearts of players are rust monsters and level draining undead.

 

[Rechan]

On the topic of TPKs, RC I notice a distinct lack of your participation in the thread about their finality of a campaign.

Unfortunately it lacks a 10' pole and a mule to sate you, but I'm acutely curious about your response to it.