Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?

[Mallus]

Is dying so bad? No. But I prefer campaigns death-lite. So long as my characters can fail --that is to say, the campaign is still a game and victory/loss conditions exist-- I'm happy taking PC death off the table.

I like games that resemble literary picaresques, or genre television shows. The cast of characters bounce from adventure to adventure, winning some, losing others, but (relatively) safe in the fact their adventures will continue until the last page, or cancellation.

Whedon's Firefly might be the best example of my ideal campaign. Mal and Co. certainly lose, but they always live to lose another day. Well, until they were canceled.

The main thing I get from gaming is creating and performing amusing characters. I dig making personalities. But I only have a finite number of interesting characters knocking around my head. Especially ones proven to click with the rest of my group.

So the only consequence of PC death for me is scraping the personality I enjoy playing and making another one, but not the same personality, because that would be weird and damage campaign verisimilitude'. This hoop-jumping seems a tad silly to me. Ergo, my group moved towards using loss conditions other than permanent PC death.

Making a character in mechanical terms is easy. Making a personality I want to perform for a few month, or years, is not. This is why the old-school 'bring 5 replacement PC's to each session' paradigm doesn't work for me.

That said, my current campaign is following a self-destructive trajectory as the PC's edge close to fomenting a ecclesiastical/Communist revolution against their city's elite, which they'll almost certainly lose. The smart money is on my PC ending up on a cross. Which would be perfect... and perfectly fine by me because it would also mean the end of the campaign in suitably grand and batty style.

 

[Umbran]

But I seem to be in the minority. Or am I? Anyone agree with me here?

I think there's two different things:

1) Having a game where there's often some credible risk of failure and possibly death.

2) Taking an in-game risk which is nigh suicidal.

These are not the same thing. You sound like you are talking about (1), but the situation you describe seems to be (2). I would expect your fellow players were reacting to (2).

I expect the PCs to behave... at least similar to real people of at least marginal sanity. They'll take some measured risk fairly frequently (and sometimes fail or die). But I don't expect them to toss their lives away unless it is highly important (and dramatically appropriate and fitting for the character).

 

[Odhanan]

Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?

It's not a bad thing, to me, or at least, it shouldn't be. Characters dying is part of the game. Whether it's because of strategic/tactical mistakes, hazards, or fighting the desperate fight, the constant possibility of death makes the game much more interesting for me to play, not less.

The real trouble comes from the time that would potentially be required to create a new character. That's the real issue that could become a problem to me when my character dies. I want a game that allows for great lethality, and allows me to just come up with a new character concept and create a replacement in a few minutes tops.

That's a part of the rationale making OD&D (1974) and AD&D 1e my D&D games of choice.

 

[the Jester]

I run a high-lethality game. When I play, I prefer to play in a fairly high-lethality game.

I don't usually mind dying, but some deaths are cooler than others, and the cooler ones are the ones that you always remember. I have no problem with "meaningless" deaths, but they certainly are less satisfying!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sort of like if you're playing a video game, you die, and you're not allowed to play that game any more - you are only allowed to play new games. Rinse and repeat.

Why would you have to do this?

I have no problem with "meaningless" deaths, but they certainly are less satisfying!

Unless they are funny!

 

[Rechan]

Why would you have to do this?

... because it's kinda hard to continue a campaign after a TPK?

 

[rogueattorney]

... because it's kinda hard to continue a campaign after a TPK?

Why?

The world's still there. The NPCs are still there. The dungeon is still there. The situation the pcs were involved in is still there. The players and the DM are still there.

Roll up some new pcs and go back at it.

 

[Rechan]

Why?

The world's still there. The NPCs are still there. The dungeon is still there. The situation the pcs were involved in is still there. The players and the DM are still there.

Roll up some new pcs and go back at it.

Because the world doesn't stop happening when the PCs die? Usually they're on some task that, failure means the Villain Won (which depending on the adventure can mean apocalypse et al)? And just teleporting new PCs in hampers continuity? That the new PCs dont' have the info the old PCs have, which very well can mean success?

Not Everyone Runs A Sandbox.

 

[billd91]

Especially when you tell grown men they're all high school cheerleaders camping in the woods. Within seconds, there's a pillow fight, skinny dipping, and full-out lesbianism. NOW we're talking about some wanking.

Dude, too much information.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because the world doesn't stop happening when the PCs die? Usually they're on some task that, failure means the Villain Won? And just teleporting new PCs in hampers continuity?

Not Everyone Runs A Sandbox.

Unless the Villain Winning means that the world ends, I am not seeing the problem here. The "story" shifts focus (assuming no sandbox), but there is no reason not to continue the game.


RC