Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?

[Rechan]

Fine. Assuming you're not just being glib because "wank" is a juvenile word that invites equally juvenile drive-bys, why does character death even matter? If we're in hippy dippy everything is equal land... why does there even need to be a rulebook, a screen, or even a group?

Should I just edit my comment to remove wank and change it to "may as well not bother with the books, dice, and maybe even the players"?

Aside from "The players", several games do get rid of the rulebook, or screen. Some games literally are "pass the story stick".

If you really want to say "If my character can't die, there's no point in showing up", if that's how it is for you, sure thing. But I don't think death is the end all be all that RPGs hinge on?

Honestly, when it comes to an RPG all the rules trace back to one question. "I want this to happen. Does it?"

 

[Mallus]

Since you know nobody important can die, the only thing at stake is the foregone conclusion that there will be another episode.

Doesn't this imply there's nothing at stake in the game beyond the PC's survival? A paucity of PC deaths shouldn't mean an absence of interesting consequences for failure -- or are you saying that under an S&S framework, survival is the only thing of consequence in the narrative?

Also, Sam Raimi's fantasy shows, with the exception of Legend of the Seeker, but including The Adventures of Briscoe County, Jr. were hugely entertaining.

From there it all descends into camp eventually.

I was about to argue the point until I remembered my current 4e campaign features PC's like a transgendered Goliath who wouldn't be out of place on RuPaul's Drag Race and an absinthe-swilling survivalist/poet who calls himself Artur Rambo...

... so you may be on to something .

(actually, while I agree camp is certainly one possibility for a death-lite game, it's no more likely than, for instance, striking a high-heroic tone)

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're welcome to start the pole, RC.

Only if it's 10 feet, and comes with a mule.




RC

 

[coyote6]

Don't forget the rope! Always forgetting the rope.

Wait, this isn't the equipment thread.

This is why WotC didn't include mules. They knew the danger of them spreading, all uncontrolled. Soon they'll be everywhere, all mulish and the like. They knew, and we mocked them! We laughed! But they knew! They knew!

 

[Mallus]

Only if it's 10 feet, and comes with a mule.




RC

This meme demands a t-shirt:

D&D players do it with a 10ft. pole and a mule.

On second thought...

 

[Janx]

Oh, clearly 100% correct, but it did bear pointing out.



In things like NoES, F13 and Halloween, only a few characters have survived. Most survivors in those series showed up after the villain has been disabled or restrained. Some survive for 1 or 2 movies, then die. Some survive, but in a state of diminished sanity or with horrible injuries.

Other franchises, though, are less forgiving.

Something this part of the conversation is touching upon:

in a single shot story, be it move, book, whatever, then all bets are off on who lives or survives. The GM, writer, director gets to make each death useful (in his storytelling context).

In a continuing series, like franchises, comics, tv shows, etc, the protagonists have to have plot immunity in order to make it to the next episode and have it make sense. The old trick is to kill a protagonist to prove plot immunity wrong, then requires a raise dead trick to bring them back for the next season/episode.

Horror movies are more analogous to one shots where the only continuing character is the villain.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I don't like dying too many times. I don't like having to create a lot of characters and I like to see my characters to grow as they gain levels or xp. Dying too many times prevents that.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IMO character death is fine, but it shouldn't be equated with failure.

Death only creates the illusion of failure, because most of the time when a character dies the player can just roll up another. Joe the Fighter replaces John the Cleric (deceased).

I much prefer plot-oriented failure in lieu of death. The evil wizard succeeding with his ritual and nuking Pleasantville from orbit imparts a far more significant sense of failure IME, because beloved NPCs under the PCs' protection are now dead. Their game world has been changed, and not for the better. Of course, you can use both types of failure, but if the new PCs aren't associated with Pleasantville in some way, it will distance those players from that failure.

The greatest loss resulting from death is that the player potentially loses the ties he had to NPCs and prior events. As far as I've seen, that's generally a negative result that impacts the gaming group as a whole. Joe doesn't have John's friendly rivalry with the Duke, and thus the group loses out on what could have been some very entertaining role play.

Character death is, for the most part, a minor change in the overall "story". Protagonist A leaves the cast of characters and Protagonist B takes his place. Same story, different character. I find that as a consequence of failure death, more often than not, fails.

 

[Uder]

Doesn't this imply there's nothing at stake in the game beyond the PC's survival? A paucity of PC deaths shouldn't mean an absence of interesting consequences for failure -- or are you saying that under an S&S framework, survival is the only thing of consequence in the narrative?

Well, I was referring to certain types of bad TV shows - especially syndicated shows that require a certain status quo be maintained so the episodes can be shown in any order. There generally is more at stake in other forms of fiction, but in good adventure fiction, lasting harm can and does occur to the characters we might consider "PCs".

It's not just S&S for me - for nearly all adventure fiction we suspend our disbelief that the thing won't just be resolved in a nice tidy happy ending. Bad things will happen, but the storyline will almost certainly resolve in a satisfying way... and the audience is okay with that. Once you start to remove too many other natural consequences though, we begin to roll our eyes and page ahead to the end so to speak. This is true in gaming too. Attention wanders. Play becomes irreverent or unfocused, and players begin push at the boundaries of the game in ways that further serve to collapse the mutual disbelief that comes from a stonkin' good game.

Also, Sam Raimi's fantasy shows, with the exception of Legend of the Seeker, but including The Adventures of Briscoe County, Jr. were hugely entertaining.

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for enjoying them, but... I disagree.

I was about to argue the point until I remembered my current 4e campaign features PC's like a transgendered Goliath who wouldn't be out of place on RuPaul's Drag Race and an absinthe-swilling survivalist/poet who calls himself Artur Rambo...

... so you may be on to something .

(actually, while I agree camp is certainly one possibility for a death-lite game, it's no more likely than, for instance, striking a high-heroic tone)

Well, I'm talking more of the idea of reveling in banality than cultural camp, but yeah. High heroism without possibility of death is campy and insincere to me - and once the players stop taking your game seriously I've found it's hard to raise the bar back up.

An aside to Mallus, and apropros to nothing:

Spoiler

Without getting too heavy, I'd also like to comment in a completely knee-jerk way that a game where a person's sexual preferences and status were treated as joke material would be outside the realms of my taste, much akin to inserting a Stepin Fetchit or Speedy Gonzalez sound-alike NPC. I'm probably being over-sensitive.

 

[howandwhy99]

New PCs start at Level 1, 0 Experience.

So character death isn't the joyride it's cracked up to be. But since seeking death means you'll likely never reach high levels, it's best not to get yourself in situations like 1000 man army against your party. Either that or your DM is cheating.