Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?

[The Shaman]

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.

Actually, that's exactly what it means, to me.

I like roleplaying games because they can stick a thumb in the eye of those very same hackneyed conventions.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It has been determined by the DM General that such activity can be a serious health risk. Other than that, not so bad at all.

 

[ggroy]

Dying seems to be highly dependent on the particular players in question.

Over the years I've noticed many powergamer types I've played with in previous games, really hate dying under just about any circumstances. In several extreme cases, the players in question went up to the DM afterward and punched the DM in the face, over their highly optimized characters dying.

For most other players I've played in campaigns with, dying was just a fact of life in most rpg games. We just made up new characters, and/or started new campaigns afterward.

 

[Glyfair]

Even dying because of stupidity can be a great story. Heck....dying because of stupidity is almost always worth retelling. That's why the Darwin Awards are so popular.

Dying ineffectually doesn't necessarily mean because of stupidity. It could just be bad luck (a failure vs. a save or die effect, that you would normally make 95% of the time).

Please note that if death is the least interesting result of failure, because it has the least consequences for the PC, saying that "Dying (at least in terms of a TPK) means you lost everything" implies that it might be the most interesting form of failure for the player because it has the largest consequences.

Losing your character and having to start over isn't interesting to me. It could, with the right party, have interesting consequences for the rest of the party. Those groups, in my experience, are the ones who least want death as the main form of "failure."

Of course, a lot can be game specific. In Pendragon death is expected. In a full campaign, you are expected to play through generations of your family. Your final character in the campaign may very well be the grandson of your original character. Now that is interesting!

 

[Rechan]

In several extreme cases, the players in question went up to the DM afterward and punched the DM in the face, over their highly optimized characters dying.

 

[Barastrondo]

So this all brings up another question? Is the game still interesting if you are guaranteed that your character will never die? If you were assured immortality (at least as far as the highest level in whatever game you play), would you get the same thrill in playing?

Is the GM capable of coming up with potential results of failure that are at least as entertaining as death would be, and of crafting fascinating responses to all the things my character is doing apart from dying? If so, then I would assume the game would still be interesting. (To me, at any rate; obviously it would be less so to people who require the risk of death for things to be entertaining.)

I can see being bored with a game where death was not on the table as a possible result of failure, particularly if it was a rule that superseded any player choice of "no, really, I want my character to be seriously risking my life here." However, I think that'd be the result of other factors at play, specifically the GM's reasons for banning the Reaper and the execution of said reasons. Conversely, I can also see being bored with a game where the GM relied exclusively on the threat of death to add any sort of tension or spice, instead of going to other venues. But those are basically extremes. I'm fine with most any of the stuff in the middle, as long as the GM knows what he's doing and the players know what they're getting into.

 

[ggroy]

There's also the Old School style where you have to be cautious or you die

Runequest was like this.

Recklessly charging into combat was almost like instant death.

 

[Henry]

I'm fine with character death, because of three foregone conclusions for me:

1) If it's suitably entertaining or dramatic, I'm fine with it. Just last night in a Pathfinder game, one PC failed a series of checks that resulted her falling into a deadly trap and getting ground to a pulp. We were surprised that there was nothing else that could be done, but both the player was fine with it, and it made for a really dramatic moment as she just kept sliding beyond our reach as we watched helplessly as she died. (We were, um, hanging on for our dear lives at the moment, too.)

2) If it's not suitably entertaining, then I can still introduce a character with a different concept, different set of strengths, etc. to help ameliorate WHY the previous character died like a chump.

3) If it's no fault of my own, and a given DM is being a jerk on a power trip or some such, or if they just stink as a DM, I can take my turn at running a game so I can run a more fair and entertaining experience for people at the table.

 

[Henry]

Over the years I've noticed many powergamer types I've played with in previous games, really hate dying under just about any circumstances. In several extreme cases, the players in question went up to the DM afterward and punched the DM in the face, over their highly optimized characters dying.

So, how long was the jail or community service for 'em?

 

[ggroy]

So, how long was the jail or community service for 'em?

One person in question ended up in jail for several months, after agreeing to plead guilty. (It was not the person's first offense). Last I heard, this person was repeatedly beaten up by the other inmates in prison.