Obviously, he didn't learn his lesson and he keeps killing THEIR favorite PCs!
Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?
- Thread starter EP
- Start date
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Honestly, character death has never been a big deal in any of my games. Sometimes a character is just unlucky...adventuring is a risky career choice, after all. The players seem to accept the risk and the consequences without complaint.
My players seem to get more bent out of shape over their characters losing a level, than when their characters actually die (unless, of course, death results in actual level loss.)
In D&D, there are fates worse than death. And apparently, one of them is level loss.
My players seem to get more bent out of shape over their characters losing a level, than when their characters actually die (unless, of course, death results in actual level loss.)
In D&D, there are fates worse than death. And apparently, one of them is level loss.
Technically, if you're sending your character into a predicted and essentially guaranteed death, you're not encountering a "chance" of failure in the sense that I suspect you mean. What you're doing is quite scripted. And if your actual goal was to die nobly in battle, then you haven't "failed" in any meaningful sense of the term. So... in terms of encountering a "chance of failure," a character who intentionally goes to a guaranteed doom is encountering exactly as much "chance of failure" as a character who stays safely at home. Both characters are doing what they intended and accomplishing what they planned, and neither has an appreciable chance of not accomplishing their intended ends.
As for the general issue... I feel like "chance of failure" gets abused as a phrase. There's really two ways of using it.
The first would be, "If I make the right decisions or perform the right actions I will succeed, but If I am wrong I will fail. There is a chance that I will not be wise enough to make good decisions or perform the correct actions, therefore there is a chance I will fail."
The second is, "Even if I make the right decisions, there is a real world chance that I will fail. Given enough trials, eventually I will fail even though I made wise decisions."
To give an example, suppose I am playing a card game of deduction in which I need to figure out what card you are holding. I decide that if my reasoning is correct then it is absolutely 100% certain that you are holding an Ace of Clubs. I guess Ace of Clubs. At this point there is a chance that my impressions regarding my reasoning are incorrect, and that I have reasoned improperly. If so, I will lose. This is a "chance of failure" in the first sense.
Now imagine a second game, perhaps a wargame. I have successfully outmaneuvered your forces with my own, and now our troops will exchange fire. I have bonus modifiers for high ground, for protective embankments, for enfilading you, for having air support, and for having a secure supply line. In fact, I have all possible bonuses in the entire game. With all of my modifiers in place, I need to roll at least a 3 in a 2d6 in order to win. This is a "chance of failure" in the second sense, because even though I have done literally everything possible to ensure my success, I still might roll a 2.
I tend to prefer the first sense in which I've defined the phrase.
Random factors push you towards the second sense of the phrase, but they don't guarantee that it's dominant. One way random factors can help the first sense of "chance of failure" is by randomizing events so that you have to adjust tactics and react to unexpected advantages and setbacks. In general, a high random factor pushes you towards the second sense of "chance of danger." 4e seems to be designed to have a relatively high random factor on individual attacks, but to require a series of them during which you will see highs and lows. Your character is then provided with certain remedial measures to take when the lows start to dominate, such as using second wind or rare powers. This interplay is generally called "strategy." And just as a high random factor can enhance the second sense of the phrase "chance of failure," the type of strategy I've outlined can enhance the first.
As for the general issue... I feel like "chance of failure" gets abused as a phrase. There's really two ways of using it.
The first would be, "If I make the right decisions or perform the right actions I will succeed, but If I am wrong I will fail. There is a chance that I will not be wise enough to make good decisions or perform the correct actions, therefore there is a chance I will fail."
The second is, "Even if I make the right decisions, there is a real world chance that I will fail. Given enough trials, eventually I will fail even though I made wise decisions."
To give an example, suppose I am playing a card game of deduction in which I need to figure out what card you are holding. I decide that if my reasoning is correct then it is absolutely 100% certain that you are holding an Ace of Clubs. I guess Ace of Clubs. At this point there is a chance that my impressions regarding my reasoning are incorrect, and that I have reasoned improperly. If so, I will lose. This is a "chance of failure" in the first sense.
Now imagine a second game, perhaps a wargame. I have successfully outmaneuvered your forces with my own, and now our troops will exchange fire. I have bonus modifiers for high ground, for protective embankments, for enfilading you, for having air support, and for having a secure supply line. In fact, I have all possible bonuses in the entire game. With all of my modifiers in place, I need to roll at least a 3 in a 2d6 in order to win. This is a "chance of failure" in the second sense, because even though I have done literally everything possible to ensure my success, I still might roll a 2.
I tend to prefer the first sense in which I've defined the phrase.
Random factors push you towards the second sense of the phrase, but they don't guarantee that it's dominant. One way random factors can help the first sense of "chance of failure" is by randomizing events so that you have to adjust tactics and react to unexpected advantages and setbacks. In general, a high random factor pushes you towards the second sense of "chance of danger." 4e seems to be designed to have a relatively high random factor on individual attacks, but to require a series of them during which you will see highs and lows. Your character is then provided with certain remedial measures to take when the lows start to dominate, such as using second wind or rare powers. This interplay is generally called "strategy." And just as a high random factor can enhance the second sense of the phrase "chance of failure," the type of strategy I've outlined can enhance the first.
WheresMyD20
First Post
Just off the top of my head...
King Arthur
Beowulf
Elric
Corum
King Leonidas (300)
William Wallace (Braveheart)
Maximus (Gladiator)
You might want to note that a couple of those haven't YET been made into movies or TV shows, and exist only as literary figures.
So far.
So far.
Not in my experience. While the system is rather deadly it also provides the magical means to deal with it. It wasn't difficult to get access to potent 'buff' spells. In our games severed limbs were often flying all over the place but putting the pieces back together wasn't particularly hard.
That is, as long as we were fighting against (monstrous) humanoids, like broo. Something like a dragon was a different beast...
And then there was this terrible fatal accident one of my characters had after trying to stop a horse from running away by grasping its tail...
WheresMyD20
First Post
The original poster did say "all media," which would include books.
The list could also include
Roland
Achilles
Hamlet
Macbeth
Richard III
Tragic figures are pretty common in "all media." It's not uncommon for a story to end with the main character dying.
Doug McCrae
Legend
I see this as a conflict between gamism - the need for the game to be challenging, and narrativism - the desire for a satisfying story. (Going by the strict Forge definition it may well not be nar, but I'm using nar in a broader sense here.) Stories where the protagonists keep dying and new ones are brought in - like Lord of the Rings but with four different Fellowships - are not normally going to be good stories, they are much too disjointed. In order for the game to be challenging, the players have to be able to fail and failure must mean something. This usually equates to a dead PC.
Banning PC death, but having failures other than death - loss of equipment, PCs are imprisoned and have to escape, being forced to do a mission by the foe who defeated the PCs (quite common in our D&D games), bad consequences for the game world such as the village the PCs are trying to defend being destroyed, the bad guys getting their hands on the MacGuffin - seems like a good way to satisfy both the needs of gamism and narrativism.
This won't work so well if victory for the bad guys leads to massive negative game world changing consequences however. A lot of the GM's prep could be wasted, plots destroyed, etc.
Banning PC death, but having failures other than death - loss of equipment, PCs are imprisoned and have to escape, being forced to do a mission by the foe who defeated the PCs (quite common in our D&D games), bad consequences for the game world such as the village the PCs are trying to defend being destroyed, the bad guys getting their hands on the MacGuffin - seems like a good way to satisfy both the needs of gamism and narrativism.
This won't work so well if victory for the bad guys leads to massive negative game world changing consequences however. A lot of the GM's prep could be wasted, plots destroyed, etc.
It sucks, but it happens. My long time 1E fighter that I had played from first to 10th level had been mauled, mangled, and even raised once. He was in a group that could have up to 14 people at any one session and was the only melee combatnt one day and couldn't hold the line all by himself afgainst Dire Wolves and a Death Knight while the casters all cowered in fear. It was a glorious battle against the odds where everyone else lived and when it was done, I was still okay with being raised. A couple of weeks later we had to sneak past a guard post. The Wizard took him along on his teleport and :bonk* rolled low, 60' in to solid rock.
That sucked.
That sucked.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
The "juvenile" aspect is irrelevant. What I'm targeting in your post is the derogatory aspect.
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"?
See, the fact is, RPGs are a no-risk activity. Even if your PC dies, you lose nothing. You can claim to enjoy it better when your PC is at risk, but even then you are exactly as safe as the guy who's playing TOON (where PC death is literally impossible, IIRC).
Character death doesn't matter, except as a matter of play-style preference. There are plenty of ways to model failure which don't involve death. There are even plenty of ways to enjoy a game which doesn't have much in the way of failure -- not everything in every game is competitive. The improv aspects, for example, would be rather dreadful if one were to replace the cooperative default with risky competition.
Your comments thus far are typical BADWRONGFUN, and they don't really deserve better than a glib response. Aren't you lucky to have gotten better than you gave.
Cheers, -- N
Similar Threads
