Is Dying Such a Bad Thing?

[CleverNickName]

Ah, TOON. I forgot about that game. It's the most fun you can have with an imaginary mallet. I'd give you some XP for the trip down memory lane, Nifft, but apparently I need to spread it around a bit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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).

Sorry, Nifft, but I have to call shennanigans.

You are conflating two types of risk, and then drawing a conclusion that only follows if they are the same. The player may not be at physical risk of harm if the character dies, but that doesn't mean that there is no risk, or that nothing is lost.

In this thread, we have already the claim that the entire campaign is lost in the case of a TPK, as well as the claim that enjoyment is lost in the case of a single death. If there is nothing at risk, then these posters must be mistaken or lying. I do not believe that to be the case.

IFAICT, the reason that there is a playstyle difference in this case (death/no death) is because there is a risk. If there was no risk of loss associated with characters dying, it would be the same either way, and no one would care.

IMHO, the fact that we are having this conversation at all strongly implies that there is a real difference, and that people perceive a real risk related to a real loss (real in experiencial terms, not in Real Life terms). (EDIT: Although if you gain no use from modules you bought because a TPK means you scrap the AP, then that qualifies as a Real Life risk, albeit a limited one of funds and time invested.)




RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

A certain amount of PC turnover is, imo, good for the game, keeping things interesting. But too much is harmful.

I have a suggestion - only some players' PCs can die. Once, say, half, the players' PCs have perished then the gates of death close for the remaining players' characters. They cannot die. The new PCs still can though.

For example, there are four players - A, B, C and D. Player A's first PC dies and then player B's PC dies. After that point player C and D's PCs are immune to death. However player A and B's new characters are still death vulnerable.

This is a compromise, to keep the good parts of death but avoid the total loss of continuity.

 

[Henry]

Tragic figures are pretty common in "all media." It's not uncommon for a story to end with the main character dying.

Heck, in the 47 Ronin, just about EVERYBODY dies. It's like Titanic, but with suicidal samurai.

 

[Bullgrit]

I have a suggestion - only some players' PCs can die. Once, say, half, the players' PCs have perished then the gates of death close for the remaining players' characters. They cannot die. The new PCs still can though.

"I don't have to outlive the BBEG, I just have to outlive you."

Bullgrit

 

[Doug McCrae]

"I don't have to outlive the BBEG, I just have to outlive you."

You have a good point there, it might lead to the players being too keen to see other players' PCs die.

Even more than they are already. And that's quite a lot, down my way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see this as a conflict between gamism - the need for the game to be challenging, and narrativism - the desire for a satisfying story.

I feel certain that there are those who would agree with you, but I tend to think of the possibility of character death as being necessary for a satisfying story as well. 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.

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.

Conversely, though, there are lots of stories about the protagonists going in after others have met their horrible deaths. There are games where it is suggested that players take the roll of minor characters as a sort of prologue, to foreshadow the dangers the primary PCs will face.

In a more traditional rpg, it is not yet known who the "real story" will be about. Indeed, there is no "real story". The story of the guys who died trying is just as much a story as that of the guys who came after and succeeded.

One could even make the argument that the choice is between a more complete, or a more focused, narrative.


RC

 

[Nifft]

Sorry, Nifft, but I have to call shennanigans.

You are conflating two types of risk, and then drawing a conclusion that only follows if they are the same. The player may not be at physical risk of harm if the character dies, but that doesn't mean that there is no risk, or that nothing is lost.

Absolutely wrong. I'm telling someone who has declared all types of games which don't constantly risk PC-death "wanking" that:
1/ All RPGs are effectively "wanking" from a genuine risk perspective; and
2/ There are plenty of kinds of risks that are NOT PC-death.

You've spotted the former, but somehow missed the latter.

these posters must be mistaken or lying.

I've seen this exact turn of phrase used in another thread as a strawman. Why must everyone be lying?

Regarding TPK as a "real risk" while everything else isn't: imagine your whole 18th level party just lost all their magical gear, contacts, and political clout. How is that NOT just as bad as a TPK?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mallus]

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".

Leaving aside the question (and definition) of stakes in fiction, most serial adventure protagonists survive to star in their next story. Note the whiff of tautology here. I don't know what you consider good, but it's easy to put together a list, spanning a century or so, of popular and enduring characters, from the likes of Holmes, Tarzan, John Carter, and Conan to Bond, Kirk, John McClane and Jack Bauer, who surmount insurmountable odds on a fairly regular basis.

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.

Suspend our disbelief? I'd say we deliberately seek out, with all possible speed --especially if you own an e-reader-- that happy, tidy, ending, or, barring that, one that at least implies there's a certain level of meaning and comprehensibility in life.

Bad things will happen, but the storyline will almost certainly resolve in a satisfying way... and the audience is okay with that.

Most people actually like the conventions of the genre stories they choose to read/watch/consume. Only the curmudgeonly ones purport to merely 'accept' them.

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.

I'm super-leery of phrases like 'natural consequences' when applied to deliberately non-naturalistic/unrealistic genre fiction. What can it mean other than 'conventions'? The natural consequence of 007 tangling with a SPECTRE mastermind is the mastermind loses, his undersea base gets ruined, and James ends end on a raft w/a beautiful woman.

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.

'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 gamed with people who are more willing to support and maintain the game's fiction, without needing to poke at every boundary as if they were playing a computer game.

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.

I've played in several campaigns with little or no permanent death played in high-heroic mode. The players where interested in maintaining a specific tone and had no interest in camp.

(and I'd hate to see insincerity mar a game where elves fight carnivorous Jello, but that's neither here nor there)

An aside to Mallus, and apropros to nothing:

Spoiler

You're assuming that either the transgendered PC --Roxy Huzzah, BTW-- was designed to be an object of ridicule or the player isn't capable of playing the role as anything but an ugly stereotype in blackface, or virtual drag, as the case may be. That's uncharitable, to put it nicely. The character is great; strong, fabulous, unabashedly queer-positive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1/ All RPGs are effectively "wanking" from a genuine risk perspective; and
2/ There are plenty of kinds of risks that are NOT PC-death.

You've spotted the former, but somehow missed the latter.

If by "genuine risk" you mean bodily risk to the participants, I would hope so. That doesn't mean that some games do not offer more risk than others, or that the "non-genuine risk" -- the risk you mention in your point 2 -- are co-equal.

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

It is obviously possible to have a game where there is no PC death, but there is genuine risk. When MtG allowed the winner to take cards from the losers, that certainly offered genuine risk.

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.

I've seen this exact turn of phrase used in another thread as a strawman. Why must everyone be lying?

I doubt they are.

If a group of people state "A is B", but you deny that "A is B", then you are also denying that these people are making a true statement. If they are not making a true statement, it is either through error (they are mistaken) or through intent (they are lying).

And that is why it isn't a strawman.

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.

Regarding TPK as a "real risk" while everything else isn't: imagine your whole 18th level party just lost all their magical gear, contacts, and political clout. How is that NOT just as bad as a TPK?

Well, I can't answer for everyone, but apparently some folks lose their game over the TPK, but not over the equipment, contacts, and clout. Moreover, it is presumably easier to replace/restore equipment, contacts, and clout than it is to restore the TPKed (and, possibly, consumed) party.

Finally, if the gear has value X, the contacts value Y, the clout value Z, and the lives value A, then losing the party entails losing X + Y + Z + A, whereas losing everything else but staying alive entails losing only X + Y + Z. That's simply the math of it.

In the case of a single character dying, where the character is restored with all equipment, contacts, and clout intact, it might well be better to die and come back than it is to live and lose everything. If, of course, and only if, everything is actually lost, and if, and only if, you actually are restored.


RC