Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Glyfair" data-source="post: 3700207" data-attributes="member: 53">But if there are significant negative repercussions to this activity, why does the threat have to be death?&nbsp; There are plenty of bad things you can do to characters because of rash actions that death doesn't have to be the main threat.I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be negative repercussions to unwise and rash activity (or other activities that might seem appropriate).&nbsp; I definitely feel there should be.&nbsp; But why is taking death out of the equation (or at least mostly out of the equation) generally considered uunacceptable?Here are some possible negative consequences:PC is taken captive and ransomed back without his equipment.PC is outlawed and no longer allowed to roam freely around his normal base of operations (town, country, etc).PC has permanent damage with negative consequences that are difficult or impossble to heal (lost eye, crippled limb, etc).NPC tied to the PC is put in the power of an adversary of the PC.PC is cursed by an adversary deity (not a curse removable by remove curse).PC's deity removes their favor from the PC and he loses use of some abilities, or they aren't reliable.PC is &quot;almost dead&quot; and requires being moved through enemy controlled territory to get healed.Sure, many of these are situational and some of these won't work in some campaigns.&nbsp; In less immersive campaigns the PC may not care that their mother thought they were dead and became engaged to the evil overlord.&nbsp; Use something that will motivate the player.&nbsp; Some of these require house rules, but that should be expected in a game where the players know they are very unlikely to die.We all know James Bond isn't going to die in his movies.&nbsp; However, we still felt his torture in Casino Royale.&nbsp; One of the most moving moments in the movies is in On Her Majesty's Secret Service when his wife is killed by Blofeld hours after their wedding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Glyfair, post: 3700207, member: 53"] But if there are significant negative repercussions to this activity, why does the threat have to be death? There are plenty of bad things you can do to characters because of rash actions that death doesn't have to be the main threat. I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be negative repercussions to unwise and rash activity (or other activities that might seem appropriate). I definitely feel there should be. But why is taking death out of the equation (or at least mostly out of the equation) generally considered uunacceptable? Here are some possible negative consequences: PC is taken captive and ransomed back without his equipment. PC is outlawed and no longer allowed to roam freely around his normal base of operations (town, country, etc). PC has permanent damage with negative consequences that are difficult or impossble to heal (lost eye, crippled limb, etc). NPC tied to the PC is put in the power of an adversary of the PC. PC is cursed by an adversary deity (not a curse removable by remove curse). PC's deity removes their favor from the PC and he loses use of some abilities, or they aren't reliable. PC is "almost dead" and requires being moved through enemy controlled territory to get healed. Sure, many of these are situational and some of these won't work in some campaigns. In less immersive campaigns the PC may not care that their mother thought they were dead and became engaged to the evil overlord. Use something that will motivate the player. Some of these require house rules, but that should be expected in a game where the players know they are very unlikely to die. We all know James Bond isn't going to die in his movies. However, we still felt his torture in [I]Casino Royale[/I]. One of the most moving moments in the movies is in [I]On Her Majesty's Secret Service[/I] when his wife is killed by Blofeld hours after their wedding. [/QUOTE]

Verification