On the Importance of Mortality

[FreeTheSlaves]

However Raven Crowking, I think this entire thread is basically all about the valorization of character death. It is being touted as the primary and best consequence for failure, and that it adds so much more to the game.

So in that regards Afrodyte's comment is a welcome tonic.

 

[Reynard]

However Raven Crowking, I think this entire thread is basically all about the valorization of character death. It is being touted as the primary and best consequence for failure

...in situations in which the characters lives are on the line. It is an important distinction. In situations where it is something else the characters are risking -- wealth, reputation, love -- loss of those are the primary and best consequences of failure.

I will say that I have never played with or even met a group who would rather have their characters shackled and thrown in the slave pits than be dead. IME, some fates are worse than death as far as most players are concerned.

 

[Mallus]

Or in this thread, for that matter.

But you did hear someone suggest that PC death precludes some of the more interesting and gameable consequences for failure.

 

[Mallus]

I will say that I have never played with or even met a group who would rather have their characters shackled and thrown in the slave pits than be dead. IME, some fates are worse than death as far as most players are concerned.

See, now this I don't understand. Protagonists in ongoing serial narratives are always getting thrown in slave pits, humiliated, robbed blind and otherwise ruined. As a player I look forward to that kind of thing. It's dramatic, and it gives my PC something to do. A wrong to right (or a right to wrong).

I like it when defeat = new goal(s) and not end-of-story.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I don't disagree with the idea that a character can die when fighting. The moment I jot down my character's hps, I have agreed to this possibility.

The crux on my beef with character death is the way it is handled in 3E. It is trivialized by the ease by which it happens and is disruptive to play by the unwieldy process to redress the situation. Crucially, the player's decisions are sometimes rendered irrelevant.

I would prefer death to occur after a period in which the player has multiple opportunities to evade it but chooses to push their character beyond their clearly defined limits. Essentially I'd like to put the player in the drivers seat to decide the risk their character is taking. Under these circumstances, the tension would ratchet up as the player pushes and pushes, while the other players and dm are screaming "no, don't do it!" Then, if death occurs, and it shouldn't be a forgone conclusion even under the circumstances, the player can legitimately accept the consequences because they accepted the risks. If on the other hand the character actually succeeds, well that would really be insanely heroic. (The mechanic for this appears to be a small pool of action points.)

 

[Counterspin]

I think Reynard is right, the threat of death does impact a game, but I don't think there's a absolute right and an absolute wrong. If I want a game to be ugly, brutal, and all those good things, I have death be a constant threat, though I will work to minimize it's occurence when the fault comes from me as the DM rather than the players. I think a lot of games don't want or need the constant threat of death, or would find it harmful.

In my current game, the players make up an entire tier/generation of a noble house, and character death would not suit my purposes because the characters are essentially irreplacable. The story is about the decisions made by the family, and thus there's little room for newcomers, story wise. While admittedly the players aren't as cautious in combat, this game is not heavily about the quality of combat, so that's okay.

 

[Raven Crowking]

However Raven Crowking, I think this entire thread is basically all about the valorization of character death. It is being touted as the primary and best consequence for failure, and that it adds so much more to the game.

AFAICT, it is being touted as an important potential consequence of failure. Nowhere do I see it being touted as the primary and best consequence for failure....though if you can point out to me where that is the case, I will be happy to admit that I am wrong.

Mallus suggests that "PC death precludes the more interesting and gameable consequences for failure", and I will concede that this is true if the DM is a bad DM. However, I would then argue that regardless of what we were discussing, a bad DM could use it poorly. Saying something can be misused does not imply that it has no value. Moreover, this sort of argument doesn't (IMHO) speak to the thesis of the OP, and hence is a straw man.

For example, I think loss of gear is another important potential consequence for failure. Therefore, I don't think that Sunder is unfun, or that rust monsters need to be muzzled. I think that missing out on treasure is an important potential consequence for failure, and gaining extra treasure is an important potential consequence for success. Therefore, I am no fan of the expectation that WPL guidelines must be met, or the suggestion that in 4e where the party misses treasure in Area A, you should simply add it to Area B.

I hold that the greater the variety of potential consequences (good & bad), the better.

I hold that the more fitting the potential consequences (good & bad) to the situation, the better.

I hold that, therefore, removal of any type of potential consequences (good or bad) from the game, is going to weaken the game.

(Individual groups are, of course, encouraged to use whatever subset of potential consequences they are most comfortable with, and/or that works best for them.)

RC

 

[Mallus]

Mallus suggests that "PC death precludes the more interesting and gameable consequences for failure", and I will concede that this is true if the DM is a bad DM.

It's also true when a DM (and players) is looking for something else out of the game. I know my group. For them, the end of their current PC's represents the least interesting kind of failure.

Saying something can be misused does not imply that it has no value.

And using something well does not imply that it has inherent value or universal applicability. And mind you, I didn't say death has no place in the game. I wasn't arguing for the universality of my position, I was arguing against the implied universality of Reynard's.

Moreover, this sort of argument doesn't (IMHO) speak to the thesis of the OP, and hence is a straw man.

Strawman? WTF?

I hold that the greater the variety of potential consequences (good & bad), the better.

So do I. Which is why my campaign's death-lite. Barring revivification, the "consequences" facing a dead PC are burial, cremation, and consumption by jackals. Damnit, I want more than that.

 

[shilsen]

I will say that I have never played with or even met a group who would rather have their characters shackled and thrown in the slave pits than be dead. IME, some fates are worse than death as far as most players are concerned.

Correct. Which is another reason why I don't kill my PCs. Only DMs who are wussies and pushovers and who like to mollycoddle their players are kind enough to kill PCs. I'm not that nice. There are so many worse things I can do to a PC than death.

Plus, if you kill a PC when he fails, that means he escapes. He doesn't have to live with the consequences of his failure. But in my game there is no escape. And as any good torturer knows, you never, ever kill the victim.

AFAICT, it is being touted as an important potential consequence of failure. Nowhere do I see it being touted as the primary and best consequence for failure....though if you can point out to me where that is the case, I will be happy to admit that I am wrong.

I think there are enough posts on this thread that at least strongly imply that death is the most important potential consequence of failure. While Reynard doesn't use those words in the original posts, it certainly makes that implication to me. And Jack7's post on the first page, which says that

You can't really be a hero if you are immortal or free of the threat of death, because then you are really free of all real threats. Any meaningful ones anyway.

says that without the threat of death there are no meaningful consequences for failure.

Personally, I'm happy to admit having almost precisely the opposite take on it. Death, for me, is one of the least interesting and most boring consequences for failure.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's also true when a DM (and players) is looking for something else out of the game. I know my group. For them, the end of their current PC's represents the least interesting kind of failure.

How, exactly, does the possibility of PC death precludes the more interesting and gameable consequences for failure when a DM (and players) is looking for something else out of the game? PCs can't be captured if they can also die? PCs can't be sold into slavery if they can also die? What, exactly, is precluded by the possibility of PC death? Certain PC immortality?

RC