On the Importance of Mortality

Counterspin said:
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.

I certainly don't want to argue with your fun, but if I might, I'd remind you that nothing in real history has made political intrigue more interesting than the deaths of important noble/royal individuals. (I'm not saying kill em all; I am merely suggesting that a death would not necessarily immediately ruin the game.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mallus said:
I wasn't arguing for the universality of my position, I was arguing against the implied universality of Reynard's.

Inferred. See the very first line of the very first post.
 

shilsen said:
Raven Crowking said:
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.

Yeah, that's saying death is the primary (most important) consequence of failure. Happy to admit that I am wrong.

It is still not a suggestion that death should be the most common (or even a common) consequence for failure. Jack7's point, so far as I understand it, is that if there is not some final cut-off from which a situation cannot be salvaged, there is no real possibility of failure.

(As an analogue, in Star Trek: Generations it is arguable that, once Picard got into the Nexus, any result would either deposit him in the Nexus -- thus giving him another chance -- or prevent him from entering the Nexus -- meaning he succeeded. Once he got into the Nexus, there wasn't much of a chance that he could fail. Barring, of course, his death.)


RC
 

Raven Crowking said:
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, you're doing that thing you do again... spending a lot of energy (and verbiage) in an attempt to misunderstand what someone's saying. I'm not talking about the 'possibility' of PC death. I'm talking about PC death. Itself.

If a PC dies (and isn't Raised), no more consequences can befall that character.

Permanent death ends a PC's story. Ergo, no further consequences from that PC's POV.

If the character lives, they can suffer other consequences and pursue new goals. For instance, revenge.

Clearer, yes?
 

RC, you're doing that thing you do again... spending a lot of energy (and verbiage) in an attempt to misunderstand what someone's saying. I'm not talking about the 'possibility' of PC death. I'm talking about PC death. Itself.

If a PC dies (and isn't Raised), no more consequences can befall that character.


Though I know what you mean, that character in game terms probably no longer advances, gains levels, etc., which would seem to be the point of the modern and current version of the game. So death seems like a termination, so to speak, of all that is important in a game in relation to that character, and perhaps even that party. But that doesn't mean the game has to be that way by necessity.

Death can yield some interesting consequences in fantasy (and fantasy gaming) and literature depending upon how it is met, and to what end. I give you the Lich, the Spectre and Wraith, the ghost of the father of Hamlet, Herakles going into Hades to free the dead, and of course, Dante's Virgil...

The dead, especially in the context of fantasy, myth, literature, comics, even some science fiction, can exist as either spectral haunts, a source of doom, a spiritual oracle, a witch's familiar, a relentless Nemesis, or even the guide to uncover injustice or to advise on safe passage through the undiscovered country. The dead can also be played well in both very spiritually oriented games, and in horror games.

It depends entirely upon how one plays death, in what manner, and how it operates.

In my games we have had the dead serve as guides and allies, transmuted into angelic like beings, as inspiration to achieve some unaccomplished end (the heroic death of one character which spurs on the other party members to greater heroism in order to accomplish what the dead could not), as omens, as ghosts and shades, and once as a nearly unstoppable and vicious Nemesis (a former character) determined to hunt down his killers with such brutality and vengeance that eventually the playing party had to mount a hunt to stop him before he slaughtered everything around him.

Death, like life, depending on how it is executed (pun intended) can yield some interesting consequences for play.
You can, instead of playing it as the end, play it as a surprise turn of events, which leads to terra unfamiliar and the land of the dead. The dead can be the secret whisper of an unknown tongue. The language of death is readable in fantasy, and it lingers on long after physical and character death.


Note: By the way, it isn't that hard (I've done it) to prepare a list of possible outcomes of what might occur to a character post death. Everything from moving on to an afterlife, to transmutation into something else, to becoming a ghost, to soul entrapment, to even reincarnation or resurrection in some unique or strange way.
 
Last edited:

Without having read the whole thread (which I will do following this post), I have two obervations:

First: Did you guys seriously all get together and decide to replicate THIS thread? :)

Second: I've heard several people make the observation that D&D is a game about being a hero. This is patently untrue, and misses the point. D&D is a game about maybe - maybe - BECOMING a hero; the uncertainty is what makes it a game, and you a hero. Maybe you make it, maybe you don't - but if you were automatically gonna get there, you really needn't have bothered in the first place. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
 

DestroyYouAlot said:
D&D is a game about maybe - maybe - BECOMING a hero; the uncertainty is what makes it a game, and you a hero. Maybe you make it, maybe you don't - but if you were automatically gonna get there, you really needn't have bothered in the first place. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
My present character is a hero.

He was at level 4, and he remains so at level 12. Death and mortality are two occasional adversaries he battles. Corruption and pride are continuous foes that have managed to defeat him twice, but then he has risen twice afterwards.

I decided that was the character I was going to play at character creation time. The dm didn't have much input into this decision except to confirm that it was an appropriate character for the campaign we're playing.

A hero is much more than just a character with a high kill ratio.
 

DestroyYouAlot said:
Second: I've heard several people make the observation that D&D is a game about being a hero. This is patently untrue, and misses the point. D&D is a game about maybe - maybe - BECOMING a hero; the uncertainty is what makes it a game, and you a hero. Maybe you make it, maybe you don't - but if you were automatically gonna get there, you really needn't have bothered in the first place. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

This is your opinion, not a fact. Not everyone shares it either.
 

FreeTheSlaves said:
My present character is a hero.

He was at level 4, and he remains so at level 12. Death and mortality are two occasional adversaries he battles. Corruption and pride are continuous foes that have managed to defeat him twice, but then he has risen twice afterwards.

I decided that was the character I was going to play at character creation time. The dm didn't have much input into this decision except to confirm that it was an appropriate character for the campaign we're playing.

A hero is much more than just a character with a high kill ratio.

I don't quite understand how this statement conflicts with what DYA wrote or how what he wrote implies a "high kill ratio".
 


Remove ads

Top