On the Importance of Mortality

[shilsen]

Generally speaking though, most people know a hero when they see one, and they know that most folks can be heroic to some extent or another, and that even the greatest of heroes has his flaws. So I never said there was only one hero, only that it is an ideal it is worth working towards.

I'll only go so far as a "Maybe" on that, because the possibilities for variant definitions makes that potentially risky. Hitler definitely saw himself as a hero and we all know how that one worked out!

Or it could also be about dice and hit points. Or class and race. Or gold and iron. But there is often a difference between means and intent. And what something is built out of, and what it is built for.

Sure. I just don't buy what you often claim that the intent of D&D originally was, and pointed out one other intent which was arguably just as important.

And a person sitting around imaging that he will be heroic is probably (though it is no guarantee in real life that he will be) better than sitting around imagining he will be cowardly or riskless or spend his life all in dreams of what he could have been had the die roll gone some other way.

I'm glad you threw a "probably" in there. I can see a lot of laudable reasons for imagining being cowardly or riskless or a lot of other things. Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes before deciding those shoes don't fit can be a pretty good thing.

Heroism is certainly a better goal to shoot for than the opposite and probably why the character classes in the game are all adventurous (which originally meant inclined towards hazard) and daring, and why one plays Rogues and Rangers and Wizards, instead of accountants and gardeners and librarians. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but most folks just don't see the point of the bother of playing Tom the Tax Attorney. Unless Tom the Tax Attorney is a secret identity for Doc Savage. Then that might be a game worth playing.

I honestly don't think the game involves the kind of characters it does because heroism is seen as laudable in some way. I find it much more believable that it does because playing a capable and action-oriented character, especially one who does things that don't happen in real life, is seen as fun. And because inflicting violent death is seen as entertaining. And because fantastic wish-fulfilment can be fun.

So yeah, a teenage fantasy of playing a heroic character can't go anywhere in and of itself. But if it spurs a dream towards real manhood in real people then that's better than no dream at all. And every reality starts somewhere. Even if that reality is just a fantasy of what has yet to happen. But might with a little work.

I agree that it might. I just disagree that D&D was designed to achieve that or that it's any better at achieving it than just sitting in your room imagining you're a hero. And I certainly don't buy that the commonality or treatment of death in someone's game has any impact on it whatsoever.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

After all, unless you boot a player when his PC dies, he's just going to get another PC to play with. So no consequence is final.

Seriously, I'm not clear on if the "final consequences" being touted are supposed to motivate the player or the character. If the player, death doesn't do that, because the player gets to keep playing. Some folks here have indicated that it shouldn't even change the player's level of integration in the story. If the point is to roleplay as if the character is motivated by the fear of death, I'm not seeing why the mechanics should have any impact on that if you can roleplay that fear with a fully replaceable PC.

 

[Jack7]

I just don't buy what you often claim that the intent of D&D originally was, and pointed out one other intent which was arguably just as important.

Well, if it's a point buy system then I guess we can both get along.

I honestly don't think the game involves the kind of characters it does because heroism is seen as laudable in some way.

Heroism is laudable.
But we can agree to disagree on that one.

I agree that it might.

There is an old saying, "You can't really convince a man into anything. He's willing to try it, or he's not." However,

I just disagree that D&D was designed to achieve that or that it's any better at achieving it than just sitting in your room imagining you're a hero.

I never said it was better than anything, certainly not better than real life. I just said it could be useful if properly employed.

 

[Lanefan]

And I won't ever play a game where PC death could force me to stop playing the character I want to play. I want to have fun, and that means playing what character I want.

One of the warnings in the introduction to my game was (and will be again) that no matter what, inevitably sooner or later your character *will* die, and may or may not have the opportunity to return to play thereafter.

Further, if for whatever reason the character you want to play is a disruptive s.o.b. in a party that doesn't work well with disruptive s.o.b.'s, what then?

Lane-"disruptive s.o.b. character since 1984"-fan

 

[Fenes]

One of the warnings in the introduction to my game was (and will be again) that no matter what, inevitably sooner or later your character *will* die, and may or may not have the opportunity to return to play thereafter.

Further, if for whatever reason the character you want to play is a disruptive s.o.b. in a party that doesn't work well with disruptive s.o.b.'s, what then?

Lane-"disruptive s.o.b. character since 1984"-fan

I'd not play in the game. The game is supposed to be fun, and if it isn't, then something is wrong. If I cannot play with some people in a way so we all have fun, then I don't play with said people.

I don't get why anyone thinks I should sacrifice my fun for others, or expect them to sacrifice theirs for mine.

 

[Shadeydm]

I'd not play in the game. The game is supposed to be fun, and if it isn't, then something is wrong. If I cannot play with some people in a way so we all have fun, then I don't play with said people.

Are you saying you wouldn't play in that game because your character might die?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Lanefan is quite clear that there is no question of 'might' in his game - your character's death is a certainty. No doubt this is a player driven request...

 

[Fenes]

Are you saying you wouldn't play in that game because your character might die?

I think I made that clear in my very first post in this thread - the threat of PC death ruins a game for me, I found that out by playing in such campaigns. I noticed how I did not play my character like I wanted, but tended to min max stats, go for the most powerful/safest build/gear combo, and minimise risks in game. Not fun for me.

So, yes, I would not play in a game where my character might die (unless it's high-level RAW D&D, where Death is just a speed bump, and resurrection just around the corner. But house ruled "death is final" "death hurts" games? No, thanks, not my cup of tea.).

I do understand though why those campaigns are fun for people, just as I understand that just because I don't like a certain dish does not mean the dish is bad, just that tastes differ.

 

[Shadeydm]

Sorry RC, I stand corrected aside from the death-lite camp (of which I count myself among) there apparently is a no-death camp.

 

[Fenes]

Sorry RC, I stand corrected aside from the death-lite camp (of which I count myself among) there apparently is a no-death camp.

I don't play without death - but death is always the player's decision, by picking an action, after a clear DM warning/information, that will risk/mean character death. Personally, I'd never pick such an action unless I was done with a character, so that makes me either death-lite, or nop death, whatever people want to label it as.