On the Importance of Mortality

[shilsen]

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.

I'd go even further (as indicated by my previous posts, especially the last one and the question to RC) and say that I seriously do not see how having death in the game provides anything even close to "final consequences". In such discussions I've previously seen and participated in, I've never seen anyone come up with a good explanation for why it should be seen as such. The only real way that death can be a "final consequence" is if the player has to quit playing when the PC dies (which is why your Blackleaf picture was very apropos). Otherwise, since the player will either have the PC raised or play with a new PC, there is no lasting consequence.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The only real way that death can be a "final consequence" is if the player has to quit playing when the PC dies

I don't buy this even for a second.

If that were a true statement, then there wouldn't be a "no-death" or a "death-lite" camp. In fact, the difference between "revolving door" death and real death was codified in earlier versions of the game by the loss of Consititution as well as System Shock and Resurrection Survival rolls. When you died, you simply could not be certain that there would be a "reset".....and even if there was, you lost something.

Nor would it be possible for Mallus to have non-death final consequences in his campaign, apart from booting the player....and then, of course, one could argue that wasn't a final consequence because the player might find a new game.

Losing a game of chess, IMHO, is a final consequence. That it is still a part of another string of events that might have another final consequence (such as a chess tournament) is immaterial. A thing can be both a final consequence (in the sense that I defined the term: no chance of redress) and part of an ongoing process.

A material loss that cannot be replaced (such as the destruction of an artifact) is a final consequence. The loss of loved ones who cannot be simply raised is a final consequence. Events that forever change the way important NPCs see you, for better or worse, is a final consequence. Death, when it cannot be simply reversed, is a final consequence.

That you can continue to game beyond these consequences doesn't undo them.


RC


P.S.: The more I look at what constitutes a "final consequence" in this sense, the more I realize that these are precisely the things that 3.X mitigates against. No limits to resurrection, wealth by level, buy or create new items to undo loss, etc. 4e is apparently moving even farther away from consequence. Not surprisingly, these are also things that I have houseruled back into the game.

 

[shilsen]

I don't buy this even for a second.

I'm not surprised. But since the definition of final consequences, especially with regard to a game like D&D, is mostly a matter of taste and semantics, that hardly matters. As I indicated, everyone will define final consequences in their own way, so arguments based on some sort of Platonic final consequences (and the idea that death is some kind of special consequence has been bandied about constantly in this thread) have little validity.

Losing a game of chess, IMHO, is a final consequence. That it is still a part of another string of events that might have another final consequence (such as a chess tournament) is immaterial. A thing can be both a final consequence (in the sense that I defined the term: no chance of redress) and part of an ongoing process.

A material loss that cannot be replaced (such as the destruction of an artifact) is a final consequence. The loss of loved ones who cannot be simply raised is a final consequence. Events that forever change the way important NPCs see you, for better or worse, is a final consequence. Death, when it cannot be simply reversed, is a final consequence.

That you can continue to game beyond these consequences doesn't undo them.

In view of the above, it seems a little unnecessary, IMNSHO, to fetishize death in the game as something special. After all, it seems you can conceive of lots of (to you) final consequences that don't involve death. So arguing that death is particularly important seems a little unnecessary. And comments like the one I quoted, namely:

My problem occurs specifically when the players know that, regardless of their actions, and regardless of their choices, they're always going to have another chance. No consequence is final. IMHO, that turns the games into Snakes & Ladders....except that you have to start over whenever you might have won until your kids succeed. Winning is hollow (although the degree by which you win might not be) because you can just keep slogging away until you happen to succeed. And after the sixth or seventh time that the BBEG tosses you into an inescapable death trap, or a slave labour camp, or whatever, instead of just killing you, the voice of Scott Evil seems to get overwhelmingly loud.......

Conversely, when you know you can lose -- not just have a setback, but lose -- then you know that you've earned your victory. It may be true that D&D is "always a bunch of people sitting around a table rolling dice and talking about the imaginary things their imaginary friends did" but chess is likewise always two people pushing pieces around a chessboard....that doesn't mean that it's okay to cheat, or that you want your opponent to throw the game to give you a false sense of victory.

also seem unnecessary, since clearly it's possible that one can not be killed by the BBEG and still be defeated or face some, as you put it, final consequences. In short, it seems like you're arguing at cross purposes and contradicting yourself at various points in the thread.

P.S.: The more I look at what constitutes a "final consequence" in this sense, the more I realize that these are precisely the things that 3.X mitigates against. No limits to resurrection, wealth by level, buy or create new items to undo loss, etc. 4e is apparently moving even farther away from consequence. Not surprisingly, these are also things that I have houseruled back into the game.

Looking at the examples you provided above, that seems a gross simplification. 3.xe mitigates against "the destruction of an artifact" or the "loss of loved ones who cannot be simply raised" or "events that forever change the way important NPCs see you, for better or worse"? Really? I must be reading a very different rulebook to you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

fetishize death

Getting a bit dramatic, are we?

Looking at the examples you provided above, that seems a gross simplification. 3.xe mitigates against "the destruction of an artifact" or the "loss of loved ones who cannot be simply raised" or "events that forever change the way important NPCs see you, for better or worse"? Really? I must be reading a very different rulebook to you.

In any other edition, I could have written "the destruction of a magic item" and listed dozens of ways in which it could happen over the course of a single play session.

By 3.X RAW, there is no such thing as a dead person who cannot be restored to life, and this possibility no longer has the drawbacks (or even the level requirement to cast the necessary spells) of earlier editions.

By 3.X RAW, a high enough Diplomacy roll will change the way important NPCs see you back to where you want it to be.

Indeed, we must be reading different rule books. I am reading the ones put out by WotC. What are you reading?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

it seems like you're arguing at cross purposes and contradicting yourself at various points in the thread.

Sure. There is no doubt whatsoever that my position has evolved over the course of this thread, as I have been presented with things to consider. From my point of view, this is a good thing. The purpose (for me) of being involved with this sort of discussion is to expand my horizons, not to become more firmly entrenched in my initial position (although that might happen if the discussion seems to indicate to me that my initial position was correct).


RC

 

[Reynard]

Sure. There is no doubt whatsoever that my position has evolved over the course of this thread, as I have been presented with things to consider. From my point of view, this is a good thing. The purpose (for me) of being involved with this sort of discussion is to expand my horizons, not to become more firmly entrenched in my initial position (although that might happen if the discussion seems to indicate to me that my initial position was correct).


RC

You're doing ti wrong. You are supposed to repeat your assertions over and over agian, with an increasingly adversarial tone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're doing ti wrong. You are supposed to repeat your assertions over and over agian, with an increasingly adversarial tone.

You're thinking of the 4e forum. This is the General forum.

RC

 

[shilsen]

Getting a bit dramatic, are we?

People are expressing - apparently seriously, as far as I can make out - the opinion that death of imaginary characters in a game is a lasting consequence, a component in practicing heroism, etc. For me, that's amusing as hell and is a pretty decent fit for at least one definition of fetishism.

In any other edition, I could have written "the destruction of a magic item" and listed dozens of ways in which it could happen over the course of a single play session.

You don't have destruction of magic items in 3.xe?

By 3.X RAW, there is no such thing as a dead person who cannot be restored to life, and this possibility no longer has the drawbacks (or even the level requirement to cast the necessary spells) of earlier editions.

Incorrect. Raise Dead and Resurrection both have serious limits to what they can bring back. True Resurrection seems to have only one major one (can't bring back someone who's died of old age), but that one's 9th lvl, after all.

By 3.X RAW, a high enough Diplomacy roll will change the way important NPCs see you back to where you want it to be.

I've always taken the info under retries for Diplomacy, namely that "Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far," as a serious limit on Diplomacy. But clearly you read it differently.

Indeed, we must be reading different rule books. I am reading the ones put out by WotC. What are you reading?

See above.

Sure. There is no doubt whatsoever that my position has evolved over the course of this thread, as I have been presented with things to consider. From my point of view, this is a good thing. The purpose (for me) of being involved with this sort of discussion is to expand my horizons, not to become more firmly entrenched in my initial position (although that might happen if the discussion seems to indicate to me that my initial position was correct).

Perhaps I'm misreading, but it seemed to me that your points had contradictions in phrasing which weren't due to an evolving position, and that you were generally arguing for the initial one.

So what would you say your current position on the subject of death in the game is?

 

[Raven Crowking]

People are expressing - apparently seriously, as far as I can make out - the opinion that death of imaginary characters in a game is a lasting consequence

Within the context of the game, Shilsen. Not within the context of the lives of the players.

You don't have destruction of magic items in 3.xe?

Not permanently. And given Item Creation feats, per RAW, and the general idea that you can buy any item in a large enough town per RAW, even if it was permanent you could replace it.

Incorrect. Raise Dead and Resurrection both have serious limits to what they can bring back. True Resurrection seems to have only one major one (can't bring back someone who's died of old age), but that one's 9th lvl, after all.

Correction accepted.

But that is still small potatoes in terms of 1e limitations, for example.

Likewise with Diplomacy.

So what would you say your current position on the subject of death in the game is?

Encapsulated in post 162: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4023367&postcount=162

 

[Lanefan]

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...

My games go on, once started, for a very long time; and I don't pull punches. Thus, even if your character is played cautiously and is reasonably lucky, sooner or later the odds will almost certainly catch up with it.

I say almost certainly, because there was one noteworthy exception: the very first character in my Telenet game went through a 7-year 25-adventure career without dying. No other character in any of our games (mine or others, 1e or 3e) has got beyond half that, though a few have got into their 13th adventure before dying.

The main reason I put the warning in, however, is actually not to hammer home the certainty of death, but to warn players that Bad Things can and will happen to their characters. This way, if there's tantrums later over a dead or otherwise unhappy character, I need only point to the warning... (I've had players in the past where this has come in *very* handy)

Lanefan