• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

On the Importance of Mortality

Templetroll said:
One of the first things I learned as a DM was that a campaign in which no one dies soon will.

How many scenarios attract the attention of heroes due to the death or deaths of others? Is death only for NPCs? The scenario situation that starts off with a death should hold that potential for the characters trying to resolve it. It doesn't have to happen all the time but the potential should be there, the players need to know that their characters can die.

In my experience, it is the exact opposite: Where character death is common, campaigns die because there is no continuity, no attachment, no meaning. Often, the only consequence one has in such a "campaign" is that each death means a new, stronger character, with the latest splat book integrated, and the feat choices optimised for the new starting level.

Also, played as written, character death is essentially a time out - and forced "breaks" are bad for the enjoyment of the game. I don't really attend a gaming session so I can sit it out just because I rolled 2 instead of 3 in the first round.

In my experience, campaigns where characters do not die work very well, provided the players are mature enough to play them without metagming, i.e., without acting as if the characters knew they would not die, and if playing with a DM that knows that death is not the only possible consequence for failure.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jdrakeh said:
I don't agree with this, personally. I think there should be a threat of death in combats that matter (i.e., combats that are central to a given adventure) but I've seen the above attitude used to justify the death of a supposed hero at the hands of a peasant with a broken stick in systems (including D&D) that employ critical hits -- and, really, if a peasant with a broken stick can hand your ass to you ever, you weren't much of a hero to begin with. You were a joke and pretending otherwise is pointless.

Whether or not a character is a hero is for history to decide, not the players or even the DM. How many tried to kill Grendel and failed? The only name we remember is Beowulf, because he was the one who did it. He was a hero because he fought and won; he didn't fight and win because he was a hero.

More directly, playing with "heroism" as a goal implies a sort of predetermination of "story" that I don't like. I prefer "heroism" and "story" and "drama" and "tragedy" and all the rest to emerge from play as a natural result of the process and the game. IME, trying to create that stuff on purpose usually fails, expecially in D&D because there's so little in the way of "narrative control" available to anyone one the dice start rolling (especially if the DM believes in letting the dice fall where they may and rolling in the open in front of the players any time practical).
 

jdrakeh said:
I agree with all but the last sentence. There is an entire successful sub-industry of RPGs devoted to giving players the kind of narrative control which you seem to think can only succeed in driving players away from the table. Multiple companies and several RPG products seem to suggest that the reality is quite a bit different. There is an established market for games that give players a large degree of narrative control including (and, perhaps, especially) the right to narrate their own character's death.

Just to be clear, my statement about players walking away from the table was in relation to the DM deciding arbitrarily that a PC would die, not about player control over the PC's death.
 

The Grumpy Celt said:
What do you mean by punative? Becuase anytime they make any mistake that results in their death, it could be said it was punative.

Aside from this, I agree with most everything you've said.

But it isn't a punishment handed down by the DM for being stupid or lazy or playing poorly; it is a natural result of play, based on a large number of circumstances, not the least of which is inherent uncertainty.
 

Fenes said:
In my experience, it is the exact opposite: Where character death is common, campaigns die because there is no continuity, no attachment, no meaning. Often, the only consequence one has in such a "campaign" is that each death means a new, stronger character, with the latest splat book integrated, and the feat choices optimised for the new starting level.

Character death doesn't have to be common, it just has to be possible. There's a subtle difference. In fact, if character death is possible, it should become less common. Players won't raise the stakes to that level unless they have to (the fight with the townie should be a brawl, not a mortal engagement), they'll make more sound tactical and strategic decisions, and they will engage preventative measures to avoid nasty, sudden death.
 

Reynard said:
Character death doesn't have to be common, it just has to be possible. There's a subtle difference. In fact, if character death is possible, it should become less common. Players won't raise the stakes to that level unless they have to (the fight with the townie should be a brawl, not a mortal engagement), they'll make more sound tactical and strategic decisions, and they will engage preventative measures to avoid nasty, sudden death.

Exactly. As I found out, in games where character death was possible, I minmaxed, took pains to always take the most efficient, safest course of action, and generally tried to use any and all means to reduce the risk of character death.

It was not a fun game at all.

These days, I have much more fun in a game, knowing I can play a lot more characters, and not just the "smart, tactical, cautious approved-by-the-local-powergamer-for-survivability" ones.

Not everyone wants to play a game like you describe. The threat of character death affects my game play in a way that ruins my enjoyment of the game exactly because it forces me to either play tactically, and not in character, or accept that I won't be able to play the characters I want for as long as I want.

And, the older I get, the less I am willing to spend a lot of time doing stuff I do not really want to. If I play a roleplaying game, I want to play it so I have fun. Character death means I don't have fun.
 

Fenes said:
Not everyone wants to play a game like you describe. The threat of character death affects my game play in a way that ruins my enjoyment of the game exactly because it forces me to either play tactically, and not in character, or accept that I won't be able to play the characters I want for as long as I want.

And, the older I get, the less I am willing to spend a lot of time doing stuff I do not really want to. If I play a roleplaying game, I want to play it so I have fun. Character death means I don't have fun.

I fully appreciate that fact, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I am merely pointing out that character mortality has a profound impact on play -- whether that's good or bad is entirely based on any given individual's preferences. Onwe player I have *hates* character death (when he's not DMing). We essentially can't game together -- which sucks but is better than letting "fun" get in the way of friendship.
 


I have the actual threat of death in my games. I also tend not to have Raise Dead/Resurrect easily available to the PCs. Death is hard and terrible.

That said, death happens rarely, and usually only as a result of conscious gameplay in my campaigns. I'll use examples from my Paridon campaign to demonstrate.

To that end, I design encounters based on how I want the story to flow at any given point in time. I have three different basic kinds of encounters: the Showcase Encounter, the Dramatic Encounter, and the Climactic Encounter.

The Showcase Encounter's purpose is to get the blood pumping and build feelings of accomplishment (with a bit of caution) in the characters. It keeps them engaged, and builds them up to meet the greater challenges later. This includes stuff like random orc raid, bandit attack, mooks of the BBEG, that sort of thing. The story is about how cool the PCs are. It gives them the chance to show off. Death is extremely rare in a Showcase Encounter. PCs might fall unconscious, but if, say, an orc crits for 45 damage, I'll handwave it and knock the PC out. No one wants to die to a faceless minion. So, I don't let it. Defeat is possible, but unlikely. If everyone's defeated, they are.

For example, in one such encounter, the party dodged a horse-drawn carriage, and the party's monk chased it down while the cleric shot at bad guys effectively. A pitched battle on top of a careening carriage later, the day is saved. The party took damage that was healed away, but everyone ended the battle standing and victorious.

The Dramatic Encounter is much more dangerous. Its purpose is to demonstrate the powers of the PCs' foes, create fear, and ratchet up the tension. Once again, death is rare, but defeat is much more likely. Ambushes and frightening moments are examples of Dramatic Encounters, as are initial introductions of the BBEG. It is possible to die in a Dramatic Encounter, but since it's meant as a demonstration, death doesn't serve the story purpose or entertainment purpose as well.

Paridon has had two such moments. The first Dramatic Encounter involved the PCs trying to take a mask off a protesting mook--which then suddenly exploded. The PCs were suddenly down to single-digit HP, their captured mook was dead, and everyone realized what the stakes were. In the second Dramatic Encounter, the PCs meet the mysterious murderous monster they are after, for the first time. He proves to be more than a match for the entire party, wipes the floor with them, and leaves. No one died, but everyone knew to fear him, loathe him, and keep tabs of the various powers he manifested to try to protect against later. It's quite possible that someone could have died in this second encounter, but prudence saved the party's lives, and death was not the goal, so it wasn't pursued.

The Climactic Encounter is typically the final encounter, the great showdown against the BBEG, where life and death hang in the balance. Death is definitely possible, and here is where I'll let the dice fall where they may. By now, the players should understand the threat they face. They should be (at least somewhat) ready for it. If a PC must die, this is definitely the time to do it, making a stand against the tides of evil. The action should be gripping, success uncertain, and demise foretold. Even here, though, prudence can save the PCs' bacon many times here.

In Paridon's Climactic Encounter, the PCs found the BBEG again, in a burning building. They braved the flames, met the BBEG, and stunned it through the use of LOTS of explosives. The building moaned like a great dying beast, and everyone knew it was on the verge of collapse. However, the party's paladin was not going to let the monster continue its reign of terror no matter what, and stayed in the danger zone to finish off the beast. The combination of the room collapse, the fire everywhere, and the monster's attacks killed the paladin--but he managed to kill the monster in the collapse as well. It was worth the sacrifice.

My campaigns tend to be more story-driven, and so I find this sort of structure is valuable. I certainly wouldn't use it in a dungeon-crawl style adventure or a campaign that focused less on plot and more on incremental improvement--in that case, there needs to be consistent danger to reap consistent rewards. But it's one way in which PC death can be managed while maintaining the "fun" of the game without constant paranoia on the part of the PCs.
 

Reynard said:
Just to be clear, my statement about players walking away from the table was in relation to the DM deciding arbitrarily that a PC would die, not about player control over the PC's death.

Well. . .

Reynard said:
. . . if it is inevitable, the only behavior it fosters is the players getting up and leaving the DM's table (as well it should). Nor should players be given control over their own mortality in a narrative context ("I want to die heroicly on the High Clerists Tower") for much the same reason.

That's not at all clear.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top