On the Importance of Mortality

[wolfen]

I think the discussion is most enlightening when we focus on "consequences" and less on "lasting."

There is consequence to the degree that the player feels it. And that's really the bottom line, anyway. Players that see their PC's as grist for the mill will hardly belch in protest when their character dies. After all, the player prolly flung them into the dragon's mouth anyway. Reroll? "Sure, I was wanting to try this other character anyway," he says, handing you the character sheet.

And so on...in degrees...until you get the "OMG YOU ALMOST KILLED KENNY! YOU BASTID!" player who would at least go home sulking, and might just quit the game for the DM's transgression. (I had one player quit after the PC's boarded up in a house to avoid the undead outside after sundown. But he left his horse tied to a post outside. Of course, the undead mutilated the horse. The player quit the game over his cleric's HORSE.) Lasting consequence? You bet. Not eternal, but certainly lasting. Sometimes it stings for a good while.

I agree with the posters who focus on "what do the players find enjoyable" but I think it should be a compromise (if necessary) with the DM. Frankly, I get bored of making sure pc's DON'T die. Why should it be my fault if the player is a boob and "gets his character killed." ?? But that's just me. So I negotiate with the players, and it has worked so far. They understand they can't run around naked fighting with their *ahem* swords and hope to survive, and I know that I should find believable ways to retain a well-played character who just got a bad die roll.

I still say it was his own fault the horse died.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

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.

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.

See, I can't fathom why you'd deliberately discourage player investment in their character. As it stands, the current rules already discourage player investment due to the excessive lethality. Adding to this problem, it sounds that regardless of how skillful you play you're character s/he's living is on borrowed time.

I'd be worried with seeing nameless half-orc barbarians with +4 greataxes and +1 chainshirts appearing in this type of game.

 

[sniffles]

It's probably already been said better by others, but I would contend that, depending on what you want out of your gaming experience, removing mortality from the game can actually make it more fun.

If players like to see their characters grow and develop over time, and look forward to each level as an opportunity to continue that development, risk of death can be an obstacle to enjoyment of the game.

 

[Jack7]

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

That made me laugh.

Adding to this problem, it sounds that regardless of how skillful you play you're character s/he's living is on borrowed time.

We're all living on borrowed time. But maybe Lanefane wants to see the characters in his game dead before his players are. It's just a thought.

But in all seriousness, nobody is saying, in all seriousness, that a person shouldn't develop their character to whatever extent they wish, just that nothings and nobody goes on forever.

If nothing else then one day player death will seal the death of most characters.
But also something else. If you play the same character ad infinitum without death or at least retirement then you limit yourself entirely to exploring that character (lessin you play several different characters). But in a game like this you can assume many personas, and maybe it is good that you can and that should be exploited.

Of course I understand your point that you don't wanna be putting on a new face every second level, or assuming a new character persona every 5th level because your current characters get wiped out before you can do anything interesting. I'm in sympathy with that view because as I've said earlier even most wounds and injuries in combat are not fatal and many times death and disaster can be avoided with cleverness and experience. And of course no-one, hero or not, should rush recklessly towards death for no very good reason at all, (but then again you shouldn't run away from it for some not very good reason, like cowardice or selfishness) so one of the points of every expedition is to survive, is it not? You do all you can to survive.

Of course that doesn't mean the world owes you survival either, a lot of that is up to you and how you behave and how well you prepare to survive any given circumstance.

I guess in game situations it's always a sort of situational call, whereas in life it is often more a personal matter.

I'm definitely Pro-Death in the fact that this is the way of the world, and of fantasy worlds too, because after all if you're killing, somebody is dying, ain't they? Sauce for the gander.

Then again I'm Pro-Life in that it don't necessarily have to be you doing the dying if you're smarter, tougher, better prepared, and just plain more determined than the other guy to be walking away from any particular engagement.

You can't necessarily stop death, but you can fight against it pretty hard if you really try. And beat it nine times outta ten if you try. Course I know that in games like this a lot is subjective and even out of your hands as a player. But then again a lot is in your hands too.

Who draws the line and where?
That's always the real question ain't it?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

...nobody is saying, in all seriousness, that a person shouldn't develop their character to whatever extent they wish, just that nothings and nobody goes on forever.

This is to me a contradiction because my wish is to have my character's story develop forever.

The best example I have is one of my friend's favourite character who achieved all his goals and when we finished that campaign he was nicely retired with family, peace, fame, lands and prosperity. Essentially this character 'won' his game and it was damn satisfying to the player and to me, the dm.

This style of play can marry up quite nicely in a world with the danger of character death. It just requires the character to have second chances, and the player to care about the character's wellbeing.

Also, we can conciously decide what gets translated into the game and what doesn't. Real world statements are highly debatable as it stands, and regardless of their degree of truth, they do not need to make the leap.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

Just thought I'd poke my head in with a quick anecdote. Ran B/X D&D for a new group, tonight - two long-time roleplayers (one of whom played in my campaign last year, one whom hadn't roleplayed for about a decade), and all three of our SOs, none of whom had ever roleplayed before. (One is an avid WoW player, where I understand death means "you might lose some of your stuff.") I had everybody roll up 3 PCs, as I made it clear (this being 1st level, old-school D&D) that some of their PCs likely wouldn't be making it; no one (including the WoW player) batted an eye. (My girlfriend, in particular, has told me to "bring it on." )

(As an aside, while my lady was somewhat subdued - she's kinda knocked out with a sinus infection and the attendant drugs - the other two girls, at the close of the session, immediately DEMANDED to know when we were doing this next, and had to be dissuaded from having us play ON VALENTINE'S DAY. I'd call the experiment a success. )

First time I kill a PC, I'll make sure and duck in to post reactions.

 

[Loonook]

Death as consequence is huge . . . but also death is the destiny of all characters (and the individuals who play them, which is not to be forgotten). If your world is one where a raise dead or resurrection comes around the bend at any good-sized town, you're going to cause some issues to occur anyways.

Usually, I make Death the end-all, be-all. In some cases there are those who can Raise; heck, the power to raise was bestowed on an Imperial lord in one of my games, and he could use it once every three years according to a form of divine mandate. However, other than that, the route back from death is usually a pretty tricky one, requiring a lot of PC interaction with forces which are best left untouched.

Another of my campaigns had a huge spiritualist influence. Nature spirits, dream spirits, and spirits of shadow and cold all vied for a piece of the action. Into this setting falls a Paladin. He's a righteous guy, has a lot of knowledge about the road he treads, and had once been a vagabond of sorts. However, in a St. Paul sort of way, he was 'blinded' by the light of the deity of chance and favor, and became a stalwart ally of the church. He was an older paladin, not too experienced in the White Cloak side of things, but he was thrust into a situation which required his assistance. A major clash between divine forces and the forces of the spirit realm brought him into battle with a great spirit lord; powerful beyond mortal ken.

He stood his ground, forsook his oath, and saved the world. What would amount to a seraphim of his deity, seeing his sacrifice, made the proper bureaucratic maneuvers and the soul of the good man was placed into the quickened womb of a talented priestess. She bore the child, the child was given over to others to raise, and found his path back to the fiefdom his former self had founded. Hounded by spirits and agents of evil divinity, he came to the Church/ossuary of his former self, and learned of his past. Having been a Fighter (or ranger) for the 2 years of traveling he had done finding out about the strange visions he had had since his childhood, he refused to convert to the church. The god of fortunes, laughing at sheer cheek, gave him his favor; a golden tattoo which ran up his arm, and granted him some paladin abilities alongside his numerous other talents.

The player loved the character; it was a 1 on 1 (with the occasional 'guest player' when we had someone to fill in for an NPC or 'guest DM' when I wanted a break) but the character grew. The boy became a man, a talented (but ever-vigilant) warrior for the cause. Though his faith never turned to that of the god he had been blessed by, he protected the god's holdings out of loyalty for the favor granted to him, and a deep respect for his previous self and the good works he had instituted.

The warrior fell, quite brutally, in battle with a vassal of the same spirit who slew his predecessor. A spirit presented itself, offering him the right of vengeance and a power to stand before the vassal of the bull spirit.

He took it, and rose again. Changed, he wielded powers which would today be similar to a Warlock, alongside his impressive fighting abilities. He constantly struggled with the evil shade which kept him alive, festering in the back of his mind, waiting for him to slip.

The last session saw the character entering into the sands of Ir, a desert which would rend soul and parasite in twain, in the hopes of bringing about a redemption for some of the choices he made when under its control. The soul came full-circle, and (guided by his memories) sought to rid the world of the evils which surrounded him.

---

Now, I know that was a long bit, but there were two deaths (and possibly a very permanent third) involved here. Each death, rather than doing the standard 'I spent 5k and get a Raise', was a great storyline to explore. In (around two) years, the character went from being a party member to a loaner, a paladin who flirted with the rules of his Code to a young man willing to burn in eternal hellfire to cleanse his spirit and ride forth as an exemplar to those who had placed their fate in his hands. I've had characters who came back as clockwork constructs (D20 Past game), a possessing spirit which redeemed itself and regained its body as a revenant (d20 Modern Fantasy), and a character who used his death to deliver the final blow to a deranged priest who sought to open Heaven's Gates to call forth the Angels of Revelation (also D20 Modern). I've had characters cheat death, become death, and make their livings dealing death to the good and ill of society.

Death is an necessary as life; without a consequence for it, it is meaningless. I will agree that without consequence death is meaningless; however, I will not agree that every tom dick and St. Harry should be able to call forth the forces of Divine Will, open the Gates of Time, and drag a spirit kicking and screaming back to his mortal form. Sometimes you jump back on the Coil, and sometimes the Coil shakes you off like fleas on a dog's back.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Lanefan]

See, I can't fathom why you'd deliberately discourage player investment in their character. As it stands, the current rules already discourage player investment due to the excessive lethality. Adding to this problem, it sounds that regardless of how skillful you play you're character s/he's living is on borrowed time.

Different strokes, I suppose...though my expectations as a player are about the same; sooner or later it's gonna die so I'll make the best of it until then.

I'd be worried with seeing nameless half-orc barbarians with +4 greataxes and +1 chainshirts appearing in this type of game.

As opponents, or as party members? I'm not sure of the reference here...

Lanefan

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Lanefan, the only real differences we have is that I see nothing inevitable or necessarily final about character death.

Ideally good player choices should answer the question of inevitability, and the presence of spiritual magic creates adequate justification to answer the question of the finality of death.

However both the above reasons are just the visible 'mechanisms' to fulfil the key underlying objective - keep the player's character in play. And I consider this key objective to be crucial to what I consider a good gaming experience.

****

I'm just yanking your chain a bit about the half-orc. It's an extreme example of the character that could appear in a meat-grinder game.

That guy has no name (or personality) because the player is too fatalistic about the character's fate to bother to invest time to make it up. He has spent most of his wealth on his weapon for more 'boom' in the brief time his weak armour keeps him around. Being without a name the player can reintroduce his clone immediately...

 

[Carpe DM]

Carpe's Law: the chance of anyone reading a post 200 posts down in a list is infinitesimal compared to any effort expended in writing it.

That said, I'd like to chime in to support the OP. I'm a huge proponent of Open Rolling, for exactly this reason. The game is made up of the DM, the player, and the dice.

The First Sin of D&D is novel-writing: the DM is telling a story in which the players are spectators and the dice cannot change the outcome.

The Second Sin of D&D is circle-jerking: the DM and players are telling a story in which the players are doomed to triumph. (Yes, I meant that.)

Most of us avoid the First Sin. Almost none avoid the second. The dice save us. The dice inject raw chaos into the story. They are the source of terror and salvation. They can kill you, or they can give rise to the stories we retell over and over.

Now I'm really violating Carpe's law -- giving substantive, useful (I think) advice in a deep-buried thread.

I prepare for death in the game to avoid the cost to player development. I have to do a lot of work to weave death into the plot. Death makes my plots better. But it takes work. If you're willing to do the plot work, character death increases, not decreases the player's attachment to the character.

Both "death-is-the-end" and "death-is-a-revolving-door" are bad literary tropes. Both are wrong. Break out those literary chops, and make death mean something, but get the player back in the game. This is the single hardest and important job of the DM.

I even go so far as to develop an entire adventure -- scaleable to level -- that I will run in the event of a TPK. I am then eager to run that adventure. My players know it. They know I will kill them without batting an eye, and that death will make the game better. It makes for some hair-raising games.