"Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?

[Oofta]

We're not actually talking about that though? We're talking about PC death and TPKs.

Ultimately doesn't it come down to: does death of PCs (including an up to TPKs) add to the enjoyment of the game? The rest is IMHO opinion semantics. If I and my group agree that death should be rare but possible, then I'm going to do what I can to fulfill that goal of the group. If I and my group decide that death lurks around every corner and no one is safe, then so be it.

As long as the group has an understanding, I don't see what the issue is.

 

[iserith]

Ultimately doesn't it come down to: does death of PCs (including an up to TPKs) add to the enjoyment of the game? The rest is IMHO opinion semantics. If I and my group agree that death should be rare but possible, then I'm going to do what I can to fulfill that goal of the group. If I and my group decide that death lurks around every corner and no one is safe, then so be it.

As long as the group has an understanding, I don't see what the issue is.

I have no issue DMing or playing in games where PC death is off the table. I am addressing what I perceive as inconsistencies in certain approaches related to that preference and how I would approach it in what I see as a more consistent manner.

 

[Oofta]

I have no issue DMing or playing in games where PC death is off the table. I am addressing what I perceive as inconsistencies in certain approaches related to that preference and how I would approach it in what I see as a more consistent manner.

But you've also said that if they jump into that sphere of annihilation they're dead. Period. Now, I may have put that sphere in for any number of reasons such as a way to destroy the McGuffin. It wasn't intended to be a trap. If they all jump into it (and I have a "death is rare" policy) then I've failed to communicate something since I'm going to assume they didn't just have their characters commit suicide on purpose.

So at that point I can either break the covenant I have with the PCs to keep death rare, or I can change the sphere to a portal and carry on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We're not actually talking about that though? We're talking about PC death and TPKs.

Lack of threading: I generally have no idea what we're talking about more than a post or two back. I thought the point was: you have to kill PCs, or danger isn't 'real.' Seems to me danger can be real enough for RPG work if kills NPCs. So you don't have to kill PCs if you don't want to. Just don't be /too/ obvious about it.

 

[iserith]

But you've also said that if they jump into that sphere of annihilation they're dead. Period.

Yeah, in a game where death and TPKs are acceptable.

Now, I may have put that sphere in for any number of reasons such as a way to destroy the McGuffin. It wasn't intended to be a trap. If they all jump into it (and I have a "death is rare" policy) then I've failed to communicate something since I'm going to assume they didn't just have their characters commit suicide on purpose.

So at that point I can either break the covenant I have with the PCs to keep death rare, or I can change the sphere to a portal and carry on.

It's clear to me based on the details you've provided that you failed to communicate the deadliness of the sphere. If I were against the whole party dying and included a thing that could kill the whole party, I would certainly have tried very hard to make that clear up to and including saying it's a "sphere of annihilation that will annihilate you" well before they got anywhere near the thing. If at that point they still jumped in, then I guess I now know what they think about the campaign.

 

[iserith]

Lack of threading: I generally have no idea what we're talking about more than a post or two back. I thought the point was: you have to kill PCs, or danger isn't 'real.' Seems to me danger can be real enough for RPG work if kills NPCs. So you don't have to kill PCs if you don't want to. Just don't be /too/ obvious about it.

My position is that you can have a perfectly cromulent game if you take PC death off the table. You just include stakes that aren't life-or-death and, to remain fair and consistent in my view, change the death and dying mechanics to support that. And maybe don't include spheres of annihilation that aren't obviously spheres of annihilation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My position is that you can have a perfectly cromulent game if you take PC death off the table. You just include stakes that aren't life-or-death and, to remain fair and consistent in my view, change the death and dying mechanics to support that. And maybe don't include spheres of annihilation that aren't obviously spheres of annihilation.

I don't see too much wrong with that. Except that I also don't see anything wrong with including deadly dangers in the fiction - that is "stakes aren't life-or-death" doesn't have to mean no one ever walks a tight-rope over a river of magma or fights a dragon or operates heavy machinery under the influence...

 

[iserith]

I don't see too much wrong with that. Except that I also don't see anything wrong with including deadly dangers in the fiction - that is "stakes aren't life-or-death" doesn't have to mean no one ever walks a tight-rope over a river of magma or fights a dragon or operates heavy machinery under the influence...

That's right. Failing to walk that tight-rope has to mean something other than death though. Maybe it means you have to spend a lot of time on the task and the villain gets away or whatever. Or getting defeated by the dragon means the nearby town is burned to the ground, not that my character dies.

Just don't tell me my character's life is on the line when it really isn't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's right. Failing to walk that tight-rope has to mean something other than death though. Maybe it means you have to spend a lot of time on the task and the villain gets away or whatever. Or getting defeated by the dragon means the nearby town is burned to the ground, not that my character dies.

Just don't tell me my character's life is on the line when it really isn't.

Yeah, I don't quite see the need to be that formal, explicit, or absolute about it. The genre has conventions, I see nothing wrong with leaving it at that. Though, again, nothing wrong with formal stake-setting, either.

 

[SkidAce]

Ultimately doesn't it come down to: does death of PCs (including an up to TPKs) add to the enjoyment of the game? The rest is IMHO opinion semantics. If I and my group agree that death should be rare but possible, then I'm going to do what I can to fulfill that goal of the group. If I and my group decide that death lurks around every corner and no one is safe, then so be it.

As long as the group has an understanding, I don't see what the issue is.

Quoted for truth.