Should D&D Have an Alternate Death Mechanic?

[RFisher]

If the pace flows well, following a natural story progression of intro->rising conflict->climax->coda, then it is remembered by all as a great game.

But PC death disrupts the heck out of the pace.

It seems to me that there could be lots of opportunities for PC death to enhance that pace.

Truthfully, though, I can enjoy a game in which the PCs have script immunity. I love Toon's "falling down" mechanic. Though we play it the "lose X turns" way rather than the normal clock-based way, since Toon has it's turn-based thing.

I also like a mechanic from a free Flash Gordon game, which was really--I think--meant more as satire than something to be played, but which I thought had some good ideas. The first "hit" causes some cosmetic indication of a "hit", but has no real effect. e.g. Shirt torn, vehicle smoking, &c. The second "hit" disables the target. e.g. Vehicle crashes & all passengers survive, PC falls unconscious for a time determined by the GM but suffers no other ill effects.

I can't imagine doing those things in D&D myself though. There are too many other games for which such a rule fits better. For me. I'd rather try to let D&D be D&D.

This from the man that gave us one of the most save or DIE modules of all time:

He didn't say that it was the DM's job to ensure every PC death was a "satisfactory". & I'm not sure that "GMs desire player approval" implies that.

In fact, I hate it when I do something stupid that leads to my PC's unsatisfactory death & the GM does something to mitigate it. (As mentioned in the "refuse rez" thread.) For my "approval", the GM has to let me suffer the consequences of my choices. Sometimes those consequences are bad things other than death, but sometimes it is death.

 

[shilsen]

He didn't say that it was the DM's job to ensure every PC death was a "satisfactory". & I'm not sure that "GMs desire player approval" implies that.

In fact, I hate it when I do something stupid that leads to my PC's unsatisfactory death & the GM does something to mitigate it. (As mentioned in the "refuse rez" thread.) For my "approval", the GM has to let me suffer the consequences of my choices. Sometimes those consequences are bad things other than death, but sometimes it is death.

That's one reason why I think it's vitally important for DMs to discuss how they're treating death in the game with their players, and preferably to explain why and what effect(s) they're trying to achieve with the chosen mechanics. Personally, as I've posted earlier in the thread, I prefer to have minimal PC death (permanent death, I mean) in the game and have rules to keep it that way, but if at any point a player asked to not have his PC's death be mitigated, I'd happily accede to the request.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That's one reason why I think it's vitally important for DMs to discuss how they're treating death in the game with their players, and preferably to explain why and what effect(s) they're trying to achieve with the chosen mechanics. Personally, as I've posted earlier in the thread, I prefer to have minimal PC death (permanent death, I mean) in the game and have rules to keep it that way, but if at any point a player asked to not have his PC's death be mitigated, I'd happily accede to the request.

One thing I'm considering for my next game is to have not only action points (which PCs accumulate and use to activates special effects) but also "plot points" which players have and can be used to exert a certain amount of narrative control over the game. So for example, if a PC dies, the player could decide to use a plot point to alter the narrative in some way, either declaring the character "only mostly dead", or using any reasonable narrative device (reasonable narrative device being dependant on the campaign, but mostly "anything Marvel could get away with to bring someone back from the dead" ) to bring back a dead character. Or they could choose to simply make a new character (which might involve the use of a plot point to bring in a new character in a way that changes some current assumption of the narrative).

Would having this choice of death permenance satisfy those who don't want the DM "cheapening" their PC's deserved deaths, or would even being given the option (an option you could instead choose to expend on other things) constitute a cheat to you?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Following that logic, superhero games must be risk-free because PC death is usually out of the question, thanks to the difference in genre conventions being emulated. Should Mutants and Masterminds players chuck their books/dice and just talk to each other about their guys in capes?

If that floats their boat then, yes.

Look, what I posted was a general suggestion, NOT A DEMAND as to what I interpreted based on what I perceived to be the preference for story over mechanics. I'm not telling people what to play or how to run their games.

and to address your M&M statement: It depends on the TYPE of superhero genre youre trying to replicate. A game emulating THUNDERBOLTS or SUICIDE SQUAD is going to be a different game than one replicating JLA or the AVENGERS. A superhero game based around the fact that the PC's are replacement heroes for the premier superteam and that there's a chance that the PC's will get their butts kicked more often than not, might lend itself towards expendable characters. I know. I ran a game like this not too long ago and during a particularly hectic combat one of the PC's died. I had forgotten that, she had regeneration (resurrection) as a power so she eventually came back, but I'd forgotten about that at the time.

 

[maddman75]

Okay, D00d relax. I was very careful in how I responded to you about the story thing as not to come off as insulting. I wasnt telling you what YOU should do, only you can decide that. What I was saying was that maybe people who value story over mechanics and see mechanics as getting in the way of story should play something without said mechanics. I mean, I'm seeing that as the heart of this thread. Death mechanic = bad, Death of PC's in game = bad, come up with something that doesnt involve PC's dying = good, at least for you. Once again, I wasn't being snarky or trying to offend.

Tis cool. I've been in these discussions many times, and normally when someone pulls out the 'why even have dice and rules then!' it is usually an attempt to dismiss everything I'm saying by implying that I'm not playing a 'real' RPG. I do get rid of mechanics which interfere with pace. That does not mean I get rid of all mechanics.

I've gone down the 'kill em all' path before, and I didn't like where it took the game, especially with the vulnerablity of 3e characters.

One thing I'm considering for my next game is to have not only action points (which PCs accumulate and use to activates special effects) but also "plot points" which players have and can be used to exert a certain amount of narrative control over the game. So for example, if a PC dies, the player could decide to use a plot point to alter the narrative in some way, either declaring the character "only mostly dead", or using any reasonable narrative device (reasonable narrative device being dependant on the campaign, but mostly "anything Marvel could get away with to bring someone back from the dead" ) to bring back a dead character. Or they could choose to simply make a new character (which might involve the use of a plot point to bring in a new character in a way that changes some current assumption of the narrative).

The Buffy game works in exactly this way. Their drama points can be used to gain a great bonus or soften a blow, but they can also be used to come back from the dead or introduce plot twists. The way they scale it is the cost depends on how quickly the character returns. Back this session is like 5, next session is 3, next season is 1. Something like that. And if you don't have enough you can owe. They don't seperate action and plot points though - let the players use them on what they like.

 

[shilsen]

One thing I'm considering for my next game is to have not only action points (which PCs accumulate and use to activates special effects) but also "plot points" which players have and can be used to exert a certain amount of narrative control over the game. So for example, if a PC dies, the player could decide to use a plot point to alter the narrative in some way, either declaring the character "only mostly dead", or using any reasonable narrative device (reasonable narrative device being dependant on the campaign, but mostly "anything Marvel could get away with to bring someone back from the dead" ) to bring back a dead character. Or they could choose to simply make a new character (which might involve the use of a plot point to bring in a new character in a way that changes some current assumption of the narrative).

That's a damn cool idea, IMNSHO.

 

[Mallus]

That's a damn cool idea, IMNSHO.

In the CITY campaign, Action Points could be used like that, to confer 'limited, localized narrative authority' to the PC's, but no-one used them like that, except for Rolzup, who used then to turn Burne into a magic-using McGyver from time to time.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That's a damn cool idea, IMNSHO.

Thank you. One of the reasons I thought of it was not death issues (which were just a use I came up with after the idea) but implementing strategies based on uncertain factors. For instance, as a Watership Down fan, I've always wanted to break a siege by upsetting a denning monster and leading it down onto the army. But unless that's the DM's plan for ending the conflict, its an idea that you are asking the DM to let work. With plot points you as a player could establish the narrative elements needed to make the plan plausible. (note emphasis - you could still completely fail at the actions needed to make it work. )

You might also use them to establish a contact in a city that was in your character history, or to introduce a follower.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

This from the man that gave us one of the most save or DIE modules of all time:

TOMB OF HORRORS.

also G1-3 is pretty frakkin' deadly if I remember correctly.

Gary didn't write Quasqueton, Mike Carr did.

Tomb of Horrors has relatively few save or die situations, but it does have quite a few "you're dead, no saving throw" situations... and imo G3 is much more lethal than ToH.

 

[shilsen]

In the CITY campaign, Action Points could be used like that, to confer 'limited, localized narrative authority' to the PC's, but no-one used them like that, except for Rolzup, who used then to turn Burne into a magic-using McGyver from time to time.

Now you tell me!