Should D&D Have an Alternate Death Mechanic?

[shilsen]

But if all it takes, in your words, is a "a few dice rolls" for death to occur, then perhaps we play vastly different styles and this isn't an apples-to-apples conversation. Rarely do the dice kill characters - usually it takes poor choices. (Or, on occasion, good ones - sometimes the choice to sacrifice oneself is a viable, heroic option.)

That's possible, but for the dice to rarely kill characters, one has to deviate a fair bit from core D&D. Once you're into double digit levels, there's a whole lot of "save or die" magic flying around, so a single blown roll could kill a PC. And that's partly true at low levels too. A single critical from an unmodified MM orc could kill a 1st lvl PC instantly. And there's the whole issue of standard incremental damage, of course. If I use competent enemies anywhere close to a PC's level (the PCs in my Eberron game are 13th lvl now), there's a pretty decent chance of them dropping a PC.

 

[Toben the Many]

I would second many of the other posters here with the idea that I don't like resurrection in my games. Coming back from the dead is weird. If you think about it, say you lost your mom in a tragic car accident. You grieve. You deal with it. You go through a funeral. Then, a week later, she comes back. It would be weird. Major "Pet Cemetery" weird.

Furthermore, we're currently playing in the Iron Kingdoms where resurrection is well-nigh impossible anyway.

Here's the thing, preserving the fact that PCs can die really isn't that important to add tension to your game. Preserving the fact that PCs can fail is far more important to add to the tension of a game. I've played in many games where PC death was a real possibility. In fact, it happened all of the time. However, getting Raised was fairly easy, so the game took on a "video game" feel. Death lost all of its bite. My character even commented one time that death wasn't so bad. "You go to your plane of choice, hang out in your version of paradise for a while, and then you get called back. No big deal. You're a bit weak for a while, but you get over it."

So, one thing we've done alot of in our games is introduce the "coma" system.

Step One: Raise Dead spell is replaced by "Revive from Coma".

Step Two: No resurrection. If you die, you die. This creates a definite tension, because most people don't want to make new characters.

Step Three: When you get to -10 hit points, your character falls into a coma. They're alive, in critical condition, and in a coma. Each day that they are at -10 hit points, they need to make a Fort save or die for good. They can be revived from their coma with a Heal check with a high DC, or a "Revive from Coma" spell.

There a few caveats to this rule. If you go past -10 hit points, you are dead-dead. No comas for you. Also, if you bleed out to -10 and someone pulls a coup de grace, you are dead-dead. And yes, I've had my bad guys try to pull that on PCs who were in comas at that time.

This way, you preserve the fact that the PCs can fail, but you also have some real consequences for dying. This makes TPKs interesting, too. If everyone goes into a coma, you can have a villain revive them all and have them wake up in a prison cell. In this way, a TPK can actually extend the storyline, instead of causing it to come screeching to a halt.

 

[Fifth Element]

Surely the reverse is true. With a high risk of permanent death, which necessarily entails a high death rate, players will become less attached to their characters. After all what's the point in forming an emotional bond with something that will most likely be gone soon? Why spend five hours coming up with background, personality, related NPCs, etc if the PC's going to be dead in an hour?

QFT.

In some sense, death is a cop-out for failure in D&D. Especially for higher-level characters on important quests. If you fight the BBEG who's taking over the world and you die in the battle, you never have to face the true consequences of your failure - but the rest of the game world does.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Rarely do the dice kill characters - usually it takes poor choices.

That's not my experience.

 

[RFisher]

That means that the whole flow of the game is disrupted, one player sitting out most of a session while he generates a new character and then I have to find some artificial way to introduce him into the group midgame, or have him sit out even more.

You're making your own assumptions there. I've decided that not letting a player participate because his character is dead or not present is not the kind of metagaming I want.

& the introduction of a new PC is often the sort of thing that makes for interesting party dynamics. In the rare cases when introducing a new PC takes some thought on the DM's part--well, I'm always happy DMing brings me such challenges. That's why I play these games.

Not that I'm trying to convince you to change how you game. I'm just discussing the topic. I completely agree with you that the PCs can suffer meaningful defeats without dying. PC death can, however, add its part to the whole as well.

Most (if not all) of my characters have a background, friends and family.

But creating a new PC means an opportunity to create more of that stuff!

Besides, the PC's death doesn't mean that their background, friends, & family have no role to play. If they had been really involved in the happenings of the game, why wouldn't they continue to be? (& if they weren't, then is it really such a big loss?) & there's no rule against the backgrounds for different PCs being connected. Indeed, that'd be a good thing!

I hate it when that all goes away with one die roll (oh, look - I rolled a one on a save-or-die).

If you did something that deserves death, why would you complain about a chance to avoid it? What's the difference between a single save-or-die roll & the final damage roll that kills you because you didn't retreat when you had the chance.

It always eventually comes down to a single die roll if dice are involved at all. The game is about managing your luck...playing the odds. That's why we use dice. (Though randomless games can be fun too, but that's another topic.) So sometimes, even when you've done a good job of stacking the odds in your favor, it's not going to go your way. You make your choices, & you take your chances.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Count me among the people who dislike the "revolving door" of death in the standard D&D/d20 System rules. In addition to flavor problems (as Toben the Many described it: "Pet Cemetary weird," especially if you're really into the roleplaying aspect of the game), and the sense that death becomes just a speedbump in the adventurer's career, I think there are real gameplay problems with the RAW:

• The "dying zone" (the range from 0 to -10) changes in scale over the course of 20 levels. It's a pretty wide zone when you're 1st level and taking damage in 3hp-5hp hits--but it's nearly meaningless when your 14th-level character is taking damage 30hp or 40hp at at shot.
• There's no allowance for a Boromir-style stand by a fatally wounded character. Sure, there's the very unlikely chance of landing right on 0 hp, but even then the character isn't really mortally wounded and the player generally doesn't yet feel his character is in danger (he still has 10 rounds to stabalize or be healed by his friends).
• Unconsciousness is too much of a player (and party) punishment. Getting knocked below 0 removes the player from the game, so instead of enjoying the tension and drama of what is probably a very tense, dramatic scene, the player is kicked out of play. Go watch TV while everyone else plays out the nail-biting climax.

I completely disagree with the idea that cheap-and-easy death (and equally cheap-and-easy ressurection) is necessary for player motivation and dramatic tension. If anything, D&D has devolved the dramatic role of death to a relatively meaningless annoyance, something that adds neither fun nor tension to the game.

(My solution? Characters below 0hp are not unconscious, but they are both disabled and dying. That means they lose 1hp a round automatically, and lose another hp if they do anything but lay there. They don't die at -10 (there's no floor), but at the negative of level + 10 they must make a Fort save or die every time they take damage (which is every round at least, since they're dying). A dying character is highly motivated to just lie there, but if anyone wants to pull a Boromir, they have the option. Even a player who chooses to take no actions remains engaged in the game, because they still have the option of acting.)

 

[MerricB]

Heh. As I'm a lover of the Steven Brust Dragaeran books (Jhereg, etc.), having many resurrections available does not bother me overmuch. However, the succession of deaths because the negative hit point threshold is too low... yeah, that's a problem.

I do think clerics need to be able to cast swift healing to stabilize dying characters spontaneously (and possibly even bring them back into the fight, possibly at a penalty). I've played a healer, and there's nothing worse than being unable to do anything but heal because otherwise your fighter is going to die. (Or, more likely, your barbarian).

(Oh look, I've just discovered that Steven Brust reads Order of the Stick, and he gets distracted when Rich doesn't update it... )

Cheers!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Fair enough, although your next sentence certainly belies those words.

Yeah.... sorry about that. Spent some time on the WoW boards lately. It's done some damage to my tact module. So I felt the need for a proactive mea culpa

Doug McCrae covered most of what I would have said in response better than I might have. I've played in few games where death wasn't superficial. The rules make it so, and most people tend to play fairly close to the RAW, so..... there you go.

And I *do* get attached to my characters a little. Which is why I'm afraid to let the Evil NPCs of smart GMs get their mitts on them while they're still alive. If they went out fighting, I may have lost the character (or not, depending on the game), but I usually manage to let them go out for a good reason. Heck, I once refused to rez a character because he went out so perfectly, it was exactly how he would have wanted to go out. It helped that he was from a culture that was a direct rip-off of Viking cliches, and was therefore sent straight to Valhalla via Valkyrie. If I had instead effectively lost control of said character because of a capture or something, I doubt I would have liked the outcome. That's a worse risk than death, whether death itself is surmountable or not

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Now, I'm not going to go killing PCs. Not because I'm a soft-hearted namby-pamby wimp, but because I find it uninteresting. That means that the whole flow of the game is disrupted, one player sitting out most of a session while he generates a new character and then I have to find some artificial way to introduce him into the group midgame, or have him sit out even more. I don't find that acceptable.

Oh, I missed this first time round.

Does your game not have henchmen, side-kicks, associated NPCs, or other similar bit-part characters who can be brought in as PCs? And if not, why not? I've found such a character usually has a rich background and can easily be integrated with the group.

Yeah, killing off a high-level character and replacing him with a level 1 is harsh, but replacing him with his henchman, son/daughter or sidekick that's two thirds of his level and has his old hand-me-down gear and is a major beneficiary in his will, not so much.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Most (if not all) of my characters have a background, friends and family.

But creating a new PC means an opportunity to create more of that stuff!

But what's the point of creating DM Plothooks... er... friends and family if your character dies before they have a chance to get used?

I hate it when that all goes away with one die roll (oh, look - I rolled a one on a save-or-die).

If you did something that deserves death, why would you complain about a chance to avoid it? What's the difference between a single save-or-die roll & the final damage roll that kills you because you didn't retreat when you had the chance.

Because one I have some sembalnce of control over (retreating) and the other I don't (dave or die). I choose to stand up to the heavily armored fighter versus the mage chooses me to roll a d20 before I get to act. I choose to try and slow down the hordes of avdanceing evil bad guys to try and let the others escape versus the rogue fails their disable trap by a lot and I'm standing in the unlucky spot.

In each of those the first situation is one where I made a choice. It may have been a stupid choice but it was a decision by me. The second half of both of those comparisons I had no say what-so-ever in the situation (except for the fact that I'm a member of the group). Who knows why the DM chose to have the mage cast a spell at me - but it was the DMs choice, not mine. Who knows why the module writer chose to have that trap drop a poisoned spike from the cieling in that square but that was the writers choice and not mine.

If it was my choice that caused my character to get hacked to pieces - I have no problem with that. It was my choice. But I don't like characters keeling over for arbitrary reasons. Doing a one shot of say... Tomb of Horrors is one thing. It's a one shot and the players know its a meat-grinder; but I don't want to have a year's worth of personal back plot go up in smoke because of a decision that was out of my hands.

I don't care if the sudden decapitation because of a party-member's misstep in the dungeon is more realistic or whatever. There's a story for that charcater and I want to bring it to a satisfying end (no matter if that end is good or bad for the character). If you want to punish my character then make my character suffer - if my PC is dead they are no longer suffering. Have their spouce and kids be carted off by goons of the Big Bad. Have them lose their land because a sibling lost in a gambling game. Have their mentor be exiled for unexplained reasons. There are plenty of ways to make the PC suffer.