Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SavageRobby" data-source="post: 3622172" data-attributes="member: 51573">Fair enough, although your next sentence certainly belies those words. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But in the game you described death isn't final, its just a temporary inconvenience.You had me agreeing with you somewhat until the "rip off an ear part". And there's where we diverge. Death isn't the ultimate risk if its easily circumvented. If all death means is a few gold thrown to the local priesthood for a resurrection spell, or another charge used on a staff, or some other simple plot device, then you're right, there are much worse things. But I'm from the school of play that says death - barring a major, MAJOR game-altering miracle - is pretty damn final. Resurrection and raise dead spells don't grow on trees. Gods don't answer character's every beck and call. There aren't "mostly dead" and "all dead" divisions at the morgue. Dead is dead. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And to me, if a player simply thinks "oh I'll just make another character and get one with it" after dying, then I don't think they're terribly invested in their character, do you? And if they're not invested in their character, how can anything be worse than death? No matter how nefarious a DM you are, if a player doesn't care much about their character, why would they care about their group, or the fate of the village/city/world/plane/whatever?  (The player might care about the fate of the other players in the game, but that is outside the game, and I view that differently.) However, in a game where I'm invested in my character and environs, and where death is a real threat, a game ender for that character, then the worst thing that can happen is to sever that connection - ie, character death. This is especially true in games (like I usually play in) where you start characters at low levels, not at some artificially high level. IMO, soft-pedaling the risk of death through various contrivances (save or dying, easily available death-erasing, etc), only cheapens death, and lessens that risk. It also makes the noble sacrifice cheaper as well - and my experience has been that well done noble sacrifice moments usually become one of those key, unforgettable moments in a game that people talk about well after the game has ended. We don't have character deaths often in our games, but we do have them - and they're all very memorable moments, even the relatively senseless ones. They're made all the more memorable because of their finality, and because of the degree to which each player becomes attached to their character, and the group, and its goals and such. I am of the firm opinion that everyone would be much less attached to their characters (and the group, world, goals, etc) if there was a lessened risk of mortality.  Some folks don't like death as a central element of their games. I'm not criticizing that style, its just not for me.</blockquote>

Verification