The ethics of ... death

[Guest 85555]

"Death" isn't a problem; finding yourself spending your evening watching your friends play D&D is a problem, though. That's no fun - watching an RPG being played is often an interminable experience.

For me, then, it's about effects which remove a player from play. Those I try to avoid.

Of course, there are ways around it. Backup characters; have 'em play NPCs; and so on.

This is one reason henchmen are helpful. If a character dies in a place where the PCs can't recruit new members, you have characters on hand to play.

I used to request everyone make a back up character but noticed folks rarely did so in practice. Now I make pregens and keep them in my GM folder.

 

[Jacob Marley]

True, but I suspect one could construct a similar chain for death effects. You can see a bodak coming. You can roll a Knowledge check to know what it's about to do to you. You can identify a high level spellcaster. Spells can be interrupted. Death ward can be cast. There are a lot of permutations to these scenarios, but I suspect that to be hit with a death effect, there are usually precursor events that require resolution and which the characters may use to avoid the effect.

This is more or less how the bodak adventure was run in my example.

Using the aforementioned bodak, one of the best uses I have seen revolved around a group of adventurers in the Shield Lands. One of the companions had fallen and, unfortunately, was buried in an area corrupted by Taint. He arose as a bodak and wandered the Shield Lands killing innocents. The party began to hear rumors of a faceless death roaming the countryside and, after realizing they were the root cause of this creature's existence, set out to right this wrong. Knowing the capabilities of the bodak, that it could instant kill any one of them on a failed save, in conjunction with the coupling narrative, provided the perfect amount of tension for those game sessions. In my experience, no other mechanic has helped deliver that same feeling.

This is one reason henchmen are helpful. If a character dies in a place where the PCs can't recruit new members, you have characters on hand to play.

There is also character stable and troupe-style play which helps mitigate the loss of any one particular character. Personally, I am a big fan of the characters stable approach.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I used to request everyone make a back up character but noticed folks rarely did so in practice. Now I make pregens and keep them in my GM folder.

One of my favorite things from earlier editions was DarkSun's introduction of the Character Tree. Ever since then, I have used it...or at least, have always made backup characters for every campaign.

 

[Greenfield]

I had a small stable of NPCs who would occasionally be available for hire, and who would be available for someone to run should their character die. At a minimum, it would let them play until game continuity allowed for the graceful entrance of their new character, or until we could get the old one back.

Our game had a standard of no Raise Dead, Resurrection or True Resurrection. If you wanted someone back, you had to make a trip to death's door or beyond to find them and bring them back to the land of the living.

I suspect that the players got tired of that trip though, as they've argued for Revivification and Revenance, and a combo-move that bypasses the one round time limit.

But that stable allowed the DM to fill in missing skill sets when players were absent, or when the party make up lacked a needed slot.

One fun NPC was Ignominious T. Padfoot*, a Whisper Gnome Rogue. One level of Wizard and everything else Rogue, he was ostensibly a circus performer who did a high wire and gymnastics act. (By the rules, you can use Tumble skill in place of Perform for purposes of making a living). The "traveling show" nature of his work also helped explain how he got so far from Londinium so as to be out where PCs might find and employ him.

Maybe I need to refresh that list a bit.

*(The name is a joke of course, but Whisper Gnomes seldom use their real names outside of their own community, by the book. They may have several different names they use, and consider them as more or less "permanent aliases". He has no idea what the first name means, but he likes the sound of it. )

 

[Aenghus]

I do know of at least one game with frequent character deaths, and resurrection very difficult, where eventually there was no PC left who know anything about the long-running plots. Continuity can be a severe issue with high death rates in longer campaigns, and I find SoD definitely intends to increase random death rates (where the party have no chance to retreat when overmatched, or they meet a cheesy SoD monster like a bodak).

I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.

Myself, I like years-long (real time campaigns) and long running plots. I dislike casual resurrection, so oppose SoD effects on a maintenance of continuity basis. When PCs die it should be a big deal, not a speed bump, IMO. And I dislike the "stack of PCs" approach in long campaign, though I'm planning to use high mortaility and a stack of PCS in a Gamma World scenario soon.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.

Well, in my case we do run long-term campaigns; each averaging approximately three years plus or minus a couple of months, and all set within the same broader campaign milieu. We also use a character stable of 4-5 characters per player. Many characters have also taken the Leadership feat, and hirelings are often used as well. And, yes, there are quite a number of long-term campaign threads.

For example, our current group of adventures is attempting to reclaim a keep overrun by demons that was originally lost back when Ronald Reagan was President! One of the current adventurers is a child of one of the previous adventurers that had originally lost the keep. One of the PCs from our last campaign is a magic item in this campaign (long story, interestingly enough involving an SoD effect)! Numerous other previous characters are serving the current set of adventurers as patrons and advisers.

In our case we tend to use SoD effects less frequently than other people do, I think. They are used in specific circumstances to create a specific feel, and, in nearly every circumstance that I can think of, have resulted in the players walking away from the table saying: "Wow! That was awesome!" Even when we were on the 'D' side of the SoD.

 

[Jester David]

I have to say I fairly resent any effect that can kill a player with one bad roll - save or die definitely falls into this. I'd certainly prefer a system where you get two to three shots to ward off impending doom. Medusa gazes that slowly turn you into a statue, bodak gazes that "freeze the life blood" before you drop dead, a banshee wail that drops you to your knees in pain and terror before stopping your heart are all effects I like better (spead over a couple rounds before death may actually take place) rather than "you fall over dead". Call me a softie, but I still believe I'd see enough challenge and character death in the game that players would still feel excitement and fear of loss and defeat without instant death.

Which is fine so long as the combat lasts three full rounds and the monster is able to act in all three of those rounds.
But once it becomes obvious that the monsters is a "save-three-times-or-die" monster, they'll likely be targeted by the big guns, or interrupted negating their death effect.

Personally, I've always prefered "save or dying". You fail and you're not dead-dead by effectively below 0 and in negative hitpoints, following the dying rules normally. So there's a couple seconds for other PCs to heal you.

 

[Stormonu]

Which is fine so long as the combat lasts three full rounds and the monster is able to act in all three of those rounds.
But once it becomes obvious that the monsters is a "save-three-times-or-die" monster, they'll likely be targeted by the big guns, or interrupted negating their death effect.

Not necessarily. Even if the medusa is one-shotted, the effects of the initial attack could persist, forcing the PC to make, say 3 saves. For example, the first failed save might slow the target. If the character fails the second, they might be immobilized. Failing the third would mean the character turns to stone and dies. The effects for failed save might last for some meaningful time (10-15 minutes, an hour, a day - whatever "significant" is to create an obstacle that is better remedied than left to simply wear off) until the group has some way to counteract it - via magic, items (perhaps a brew concocted from the medusa's own blood) or other means. A slowed character might be able to continue; the immobilized character would probably force the group to retire or rest until either the effect improves to the character merely being slowed or wears off entirely. Death of course, and the player's rolling up a new character (or waiting until the group can get the old one to a priest, if resurrection is still in the game ...).

 

[JamesonCourage]

I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.

The campaign where I used the bodak (where two PCs died) was in a campaign that lasted over two years, with over 2,000 hours of play time. We still hit those characters probably twice a year. (They love the characters, and while I love them, too, it's 3.5 at epic levels now, and I tend to avoid running 3.5 at all in favor of my RPG. Thus the infrequent nature of us playing with those same characters.)

In general, my campaigns tend to last six months to a year before we transition to newer characters within the same setting. In a sense, it's the same campaign, except that players will have a character leave to deal with an issue and bring a new one in, and eventually we're looking at all new characters with all new goals. The evolving setting remains the same, the history remains the same, etc. But, it probably takes 6-12 months for a whole new set of characters to show up.

It's an interesting question, though. Like you, I dislike casual resurrection (which is why it's harder in my RPG), so I see where you're coming from with SoD effects. I don't think they'd disrupt continuity any more than any other death or character transition, and we're pretty good at working with what happens in-game. I had a PC die in my game a few months back while he was avenging his squire (he killed the guy who killed his squire, then his younger brother, who was leading an enemy army, but he died from his wounds after the fight). It felt like a natural part of the story to us, and we kept going with that campaign, which we wrapped up this last Saturday.

Anyways, I hope you get more answers; I'm curious what others will say. As always, play what you like

 

[Jester David]

Not necessarily. Even if the medusa is one-shotted, the effects of the initial attack could persist, forcing the PC to make, say 3 saves. For example, the first failed save might slow the target. If the character fails the second, they might be immobilized. Failing the third would mean the character turns to stone and dies. The effects for failed save might last for some meaningful time (10-15 minutes, an hour, a day - whatever "significant" is to create an obstacle that is better remedied than left to simply wear off) until the group has some way to counteract it - via magic, items (perhaps a brew concocted from the medusa's own blood) or other means. A slowed character might be able to continue; the immobilized character would probably force the group to retire or rest until either the effect improves to the character merely being slowed or wears off entirely. Death of course, and the player's rolling up a new character (or waiting until the group can get the old one to a priest, if resurrection is still in the game ...).

Which does quite effectively remove the scary from those monsters, as the odds of failing three saves are quite low. Especially when the party can marshal its resources granting bonuses (or Advantage).

Some monsters should just be scary and avoided. If all monsters are non-threatening beyond normalized damage, there's far less impetus to attempt alternate strategies, creative solutions, or non-combat options. This "scary" might come from an ass-ton of damage or from a debilitating or deadly power.
Removing a debilitating power is a little like making dragons no more damaging than other monsters. When fighting a dragon is as threatening as fighting an orc (of the same level) then dragons become samey and no longer special.

The medusa is a great example as even non-gamers are likely to know of its effects and deadliness, it has a very distinct silhouette & appearance that can be spotted before in range of its attacks, and its presence is frequently telegraphed by statues by its lair.
In a good medusa encounter, one that isn't a cheap Gotcha! fight, the party shouldn't need three extra saves to avoid death because they've been warned numerous times and are choosing "risk". If there is no commensurate risk then the creature falls flat. It wasn't worth the hype. Plus the players have a choice: fight normally or close their eyes.


That said, there should be some consideration for when players lack a choice (such as eye closing) or monsters that lack forewarning. Or spells. An attack roll works, where the spell or monster needs to successfully hit first before a saving throw is made. This does remove it from being a single roll to avoid death without turning every negative effect into a series of increasingly bad checks.