D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[zarionofarabel]

That's true. But they don't seem to suggest people doing the opposite are playing lesser games for the most part, and I see plenty of that from people who consider a game with lethality necessary.

Well, I have encountered people that do that. Usually equating it to "bad GMs" who enjoy killing PCs. They often also straight up blame the GM for the PC death as they feel GMs that are willing to kill PCs as doing it maliciously, as opposed to understanding that GMs who kill PCs only do so when the system rules and dice dictate that PC death has occurred.

I'd argue most of the people who want that aren't going to play in most horror games anyway.

You are probably right on that account!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nowadays I far more often see folks rally around the idea that PCs shouldn't ever be in danger of dying. At least not without express player permission.

I have articulated my stance on death many times here, but it's possible you have not previously seen it.

I am opposed to deaths that are all three of:

• Random: Caused by factors completely beyond player control or accounting, e.g. random orc mook #7 got a lucky crit and rolled max value the turn immediately before Pat the Cleric was going to heal, doing just enough damage to kill the character instantly.
• Irrevocable: The party cannot raise the character, whether with their own efforts or with someone else's aid, for so long that the character is, for all intents and purposes, Dead Forever.
• Permanent: The death will not reverse on its own, nor will any effect outside of the party's actions permit them to return to life.

Any death which removes even a single one of these characteristics is an acceptable death. So, for example, a character being suicidally reckless, with reasonable warning against their actions? Yeah that character is gonna die sooner or later, and that's not random, it is a natural consequence of the player's actions. Likewise, a character willingly making a meaningful sacrifice would be non-random, or a character facing off against their greatest foe, etc.

Revocable deaths are quite common, especially in 5e since revivify comes online so early. If the party can restore the character to life, then death is on the table always. Similarly, if the party has helpers or allies (or "allies") that can raise the dead PC (perhaps for a cost--even a steep one), then that, too, is just fine. Likewise, if the party has the option, they just...elect not to, then that's still a revocable death, the party just decided not to do it. (I'd feel bad for a player subject to such a response though!)

Finally, if all else fails, there may be reasons why this character died but doesn't stay dead. Perhaps they've been protected by a god, but need to go on a quest to return to life, or need to learn something from the realm of the dead before they can come back. There are a lot of neat things that can be done with this--some of them even quite devious.

If, however, the player specifically wants their character to die, then the character is dead. I won't force anyone to play a character they aren't interested in playing further.

So...yeah. If the death is all three of random, AND irrevocable, AND permanent, the player and I will work something out. Generally, by making one of those three things not true--almost always either revocable or impermanent.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have yet to play in a game where the consequence outside of surviving the combat encounter makes survival pale in comparison. Whatever the consequence is, it can be dealt with afterwards. Even if it's a "life goes on" situation. After all, if my PC is dead, there can be no "life goes on" situation.

Only true if its all about that one character and nothing else.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I have encountered people that do that. Usually equating it to "bad GMs" who enjoy killing PCs. They often also straight up blame the GM for the PC death as they feel GMs that are willing to kill PCs as doing it maliciously, as opposed to understanding that GMs who kill PCs only do so when the system rules and dice dictate that PC death has occurred.

It would help if there wasn't a history of GMs, particular in the D&D-sphere, crowing about their body count. Not every GM in lethal games are doing that, but it leaves a stink across the process, especially if the GM's encounter choices look over the top.

You are probably right on that account!

Yeah, people that like lighter toned games (which often but not always goes with lower mortality games that aren't otherwise hard on consequences) aren't liable to do even action-horror; over and above the expected mortality, they're just going to find the tone of the game unpleasant in general, as its going to be a regular focus.

 

[bloodtide]

This is one of my main disconnects with the whole immortal PC who wants to routinely engage in combat...why? I guess people find doing math for an hour or two to be a much more interesting and engaging experience than I do.

I very much agree!

Seems far more common than players that will flee a combat or surrender in the hopes of living to fight another day. Perhaps more people should discuss those outcomes before a campaign to see if they can be more readily included in games.

I see very few players do either if they have played the game before. They get so locked into the idea that combat in a RPG is just a fun fight where they always win. As this is the way a lot of DM run their games. A lot of new players that come to my game have never seen a character die in a game session.

Because then you can do things that aren't about survival, but instead about achieving other goals. That's...literally what makes Superman an interesting character. His story is a firefighter's story, not a warrior's story. Against any Kryptonian with actual combat experience, he straight-up loses almost all of the time. (It's worth noting that he almost always defeats such opponents with trickery, technology, or weakness exploitation.) Where he shines is when he's put in a situation where he has to grapple with lots of variables in order to save as many people as possible. That ceases to be a hard binary, and instead opens a huge space of possible results.

Of course a game can be more about just survival and still have PC death....

Sure it is. You just have to care about things that aren't PC death in order to have "smart and clever person with no weapon" matter. Because when the only thing the player cares about is whether their own character lives or dies, they will stop caring about being a "smart and clever person with no weapon". Because a smart and clever person with no weapon doesn't survive the way a smart and clever person with a weapon would.

This is not true. Character mortality enhances the game your playing always. This is why most great games have some type of loss.

When you run your game with all of the focus pointed at <survival is an extreme challenge>, you are specifically selecting for players who will not want to play "smart and clever person with no weapon". Because a smart and clever person with no weapon will just die. A lot. Over and over and over again, in fact. The smart and clever person WITH a weapon, on the other hand, is significantly more likely to survive. Your brutal "Hard Fun" campaign style specifically selects for players who view the world through a lens of needing to fight--specifically fight, as in kill their enemies--for every possible advantage they can get. It is the very brutality of your game which makes this happen.

All? We can focus on many things at one time

Yes, I am specifically not selecting players that want an immortal PC.

It's a simple hierarchy-of-needs thing. People aren't going to care about highfalutin principles or self-actualization when they're worried they won't physically survive the day. You expressly describe your game as being one that puts players into a "paranoid" state. And yes, I am using quotes there because you have specifically said this previously: "I agree that as a standard PCs should be paranoid and take repercussions." Paranoia prevents people from getting to the point where they care about being a "smart and clever person with no weapon".

Being paranoid is often a good thing. The opposite is simply not caring...."oh my character is immortal so why bother".

When you actually develop stakes and contexts that your players care about, for their own reasons, not simply because survival of their PC is involved, being a "smart and clever person with no weapon" actually becomes a valid space to consider.

Most of my good players are smart and clever....they have to be to play in my game.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

It's kind of amusing that this argument that games need character death to be fun is in the D&D group, famously a system where death is simply a gold piece tax and maybe a negative to actions for a scene or two.

Bringing this thread back on track, I might claim that a GM killing a character is the ultimate act of railroading as it takes away all the character's agency with zero wiggle room. Additionally, fantasy is a genre where escaping certain death is very common, so the chances of an unexpected intervention should be high, to properly simulate the genre. A GM who lets a character die does so because they decided not to intervene. If they don't consult the player, it's really their choice on how they see the scene unfold being pushed onto the player.

I mean, we can look straight to LOTR for several examples where the GM clearly intervenes to save characters:

"You failed your saves against grappling and the tree looks like its crushing you ... oh but wait ... you hear a 'Hey Doll, Merry doll' sound and a ... umm ... a brightly robed guy arrives and ... ummm ... sings the tree into stopping".

"Really guys, you went into a ghostly tomb and thought it would be level appropriate? <Sigh> OK, Tom Bombadil comes back and frees you, gives you the treasure and heads back home. Let's move on"

"You fail your third save against the knife's death magic and ... ummm ... fortunately for you you do so just as you arrive on the borders of Rivendell which as has a ... magical river that can repel evil effects, yeah, that's right. So it just sort of washes all the bad guys away and the elves rescue you and heal you just before you die. Oh I didn't mention this until now, but Elrond is well known as a fantastic healer so that's why you are not dead.

"The cave-troll criticals you for <rolls> oh wow, that's a lot ... ummm ... will you survive that damage? Would you like to roll up a new character? Yes, I guess you do have a really important story this would totally kill. Hmmm. OK, how about this. Instead of as treasure bundle for everyone this adventure, let's retcon a scene where you are given some magical armor that makes all critical hits do minimal damage? What's that Dave -- why does it fit a hobbit? Uhhh ... I guess it was made for an elf kid who was in battles a lot because ... oh screw it, it just does"

"Really, you can't make an easy athletics check to escape the whip attack? Oh, the age penalty, yeah. Well, it's the end of the session, let's just say you fall in and tumble way down, but eventually beat the demon, and maybe the gods just make you better. You can jump back in when you get back from your honeymoon, so it's not a bad time for a break. I'll work out the details by then"

"Your character is defending the hobbits when even more orcs come up. One of them crits you and ... umm ... that looks bad. Well, you are close to the river so maybe you ... oh, you're OK with your character dying -- you'd like to play the weird creature following the party? OK, yeah, I can expand his role a bit. If you're sure .... Ok then, narrate your death scene."


Obviously tongue in cheek, but my point is that the genre is replete with examples where the characters are effectively immortal, and still we read and enjoy their stories with great joy. So when players come to our games -- filled with orcs, elves, trolls, undead, magic swords and animated trees -- is it a surprise that for many of them they are looking for the same sort of experience?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Only true if its all about that one character and nothing else.

I do not understand.

 

[bloodtide]

Obviously tongue in cheek, but my point is that the genre is replete with examples where the characters are effectively immortal, and still we read and enjoy their stories with great joy. So when players come to our games -- filled with orcs, elves, trolls, undead, magic swords and animated trees -- is it a surprise that for many of them they are looking for the same sort of experience?

It is very much expected. Nearly all modern media, even more so any action adventure fantasy sci-fi, is very kid friendly and rated E for Everyone. There is lots of action and lots of weapons get held and pointed and aimlessly shot. Sure plenty of mooks fall down and take naps, but main characters are immortal.

And players adsorb years of this and then want to play a game just like that. Somehow. Yet they oddly get locked on to a game like D&D with AC, HP, Damage and Character Death. And when playing that game, they somehow want the "immortal character fun". Except it is not that sort of game. Oddly they refuse to play a game with out things like hit points, even though when they play the game, they don't use them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I do not understand.

If I'm playing RuneQuest and lose the character I'm playing, its not the only one I'll ever have. It may be a character I've invested in, but going into a campaign where death was on the table meant that character was always going to be, given the life of an adventurer, ephemeral. Losing the whole tribe he came from and all the NPCs I'd interacted with is going to be much more painful than losing them, and the fact my loss in the combat lead to it is more meaningful than just losing the character would have been.

Edit: And if you don't either understand or aren't capable of understanding why that can be true, we're coming from such different places any further conversation on this would be as utterly pointless as is possible.

 

[zarionofarabel]

If I'm playing RuneQuest and lose the character I'm playing, its not the only one I'll ever have. It may be a character I've invested in, but going into a campaign where death was on the table meant that character was always going to be, given the life of an adventurer, ephemeral. Losing the whole tribe he came from and all the NPCs I'd interacted with is going to be much more painful than losing them, and the fact my loss in the combat lead to it is more meaningful than just losing the character would have been.

Well that would be the essence of the "life goes on" story. The PC has lost everything they care about, what new things can they find to care about? Which are often some of the most powerful and uplifting stories you can encounter.

I guess, like someone else said previously, it's whether or not people see their PCs as disposable. I never do, even if it is a game with high lethality. Sure, the PC faces the possibility of death, but that doesn't mean they don't value being alive. They may even sacrifice themselves for a cause, but it better be something that is truly worthy of that sacrifice. Perhaps that is why I don't feel tension in a combat encounter unless my PCs life is in danger. An immortal PC doesn't need to value their life, as it is never in danger. That is too much of a disconnect from reality for me, as IRL, life is valuable because it can end at any time, so time is precious.