Thoughts on Character Death

[Numion]

There is tendency in rpgs to look upon death as a speed-bump -- "Oh, I can always get Raised".

Personally, I like having death, true, permanent, final death in my games, with little or no chance to be raised.

Otherwise it just feels like a video game.

BTW, are you a DM?

As a DM a PC death doesn't feel like much to me. As a player it's different. Even if the character was resurrected the death is a big deal. Gaining levels is pretty neat - losing them annoys the hell out of me.

DMs are usually the ones preaching for permanent death - without realizing how much losing a level sucks. Players usually change the character after two deaths because of that in our games, so it's not like someone was raised 10 times.

My opinion is that if the player enjoys playing certain character there shouldn't be anything against bringing it back, if the group has means to do so. The gain of player playing the char he wants to is much greater than the gains from enforcing one death rule. IMO, YMMV.

 

[Hammer]

thanks for the responses

I know this is just a game, and it really shouldn't bother me, but the ranger player in question has a habit of just doing whatever his first thought is, party be damned, rather than thinking, well that action will really screw over that player or the rest of the party, maybe there's another action that's in character that I could do. He doesn't do it maliciously. He just cannot see past the idea that he has to be "in character" or that there could be more than one possible action that a character could take, some maybe not so offensive.

If that is metagaming, then I guess metagaming is good. It was rather obvious that the DM was setting up a hostage, maybe even captive, situation. Another PC had been captured nearby, and it looked like that's where the DM was going.

We had quite a bit of political intrigue going as well, dozens of game sessions worth, that is now thrown out the window.

The idea of PCs getting resurrected is just plain cheesy, I can handle it once, for religious characters, if done well. But he'd been resurrected once before when the party accidentally got him killed while I wasn't there, and I just can't see him getting resurrected again. Its just kinda lame.

The ranger had plenty of options. Could have said, "prove he's alive," or "heal him or die," that would have taken the fate of my character out of the other player's hands and put it squarely back into the hands of the DM. Instead, he took it upon himself.

Besides, the damn villian got away anyway. I can't believe they failed to kill her off.

 

[takyris]

Re: thanks for the responses

I know this is just a game, and it really shouldn't bother me, but the ranger player in question has a habit of just doing whatever his first thought is, party be damned, rather than thinking, well that action will really screw over that player or the rest of the party, maybe there's another action that's in character that I could do.

If it's the player, deal with the player. If it's the character, your character should deal with his character -- except that your character is dead.

He doesn't do it maliciously. He just cannot see past the idea that he has to be "in character" or that there could be more than one possible action that a character could take, some maybe not so offensive.

If that is metagaming, then I guess metagaming is good. It was rather obvious that the DM was setting up a hostage, maybe even captive, situation. Another PC had been captured nearby, and it looked like that's where the DM was going.

See, the thing that confuses me is that you're saying, "He should be more in-character", but now you're saying, "It's obvious that the DM wanted this," which isn't in-character. Basically, it seems like you want whichever way results in half-orc ranger-dude not getting your paladin killed. And hey, that's understandable, but let's not declare that the guy is a bad player because his character got your character killed.

The idea of PCs getting resurrected is just plain cheesy, I can handle it once, for religious characters, if done well. But he'd been resurrected once before when the party accidentally got him killed while I wasn't there, and I just can't see him getting resurrected again. Its just kinda lame.

This might be something good to bring up with the DM. If you want to suggest that death be harder to occur but permanent, that's reasonable -- but this seems to speak more to your frustration about how you died. Again, understandable, but only really actionable if it's the PLAYER's fault, not the Player CHARACTER's fault.

Besides, the damn villian got away anyway. I can't believe they failed to kill her off.

Now THAT's worth the complaint. Paladin sacrificed for death of big villain is one thing. Paladin sacrificed for nada is something else. Darnit.

 

[Felon]

Re: thanks for the responses

Gaining levels is pretty neat - losing them annoys the hell out of me.

Ah yes, Boromir's final words to Aragorn: "

This is annoying...urrrk!"

DMs are usually the ones preaching for permanent death - without realizing how much losing a level sucks.

"Seriously, Strider...this sucks big-time...*cough*....hurry up and get me rezzed.....GAAAAK!"

The idea of PCs getting resurrected is just plain cheesy, I can handle it once, for religious characters, if done well. But he'd been resurrected once before when the party accidentally got him killed while I wasn't there, and I just can't see him getting resurrected again. Its just kinda lame.

Well-put. Don't know where you and Wombat were when this subject was broached over in the OGL Games forum in a couple of threads, but it seemed like I was the only person who felt that death should be more than a temporary inconvenience that can be remedied in a simple and routine manner. The scenario described is a damned good example. It's pretty easy to see how Raise Dead robbed this situation of any dramatic potential.

"Go ahead and slit his throat. Then you die. He'll get rezzed, then maybe you'll get rezzed...and then we do it all over again until we grow old and die of natural causes--the only death that's irreversible.

 

[Larry Fitz]

If the Ranger tries to negotiate with the Blackguard, the paladin is dead in 24 seconds anyway, assuming negotiation is anything other than:

"Stop or he dies"

"Heal him or I'll kill you too!"

"Um.. ok!"

(Blackguard makes Healing Check DC15 with 2 ranks and +3 for Wisdom, rolls a "9")

"Um just a sec..."

(Blackguard tries again, rolls a "12" Paladin is stable at -13)



Sorry about Color and Font, just playing with the new toys....

 

[Frostmarrow]

There's nothing wrong with metagaming if it leads to something that both sides want. In fact, you can't avoid metagaming of this nature ("what do the other people in the group want out of this campaign?") if you want any sort of long-lived campaign.

The point is to keep it in the background, so that it doesn't spoil disbelief during the session itself. What's annoying is OVERT metagaming, where the player says out loud "well, we might as well start negotiating, since that's what the DM wants us to do".

Thanks hong. I like to call it Positive Meta-gaming™.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Well the DM setup a situation and the character reacted to it according to his SOP apparently. Blame the DM.

 

[DaveStebbins]

Well the DM setup a situation and the character reacted to it according to his SOP apparently. Blame the DM.

Why blame anyone? I admit I don't know all the background that might be necessary to give complete advice, but here goes anyway.

The actions of the Ranger's player may have been somewhat callous, even thoughtless, or they may have been great roleplaying. Either way, he didn't attack your PC directly, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

The DM may have set you up for this (were you "cut off from the rest of the party" by PC choices, circumstances, or heavy-handed DM tampering?) or he may have taken your PC hostage as a legitimate response to the situation by intelligent NPCs. Again, without knowing the persoinality of the people involved much better, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, D&D is a game that involves lots of random resolution of situations. The sad fact is, PCs die sometimes. It's part of the game. I remember how much it hurt when some of my favorite PCs died (and when I first started playing I was much less mature about it than you're being) but, through the dozens of PC deaths and dozens more PCs who didn't, I've learned to deal with it and enjoy the game and the company of my friends no matter what happens. Move on.

-Dave

 

[diaglo]

Well the DM setup a situation and the character reacted to it according to his SOP apparently.

i agree. but no blame. just have fun. and learn from the xp.

death or near death is a very good tool for teaching the players and referees.

 

[Magic Slim]

What's the ranger's alignment? Int? Wis?



Slim