Thoughts on Character Death

[Hjorimir]

What do you think? Am I wrong to be a bit annoyed at my buddy who plays the ranger.

Yes, you're wrong. It is role-playing...make sure you distinguish the character from the player. Now if the paladin is raised I can see that he might be a bit disappointed if he learned the details of his final moments.

Keep it in perspective.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

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.

Is it the player who "cannot see past the idea", or is it the character?

I think that is the biggest question spawned from your post. If the player is roleplaying his character as someone who does not think past the first idea that pops into his head, then I see nothing wrong at all with what the ranger did. IF he is roleplaying his character this way. If he is just going with what the first thing that pops into his head is, without taking into consideration what the character may do in such a situation, then that is a problem. To surmise: were I in your place, I would be fine with the first instance, not fine with the second. If it is all the player, and he is not roleplaying his character correctly, I would bring it up with the DM (quietly, before or after a game, not during, and very respectively). However, if you are currently in a hack-n-slash game (which I assume you are not because of some of your comments), I doubt there is much to be done about it.

Personally, were I the ranger and were in that same exact situation, I would have charged the half-orc blackguard (being my racial enemy). Were that not possible, the cleric would have gotten it.
I certainly would not have taken the half-orc blackguard's word - I would have assumed that he would kill you anyway. And as for the "hostage situation" that you stated it looked like your DM was setting up - just because it looked like that to the players does not mean it looked like that to the characters. For all the characters know, they were going to kill all of you - because unlike the players, the characters don't have knowledge of a kindly (hopefully) DM sitting behind the screen.

Also, why is the political intrigue thrown out the window? With only limited info, I, for one, cannot see how that ties in.

Edited for typos...

 

[Norfleet]

Dying in D&D is a character-building experience. The first few times it hurts a bit, but after that, you kinda get used to it.

Indeed. I'd have to agree with that. It's rather like how being shot in the head with high-caliber ammunition is one of those once-in-a-lifetime mind-blowing experiences.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Was it really necessary that he die, though?

Suppose characters were tougher and more durable... Instead of dieing at -10 HP, they died at -Max. HP, instead, but still went unconscious at zero... At lower levels, you could even say that you died at -10 or -Max. HP, whichever was lower (so as not to hurt the non-D10 classes).

Does it hurt the game?

Speaking only for myself, of course...

Yes. It hurts the game badly.

It's already way too easy to avoid death in D&D. And before I get the whole "You're a DM, you don't know what it's like" bit, yes, I usually DM. But when I do play, I'm the first one arguing against any "fudging" when it comes to my character. Even if the DM normally changes die rolls behind the screen to keep characters alive, I'd rather he didn't with mine, so long as the circumstances under which my character dies are A) heroic, or B) a truly fair fight. Both of which have happened, and both of which I consider part of the game. If there's no risk, I simply don't have as much fun, on either side of the screen. Few things get me to eye-rolling faster than a situation where it's obvious I survived "just 'cuz."

Frankly, I think -10 is a gift. -full hit points would just about guarantee that nobody ever dies once they get past, say, 4th or 6th level. In fact, I've removed the roll to see if you automatically stabilize while dying. When you're below 0, you drop a hit point every round until someone helps you, or until you die.

And to me, one of the single best roleplaying experiences D&D can offer is the chane to RP a truly heroic sacrifice. Saying "My character died in a last heroic act to save his friends" means something. Saying "My character was brought to -32 hit points so he had to get a few extra cure spells" doesn't.

Again, my take only. But you asked for opinions, you got 'em.

 

[AeroDm]

My group seems to be truly original in that we abhor being raised. If a character dies, people refuse to replay it and will make a new one immediately. People just can't handle playing a "tainted" character.

As for the true topic at hand, I'd say that he absolutely has the right to be annoyed. His character died, he didn't want him to die. You shouldn't take it out on the player of the ranger in real life, and you should try and make sure that you still have a good time, but certainly feel upset (within reason) that you lost a cool character.

 

[Nightfall]

I say kill em all and let the gods sort it out. You can tell I'm feeling very chaotic today.

 

[hong]

Speaking only for myself, of course...

Yes. It hurts the game badly.

It's already way too easy to avoid death in D&D.

Mouse, you gots to play some high-level D&D before making such categorical statements.

The campaign I'm playing in has averaged one death per session ever since we hit 15th level. When we went into the RttToH, it went up to two per session. When we were fighting Acererak himself, it went up to three. The only thing allowing us to maintain some semblance of continuity has been plentiful use of true resurrection. There should certainly be an element of danger in combat, but you can have too much of a good thing.

All of this has nothing to do with how evil the DM is, or how dumb the players are (although in some cases it may be a contributory factor). The fact is that high-level D&D is _deadly_. Miss a save against an instakill spell, or linger too long in the vicinity of a huge melee brute, and you die. Now it's true that our campaign probably features more combat than average, but there have been enough people saying the same thing that I can conclude it's a fairly universal experience.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Mouse, you gots to play some high-level D&D before making such categorical statements.

The campaign I'm playing in has averaged one death per session ever since we hit 15th level. When we went into the RttToH, it went up to two per session. When we were fighting Acererak himself, it went up to three. The only thing allowing us to maintain some semblance of continuity has been plentiful use of true resurrection. There should certainly be an element of danger in combat, but you can have too much of a good thing.

All of this has nothing to do with how evil the DM is, or how dumb the players are (although in some cases it may be a contributory factor). The fact is that high-level D&D is _deadly_. Miss a save against an instakill spell, or linger too long in the vicinity of a huge melee brute, and you die. Now it's true that our campaign probably features more combat than average, but there have been enough people saying the same thing that I can conclude it's a fairly universal experience.

Well, it's true I don't play as many high-level games as I do low- to mid-level, but I have played them. In my experience, death at high levels very often comes, as you say, from insta-kill effects...

And the suggestion of letting a person live longer at negative hit points won't impact those effects at all. Nerf your save against a beholder's death eye, it doesn't matter how many extra HP you've got.

So it fails to fix a problem that might actually exist--the prevalence of instant death effects at high levels--while offering a solution to something that (IME) is not a problem--death through actual attrition of hit points. And that's a circumstance which I still maintain is often too easily avoided. Not always of course--I've both killed and lost enough PCs to know that character death does happen--but often.

 

[hong]

Well, it's true I don't play as many high-level games as I do low- to mid-level, but I have played them. In my experience, death at high levels very often comes, as you say, from insta-kill effects...

And the suggestion of letting a person live longer at negative hit points won't impact those effects at all. Nerf your save against a beholder's death eye, it doesn't matter how many extra HP you've got.

So it fails to fix a problem that might actually exist--the prevalence of instant death effects at high levels--while offering a solution to something that (IME) is not a problem--death through actual attrition of hit points. And that's a circumstance which I still maintain is often too easily avoided. Not always of course--I've both killed and lost enough PCs to know that character death does happen--but often.

Actually, I'd say it's almost as common to die from being beaten to death, as from an instakill effect. A lot of monsters at high levels are capable of dealing 200+ points of damage per round, especially if they get a crit. Now maybe a pumped-up barbarian can soak that and keep fighting, but most other PCs are going to be a grease spot. Mobility tends not to be a major issue either, so it's not like you can depend on your shield wall keeping the monsters away from the wizards and other back-row people.

That said, the prevalence of instakill effects at high levels certainly is a problem. IMC I'm testing out various metagame mechanics to handle this: allowing rerolls, and giving out hero points that can be used to get big bonuses to a roll. With these mechanics in place, I've had two PC deaths so far (campaign is at 9th level right now). Without them, it would have been more like 5-6.

 

[Mouseferatu]

That said, the prevalence of instakill effects at high levels certainly is a problem. IMC I'm testing out various metagame mechanics to handle this: allowing rerolls, and giving out hero points that can be used to get big bonuses to a roll. With these mechanics in place, I've had two PC deaths so far (campaign is at 9th level right now). Without them, it would have been more like 5-6.

I once instituted a house rule that said insta-kill spells like finger of death and wail of the banshee--and of course the equivalent monster abilities, like the beholder's death eye--knock you to -1 HP and dropping, rather than dead outright. In essence, they start your body shutting down, but someone who knows how to heal still has a chance of saving you.

It works for most spells, though I was never able to logically make it work with disintegrate. Might want to give it a try, see if it works for you.