To Kill or Not to Kill

[Calico_Jack73]

I think part of the issue is that there is a 100% success rate at bringing back the dead in 3E.

Here we go with a reminise about 1E & 2E...

In the previous editions you had a percentage chance that you couldn't be brought back and it was based on your CON. Everytime you died your CON went down so you had a greater chance of missing that percentage. In the end it was the chance that your character might NOT make the percentage roll even on the very first resurrection that put a little fear of death into the players. Players don't mind dying in 3E because there is a 100% success rate at bringing them back. If I knew that without a doubt I could be brought back to life I'd be a lot more reckless too (I'd probably go skydiving which I'd never do IRL). Another thing is the way the experience system in 3E works. Even if a PC loses a level due to being resurrected the experience system will work out to get him back up to the party average fairly quickly. In a flat, unequal XP system a loss of a level is a big deal... the system won't catch you up.

Anyway... just my $0.02.

 

[Henry]

As for the matter at hand, I'd say that you don't have to actually die to be afraid of death.

It's almost clinical psychology - in general, we want the things that are harder to obtain. If it's easy to die and harder to live and get reward, that's what we shoot for. If the DM absolutely WON'T kill us off, we see it as a challenge to actually get killed off.

The trick is, if it's TOO hard, we usually lose interest. Killer DM's in general have just as few players as DM's who offer few risky situations.

Malk, hopefully this won't sound insulting, but do your players actually KNOW you likely won't let them die in the face of danger? Perhaps they're still operating under the assumption that you're running a fairly deadly game in the previous style, and won't provide a loophole in the event of a party death? Either that, or whoever ran the previous game instilled some of the same?

There are other consequences for failure or stupidity too - ability loss, level loss, etc. but death to me adds a large bit of plausibility to a campaign.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I don't go out of my way to kill players...I mean characters...but death happens, a good hit, a fire ball, the player refusing healing thinking they have enough.

Death has to be at least a possibility, call it fear of being stupid for lack of a better term.

 

[Henry]

Another thing is the way the experience system in 3E works. Even if a PC loses a level due to being resurrected the experience system will work out to get him back up to the party average fairly quickly. In a flat, unequal XP system a loss of a level is a big deal... the system won't catch you up.

Anyway... just my $0.02.

I have to differ because I saw under AD&D (with its geometric progression) how if a person lost a level, they got back within one level of the other players by the time those players got to their next level. In other words, by the time the 9th level fighter got his 250,000 xp to get to 10th, even the guy who would start at first level got back up to 9th with the 125,000 xp needed. It was only after 10th level that level loss was very telling, because you had a solid XP value each level that had to be earned.

It's close to the same experience under an arithmetic progression, but actually gets worse as time goes on at higher levels. 3E's difference is that it doesn't stop increasing arithmetically.

(Hopefully, I didn't confuse arithmetic, geometric, and logarithmic progressions. )

 

[Calico_Jack73]

It was only after 10th level that level loss was very telling, because you had a solid XP value each level that had to be earned.

You went back on your own disagreement. I didn't mention any particular level.

At low levels it wasn't that bad... after 10th... VERY BAD INDEED. I especially hated it when I played a spellcaster and I had just got access to a cool new spell. It's like being a kid and having your favorite toy taken away.

Worse yet... remember the old 1E & 2E Reincarnation spell? Nothing was worse than dying as a spellcaster coming back as a badger! At least in 3E you come back as a Humanoid.

Badgers, Badgers, Badgers, Badgers, Badgers, Badgers, Badgers, Badgers, Badgers, MUSHROOM MUSHROOM!!!

 

[Umbran]

this was going to be my answer. but Malk asked us not to trash others' views.

But P-cat didn't trash another's views. Trashing a view is to say that it stinks, in general, for everyone. P-cat noted what does or does not work for him. He makes no universal statements aobut anyone's views.

I've seen games that allow death (some with frequent death, others with infrequent death). I've seen games that have no death. It seems to me to just be a style choice, and some people just don't like some styles.

For me, they all work, just so long as the path chosen fits the flavor of the rest of the game.

 

[diaglo]

But P-cat didn't trash another's views...

he trashed the views of his DM. behind the DM's back even.

 

[Philip]

As for the matter at hand, I'd say that you don't have to actually die to be afraid of death.

Sure, just think of our own lives. Its just that players will expect their character's action to have logical consequences. If those actions invite death, and it doesn't come calling, you campaign becomes less believable.

I have run a continous campaign for 8 year now, and there have been no PC deaths. The challenges are tougher than average (nowadays, average CR's are party's level +2 to +3.

Most of the players are deadly afraid of their characters dying, but the dice always roll in their favor when things get really hairy (I make it a point to roll everything openly). And because of their fear of dying they rarely fail to prepare properly and always think hard during a battle to come up with optimal tactics.

They know (or believe) I will kill their characters if they behave stupidly, so actually killing them is not neccessary. Besides being a major hassle because I run a storyline-based campaign.

 

[Altalazar]

No matter how "easy" it is to restore life, I've never known a player who was happy about a character dying. (Not unless they didn't like it and wanted to start a new character anyway, which makes the whole raise dead issue moot).

At the very least, it costs resources. The player may not be raised for some game time, in which case they are reduced to spectator. There may be other bad consequences as well, such as loss of property or an important goal.

In some ways, it allows the gloves to totally come off in a way that a game without any such magic couldn't allow. Cthlulu, for isntance - you die there, you're dead. So as a GM you'd have to be very careful not to just kill off the party, even at high levels.

Or on the other side of the coin, there is paranoia - where you don't have raise dead, but you DO have clones - which is even better - they can run right back in. So death is pretty frequent - but it doesn't detract from the game and no one wants to die if they can avoid it.

Raise Dead will ALWAYS cost SOMETHING - a cost that players probably won't want to pay - certainly not on a regular basis. And some means of death require True Res - so there the cost is even higher.

I think it doesn't detract from the game. There are still consequences for dying, consequences players likely won't want to have to pay - but will pay if forced to - and then there is the added benefit of a player being able to continue a long-running campaign with their beloved character.

In many works of art - like movies and TV - you often see just how much writers HATE to have ANYONE who is a good character die - they'll make the villain come back again and again, after seemingly being killed. Sometimes they will outright bring characters back from the dead - all because the characters in question bring such rich textures to the story as a whole. Sure, it can get cheesy, but it can also make for compelling storytelling.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Malk, hopefully this won't sound insulting, but do your players actually KNOW you likely won't let them die in the face of danger? Perhaps they're still operating under the assumption that you're running a fairly deadly game in the previous style, and won't provide a loophole in the event of a party death? Either that, or whoever ran the previous game instilled some of the same?

I'm not malk, but henry, that is really insulting, and I'm suprized to see it coming from you. Basicly you're assuming that no one really enjoys a different game than you do, they just don't know they are playign it different and enjoy it out of ignorance.

I enjoy games as a player when I know that my character will not die except by reckless stupidity. (I'm going to ignore the red herring of DMs that won't LET a character die because thats just a weird form of railroading - one I have expereinced, and has little to do with what was brought up) I like those games for various story related reasons, I'm never bored, I never feel invincible, I never do stupid things to see if I can die. It gives me the freedom to enjoy my character and enjoy the story. I'm happiest when these things are spelled out in advance and I know how much to bother investing in my characters.

I'm also not sure anyone has actually bothered to answer malk's question - everyone has just been attacking his game play style in more or less polite fashions. to reiterate, how do you respond when a character you have invested in or had plans for dies suddenly? Do you not invest or plan? Do you just always have another idea to move on to? Do you bring back the same characters in different games and settings in the hopes that eventually you will be able to fully use them?

Those of us who like plot immunity games are perfectly happy with it, and it seems at least those of us on this thread aren't trying to convert anyone... so why not respond to his question?

kahuna Burger