To Kill or Not to Kill

[JesterPoet]

Yeah, I'm not adding anything really new here, but I think the risk of death is an important part of the game for me. In our last session my character (a Rog3/Rang3 that I really liked) was killed in 1 round by a sneak attack from some phase troll thingy.

It was awesome.

Don't get me wrong... I'd have preferred not to die, and really wish I'd remembered to shout, "Blackleaf, NO!" so my fellow players would think I was really clever, but that's just the way it goes. I don't think I'd have liked the character as much if he hadn't narrowly survived other situations and had the risk of death. If he couldn't die, where would have been the glory in beating that phase troll thingamajig?

I also turned down the resurrection (we determined my character had a note in his pack saying not to do so) simply because I am content to play another character. And now I really like my new character.

Maybe it's just that I can't understand getting that attached to a character. When it all comes down to it, it's just a piece of paper, and can even be recreated and run in another game if you really want to. So, I say include the risk so players feel like they've accomplished something when they pull off a cool victory.

Need help getting used to character deaths? Come on over to Minnesota, and play in one of my adventures. I'll get you used to it real quick!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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

This is the heart of the matter for me. It's not the idea of characters being brought back to life (a staple of myth and fiction), it's that it's so easy to be brought back in 3E compared to earlier editions that the fear of death is meaningless because death has been reduced to a temporary inconvienience rather than a real possibility of loosing the character.

If it's known that, at most, you can come back 3-4 times, then a player is more likely to weigh the risks associated to approaching most encounters as a potential fight as those risks involve loosing the character, where as being able to come back an unlimited number of times as the same character relegates the risk to an operating expense.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

.....

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.

this is something that keeps coming up, and I have to ask... How stupid are your players?

ok, maybe stupid is the wrong word, but I cant think of one more complimentary for this sort of thing. If I am going to the trouble of running a game, I expect my players to take it seriously. I expect them to roleplay their characters, I expect them to build characters who can be roleplayed without driving everyone else buggy, and I expect them to participate in the story in a constructive fashion. They don't do 'things that invite death', they don't behave like idiots, they don't treat my game like a big joke. In exchange, I don't generally kill their characters, and if it becomes unavoidable, i use it asa way to bring the character back in a way that it interesting for the player and character (and the plot).

If they need the fear of death to give me their attention and mature participation, I don't need them in my group. I don't want a player around who I have to scare into good gaming.

For myself, I'm more likely to have characters do stupid semi suicidal things in games with high death rates because I don't care about the future or the plot. (my expereince is that those have been the heavily railroaded games anyway, so why just troop along for the ride and make my rolls until I die? might as well die now and work on something useful.)

anyway, just saying that once you have a group who is all on the same page in terms of play style, these sorts of worries seem really odd... I do so miss my cambridge groups, but I won't be settling for any players I have to hang death over to get them to participate seriously in the story.

Kahuna Burger

 

[diaglo]

...so why not respond to his question?

i did. and will reply again...

sorry, i can't answer this without trashing your stance

just b/c you agree with Malk i'll give you the same response.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

i did. and will reply again...
sorry, i can't answer this without trashing your stance
just b/c you agree with Malk i'll give you the same response.

sorry to trash you stance on your stance , but sicne he was asking about why you enjoy your play style, its kinda sad not to be able to express that in positive, personal terms without attacking someone else. Saying how you respond to character death, and in what way it is positive to you doesn't need to have anything to do with insulting people who like to play another way... unless you only tolerate character death due to your great and burning contempt for those with a different opinion...

hmmm, this is reminding me of the last vegitarianism thread... there might be a paper here.

kahuna burger

 

[Henry]

KB, the reason I asked is because of Malk's own words:

I have tried several times over the course of my roleplaying career to run a game where death was always a possiblity, and I have always found that killing a pc makes me feel bad...So in our games, my group generaly have pc's that last from the begining to the end of the campaign. The story flourishes, the players connect with their pc's, the pc's connect to each other and everyone is happy...Maybe my group is just really good at keeping metagame out of the in charectar game but i have never seen this problem develop. They roleplay their char's as if they were really in that situation...

Meaning that he has changed his play style from one form to another. Malk asked for opinions, I gave mine, and I asked a question about his play style. He can answer better than you or I can, and I made NO judgement about his play style - I asked if it's possible his players are still gaming as if they were under the old play style, or if this had been discussed beforehand so that they knew about his change in attitude.

this is something that keeps coming up, and I have to ask... How stupid are your players?

Mine can act QUITE reckless on occasion, such as two 2nd level characters taking on an Umber Hulk (described as 10 feet tall, enormous bulk, wicked mandibles and razor sharp claws ripping through rock) for the bragging rights. They left the party (in the middle of currently pursuing another goal!) to do this, and ended up as the Umber Hulk's meal. So players can be quite reckless, and I play a game style where that recklessness can have consequences. Your mileage may vary.

 

[diaglo]

sorry to trash you stance on your stance , but sicne he was asking about why you enjoy your play style, its kinda sad not to be able to express that in positive, personal terms without attacking someone else.

however, the bias is clearly evident in the way the subject is broached in Malk's initial post.

so any reply on my behalf would appear as a "trashing" of his/your style.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

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'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?

To the first statement I have to say...

GROW A FRICKING THICKER SKIN PEOPLE!!!!

It seems that some people are reading too deep into other people's responses. They are trying to be insulted so they can fire something back. GROW UP!

As far as Malk's original question as you put it, generally I personally react with with a little disappointment but pretty much all of my most fondly remembered characters died. In 2E I played a Lawful Neutral, powermad Necromancer who more than anything wanted to become a Lich. The game went on for many moons and finally I did it. The next game session we ran afoul of a Half Dragon Demonic child of Tiamat (bear with me... it was 2E and we were 18th level I believe). He and his minions started beating the crap out of the party. As the toughest character in the party (hey... I was a Lich and an 18th level Necromancer to boot) I told everyone to flee as I'd hold him off. After everyone had escaped the demon destroyed my body and then took my phylactery and gated to the first layer of the Nine Hells. My phylactery was made part of Tiamats horde and as my soul was trapped within there was NO way for me to come back.
I fought the good fight and died because of it but it was probably the most memorable moment of any campaign I've ever played in.

As to MALK's real question... I already answered it. I think that without a real threat of death something is missing but I'm one of those crazy folks who actually liked 1E & 2E. As long as resurrection has a 100% success rate death is an inconvenience... nothing more.

 

[rogueattorney]

I'm a long-time lurker, who joined the site for the specific purpose of responding to this thread.

I'm confounded by this notion that DM's "allow" PC's to die, or that DM's "kill" PC's. Here's a pretty generic scenario:

A PC's on a mission to fulfill some campaign oriented goal. In the course of this mission he encounters a monster. The monster stands in the PC's way of fulfilling his goal. Combat ensues. On the monster's turn during combat, I roll a d20, making adjustments as appropriate in the rules, with the result that the monster hits the PC. I then roll the appropriate damage dice, making the appropriate adjustments, with the result that enough damage is dealt to the PC that he is dead.

In what way did I "kill" the PC? How was I supposed as DM to avoid "allowing" the PC to die? Was I supposed to:

A. Fudge the die rolls?
B. Not roll the die at all, and narrate an appropriate combat resolution?
C. Make sure the PC never encounters a monster unless it is statistically impossible that the monster be able to kill the PC?
D. Run a campaign in which combat never happens?

Do you know what I say to all four of those answers above, as both a player and DM? BO-RING!!!!

Players do not become attached to their characters through an endless series of adventures in which there is a 100% chance of survival. Players become attached to their characters as they survive numerous deadly encounters over the course of several adventures. That's what makes the high-level characters special: they have survived where others did not.

As to story lines that are unable to survive character deaths, I'm going to say something that might be a bit harsh, but I think it needs to be said: Storylines that are derailed by a simple character death are built on a deck of cards. There, I said it.

If DM's are going to create a story line where the PC's are the "only ones" who can save the world, or are otherwise beholden to performing certain tasks, the DM's MUST plan for what happens when they fail.

And now, back to lurking...

R.A.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Quite frankly, this seems like nonsense to me no matter how often it's repeated.

I've played off and on since 1e. And I've never liked having characters die. (Come to think of it, I've only had two characters die in that time). My characters nearly ALWAYS assess the risk of approaching a given encounter since, there is never any guarantee of being able to come back. In 3.x, if you die and your party loses the fight/runs away, odds are good that you'll end up in an orc's cookpot or as a zombie. No Raise Dead for you.

And, even if your party prevails, there is no guarantee that you will be able to get a raise dead effect in the near future. If my character had died in the Crater Ridge Mines of the Temple of Elemental Evil, the party would have needed to go back to Verbobonc to get me raised. Not too likely.

The only importance of raise dead/resurrection effects as far as I'm concerned is that it's often more plausible in a fantastic world to bring a character back from the dead than to bring a new character into the established group in the middle of an adventure. (And, in RPGA living campaigns, since you can't start past 1st level except in LotGR, they're important to be able to continue playing with your friends--at least at high levels. (Not that any of my RPGA character have died)).

Then again, maybe I just take too much of a "game" perspective on the whole thing. I don't want any of my characters to die. And none of my characters want to die. But, if they do, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether THAT character comes back or I create a new one as long as I'm still able to participate and contribute to the group. The fun for me is in playing a character rather than a particular character. So, raise dead/new character creation, whatever. The important thing is that I'm able to stay in the game.

This is the heart of the matter for me. It's not the idea of characters being brought back to life (a staple of myth and fiction), it's that it's so easy to be brought back in 3E compared to earlier editions that the fear of death is meaningless because death has been reduced to a temporary inconvienience rather than a real possibility of loosing the character.

If it's known that, at most, you can come back 3-4 times, then a player is more likely to weigh the risks associated to approaching most encounters as a potential fight as those risks involve loosing the character, where as being able to come back an unlimited number of times as the same character relegates the risk to an operating expense.