The Shaman
First Post
"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "
Weak Deaths
- Thread starter Doctor DM
- Start date
Argyle King
Legend
I understand that point of view. However, on the other end of the spectrum, you have a 4E characters who can laugh in the face of most monsters. It was somewhat of a letdown when the first game I played to lvl 30 ended in what basically amounted to Orcus being totally manhandled by my character without even breaking a sweat.
The same fates befell most of the other 'boss' monsters. In particular, I remember the DM of a campaign I was in trying to have Strahd flee after the party trounced both Strahd and his entourage which was an encounter that -by the book- should have been far beyond our abilities. Long story short - Strahd never made his escape; even mist form couldn't save him.
Hussar
Legend
I would point out, at the risk of edition warring, that this is hardly a 4e issue. My group flawless victoried the Tarrasque in 3.5e. Other than spending a couple of Heal spells and buffs, they finished the fight without a scratch.
I once watched my 2e group obliterate a very large, very old red dragon without a PC loss at about 8th or 9th level. Totally shocked me (the DM) as I intended things to be a chance to talk to the dragon. Instead they charged the dragon, beat it on initiative (2e gives dragons that big a +12 initiative, so beating it wasn't a huge shock. They then proceeded to beat the dragon to death.
I once watched my 2e group obliterate a very large, very old red dragon without a PC loss at about 8th or 9th level. Totally shocked me (the DM) as I intended things to be a chance to talk to the dragon. Instead they charged the dragon, beat it on initiative (2e gives dragons that big a +12 initiative, so beating it wasn't a huge shock. They then proceeded to beat the dragon to death.
Vegepygmy
First Post
Yeah, because that happens so often, right?
Argyle King
Legend
I am fully aware that it happens in all games. However, I do feel that more recent games (which includes D&D 4E) cater to a mentality that is somewhat softer. I'm not saying that's right or wrong; just my opinion that it seems to be the contemporary trend to favor flawless heroes in many games.
I totally understand the reason for getting away from 'weak deaths' and one shot PC deaths. I really do. It often does suck very much to spend more time making a character than playing a character. However, for me, I feel that the hobby's mentality(and, really, to some extent, our society's mentality) as a whole as overcompensated and taken things too far in the other direction. I prefer a more moderate approach.
Death really isn't even what I'm trying to touch upon with my statement either. In general, I feel as though -as some others have said- failure should matter. Secondly, I feel failure should matter without needing to whip out the Superman solution all of the time... "Well, we can't beat Superman, so we'll attack Lois or we'll threaten the city."
Maybe this makes me sound coldhearted, but -eventually- I'm going to get fed up with trying to help the citizens of the local village if every session revolves around me being their only hope. There are several reasons for this, but the two easiest to express are: a) if it's really that dangerous to live there, why do they not move; b) the people of said village seem to be using me as a crutch and not making any effort at all to defend themselves. By the same token, if I know that (from my point of view) the evil overlord's minions (nor the overlord himself) have any realistic hope of harming me, why should I care if he spreads his influence to the next hamlet in the middle of nowhere? This is thinking from the character's point of view; through the eyes of someone living in the game world.
On the other hand, if I'm in a world where being a PC doesn't automatically mean I'm godlike compared to everyone else in the world; in a world where failure can impact my quality of life, things change. I don't want the evil overlord to take control of the hamlet because then he increases his power base and eventually I'll have to contend with his forces. Likewise, I start to have more of a reason to care about the people in the village*.
...I'm starting to go off on a different topic, so I'll just stop there. For me, I think the issue goes beyond the definition of 'weak death.' I think the meaning of death (and failure) are part of a greater discussion concerning the reasons why I choose to play rpgs and how much importance I place upon how the world feels when I look at it through the eyes of my character as well as a discussion concerning whether or not non-combat actions should be placed on the same stage as combat.
*I'm assuming a character who did not already have some sort of family or other such interest attached to the town.
Raven Crowking
First Post
But that is a straw man. No one here advocates Failure=Death.
What is at question is only whether or not death is an acceptable form of failure.
IOW, if you allow character death, Failure is a set of values, and Death is a member of that set. Thus, if the set contains even only Equipment Loss Due to Rust Monster and Death, then living characters who have experienced equipment loss due to rust monsters have also experienced failure, even if they are still living.
Yet, no one here advocates such a narrow set of Failure which also includes Death, either. A set becomes narrow by removing options, not by adding to them.
For example, I know an EN Worlder who, over the course of several previous threads, has decried character death (in most, but not all, circumstances), so-called "gotcha monsters" (such as rust monsters), equipment loss, petrification, and indeed anything that takes a character out of the action for more than a round or two, and possibly even that.
Now that fellow has a very narrow set of acceptable "failure" conditions! Perhaps you know him?
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
SPOILER ALERT:
[SBLOCK]Ah, but if you are not playing Jack....say you are playing Ianto.....Should you therefore be immune to an alien superbug? Should you be playing Jack's grandkid, should he suddenly gain "death immunity" as well? And if you decide that the other "player characters" are now also immune to death, doesn't that mean that Jack actually wins in Children of Earth?
The immortal guy only loses because, in general, Death is on the table. Suzy, Ianto, Owen, Tosh. All dead. Owen and Suzy twice.[/SBLOCK]
From both sides of the table, tons of times.
One character of mine (2e), caught in a trap where the water level was rising, decided to try to swim up where the water was coming from. The DM decided that he had to make three tough rolls to do it.
Roll 1.....success.
Roll 2.....success!
Roll 3.....SUCCESS!
Then he surfaced in the chamber of the water weird and had to make Roll 4. Failure. He drowned. But it was fun, and I wouldn't have wanted the DM to fudge.
If I know you fudged X, not only do you remove the sense of accomplishment that comes with X, but I will always suspect that you fudged Y, Z, K, L, etc., and the sense of accomplishment that should come with them will simply drain away.
And, IME, no matter how clever the fudger thinks he is, the fudged upon always figure it out, sooner or later.
If you want "fudging", make it transparent, make it part of the game rules, make it something that the characters control (APs, Fate Chips, whatever), so that the players still win or fail on their choices, rather than the GM's choice. Otherwise, IMHO and IME, there is no real point to "playing" the "game".
Ah. The light comes on!
RC
