What good are insta-kill spells and monsters ?

[Pants]

I got a main character killed in a side adventure with a bunch of Frost Giants... He chose not to be ressurected since this was his (count 'em) third death. I felt bad, but he blamed himself for the death.

The bad thing was, this was some stupid side adventure. Kinda surprised me really. Oh well, death happens...

 

[JacktheRabbit]

games that avoid "accidental" deaths bore the p*ss outta me.

even well prepared tactics can fall prey to just plain accidents or weather or acts of God (where Gods do take an active role in the game world)....

i like the fact that insta-kill monsters and spells exist in the game.

Well it goes both ways. If there is only a chance of death during important scenes then it takes away from the challenge of the game.

On the other hand having Symbol of Death scribed on a door you know the thief with the low save will touch first is rather boring in my book.

There has to be a balance.

 

[silentspace]

Why are people upset about this? Because it's not 'cinematic' enough?

Is the objection to all traps and ambushes? Maybe the objectors could play a gladiator game, where all combat occurs in an arena...

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'm one of those wishy-washy DMs who runs a campaign to tell a story....

I understand what you're saying - I really do. It comes down to a difference in DMing and playing styles/preferences.

But in the spirit of debate, I'll say that I don't want to, as a DM, be coming up with what I think is a cool story and having the characters moving through it. I want, instead, to be presenting a situation and having the players/characters creating their own story within that situation. When they unexpectly die or do something like heading off to an unexpected town or something, they're not ruining the story. They can't, because they are the story. What use is a campaign if you can plot out ahead of time exactly what things are going to happen in what order?

 

[MerakSpielman]

Why are people upset about this? Because it's not 'cinematic' enough?

For some people, duplicating the feel of exciting, cinematic movies and comic books is what gaming is all about. I'm not going to diss their preferences. To me, sh*t happening when you least expect it is kind of fun. To them, it destroys the mood they're shooting for.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm in with the "story not reality" crowd. I'm not interested in an extra layer of grittiness and realism if its main effect is to hamper the telling of a good story.* I'm not trying to simulate reality, I'm trying to simulate an engaging fantasy. As a result I dislike instakills both against and from the PCs. (I also agree with DocM that too much arbitrary "realistic" death leads to less player investment in their characters and less engaging characters as a result.)

I think it comes down to a gamer preference. Those who consider rpgs more of games, where you want to compete and win will want as much "realistic" death and nastyness as they can get. Those who are farther on the interactive storytelling side usually don't, it can be a barrier to a 'good' campaign. Personally, I don't find "don't die" to be a compelling challange, and thus don't worry that lower leathality will somehow fail to challange me. But I play a different game than some other RPers, even if all the books are the same.

*I once had a weird idea of making a film that would be a set of several short shorts. Each would set up a classic movie situation (from multiple genres) then resolve it suddenly through the application of "realistic events". The ending short would tie together the shorts (possibly through a cleanup crew that gets involved after all of them) while one of the characters talks about a movie he wants to write. When some plot point is challenged with "well why don't they do X?" he responds "cause then there's be no story." End film. The film would either be called "cause then there's be no story" or "15 premature climaxes." This serves no purpose except to mention that this old idea always resurfaces when there is a disagreement on this board involving the conflict between realistic 'challange' and mutually engaging story.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Calico_Jack73]

What use is a campaign if you can plot out ahead of time exactly what things are going to happen in what order?

What I meant is that the purpose of the game itself is the story. It is a gaming group process to flesh the whole thing out. I'll come up with a plot overview but I only detail the next "Chapter". I then present the situation to the PCs and they can deal with it how they see fit. After they deal with that part I figure how that part fit into the overall plot as a whole and go from there. A lot of times I'll just brainstorm on settings and situations to put the party into but I'll spring it on them only if it makes sense. The ending may be predetermined but getting there isn't and that is where the flesh of a campaign is located... in the heroes journey.

 

[Flyspeck23]

I'm one of those wishy-washy DMs who runs a campaign to tell a story. Since the story revolves around the charactes I hate killing them in a anti-climactic way. How boring would it have been in Star Wars if Luke had run into Stormtroopers when he went back home to check on his Uncle and Aunt. They'd find out where the droids were and Kenobi's status as a Jedi, call in for reinforcements and win. The Rebellion would have been crushed and the story over.

Well, that's a movie I'd love to see

That said, I don't like to railroad my players. While I set the tone of the campaign and give them tons of plot hooks, it's their choosing what to do.
And when they die, they die. Or else I could just email them the complete story of every session.

Character death isn't funny (unless your name is HamaEstra, of course ), but it should be possible. It's up to debate if they should be killed on a side-trek, but I'd say: "Yes, of course".
D&D is a RPG where death isn't final. Ok, there's the level-loss, but at least the character is back with the living - and a little loss here or there doesn't hurt...

 

[MerakSpielman]

Wow, a Fuzzy Knights reference!

My ideal is to shoot for a campaign style similar to what PirateCat has managed, as shown in his story hour. Threat of death is everywhere. Multiple epic things going on between which the PCs have to choose which to confront. Realistic consiquences for tough, kingdom-shaking decisions.

I always feel like a failure of a DM if I have to resort to attempting to influence my player's decisions. I don't expect the campaign to go in any sort of way near the direction I envisioned it. I do require that they tell me at the end of each session where they're planning on going for next time, just so I can prepare something. Even if, half the time, they bypass it entirely.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Okay, I need to clarify something. Seems like people think that because I run the campaign to tell a story that I pull punches on my players. I make every combat dice roll in front of my players. If the PCs die then they die but I don't stack the odds against them or put in creatures that can insta-kill unless I also provide a way to overcome it. It is up to the players to figure out ways to defeat difficult situations but it is up to me to make sure they never get into a no-win situation. If I come up with a couple ways to beat a situation then I know that it is not no-win. If they come up with something that I didn't think of then so much the better.