When Is PC Death Worst?

[Dausuul]

So, I was arguing in the "Save or Die" thread, and I noticed something funny. According to the poll, the majority of DMs dislike save-or-die. But players favor it almost two-to-one.

And that got me thinking about PC death. Traditionally, we think of the main burden of PC death (I'm talking perma-death here; either resurrection doesn't exist or the PCs don't have access to it) as falling on the player. Your beloved character is dead, woe, woe!

Yet my experience in 3E and 4E (less in 2E) is the opposite. Most of the time, a player whose character dies may sigh in disappointment, but the allure of whipping up a new PC quickly takes hold. The DM, on the other hand, faces the headache of incorporating a new character into the adventure on the fly.

So: When do you find PC death most unpleasant? As the player whose PC died, a different player, or as the GM? And why?

 

[Tamlyn]

So I've been fortunate enough to play in consistently good games. And I've played some characters that have died. And they typically died due to my own mistakes or playing the character true to form. I always feel worse as a GM when a character dies, but more for sympathetic reasons than for the frustration of squeezing a new character into the story.

But my real answer: It's most unpleasant when it's meaningless.

 

[amerigoV]

I chose OTHER:

I feel bad if one of my player's PC bites it (but do not tell them that). As a player, it does not bother me - USUALLY. I had a PC die lately that was a combo of poor play by another player (the Tank PULLED OUT A BOW and left the CASTER in front of him) and poor GMing (weak on the rules). That pissed me off.

If that was WOW, it was a /gquit or /gkick moment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I picked "as the DM". PCs dying bothers me more than it does the players, but I suck it up because (IMHO) it makes a better game.


RC

 

[hafrogman]

I don't DM, so I can't really compare it to the last option, but I picked when it's another player. I have fun playing my characters, but death is a risk, and when it happens, I can handle trying something new. But I recognize that not everyone feels this way. Some players get very attached to their characters, and can't handle the death. And it is invariably this character that gets killed. Every time. And the player gets sad/grumpy/accusatory/depressed/quiet and the game suffers because of it.

 

[El Mahdi]

Voted Other because I needed an "All of the Above" option.

 

[frankthedm]

PC death is the worst when it only happens 'If the DM lets it happen." For there to be any accomplishment, there must be the possibility of failure.

 

[Edgewood]

I chose as the GM. Incorporating a new PC into an ongoing campaign is a headache and it's a task I usually lay at the feet of the player. But I also see it as an opportunity for the surviving PCs to take a "reality check" (well, you know, reality being relative in an RPG that is) and realize that death is a real possibility. My experience has also revealed that the best told stories are the ones of past PCs and how they died.

 

[Umbran]

But my real answer: It's most unpleasant when it's meaningless.

I largely agree, but I'd like to note what "meaningless" means to me.*

A player puts effort into creating, building, and playing a character. Tossing away something you've worked hard on is unpleasant for you, and the people who rely in part on what you built for their own entertainment. And these folks are probably your friends, so if it upsets you, it probably upsets them just by plain sympathy.

That doesn't mean the character can't be allowed to die, but it will be most unpleasant if there's no payoff to balance the loss. Now, what counts as a payoff depends on the people at the table. Maybe the coolness of dying dramatically is a payoff, maybe the bend the loss puts in the plot is a payoff, maybe the dramatic role playing that results is a payoff. And so on.

The more effort (and success) the player has invested in making the character a cool part of the game, the bigger that payoff ought to be.




*gotta love that phrase

 

[Cor_Malek]

I went with "other": when I've invested a lot in given character and am not satisfied with what came out of it. But this is worse when I'm GM.

As a player, if I took my time to create an interesting character with a theme I want to run and he just dies very fast - I hate it for two reasons: I didn't get to have fun with given theme and I hate re-runs and clones - which means that this route is closed for me for some time.
If my character dies after I've had a lot fun with him it's OK - I lost a char, but I get to make a new one.

As GM I find it hard to keep characters of my players motivated to stay on given task while promoting logic and independency. You spend time giving incentive for PC's to form a group, they slowly meet important people, the puzzle fits in place... And then Glasuuvius dies, and it's like: "So... here's Gary. *hello Gary!* He's a re-ro..., I mean he's been hired to help you with your task." I find this... irritating.

As a fellow gamer - it's very similar to both above. I like to roleplay, and my characters are often obstructive. I love to build a bond with others, where our characters can depend on each other but also quarrel. Sometimes I base my slightly evil character on being mitigated by good leader within group.
(example - look what kinds of Belkar pulled (ie gnome merchant) when Roy died ;-P ). So when other character dies I feel like I've lost a lot of character building. But it's least upsetting to me, personally.