Would you quit a game if....

[prosfilaes]

Personally, I think no death in D&D is like giving all the kids on all the Little League teams trophies and calling them winners, no matter which single team won the championship.

If your alternative is not killing the losing Little League players or banning them from ever playing again, I don't think it holds.

I think it was expressed best up thread by another poster: When we watch/read James Bond, Indianna Jones, and Conan, WE know that the character will not die and has plot immunity, but the character doesn't know that! When reading/watching, THAT'S what we buy into--the peril from the character's point of view.

A roleplaying game is not played from the audience's point of view. It's played from the character's point of view. We're not telling a story as if it has already happened. In RPG's, we're living the story AS it happens.

That's not necessarily true. The instant you bring in fate points by any name, you're not purely from the character's point of view; there's extra-character choices to be made. Many gamers will create backstory on the fly, or take mechanical elements (like the feat Draconic Heritage) suddenly making it true that the character has had draconic ancestry all along.

And if it is played from the character's point of view, well, it's clear that 007 doesn't worry about him dying; he's worried about bad things happening to the British Empire and to the world. There are higher stakes then just 007's life in play. If you're really getting into character, and playing someone with goals beyond himself, surely there should be worse things a DM can do to you then kill your character.

 

[Elf Witch]

Personally, I think no death in D&D is like giving all the kids on all the Little League teams trophies and calling them winners, no matter which single team won the championship.

There's no way that "no death but penalties" carries the same weight as when your character, who've you've grown to love, is low on hit points and face-to-face with some horror that is about to take the character out of existence. There's no way that only losing a level or becoming unconscious or (instert death repalcing penalty) can provide the same thrill as coming very, very close to death, and never playing your favorite character again, but somehow pulling it off, allowing the character to live and continue in the game world.

The victory is so much sweeter because the consequence was grave (pun intended).

I think it was expressed best up thread by another poster: When we watch/read James Bond, Indianna Jones, and Conan, WE know that the character will not die and has plot immunity, but the character doesn't know that! When reading/watching, THAT'S what we buy into--the peril from the character's point of view.

A roleplaying game is not played from the audience's point of view. It's played from the character's point of view. We're not telling a story as if it has already happened. In RPG's, we're living the story AS it happens.

Therefore, death should certainly be a possibility.

I understand that this is how you feel and that this is an important aspect of the game to you. And I know a lot of players most likely the majority want this kind of game.

But what I don't understand is why you and some of the others feel such a necessity to defend how you play. I feel as if you are trying to convince some of us who feel differently that we are wrong for saying that we don't put as much importance on death as you do.

I have been waiting for someone to bring up the little league example. It is not the same thing at all. BTW I happen to agree that children playing organized sports need to learn how to lose as well as win.

DnD is not little league unless you are playing in an official RPGA game then really anything goes. Also we are not children so we don't need how to be taught how to win graciously and lose the same way. As a matter of fact for some of us DnD is not about winning and losing.

I have played many a soft ball game where we really didn't keep score because we didn't care who was winning we were just goofing around having fun hitting a ball with a bat. The same with bowling and gooney golf.

Unless you play a game with no chance of being brought back and death is permanent then there really is very little difference between losing a level instead of dying and dying and being brought back with little penalty. True resurrection has no penalties so actually the one way we played was more of a risk.

For some of us having our characters fail like getting captured, the bad guys winning this round is just as bad for us as if we died.

One of the reason the DM wanted to take death out was we were all working together building a world we had elaborate backgrounds and the game was very story orientated. One of the things the DM wanted to take out was coming back from the dead. There was no raise dead in the game.

But the DM wanted a containing developing story and characters like on a lot of TV shows. In Stargate no main character suffered permanent death the same for most Trek shows unless an actor wanted out.

So we came up with a way to make losing at combat hurt, the lost level, but not take the character out of the game. Now if you wanted your character to die it could as long as you realized it was permanent and you had to have a way to bring your new character in logically or have to wait for it to be brought in.

There were six of us and we loved this game and played it for several years. The role playing and character development was top notched.

BTW none of us played our characters like we couldn't die. To be honest I have seen more of that kind of behavior from players in games where they are high enough level to know that that come back from the dead is readily available.

 

[The Monster]

never mind...ignore this post

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't agree at all. I can't say I've ever played them, but I don't see why the risk of death is necessary. In Nobilis, what's more dramatic; if you fail, your character dies, or, if you fail, rock and roll will be erased from the world as if it never existed? Buddy Holly, Elvis, KISS, Meat Loaf, and Metallica being erased from existence as musical entities? That's dramatic.

Are you serious?

From a player perspective the loss of rock & roll is very dramatic. From the character's perspective I would say death trumps the loss of some musical style.

 

[Janx]

I understand that this is how you feel and that this is an important aspect of the game to you. And I know a lot of players most likely the majority want this kind of game.

But what I don't understand is why you and some of the others feel such a necessity to defend how you play. I feel as if you are trying to convince some of us who feel differently that we are wrong for saying that we don't put as much importance on death as you do.

The point is, a request to not die coming from YOU, an experienced player would carry more weight at my table than coming from Bob's New Guy who has never taken the time to actually try it the MAJORITY's way.

That's why everybody is jumping on the "this is why death is so important" bandwagon. You can't just show up and try to change the GM's game. That takes time, tact and knowing whether it's something the GM is open to consider.

Like I mentioned 20 pages ago, it is a new guy mistake to ever bring up "that's not how we did it at my old job" or "We should do it this way because it will be better" Groups do not like to hear that crap, and that's how you get on the wrong side of the group.

 

[prosfilaes]

From a player perspective the loss of rock & roll is very dramatic. From the character's perspective I would say death trumps the loss of some musical style.

It's the player's perspective we have to worry about, is it not? From the character's perspective . . . seriously? Given a choice between your own life, and a good chunk of humanity's cultural heritage, you'd choose your own life? I wouldn't, and if I were playing Nobilis, I wouldn't play a character that did.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's the player's perspective we have to worry about, is it not? From the character's perspective . . . seriously? Given a choice between your own life, and a good chunk of humanity's cultural heritage, you'd choose your own life? I wouldn't, and if I were playing Nobilis, I wouldn't play a character that did.

In a heartbeat.


Not to say that self preservation never gives way to a higher ideal. To die to protect the life or well being of others is the meat and drink of heroism.

Players perspective vs character perspective is a major difference between storytelling and roleplaying. If the character I was playing treated rock & roll as a religion and was fanatical enough to martyr himself for its preservation then yes, the character would gladly die for the cause.

When roleplaying, in-game decisions are usually made from the character's perspective.

 

[Water Bob]

Only if you insist that negative hit points means dead, dead, dead.

That's what the game says. Any other way of treating hit points after -10 is a house rule.

The instant you bring in fate points by any name, you're not purely from the character's point of view; there's extra-character choices to be made.

Not really. A Fate Point's purpose is akin to the purpose of levels and hit points. The more of 'em you have, the better chance it is that you live.

They're not get out of jail free cards.

Even in Conan, there's still plenty of ways to die, even if the character has two dozen Fate Points.

 

[haakon1]

I have bad news for you, mate...

I know it exists S'mon, I just don't like it.

 

[haakon1]

So, the GM tailors the campaign so that there's action to keep the players interested and rolling dice, but he always ensures it's never too much for the PCs. If he's got 10 baddies going against the PCs, and he sees the PCs aren't doing well, he scales back the oncoming 10 baddies to 3. He skips morale checks and automatically makes baddies retreat when necessary. He never stresses the PCs too much--just allows them to swing and tear the enemy up. He showers them with goodies and potections.

. . .

I guess this GM could roll his attack throws behind the screen so that, when he does hit with a creature against a PC that is vulnrable, he could flub it can call it a miss.

I guess he could do the same with damage--no matter what, the goblin rolled, it delivers only 1 HP of damage, keeping the PC alive.

I've seen a DM take the "flubbing" that far, and it makes the fighting boring for me. But the same guy will then turn around and allow deaths or even a TPK in another fight. <shrug>

I prefer to DM the enemy as TRYING to kill the PC's, most of the time. When I see the PC's are in real trouble, I tend to roll in the open, so I'm not tempted to flub it, and because that's more dramatic anyhow.

As a player, I like excitement and overcoming stuff -- or doing down -- by luck and wits, or lack therefore, not DM fiat.