Would you quit a game if....

[prosfilaes]

Barring some HRing, the things that let your PCs come back from the dead are neither common nor cheap, thus are not always available. There is always the risk your PC may not come back.

In D&D 3.5, provided the spell is cast promptly and the character wasn't turned into an undead, there is no risk that a Raise Dead won't bring your character back. As per the wealth by level guidelines, a 5th level character can afford a raise dead spell; in a couple levels, it won't even be a big deal. (The cost table does say that whether you can get the spell cast is DM's permission.) At 9th level, a PC cleric can just cast raise dead. That is, at 9th level it is both cheap and common as per RAW, and starting from about 5th level it's affordable as per RAW and availability is unspecified in RAW.

Playing D&D with PC death included is like playing poker with cash. This is YOUR PC that you took all that time to create, and if he dies, he may be gone forever.

But it's not like playing poker with cash. Cash has established value; if you lose a PC every couple sessions, you stop getting attached to PCs.

And besides, those "other consequences?" Well, they exist in games with or without PC death, so that's really not a solid basis for distinction.

I disagree; once I've rolled up Terrance Terrato to replace Susan Sanada, the fact that Susan may have screwed up and doomed a village no longer has a bite. I no longer have to roleplay out her guilt, be her dealing with the consequences of her failure. That was a different character, that was someone else.

 

[Elf Witch]

We all find excitement in different ways. My joy isn't necessarily yours.

But to me, the very reasons you cite there for wanting PC death excluded are the reasons I want it kept in. That risk of loss helps me keep things in perspective...helps me think more like the character. As much as I want to keep my PC alive, the more I play my PC like a being with a sense of self-preservation. The choices I make for my PC will be more internally consistent with the PC's own perspective.



I love Supers games. But death is still part of the equation if you're playing "Iron Age" as opposed to "Golden Age" stuff- the stories of Wolverine vs early JLA.

I'm not saying death should always be a part of every RPG- just that I don't like changing the underlying assumptions of the genre. Death will be a part of nearly any FRPG campaign I run. Ditto Cyberpunk. Supers games depend on which era I'm going for: my Supers 1990 game was straight 4 Color...death was highly unlikely.

I am not saying I want death excluded necessarily just that I like having options that either allow a character to return from the dead or have things in the game to make death uncommon even if does not make it impossible.

What I find exciting about the game is figuring out puzzles, trying to figure out what is going on. Getting to know the world and the characters in both NPC and PC.

Combat is okay as long as it is not so drawn out that it goes on forever.

Dungeon crawls are least my favorite encounter I prefer city adventures with a lot of political intrigue.

In the game that I played in with no death I wanted to keep mine from going to -10. Losing a level could mean weeks to months having to make the XP to get it back. My self preservation was always there.

Like I said different strokes.

 

[Water Bob]

If you read the rules for raise dead all it says is you need a the component, a cleric who can cast 5 level spells and a soul willing to come back.

If you're not just playing with generic clerics (yuk!), there can be a lot of restrictive info about an order in a supplement that describes the various orders of the mythos.

No you don't. Not really deep down you feel it is the wrong way to play.

There you go again, thinking you know someone else better than they know themselves.

You've got a nasty habit of that. Third time I've seen you do it.

You're confusing what I said above with the way I play. No, I won't play where there's no death, and yes, I don't really respect players who want to play that way. It's not going to happen in my game.

But, I really don't care how you play. And, if you're playing, then I hope that you do have fun.

That's what it's all about, yes, fun?

 

[Elf Witch]

If you're not just playing with generic clerics (yuk!), there can be a lot of restrictive info about an order in a supplement that describes the various orders of the mythos.








There you go again, thinking you know someone else better than they know themselves.

You've got a nasty habit of that. Third time I've seen you do it.

You're confusing what I said above with the way I play. No, I won't play where there's no death, and yes, I don't really respect players who want to play that way. It's not going to happen in my game.

But, I really don't care how you play. And, if you're playing, then I hope that you do have fun.

That's what it's all about, yes, fun?

I have read most of the supplements on the DnD gods and they are really good for helping flesh out the cleric orders but I don't recall much on the attitude of raising dead.

I don't think a cleric of a good church would raise a dead evil person. I think the god in question would go umm no.

It really seems to be left up to the DM on how to handle it in their game. It is like healing in my roommate's game going to a temple of a god you don't worship to get healing is going to cost more than if you went to the temple of a god you do worshiped.

How is lacking respect, which is a pretty powerful feeling at least it is to me, any different that my saying that I think you think it is the wrong way to play? You are acknowledging that other people play differently and you hope we have fun but you don't respect the way we play.

I don't enjoy hack and slash style play at all for example but I would never go as far as to say I don't respect people for enjoying that style.

For the record I have never said you should change your game for the player all I ever have said is that you should talk to him be upfront with him that no you won't pull your punches to stop his character from dying.

 

[Water Bob]

How is lacking respect, which is a pretty powerful feeling at least it is to me, any different that my saying that I think you think it is the wrong way to play?

Just because I play a certain way doesn't mean that I think everyone should play that way.

There's a difference in preference and outlook on the entire game and all players that play it.

 

[Broken Druid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf Witch
No you don't. Not really deep down you feel it is the wrong way to play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterBob
There you go again, thinking you know someone else better than they know themselves.

You've got a nasty habit of that. Third time I've seen you do it.

You're confusing what I said above with the way I play. No, I won't play where there's no death, and yes, I don't really respect players who want to play that way. It's not going to happen in my game.

But, I really don't care how you play. And, if you're playing, then I hope that you do have fun.

That's what it's all about, yes, fun?



Reply by Broken Druid:

You are absolutely right. Playing any game is all about having fun. And D&D is so versatile, it lends itself to a multitude of different playing styles. Gotta love a game where Rule Zero tells you to break any rule you want if it makes the game more fun for your group.

So, what gives you the right to look down your nose at people who, having invested thought, time and who knows how many hours of play, don't want to lose their creation? Seems to me, the more roleplay-intensive the game, the more likelihood that players are going to want their characters to stay alive. And the less likely they are to fully commit themselves to participation if they know it is likely that they will lose their character.


I find it kinda egotistically hypocritical of you taking a morally superior stance on the whole death thing, what with the multitude of spells in the game specifically designed to prevent you from having to roll up a new character. The makers of the game specifically designed it so that you did NOT have to die a permanent death. Therefore, the game designers, themselves, felt that death detracted from the game. QED.

 

[Janx]

But it's not like playing poker with cash. Cash has established value; if you lose a PC every couple sessions, you stop getting attached to PCs.

This is true. If PC death happens frequently, players will stop taking their PCs seriously.

This too, is analogous to Poker. In a no-money Poker game, if you run out of chips, you'll just respawn back in with a new bankroll and keep going. The result is, you won't take the game seriously.

I disagree; once I've rolled up Terrance Terrato to replace Susan Sanada, the fact that Susan may have screwed up and doomed a village no longer has a bite. I no longer have to roleplay out her guilt, be her dealing with the consequences of her failure. That was a different character, that was someone else.

You're not wrong about this IF your PC dies. However, what Danny alluded to was that all the ideas given as alternatives to death are tools a GM uses REGARDLESS of whether PC Death is on the table. In a game with PC Death, the GM can still use those techniques to reduce the frequency of Death.

This is what I was trying to nail [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] down on, that even in her game it is POSSIBLE that a PC could die. To which she admitted, that yes, there COULD be a situation where the PC can die. That was my whole point. Unless you truly are playing an immortal, Death is always on the table, waiting for the GM to decide that you truly did screw up and there are no plausible last minute saves or escapes.

From [MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]'s explanations, it's clear to me that he runs a low death game. The two problems I quoted here are not LIKELY possibilities.

And that's another place where the newbie jumped the gun. He had a preconcieved notion of how he wanted Death handled, and didn't seem to acknowledge that the GM already has practices in place that reduce that risk such that it was a minimal issue.

My opinion on this newbie might be different if WB ran a meatgrinder campaign and the newbie had played through a session or two and lost a few PCs.

It is a pet peeve of mine when people bitch about "what about this here possibility, I think we should handle it this way..." and they don't accept that managment has already put something in place AND the situation doesn't even come up.

 

[Janx]

I find it kinda egotistically hypocritical of you taking a morally superior stance on the whole death thing, what with the multitude of spells in the game specifically designed to prevent you from having to roll up a new character. The makers of the game specifically designed it so that you did NOT have to die a permanent death. Therefore, the game designers, themselves, felt that death detracted from the game. QED.

Looking at the basic design of the game across editions, PCs are very fragile at low level compared to high level, and the Raise Dead and such isn't feasibly available to a PC until they reach a certain success level (wealth or casting ability).

I would surmise that low level PCs are expected to die more frequently because they lack the resources to prevent or reverse it.

High level PCs, which have a higher investment by the players, have numerous means within the game to prevent or reverse death as covered by the rules the players can use and not by DM Fiat.


The makers of the game didn't make it so the DM has to save your precious PC. The makers of the game made it so the PLAYERS can save your precious PC if they work for it and earn it.

the difference is, your PC does not have to die in a majority of D&D campaigns IF your players work together. The GM does not have to be part of that protection process.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In D&D 3.5, provided the spell is cast promptly and the character wasn't turned into an undead, there is no risk that a Raise Dead won't bring your character back.

I said nothing about reliability, just expense and availability.

As per the wealth by level guidelines, a 5th level character can afford a raise dead spell; in a couple levels, it won't even be a big deal. (The cost table does say that whether you can get the spell cast is DM's permission.)

Just because a thing is affordable in the books does not make it available or affordable in-game. Availability of a spell is like anything else in the game- succeptible to scarcity. Jut as the local smith may not know how to make an Urgosh (or may be backed up with other orders or may just not like your kind), the local priest may not be of sufficient level to cast RD, may not have the spell components to cast it, or may not be inclined to cast it for those outside his faith.

Or, just as likely, RD can't be used because your PC died too long ago, or had the misfortune of expiring while broke.

As for PCs, not every party has that powerful a Cleric. Our 13th level 3.5Ed group, for instance, only has one because I retired myPC when the only guys playing divine casters of any note- neither of whom played a cleric- moved away from town. And my guy can only do so recently since he is multiclassed (a Geomancer).

At 9th level, a PC cleric can just cast raise dead. That is, at 9th level it is both cheap and common as per RAW, and starting from about 5th level it's affordable as per RAW and availability is unspecified in RAW.

See example above.

But it's not like playing poker with cash. Cash has established value; if you lose a PC every couple sessions, you stop getting attached to PCs.

The analogy was imperfect, to be sure, but analogies never are.

The point stands: if you are playing a game in which you risk something you care about, you will play differently when that risk is removed. In poker, that is cash; in gaming, a beloved PC.

FWIW, two can play rhetorical games like that: y'know, in 35 years of gaming, I've never seen a campaign in which someone lost a PC every couple of sessions. But there is an analogous situation in poker as well- if you are a wealthy individual, playing in a low pot limit or low buy-in game will mean nothing to you. If you might don't really care about the cash until buy-ins reach $10k or more, the risks associated with playing in a $10 buy-in game will be meaningless to you.

I disagree; once I've rolled up Terrance Terrato to replace Susan Sanada, the fact that Susan may have screwed up and doomed a village no longer has a bite. I no longer have to roleplay out her guilt, be her dealing with the consequences of her failure. That was a different character, that was someone else.

It depends on how YOU felt about Susan, and what her failure means in the context of the campaign world.

As a counterpoint, I can retell the story of Bear:

One of my most memorable PCs of all time was a 1ED Fighter named Bear. I made a deal with my DM- give me maxed out physical stats and all of his mental stats would be 6-7s. Bear was a gentle giant, he fought because he was trained to do so by those around him (what else was he going to do?). Despite his nature, though, he had hooked up with a manipulative thief who treated him well...in order to have the most loyal and dangerous bodyguard he could find. That thief was- to Bear- brother, father and God all rolled up into a diminutive package that was his only true friend.

The thief eventually took something he really shouldn't have, and the City Watch boiled out of their barracks like fire ants from a kicked-over mound. As the party fled, the thief told Bear to protect him...

As they crossed a river on a narrow bridge, Bear turned and faced the entire Watch himself, taking down one after another until he died. By then, the party was safely away.

That happened 33 years ago. It was an important campaign event, and it was personally important to me- one of my best moments as a role-player. (i know those events were discussed in group for a few years, but then I moved away...)

Conversely, 18 years ago, I had another PC who died simply because of a series of improbably bad die rolls- bad enough that the mathematician in the group equated the probability to be on par with winning the lottery. Again, that PCs death affected me personally, since those events became part of the litany of in-jokes my group has: he's not recalled for his deeds, he is recalled for how he died.

If Terrence Terrato's death has no effect on you, it is solely because you were not attached to Terrence Terrato.

 

[Elf Witch]

I said nothing about reliability, just expense and availability.



Just because a thing is affordable in the books does not make it available or affordable in-game. Availability of a spell is like anything else in the game- succeptible to scarcity. Jut as the local smith may not know how to make an Urgosh (or may be backed up with other orders or may just not like your kind), the local priest may not be of sufficient level to cast RD, may not have the spell components to cast it, or may not be inclined to cast it for those outside his faith.

Or, just as likely, RD can't be used because your PC died too long ago, or had the misfortune of expiring while broke.

As for PCs, not every party has that powerful a Cleric. Our 13th level 3.5Ed group, for instance, only has one because I retired myPC when the only guys playing divine casters of any note- neither of whom played a cleric- moved away from town. And my guy can only do so recently since he is multiclassed (a Geomancer).




See example above.



The analogy was imperfect, to be sure, but analogies never are.

The point stands: if you are playing a game in which you risk something you care about, you will play differently when that risk is removed. In poker, that is cash; in gaming, a beloved PC.

FWIW, two can play rhetorical games like that: y'know, in 35 years of gaming, I've never seen a campaign in which someone lost a PC every couple of sessions. But there is an analogous situation in poker as well- if you are a wealthy individual, playing in a low pot limit or low buy-in game will mean nothing to you. If you might don't really care about the cash until buy-ins reach $10k or more, the risks associated with playing in a $10 buy-in game will be meaningless to you.



It depends on how YOU felt about Susan, and what her failure means in the context of the campaign world.

As a counterpoint, I can retell the story of Bear:



That happened 33 years ago. It was an important campaign event, and it was personally important to me- one of my best moments as a role-player. (i know those events were discussed in group for a few years, but then I moved away...)

Conversely, 18 years ago, I had another PC who died simply because of a series of improbably bad die rolls- bad enough that the mathematician in the group equated the probability to be on par with winning the lottery. Again, that PCs death affected me personally, since those events became part of the litany of in-jokes my group has: he's not recalled for his deeds, he is recalled for how he died.

If Terrence Terrato's death has no effect on you, it is solely because you were not attached to Terrence Terrato.

Standing at the bridge while the party escapes is a noble way to die and was your choice. I have sacrificed characters to save others in the game. To me that kind of death is not the same as losing your character because your dice are rolling 1s and the DM is rolling 20s. Death in situations like that lack meaning and feel like punishment. Especially if your plan was a sound one and you didn't do anything stupid.

Having your character die because you did something colossally stupid is one thing having your character die because another player did is also not fun.

I had just joined the party after the death of my character. I was really excited about this new character I had rolled really well and made an awesome fighter.

We got attacked and I was fighting three bad guys at once when our wizard cast evards black tentacles on them I got caught in them too. My character was crushed to death. I was very upset especially because as a player I knew that the wizard had a ring of freedom of movement that he looted off the dead body of my other character. To save me all he had to do was give the ring to the paladin who had freedom of movement cast on his armor so that the paladin could bring me the ring. He choose not to and when other people jumped on him about it he was well I was role playing my character who you all know is a greedy and secretive about magic items.

There was nothing fun or exciting about the death and I can assure you I did not have much fun in that session or the nest three I had to sit out while they traveled to find someone to raise me.

So not all death is created equal.