Your character died. Big deal.

[RyvenCedrylle]

Risk is very important in an RPG, no doubt. But let's not limit 'risk' to character death. Loss of items or experience levels, failing to complete the mission - just a few ways to create risk or drama in a game. Heck, in our rotating DMs game (which were homebrewed cyberpunk-types), we used to TORTURE each other's characters, both physically and emotionally. Learning my in-game wife was barren, then finding out she had one egg left that no one knew about and hey, she's pregnant, then the child is abducted and oh, my wife and I now have to kill her because she's been mutated into a giant half-robotic spider monstrosity.. that was an extraordinarily memorable plot that created drama and risk for the character that had nothing to do with death. Heck, most of our characters killed themselves after accidentally commiting genocides, being mutilated beyond recognition or after their families were slaughtered in front of them. One of our campaigns ended when one character found out that the time-hopping BBEG we couldn't stop was actually him in the future.. he went nuts and in doing so, fulfilled the required role. We rarely had character death because it was so anticlimactic and far more fun to just screw each other over in good fun.

 

[Rechan]

You have stumbled upon one of the great emerging divides in RPGs.

Some folks feel strongly--realy strongly--that you should have a player "green light" before axing their character.

For some folks (raises hand) risk is part of the game, and lack of token risk to the imaginary character takes an element of suspense and danger from the game.

And then there are those like me, who are practically eager to have their character wacked.

Death is an opportunity to play a new character. To play something different, another idea in my head, to try something else.

I'm running a game right now where a player is perfectly happy for his paladin to get axed because he is very eager to play the character sitting in his pocket.

 

[Runestar]

I am wondering which came first in 3e.

Did the numerous ways of raising a PC from the dead come about as a solution to the many sudden death scenarios running around, or did the designers evidently feel that it was okay to run save-or-dies frequently due to the prevalence of resurrection effects?

I mean, it was not uncommon then for the rogue to fail a save-or-die against a finger of death, but it was just as easy for the party cleric to bring him back to life just as readily by casting revivify.

 

[Umbran]

I am wondering which came first in 3e.

Did the numerous ways of raising a PC from the dead come about as a solution to the many sudden death scenarios running around, or did the designers evidently feel that it was okay to run save-or-dies frequently due to the prevalence of resurrection effects?

If I had to guess, I'd say neither. Both save-or-die scenarios and multiple ways to come back from death were present (and, by my estimation, more prevalent) in 1e and 2e. I expect that the structure was carried over as a whole.

 

[Fifth Element]

For the record, I see the difference. Yet you were the one that implied I was pushing a false dichotomy. So re: condescension, practice what you preach.

Sorry, in no way did I intend to imply that these are the only two possibilities. They are two extremes used to illustrate that there are definitely differences in the ways a PC can die. There are, of course, many others in between.

 

[Dausuul]

If I had to guess, I'd say neither. Both save-or-die scenarios and multiple ways to come back from death were present (and, by my estimation, more prevalent) in 1e and 2e. I expect that the structure was carried over as a whole.

Of course, that just pushes the question back to 1E.

My guess would be that resurrection magic was introduced in response to the high level of arbitrary death. Arbitrary death is inherent in the mechanics of the early editions, so it seems unlikely that resurrection magic came first.

 

[Glyfair]

You're missing the point. Or the points, even.

1. Character death means you have to stop playing for a time, perhaps a significant amount of time. You're there to play the game, not watch others play it. Therefore character death is annoying.

2. With save-or-dies specifically, it's not death that's the problem, it's the instantaneous, one-d20-roll-determines-it-all nature of the death. Many people do not find that fun. "You rolled a 1 on your save? Too bad, you're dead. Stop playing now."

While both are issues, in my experience the biggest issue is the amount of time spent on a character. If I spend 2 years developing a character, working out plotlines in the campaign (especially if many are far away from a chance of fruition) then the death of the character hurts.

This also applies as a DM. I spend of a lot of time involving the PCs in the world. I create plot threads to attach the character to the campaign, often foreshadowing important plot elements. Significant amounts of work go down the drain when a PC dies (especially one with a lot of unresolved plot elements).

And, of course, there are many variations to the divide which don't fall into the categories above. For example, I like to have a fair amount of risk in the game and especially repercussions for failure on the part of the PCs. But I personally find death (especially permanent character death) to be a particularly boring risk/repercussion, plus I like my players to be able to play the characters they want (and to do so as a player). So I've eliminated death as a repercussion in my games, while retaining a lot of risk and consequences for failure. It's easy to do and my game is much the better for it.

Yes, the biggest fallacy I see from those who criticize campaigns that have eliminated death without player approval from the campaign. They criticize that risk and repercussion are gone.

If done well that isn't the fact. The only fact is that the repercussions aren't death. They are other things. In fact, I have seen games where the repercussions are things some players hate more than they would have hated their character's death.

I have nothing against the default assumptions about death being a risk taken. However, that's not the only way to play and you can play without it and still have significant risks and repercussions.

 

[blargney the second]

I wonder if there's a correspondance between attachment to PC (with consequent dismay at their death) and the amount of effort required to put one together. 3e is known for having relatively complex character creation, and it's the edition of D&D where I've seen the most distress over losing a PC.
-blarg

 

[justanobody]

Personally...I hated losing OD&D or red set characters, even. Not only the work for me, but the fact that you have to build yourself back into the story somehow with the new character.

It is a distinct possibility for others, and 3rd did have a LOT of options you could add to them as the levels grew.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I wonder if there's a correspondance between attachment to PC (with consequent dismay at their death) and the amount of effort required to put one together. 3e is known for having relatively complex character creation, and it's the edition of D&D where I've seen the most distress over losing a PC.
-blarg

Yeah, I've wondered that too - seems pretty reasonable, really. But I haven't seen the theory borne out, so far. Well, not much - some folks, yes; most, no.

Actually, it's been a couple of the 'rules-liter' games where I've seen the most attachment to PCs, and in particular strong feelings about the dying of said PCs. Making characters up, and statting them out, hasn't - typically - been the biggest downer.