Your character died. Big deal.

[Mallus]

Wow...this is like some kind of bizzaro-reverse-engineering-railroading...

Stop making my head hurt with your sentences.

...why is the story a player wants to tell ("The Chronicles of Grug the Barbarian") more important than the one a DM wants to tell ("The Battles Against Nerak the Necromancer")?

That's the wrong question to ask.

Here's how I look at it: as DM, I don't really have a particular story I want to tell. What I want to do is provide my players with an engaging campaign and entertaining challenges. Given that as my goal, I don't care if the players choose to use the same character throughout the course of the entire game or if they choose to use several different ones (for whatever reason). That decision has no bearing on my pursuit of my goal. Clear enough?

 

[Imaro]

In most games, the DM still is a final arbiter and has power going beyond the scope of the strict rules. If a DM doesn't want an NPC to die, he can do that pretty easily. If you believe DMs can't cheat, they don't neath death flags. If you believe DMs can cheat, they might want death flags, too.

Oh, I most certainly do believe DM's can cheat. What I'm saying is regardless of whether you caqll it cheating or not, it would be considered railroading if a DM proclaimed no matter what you do, X cannot happen. But in this instance it's ok for players to do exactly that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Stop making my head hurt with your sentences.


Think of this way: as DM, I don't really have a particular story I want to tell. What I want to do is provide my players with an engaging campaign and entertaining challenges. Given that as my goal, I don't care if the players choose to use the same character throughout the course of the entire game or if they choose to use several different ones (for whatever reason). That decision has no bearing on my pursuit of my goal. Clear enough?

As a DM, you also can play around with the entire world. There is no in-game mechanic for a player to say "the world is destroyed. The DM has to roll up a new one." At least, not in most games.

I point this out because as a DM I actually often have the motivation to tell a certain story. Of course, I wouldn't want my players to be forced into it, but I am usually fine with setting up situations so that the more likely outcome (taking into account the player and character personalities) will be the kind of story I prefer. And it's sometimes quite a fun to see how the players will still "break" the original story I had in mind. Just hope I haven't forgotten to give me enough hints to see what could happen then...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, I most certainly do believe DM's can cheat. What I'm saying is regardless of whether you caqll it cheating or not, it would be considered railroading if a DM proclaimed no matter what you do, X cannot happen. But in this instance it's ok for players to do exactly that.

I also tend to think it's possible to "cheat" as a DM. At least I feel dirty when I "interpret" the dice a little different. But just like rail-roading, I sometimes things it makes for a better experience, not a worse one. But you have to be conscious about why you do it, and if _really_ benefits the game.

 

[Umbran]

You need permission from the player to kill his character or something?

Pretty much, yes.

I play in one larp campaign for which the GMs have said that for the most part, there's no need for your character to die unless you want it to happen.

Mind you, this is a three-year campaign where each episode costs a player a couple hundred bucks in registration, travel, and housing. And there are 60+ players, so that killing you off in one place may have massive impact on other plots. But it is easy enough to bring that concept into a smaller game.

 

[billd91]

As a DM, you also can play around with the entire world. There is no in-game mechanic for a player to say "the world is destroyed. The DM has to roll up a new one." At least, not in most games.

I actually played in one that did. PCs could attack the DM who had a low AC and low hit points. Other PCs, who were happy with the way the campaign was going, however, could get in the way of the attack and protect the DM. Plus, we, as players, could award the DM experience if we thought the game was good, and he could get levels, making him harder to kill...

 

[justanobody]

Pretty much, yes.

I play in one larp~~~

Already TMI. It explains where this has any real affect that has nothing to do with PnP RPGs, or your ability to play RPGs. But LARPs are not D&D or PnP games. Things just don't translate over well.

When you have 3 STs and 110 players, you know that 95% of the players will have little to no real impact on the "game" or story-telling, so it matters very little what even happens to them. There is rarely any death unless it is major characters part of the major plot, that the little characters are just watching unfold.

 

[apoptosis]

For me (and my group in general). Whether death is on the table or not really depends on the game (campaign) that is being run.

For a game that is centered around death-defying adventures, removing death as a potentially unwanted result would definitely cheapen the game and any outcomes.

When i play D&D, i generally would want PC death as a potentially uncontrollable result as a facet of the game. For me it is required to makes a game about surviving dungeons filled with deadly critters interesting. Of course there is a continuum from not deadly to deadly based on mechanics, action points, narrative points etc.

Certain games like sorcerer where the real visceral fears for your character dont lie in the potential for death but for corruption, then this death might actually fight against the mood of the story.

I talk a lot about TSOY but the entire Bringing Down the Pain mechanic is really nice in that death is potentially always on the table but it mostly depends on whether the contest is important enough for the player to risk death. Very few stakes are death, if you fail a conflict (combat or other) then you suffer the result of failure of the conflict. If the conflict is important enough for the player, they can up the ante and "bring down the pain" and entering this granular conflict the stakes could escalate where death is now on the line.

Important NPCs also cannot be removed from the game permanent without bringing down the pain but only players can decide to initiate this type of conflict.

 

[Hypersmurf]

HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's just silly.

Is it April 1st already?

You've been warned once in this thread already about this sort of post.

Out.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Treebore]

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.

For me it comes in when I have developed a personality for my character, "gotten into it" if you will. That is when it bugs me. However, I accept it because I like death being real.

Why is there raise dead, etc...? Because coming back to life is a pretty common "story" in many histories, especially when they are also a hero. It is also a great way to allow favored characters to continue to be played.

When PC's die in my game it is up to the player if they come back to life, or start a new character. Usually they like their character and want to continue with it. So they are raised/resurrected.

I also do not penalize characters, or players, for the PC death. I do not make them play a character one level lower, I do not make them lose a point of CON, etc... The death itself usually creates more then enough angst, I certainly do not need to add to it with further "punishments".

I also hate it when DM's do add the insult to injury, because it "Makes it more realistic". Coming back to life is realistic?

I also do not agree with lowering the PC level for new characters. I award XP's to the player, not the PC. The player is the one who has put in the time and effort to earn those XP's. To make them play a new character of a lower level devalues the contribution of the player, and punishes them for their PC's death above and beyond the loss of the PC.

I like to run my games as "realistic" as possible, but I also like for them to be fun. So even though I have no problems with there being PC death in a game, I will do whatever I can to minimize the "negativity" of the experience.