Your character died. Big deal.

[jensun]

So, I am still left wondering whether it is *mostly* - and possibly even *overwhelmingly* a modern and/or niche/indie RPG feature. And to what kind of an extent, if so. It's my assumption that yeah, that's so, at the moment. This is because I haven't encountered any evidence to the contrary, and it seems - to me - a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw. But if anyone wishes to debunk, be my guest, please! I'd rather know, whatever the case happens to be.

It is pretty common in Indie games, mostly because many of them have a much stronger focus on the narrative side of things. For example The Shadow of Yesterday has the Bringing Down the Pain system, in Cold City it is actually impossible to die unless you agree to it and death seems uncommon if not almost impossible in Spirit of the Century.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Also, the idea that character death BREAKS RP is absolutely absurd. I even have troubles explaining why it's so absurd, because it just seems like common sense. Every single thing in the world can build up cool roleplaying potential, and if something as big as a player dying can't, then...what? My brain shuts down at that point.

But I didn't this other role-playing thing. To use a generic food metaphor You can't tell me "Sorry, I ate all the peanut butter - have some chocolate" and expect me to be happy with it - I wanted that peanut butter.
Especially considering the possibility that I might be able to get some peanut butter first and later try the chocolate.

Also don't forget - it is not about the egoistical desires of the individual player. It's about the entire group. The DM took some of your character hooks and prepared something for it. The other players enjoyed following these hooks (along with those of their own characters). You want to see what the DM have planned. In such a scenario, there might be times where death is in fact an interesting outcome, and where it is not.
For example, if you're "resolving" a hook (maybe a missing mentor story-line, or just a general theme of your character, like choosing between family and duty), that is a good time to "raise the death flag" - because the death will most likely be meaningful for the characters goal. And so would be survival.
For example, the parties Fighter is fighting his nemesis - a lich that killed his fathers mentor, and now he is fulfilling a family blood oath started by his father. This is a good time to raise the Death Flag, to represent the stake in this goal (and, mechanically speaking, to gain a little edge). He either beats this lich, or he dies trying. This can be a meaningful conclusion of the story arc, either way.

Maybe this is the difference between "Narrativist" and "Simulationist" play (at least if used in a more "sane" way then Ron Edwards seems to use it ).

Mechanics to control character death are more about the goals of the story you'd like to tell in the game, then about fulfilling a characters goals. (If it was just fulfilling the goals, you wouldn't want to raise the death flag in the encounter against the lich - after all, the characters goal is the destruction of the lich, not dying in the attempt). It of course assumes that you are interested in particular stories to be told - but note that even this type of play doesn't automatically assumes the out-come of any game situation. It's more about "what is the story about" not "how does this story end". And by removing character death in most situations, the story is guaranteed to be about the particular character, and that it is only about his potential death when you want that story.

I guess I'm finding a disconnect in the fact that I'm seeing a few posters who, when confronted with things 4e is supposedly lacking have used the... D&D is a game of "killing things and taking their stuff" or "D&D has extensive rules for the important stuff, tactical combat" yet... this seems an extremely hollow and disingenuous defense if you play in a style where their is no risk of death for the PC's (only their opposition) and claim other things serve as the same or worse consequences after you have expressed the above as the focus or important part of the game. YMMV of course.

It's a little funny having to explain or defend a play style or a game mechanical element that I don't actually use. (Though I might be willing to...)

But if you drop unconscious in an encounter, that is a notable failure in combat. It makes the combat more difficult for the rest, and you are reduced to a spectator instead of an actor in the game. If the party is forced to retreat because of such losses, this is a failure in combat. If the entire party is dropped unconscious, that is a terrible failure because now they are in the hands of their enemies, might lose precious toys (another thing many player hate), and have lost control over their characters options. Heck, the enemy might be able to fulfill his own goals (maybe destroying your home village, completing the ritual to call a powerful demon) and you are unable to do something against it.

In fact, even in games where character death is possible, you can effectively face failure - like when you use up too many spells so the next fight becomes impossible or to risky, or when you've used up all healing.

 

[pemerton]

For example, the parties Fighter is fighting his nemesis - a lich that killed his fathers mentor, and now he is fulfilling a family blood oath started by his father. This is a good time to raise the Death Flag, to represent the stake in this goal (and, mechanically speaking, to gain a little edge). He either beats this lich, or he dies trying. This can be a meaningful conclusion of the story arc, either way.

Maybe this is the difference between "Narrativist" and "Simulationist" play (at least if used in a more "sane" way then Ron Edwards seems to use it ).

Mechanics to control character death are more about the goals of the story you'd like to tell in the game, then about fulfilling a characters goals.

Actually this is exactly how Ron Edwards uses those terms.

I think that it is the metagaminess of narrativist play - ie the play is influenced by the goals of the players, where everyone at the table knows that these are different from the goals of the PCs (being about telling a certain sort of story in the real world, rather than achieving something or other in the fictional gameworld) - that puts off a lot of the more simulationist-inclined.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I can see the advantages storywise to a deathflag game approach, but I think at least in D&D it would take away so much tension during the non-important combats that iot would ruin those encounters for me...
Which is why as a DM I hardly ever have random encounters. Every encounter should advance the plot or story somehow and therefore every encounter is important...

 

[jensun]

I can see the advantages storywise to a deathflag game approach, but I think at least in D&D it would take away so much tension during the non-important combats that iot would ruin those encounters for me...
Which is why as a DM I hardly ever have random encounters. Every encounter should advance the plot or story somehow and therefore every encounter is important...

This is an appraoch I use. There are few, if any, "non important" fights. I dont use random encounters, I dont do slogging through dungeons (much) and if the players get into a fight then it is because it is important to whats happening in the game.

 

[AndrewRogue]

To try and explain my points a little further.

First and foremost, yes, I ignore the existence of raise dead spells for the sake of the discussion because if you allow standard raise dead then... well. To be as frank as possible, in that case, death is rendered even more pointless since its NOT a threat. Its a nuisance. You might as well just say the PCs are knocked unconscious/incapacitated, since the overall effect is the same.

If they are rare and exclusive things... then you are opening an entire 'nother can of worms that I don't feel like going into here right now.

So yeah, I am defaulting to assuming death as permanent (or at least very serious) as, otherwise, it isn't, you know, a real threat.

On the subject of the death flag... perhaps you misunderstand the idea, or perhaps I merely play it differently. Basically, for me at least, the death flag is a warning. In standard combats, there are threats of the PCs having important things to them damaged/messing up their plans/etc. But I'm not going to utterly thrash them and permanently ruin of theirs.

Then, for major things, I sit back and I tell them that the upcoming stuff is serious/gloves are coming off/etc and let it be known that things can go very bad here.

In essence... it amounts to a general agreement that the players themselves know what they are getting into. They know there isn't going to be a sudden death trap in the next room, or that I'm going to roll a dragon on the random encounter table. They have a general understanding of the threat level at the time. Which I find fitting, since my games are somewhat "cinematic." TPK on mooks? Lame times.

On the subject of death breaking RP... this is actually something I'm going to very, very strenuously defend. The style of the game matters a lot, but what it amounts to is that constant transition of the game's "cast" is, in my experience, damaging in heavy RP games.

Yes, death can be cool and be used to great effect. It has been. There are epic examples and great stories to be told around the table about the time the Paladin sacrificed himself to save the party. At the same time though, its disruptive. It really is. You ever have an issue with some medium when a character died and the cast/story just suffered for it? The new guy just felt at odds with things?

Maybe its just bad luck in a series of new PCs that's colored me, but I've found that in long running games where you get an established character cast, losing one/replacing one/adding one in rapid succession (which can happen quite easily!) can really, really, really damage the integrity of the RP and throw it all out of whack, to the point where it really does become unenjoyable. Perhaps I'm unique in this experience.

Finally, despite my praise of the idea of the death flag (and my tendency as a DM to be very soft handed), that doesn't mean there isn't threat. *shrugs* There are other ways to punish PCs that don't involve killing them/ruining their character concepy completely. The issue is just balance.

^_^

Edit: And to adjust for some thoughts added above. I generally agree about the random encounters thing which is why they are used sparingly to not at all in my games.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually this is exactly how Ron Edwards uses those terms.

I think that it is the metagaminess of narrativist play - ie the play is influenced by the goals of the players, where everyone at the table knows that these are different from the goals of the PCs (being about telling a certain sort of story in the real world, rather than achieving something or other in the fictional gameworld) - that puts off a lot of the more simulationist-inclined.

Sorry, I am influenced by this and this. Which gives me the impression that this might have been what it originally stood for, but was later changed into something a lot more specific (and that's what giving GNS it's bad name.)

 

[roguerouge]

Another thing to consider is that coming back after raise dead is not the end of your problems. Consider the lowly fighter. He's in melee, doing his job, taking damage, and getting knocked out every time. Then he dies, due to a crit, but the wizard has a panic attack at the thought of going into a combat without the fighter. So they raise him.

This fighter, lagging in level, still faces the most attack rolls, but now is even less able to protect himself, has less offensive capability, and has less hit points. Now every combat, he's in way over his head. Eventually, a couple of months later in RL, our fighter dies again.

So, now the player of the fighter has a choice: he can bring the fighter back (at two level behind) and get back on the fail train, or he can bring in a new character, having wasted time watching his old character get abused for several months as a penalty for falling behind the rest of the party. The only problem with the latter solution? The party needs a melee guy, so the players beg him to play one "for the good of the party." So he designs a new melee fighter. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It's not just the harm to the story or to the narrative. It's not just sitting in time out during that session. It's that for some character types, the penalty leads to months of being the weakest link, hoping that you'll eventually catch up.

I just went through this "jail time" period of lagging a level behind as a melee character. For the last two months, I've done every combat in fighting defensively or total defense. It was very frustrating to go entire combats with one hit, while waiting for the killing blow.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm not even going to touch the Forge-ism crap being slung around.

Sorry if I'm offending people, but I honestly am flabbergasted (That's a fun word). I can understand completely that other games have no deaths, in the example of the Teenagers thingie. Seriously, I back that 100%, if the game isn't meant to have deaths, go for it.

But D&D IS meant to have deaths. That why we have raise dead spells and rituals, and rules for when you're unconsious and when you die. Heck, the whole point of the game, according to many, is to simply find new and interesting creatures and kill them. Unless you never kill anything else, I don't see why they'd hold back from killing you. And if you DID kill everything else, well, CE is still CE ;p. Lastly, while you can have consequences that aren't death, don't you think it really starts to stretch it a bit? I mean, just how many times are the bloodthirsty rampaging orcs going to knock you out and decide not to kill you?

And to cover two other points, I disagree with but completely see where Five is coming form on the "No SUPER random deaths" bit, and, yes, I do always have an idea (or two) for character backups. Heck, just earlier today I lost an Artificer to a rather deadly trap indeed (WAY TO GO DICE, NICE NATURAL ONE ON THAT DISABLE DEVICE THERE), and easily popped a new character in to replace them, neatly and easily fitting into the storyline.

 

[roguerouge]

I really can't believe that we've made it this far into this debate without this analogy.

In the most popular serial narratives on earth, death of the PCs is a very rare thing and almost always dramatic rather than in a random, non-plot advancing encounter.

I'm referring to TV.