Your character died. Big deal.

[Mallus]

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.

I was just going to bring this up... but let me add that many of the genre classics that inform D&D fit into the death-lite/death non-existent mode too.

Readers can safely assume that Conan or Elric or Fafrd&Mouser will survive to the end of the their respective stories. Does that mean they are without tension? Without adventure? How can these stories be thrilling if their protagonists don't risk actual (well, actual-fictional) death?

 

[Runestar]

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.

It wasn't raised because said analogy was not apt at all.

In TV, everything is scripted. You don't have main characters dying random deaths because the director mandated that it be so.

But in dnd (or any other pnp game), your fate should be determined by the most fickle of women (ie: lady luck), in the form of dice. You can't say "I am meant to be a hero, so I am not supposed to die to random events like being staked by a frozen icicle of urine dropped out of a passing aeroplane".

Rather, you escaped such a henious fate (perhaps because you made your reflex save or something?). Only then can you say "Ah, I escaped being impaled because of my superior stats, sound tactics and a little luck. I am a hero."

So it is more like a retroactive event where you look back at your accomplishments. The TV analogy is applicable only if you are looking back at your character at lv10 and recounting his feats from 1st lv, rather than as a "live feed" sort of scenario, because that would be the only time you can be certain that you are going to survive to lv10, since you have already experienced it all.

Basically, I just feel that nothing should be confirmed until it has actually happened. I said it before, and I feel compelled to say it again. You shouldn't automatically feel entitled to "benefits" such as "no deaths" just because you are a hero. Rather, you are a hero exactly because you survived it due to your own merit, and not just because the DM made it hard for your party to die. Half the fun of dnd is testing my mettle by pitting my own optimized PCs against the worst the DM has to throw at us! If I die, so be it. It simply means that my character was too weak, so it is time to get back to the drawing board and create a better one.

 

[Fifth Element]

But D&D IS meant to have deaths.

And? Just because the designers intended something, doesn't mean that's how everyone has to play. D&D has a long tradition of house-ruling. Not everyone plays the game exactly as it's presented in the books. And there's absolutely, positively, 100% nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make them lesser people, it doesn't mean they aren't playing D&D, it doesn't mean they should be writing stories instead of RPing, etc, etc.

and easily popped a new character in to replace them, neatly and easily fitting into the storyline.

That's nice when it works, but it's not always possible. Sometimes it's quite complicated to get a new character into the game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Runestar's points regarding heroism remind me of the fairly common reference to the difference between courage and an inability to experience fear.

That is what I was getting around to posting before. For some reason, the forums appeared to go a bit funny, so it took a little while.

 

[Mallus]

It wasn't raised because said analogy was not apt at all.

It's quite apt, so long as you read it right.

In TV, everything is scripted. You don't have main characters dying random deaths because the director mandated that it be so.

That isn't the point.

The point being made by the television analogy is that it is possible (in fact common) for adventure stories to be interesting and dramatic even though the protagonists survival is all but guaranteed.

But in dnd (or any other pnp game), your fate should be determined by the most fickle of women (ie: lady luck), in the form of dice.

If all I wanted was the thrill of putting my fate in the hands of dice I'd drive to Atlantic City and bet a lot of money at the craps tables.

 

[Fifth Element]

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...

I'm very much the same way. I don't use random encounters. I don't use a literal death flag mechanic (ie, the players don't actually get to decide whether or not the PCs can die), but I use various cues (in-game and out) when the PCs are in an important encounter. The important encounters are when the kid gloves are off, and death is a real possibility. And the players know it.

In less important encounters, it takes a large amount of bad luck to kill a PC.

 

[Imaro]

Don't get your back up. There's a lot of arguing that "D&D is fundamentally about killing things and taking their stuff" going on in other threads recently. It's not an unsupported general swipe at people.

Thanks, you summed up my answer to this accusation pretty much perfectly.

As far as the topic, let me first say I as a DM have fudged to stave off totally random PC deaths, though I also enjoy the hardcore do or die playstyle at times as well. I guess the hardest one I'm having a problem connecting with is the greenlight style.

Basically agreeing that no matter how crazy, stupid, or thoughtless an action a player may take... I can't kill him unless he says so. I guess I could see this more if it applied equally to players and DM NPC's (but I'm getting the general impression this is not the case in these types of games)...then yes we are choosing to tell a collaborative story (Like tv, novels, etc.) and the main villain won't die early because you were smart or lucky or played well, he will die when I, the DM, feel it is naratively appropriate just like your PC's.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Basically, I just feel that nothing should be confirmed until it has actually happened. I said it before, and I feel compelled to say it again. You shouldn't automatically feel entitled to "benefits" such as "no deaths" just because you are a hero. Rather, you are a hero exactly because you survived it due to your own merit, and not just because the DM made it hard for your party to die. Half the fun of dnd is testing my mettle by pitting my own optimized PCs against the worst the DM has to throw at us! If I die, so be it. It simply means that my character was too weak, so it is time to get back to the drawing board and create a better one.

Think about it - why shouldn't I? What's the reason? Is it morally wrong? Do I hurt somebody doing it? What if I enjoy it more this way? What if I have even tested the alternatives (and I bet most people with such provisions have done so, because few "traditional" games - including D&D - actually support or assume something like a Death Flag mechanic), and I like it more?


The first game I ever played was Shadowrun, 3E. The game had "Karma" as a metagame mechanic that allowed rerolls, buying successes or dice. One of the things you could do with Karma was to "burn" it all (and experienced characters could have a lot, and there were a lot of uses that didn't actually permanently cost Karma) to survive something that should have killed your character.

And then I played D&D. It didn't have Karma. I didn't really notice how much I missed such mechanics until the introduction of action points. But what D&D had instead of this was Raise Dead. It's like a "delayed" Death Flag. "You know, I don't like my character to be dead. Please raise him." "Okay!". Sure, it has different in-game cost then the Death Flag mechanic we originally refer to, but it's not that much. The "cost" of not raising your Death Flag is missing on a mechanical benefit. The cost of raising your character is... losing a mechanical benefit (gold and XP).

But the in-game world effect is very different. You don't need magic to invoke the allowances of the Death Flag. You don't need a world where people regularly return from the dead if they have the resources to do it.

By the way, the first time I heard the term "Death Flag" was in the discussion the "E6" variant for D&D. Interesting that specifically a game that halts advancement early (before Raise Dead spells become available to the PCs) sees the introduction of this concept...

 

[Runestar]

The point being made by the television analogy is that it is possible (in fact common) for adventure stories to be interesting and dramatic even though the protagonists survival is all but guaranteed.

What drama can there be when my party gets ready to fight the tarrasque if they know that victory is already in hand, and the actual battle is but a mere formality, where everyone simply goes through the motion of rolling dice, landing hits and taking damage?

D&D has a long tradition of house-ruling. Not everyone plays the game exactly as it's presented in the books. And there's absolutely, positively, 100% nothing wrong with that.

I thought we are discussing the way death and resurrection was handled in 4e? Where the heck do houserules come in, if we are criticizing perceived flaws in the current rules as written?

 

[Umbran]

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.

Posit (that others have already made) - if you have common Raise Dead or similar magic, then you don't actually have death.

Consider the usual D&D scenario:
You get whacked in combat. There's a short discussion about whether you want to be raised, or start a new character. The party hauls the character back to town, and pays for a raise dead, and you're all better and move on.

Compare this to:
You get whacked in combat. There's a short discussion about whether you want to keep your character, or start a new one. The DM describes how you managed to take a not-quite mortal wound, and you eventually recover and move on.

The difference is? The party paying gold? If the only difference between what is "meant to happen" in D&D and this variant is character wealth resources, I submit that the difference is negligible.