Your character died. Big deal.

[Raven Crowking]

No, it's not the same thing at all. If my character is lost in a dungeon, then that's part of the character's adventure- it becomes just yet another challenge to surmount. If my character dies, that's it for that character, and that's it for any story that I tell with the character.

The idea that the end of an adventure isn't part of the adventure is foreign to me.

It's also the end for my participation in the game. When my character's done, I'm done. Why should I be expected to go to all the trouble and fuss of making a new character, just because you consider your silly little game world to be more important than my character?

<snip>

All I'm saying is that you get ONE chance to entertain me. I'm a busy person, so your game gets exactly one character of mine. If you kill off that character, then you better give me a damn good reason why I should take the time to make a new character for you.

@ Fifth Element: This qualifies as "the idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst" to me. Not so very hypothetical, then. YMMV.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

@ Fifth Element: This qualifies as "the idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst" to me. Not so very hypothetical, then. YMMV.

Bear in mind you had already made the comments, and this is page 8 of the thread. Until now, hypothetical.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Bear in mind you had already made the comments, and this is page 8 of the thread. Until now, hypothetical.

Bear in mind that I simply didn't go back through the thread when there was an example so easy to hand.

Also bear in mind that people often don't admit to being angsty about this sort of thing in so many words, even when they are, because they don't want to come across as being angsty about this sort of thing (for obvious reasons).


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's not just about death. It's about managing the level of randomness, and putting more focus on the player's choices

This, IMHO, is exactly what it is about.

However, it is also about putting more focus on the player's choices while removing the consequences of those choices unless, of course, the player also chooses the consequence. I.e., more improvesational story telling, less "game".

There is nothing wrong with that, of course, so long as you don't try to take away my game so that you can have your improv.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

While reading these boards up to the advent of 4e, I have seen much discussion over save-or-dies and death. The great debate seems to be over the death of characters, which boils down to "Oh, no, my imaginary elf died."

And, by the way, that hypothetical PC-death angst? Part and parcel of the original post.


RC

 

[Scribble]

This, IMHO, is exactly what it is about.

However, it is also about putting more focus on the player's choices while removing the consequences of those choices unless, of course, the player also chooses the consequence. I.e., more improvesational story telling, less "game".

This is where I think you're incorrect.

It's not removing a consequence, because there was never a consequence to begin with.

If I misjudge my odds and play my hand, loosing is a consequence of my lack of ability. I can account for it in the future by being better.

If I draw the fold now card, that's not really a consequence. it's a random occurance I cannot account for. And no matter how much practice I put in, or how much time I think about my tactics I can NEVER overcome the fold now card.

Turning save or die into basically save save or die turns them from a random damn it I drew the "you suck" card again into something that actively challenges my ability to play the game.

(Unless of course you consider Save or Die simply a consequence of playing the game. In which case, why is the game penalizing me for playing it?)

 

[Raven Crowking]

If I draw the fold now card, that's not really a consequence.

Nor is it an apt analogy, which is why I spent so much time earlier pointing out that what occurs in the game is the result of choices, not something that simply happens out of the blue. Unless you have a bad DM, having death as a possibility -- or having SoD effects in the game -- doesn't require you to have a "fold card" in the deck.


RC

 

[pemerton]

One of the great things about D&D is that it can be played in so many different ways. The more storytelling-oriented systems to which Runestar was presumably referring generally only work for that playstyle. With D&D, you don't have to switch game systems to switch playstyles.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If it was true, there probably wouldn't be so many threads debating the implications, for playstyle, of the mechanical changes from 3E to 4e.

 

[pemerton]

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.

First, imagine a system in which you didn't have to fudge to stave off totally random PC deaths, because the system itself did not deliver such things. Second, imagine that the system achieved this result by allowing the players to decide when a death (or threatened death) did or did not count as random. You're now pretty close to imagining a greenlight/death-flag mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

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

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.

What is the basis for claims like "should" or "can't" or "meant to". These look like nothing more than statements of personal preference.

That why we have raise dead spells and rituals, and rules for when you're unconsious and when you die.

Well, as Mustrum Ridcully noted upthread, readily available raise dead spells are functionally a type of (potentially verisimilitude threatening) death flag mechanic.

The desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story using the same character is no more important than the the desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story while not being lost in the dungeon, eating rats, and being chased by a minotaur.

What is the basis for this judgement of relative importance? Presumably a player playing in a death-flag-style game of D&D has already decided (i) that they want to use a particular PC as a focus for participation in the game, and (ii) that they do not object to the GM throwing in complications such as being lost in a dungeon eating rats and being chased by a minotaur.

Which begs the question of...are these "consequences" for failure in any way meaningful to the player?

If they are not, then (for reasons other posters upthread have already noted) the game will probably not play in a very satisfactory way.

If we say, X is a consequence of failure, and you say "I don't like X; let's just have Y", why would it not be equally valid to say "I don't like Y; let's have A" (where each letter is progressively less of a consequence as one descends from Z to A)?

Maybe it would be. But death-flag play is not motivated by the thought "I don't like Z; let's just have Y," in which "Y" is Z-lite. Death-flag play is motivated by the though "I don't like Z, so let's have Y instead" where Z is something disliked (eg thematically/aesthetically unsatisfying play) and Y is something like (eg thematically satisfying play, in which thematically arbitrary PC death should play no part).

What is the qualitative difference between them? None. Why is "giving players authorial control w/r/t character death" the cut-off line?

Typically it is not, although for some players it may be the most important issue - because if the player is allowed to keep the same character, AND if the player is allowed to develop the backstory and the ongoing story of that character, THEN the player automatically enjoys quite a bit of further authorial control. But to see further examples of player authorial control in death-flag-style play, consider the discussion of "fact introduction" in the Challenge the Players thread, for example. Or look at the "raising the stakes" rules which, together with the death-flag mechanic, are part of E6.

Unless you never kill anything else, I don't see why they'd hold back from killing you.

Who said the monsters are holding back. They're not. It's just that the mechanics favour the PCs. A pure deathflag mechanic (or Fate Points or Karma Points or whatever) is a metagame mechanic that favours the PCs. 4e D&D uses a bunch of mechanics that mix game and metagame (hit points, healing surges, saving throws, and all the powers that interact with them) to produce something that is closer to the death flag end than the low-level AD&D end of the spectrum.