So I am sitting here analyzing the last Igbar session. Cucino, Bard of the Martial School of Song, was knocked unconsious and almost killed. He and George the Mysteriarch suffered wounds that will leave some serious scarring. Cucino's player let slip that he had never lost a character in his 20-odd years of gaming, and I was pretty surprised.
I think my ratio is about 31% dead, 55% inactive, and 14% live, active characters for the Celtricia setting.
For me, death and the threat of death are very important. When i created the reules I use, it was in part to make the game more dangerous, and to punish stupidity. I was tired of, "well, I've got 70 HP, and his club only does 2-16 damage, so even if if get hit every round, there's no way he can kill me for at least 4 rounds, even without my armor".
But the discussion I am having is based on my player's comment and reaction to almost losing his character. How often has Plaer character death visited the your setting? How common is raising them, or ressurecting them, and hwo hard is this to get done? My magic system is such that only 4 PC's have ever been capable of raising, and none ever able to ressurect.
Do your players have to fear death, or do they get that feeling that they have to really screw up for you, the GM, to damage the plotline so much as to kill off their characters.
:fencing:
Interesting timing, 'cause that came up at my session last night. The group's gotten to sixth level now, so they're feeling important, and they are at the tier of power where they feel they can both afford a resurrection and find somebody to do it. I had to gently let them know that that's not the case.
I haven't had a character death in one of my campaigns for quite some time. I find character death to be very irritating, but that's not to say that I'm against it. I actively try to kill my characters, and none of my players would say that I'm not a deadly DM. They all fear for their lives quite often.
I was talking to one of my players who just started DMing on the off-weeks. He had just killed a character then immediately turned around with a dues ex machina way of bringing him back to life. I was telling him how, by doing that, he has told the entire party that he doesn't want to kill off players and that takes away from the sense of danger in the campaign. He said that he didn't want to be killing people off left and right though, especially not so early. Then I told him to do what I do -- almost kill everyone, every session. I haven't killed a single PC in the past three years. The only times that PCs die in my campaigns are when other PCs kill them (which has happened in every campaign I've run over the past five years). But I keep the level of intensity very high. I make the characters believe they are on the brink of death in every situation, and that their enemies are immensely stronger than them.
Hence, when they all survive and come out alive, there's much more celebration. The players like to feel like they succeeded against all odds. It makes them feel like their characters are alive. I have pulled so many strings to keep players alive. I always give them an out, but it's hard to find. And when they do, they feel like they've succeeded.
I don't believe in an enemy curve. At second level the players confronted a mage who was easily 17th CR. A couple sessions ago they took down a 12th level lich, and they were 5th level. Last night they found an old crane who was at least 15th level. These opponents don't get stronger as the opponents level. They appear from the get-go, and as the players become stronger the opponents are forced to recognize them as greater foes. The villain of my campaign, Ravok, is a nice guy who prefers to disable rather than kill. He's a really great villain because the players can't touch him at their level. As they gain in level and they are more and more a threat to him, he'll be forced into pulling out greater threats. Eventually they're going to back him into a corner and force him to fight them with everything he's got, and that will be one epic battle, but he will only be forced into a corner when they are of appropriate level to take him on at his full power.
This is why my villains are typically nice people who don't enjoy murder. My villains have reasons not to kill and so excersive restraint. The lich, on the other hand, does not, and he was the first one to be brought down by the players. They set a trap for him and blasted him to pieces. They always say that a prepared lich is invincible. They took him when he was unprepared, and so they were able to take him out quickly and efficiently. By putting my players in situations like these, the players always feel like they're on the verge of death, but they continue to survive.
The truth is, I'm always looking for a place to kill them. They're just good enough to keep surviving. I never have to pull out the "You made a dumb error, now you're dead" clause.
But back to the core of the topic, I do not allow resurrections. Very few gods in my current gaming world even give their players power of death. So even if the players can find a powerful cleric, the odds of him being able to cast are slim.
Also, I do a lot of combat outside of actual fighting. When people aren't actively engaged, the hit point system in ineffective. If you're not fighting back, the opponent is going to kill you no matter how many hit points you have. Sorry.
The campaign I'm running is very plot intensive. All of the players have intimite ties with multiple PCs. But if one of them dies, that's their loss. I'm not afraid to kill one of them off, for I know that it'll be a great death. DMing without death is ridiculous -- let's kill them all!
It's unfortunate that the DM I play with (or used to, I almost always DM now) believed in the revolving door of death. My character died five... no, seven times, being resurrected by a dues ex machina every time (a colony of underwater monks is one notable one).
I'm the opposite way. I like to challenge my players, but they will literally kill themselves instead of run from a fight. I'm trying to wean them off of this revolving door policy, but its been difficult.
Jharviss, my timing was based on that newer player saying he'd never lost a character before in any of the FRPs he's played in. It blew my mind. Granted, he's very gifted, but still, 20+ years of playing and no deaths...So when he hit -4 (-40% fort save to survive), he was shocked.
Story intensive games make it a little harder to kill off PC's, but it sounds like you've done a good job of keeping them honest. I also commend your lack of ressurcation spells. I'm not saying they should never happen, but by making death a minor impediment, it loses any dramatic influence.
However, no death's in three years. You must be quite the wonder with the atmospheric stuff to have no deaths in that amount of time and still keep them worried.
Players are notorious for never retreating. As you probably gathered, I continue to put my players in positions where they SHOULD run away. I think they've only ever retreated twice in the entire time we've been gaming. Maybe I should have enemies start running away more (that's not true, my opponents are always running away).
It's not really atmosphere. It's the fact that they rarely have a combat in which at least two of them don't drop down to the negatives, and they're typically fighting opponents that do 75% of their hit points in one attack.
I'v also implimented a rule called Lucky Points. I divide my campaign into chapters, where each chapter is about 5-8 sessions long, and during this time they get 1 lucky point and 1 unlucky point. I control the unlucky points and use them viciously. They can use the lucky point at anytime, but no lucky and unlucky points can be used to negate each other. The players know that if they didn't have the lucky points, they'd likely all be dead.
One of my best moments was when the cleric of the party (who's also a strong combatant) was dominated and told to kill everyone in the party. He waited for an entire session without giving any hint that he'd been dominated, and then turned on the party mid-combat, in a situation where they were already in grave danger. He nearly killed 3 members of the party. He casted Hold Person on one of them and coup-de-graced him. The only reason he survived was his lucky point. A lot of lucky points were used that session.
Last night one of my players used her lucky point to save an NPC. That meant a lot to me. He was tied to a tree and was coup-de-graced by the opponent when the players weren't cooperating. But he miraculously survived (through her lucky point) because the axe slice was too low and didn't cut through the major arteries. Wow, that's lucky!
The implimentation of lucky points in such a way has been really successful, and using unlucky points to advance my plot has been a lot of fun too.
Jharviss, I think your lucky points are a form of being honest in what other GM's hide. I know I have.
I applaud your unabashed plot-driven game.
Well, I typically use unlucky points for obviously mean things. I once used it to make a player slip on a patch of Grease when they otherwise would've made it. I've then used it to have one of my players accidently hit another player with a fireball when said player got in the way of the fireball. (Don't worry, the player that got hit later had his revenge.)
Well, I have yet to run a game in Reth Jaleract, but due to the very nature of the setting, death would be very possible and very permanent.
In my opinion, one of the main reasons people play roleplaying games is so that they can, in comfort, imagine that they are doing things they normally wouldn't. One of the main things is, taking risks. There IS no risk to, for example, combat, if once you die all that happens is you hanging around in limbo for a bit while your pals get round to resurrecting you.
Take away that risk, you take away a lot of what I see as "the fun" of playing a roleplaying game.
I think the worst aspect of character death is having to make a new one. There's nothing like realizing that you have to sit down again for who-knows-how-long making another sheet for someone who's just going to die and force you to go through the process yet again to kill the fun.
Now if the GM is kind enough beforehand to say "Your characters are going to die often" or "It's very likely that your characters will die" or something else like that so that you know its a good idea to make some spares ahead of time then it isn't so bad.
I agree with what Silvercat just said. That's an issue for my players as well--they like to spend some time really getting into character, so once they have played say through about four to five sessions they know what they like about playing them and want to keep on doing so.
What I do is give them warnings now and then. My houserules work it this way: I tend to describe the effect upon the pcs rather than tell them how many points they've lost. I remind them now and then that hit points are like 'luck points' in that an experienced character simply has more of a chance of using luck to their advantage. Eventually these start to run out as the character gets tired or mentally worn out. It's really in the range of where a normal person would get wounded or lose their life that hit points become deadly. So they know that if I say "you feel a hot burning pain across your arm" that they're getting into that 15 points and counting stage of things. If I make it plain that they have a debiliating wound they're down to below what the average healthy commoner would have; if they're knocked down barely able to get up from agonizing pain or whatever then they're at death's door. So mortality as an idea is ever present. There are few really high level characters npc or otherwise in my campaign setting--to me a cleric capable of performing a resurrection spell should be rare--and there is only one known artifact that can perform this. So essentially they know that they're gonna die unless they do well.
Of course by now one of the characters, Mereka, is able to perform Raise Dead now--things may change a little in that regard. But you still need a whole body for that and a lot of their opponents want to eat, dissolve, rend apart, or other nasty stuff to their enemies.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI think the worst aspect of character death is having to make a new one. There's nothing like realizing that you have to sit down again for who-knows-how-long making another sheet for someone who's just going to die and force you to go through the process yet again to kill the fun.
Now if the GM is kind enough beforehand to say "Your characters are going to die often" or "It's very likely that your characters will die" or something else like that so that you know its a good idea to make some spares ahead of time then it isn't so bad.
I have had 2 or three players who really enjoy making new characters. To me, this is like player masochism, but my system does allow for a lot of real creation-work. Drives me nuts.
Still, I think this is true for a lot of players. My current Igbarian group restructure is a result of 3/4 of the group being chased and taken by a Vampyre. Those player characters are not only gone...they are actually the leutenants of the Vampyre Lord.
But this really did make this group of PC's )and the few new ones) more aware of the proximity of death. that group had 8 PCs, and lost 6 of them. So they have been 'served writ', that they might need to make more.
There's been some dying. No PCs in the current game. Death (http://thanuir.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/principle-character-death/) is, generally speaking, a boring consequence. It usually closes more things than it opens, hence being more suitable when the game is about to end anyway.
My personal preference is the "I won't kill you unless you do something totally stupid" school of thought. Granted, combat in my preferred style of playing tends to be rather 'cinematic,' and the PCs are given every advantage for the simple reason that they're the PCs and it's more interesting that way.
I haven't run a game in quite a while, though. These days I prefer playing more... fortunately the DM has the same approach as me, or I'd be in big trouble :)
Quote from: Stargate525It's unfortunate that the DM I play with (or used to, I almost always DM now) believed in the revolving door of death. My character died five... no, seven times, being resurrected by a dues ex machina every time (a colony of underwater monks is one notable one).
I'm the opposite way. I like to challenge my players, but they will literally kill themselves instead of run from a fight. I'm trying to wean them off of this revolving door policy, but its been difficult.
Wow, that is tough. I think it is tough dealing with players who are used to being saved. Both myself and Jharviss have, in different ways, made
Raising more difficult. Would this help if that became more clear?
Quote from: ThanuirThere's been some dying. No PCs in the current game. Death (http://thanuir.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/principle-character-death/) is, generally speaking, a boring consequence. It usually closes more things than it opens, hence being more suitable when the game is about to end anyway.
Every game is different.
But I disagree that death is a boring consequence, or that it closes more doors than it opens. If done properly, a PC death can motivate the other PC's to behave differently, more than almost any other event. Not saying I ever plan to knowck them off, but a child that burns their hand in fire tends to avoid the flame: and PC's who experience death act a little smarter.
Quote from: LordVreeg'¦a child that burns their hand in fire tends to avoid the flame: and PC's who experience death act a little smarter.
This can be a big problem for the wrong kind of player: it assumes there is a way for that person to be smart. Sometimes you are just going to get people who can't handle that level of cautious thinking. They can either just take things by impulse and have a very hit or miss chance of succeeding at certain things, or they turtle because they don't know what to do when and figure they have to do everything all the time to even have a chance. And I speak from being one of those people.
I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your vision of a game. I'm just hoping you don't expect everyone to perform at your expected level.
It's not always the players being stupid (not saying the majority of the time they aren't being stupid), but rather the roll of the die. I just got back from playing a game where my lvl 11 cleric killed like 5 people with circle of death and charged up to use Harm on the main badguy when he misses me twice (AC 24 kicks ass) and then rolls two 20s in a row. He did like 36 damage and I only had 24 left. It's not that I necessarily was being stupid, it was just the roll of the dice. The DM took mercy on me (since I had just rolled up my character 10 minutes before that) and left me stabilized at -9. I used up my proverbial "luck point" I guess.
Intelligence really isn't the issue. It goes beyond that. The threat of death is on a purely emotional level. I manipulate my players into believing that the threat of death is real and they're right on the edge of falling off the cliff. When they believe they can die, everything in the game is heightened. They worry about their characters. They worry more about opponents. They stop seeing every obstacle as just something to overcome in order to get to the next one. The game becomes real. I have players that squirm and shiver during sessions. I have players that get up and pace during combat because they're getting anxious. The threat of death causes this.
But this does cause them to think. They aren't always willing to rush head-first into a combat situation. They're more willing at settling disputes through negotiations. They're more willing to retreat when they're facing near-death situations.
It's emotional, and by removing the threat of death players perform at a less real level. Death is real in our world, and the idea of real characters going through the things they go through in most campaigns without feeling like they're going to die is implausible. When the threat of death is removed, the entire world and the campaign suddenly feels implausible.
I know you like a different type of campaign, SilvercatMoonpaw, but I prefer some level of realism. The realistic and full nature of my campaigns leaves players with numerous options, characters who have faced and overcome challenges, and numerous people they call friends and foes. The threat of death keeps them playing that type of campaign. If they didn't think they could die, everything would be at a lower level. Their intimacy with their character would be lessened, because they know that they're nearly invincible.
I have a player who hated character death. He hated it in books, movies, comics, and especially D&D. He just wanted to wade into combat and butcher everything with his epic fantasy sword. In my last campaign his character died (again, not by my doing - he was killed by another player who betrayed the group during the climax). His death advanced the storyline, and, through his death, his character's role in the campaign was greatened to such an extent that his character gained closure and a greater sense of accomplishment. And this was all through character death.
That person has recently told me that he now understands and supports the occasional character death, because the right death can advance the storyline and really put people in their place. I don't believe in a futile death. These people are heroes - their deaths should be just as heroic as their lives. If a PC dies, there should be repercussions and widespread effects throughout the campaign. Even if they just die from a well-placed goblin arrow, it should not be shrugged off.
That's my belief and I'm sticking to it. ^_^
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: LordVreeg'¦a child that burns their hand in fire tends to avoid the flame: and PC's who experience death act a little smarter.
This can be a big problem for the wrong kind of player: it assumes there is a way for that person to be smart. Sometimes you are just going to get people who can't handle that level of cautious thinking. They can either just take things by impulse and have a very hit or miss chance of succeeding at certain things, or they turtle because they don't know what to do when and figure they have to do everything all the time to even have a chance. And I speak from being one of those people.
I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your vision of a game. I'm just hoping you don't expect everyone to perform at your expected level.
It's all about the setting and the game. This thread has already been a good one becasue PC death is something all GM's deal with to some level or another. Different games and different personalities need different games.
I have a waiting list in my area to play in my games. I run two groups once a month apiece and 2 online groups now, all in the same setting. That setting is a quarter centruy old and is up to something like 146 PCs. That's my particular viewpoint.
I have a lot of online friends who switch setttings, and change GM's, and try different things and want to see what differnt rules and circumstances will bring.
Neither is better. They are different. My expectations only count in my game (and sometimes not even then, it seems. I have this guy....).
On the other hand, low expectations alweays breed low results, high expectations sometimes bring people up to another level. I don't doubt for a second you'd do fine in any setting you were thrown into. I've read you enough.
Quote from: HaphazzardIt's not always the players being stupid (not saying the majority of the time they aren't being stupid), but rather the roll of the die. I just got back from playing a game where my lvl 11 cleric killed like 5 people with circle of death and charged up to use Harm on the main badguy when he misses me twice (AC 24 kicks ass) and then rolls two 20s in a row. He did like 36 damage and I only had 24 left. It's not that I necessarily was being stupid, it was just the roll of the dice. The DM took mercy on me (since I had just rolled up my character 10 minutes before that) and left me stabilized at -9. I used up my proverbial "luck point" I guess.
I would have killed you. But that's me, and does not make that right or wrong. You just made this character? I am more likely to spare a PC that is somewhat older acting in character than anything.
Then agaion, my system is such that my highest HP PC is 44. Death happens.
and I love all of Jharviss' posts. SO damned impassioned. You just stick to it, who the hell would call you wrong?
(http://www.thecbg.org/e107_images/emotes/archivedSmilies/samurai.gif)
QuoteI would have killed you.
because[/i] I was playing in character. Normally I wouldn't run up to a guy w/ a cleric that has 24/99 HP, but he was a high ranking cleric in a corrupt church that I'm about to bring crashing to the ground and it's kinda personal for my character, so I figured I'd make it personal in combat.
Quote from: LordVreegBut I disagree that death is a boring consequence, or that it closes more doors than it opens. If done properly, a PC death can motivate the other PC's to behave differently, more than almost any other event. Not saying I ever plan to knowck them off, but a child that burns their hand in fire tends to avoid the flame: and PC's who experience death act a little smarter.
Personally, if I want players to play their characters in a more cautios way, I ask them to do so and make the game work in a way that rewards cautios behaviour or punishes rash actions. If you want to change the way the players play the game, ask them and make it a useful way to play. Much more effective than intentionally and purposefully killing off a character to teach the players a lesson. Trying to teach a lesson usually doesn't end well.
Quote from: ThanuirQuote from: LordVreegBut I disagree that death is a boring consequence, or that it closes more doors than it opens. If done properly, a PC death can motivate the other PC's to behave differently, more than almost any other event. Not saying I ever plan to knowck them off, but a child that burns their hand in fire tends to avoid the flame: and PC's who experience death act a little smarter.
Personally, if I want players to play their characters in a more cautios way, I ask them to do so and make the game work in a way that rewards cautios behaviour or punishes rash actions. If you want to change the way the players play the game, ask them and make it a useful way to play. Much more effective than intentionally and purposefully killing off a character to teach the players a lesson. Trying to teach a lesson usually doesn't end well.
Different degrees.
I think you and I are saying similar things. As I stated, ('Not saying I ever plan to knock them off' is even in the quote you pulled.), I don't ever try to kill a player, and so the comment about 'intentionally and purposefully killing off a character' is coming out of left field. That was never part of the conversation, though I know it to be the case with some GM's, and it is their choice to make. Any mention about killing off someone's character purely to make a point was at least not meant, nor do I think it ever existed in written format anywhere on this thread.
Also, I described threat as operant conditioning (burning hands teaches a lesson), to which you responded with rewarding some behaviors and dsicouraging others (more operant conditioning) as an alternative (?). The difference might lie in other behaviors you are thinking or reinforcing, while I was speaking mainly of threat level, the topic of this thread.
I think that your rapport with your players in terms of talking to them about the game play style you think would work best must be a good one, and I actually enjoy the way you describe the reinforcement as 'making it a useful way to play.' Your relationship with your players is a factor, and as I often see on other threads, this is a game and people play it to have a good time. PLayers do play to have fun, and so PC death does have to be thought of in that light at the same time.
Quote from: HaphazzardQuoteI would have killed you.
because[/i] I was playing in character. Normally I wouldn't run up to a guy w/ a cleric that has 24/99 HP, but he was a high ranking cleric in a corrupt church that I'm about to bring crashing to the ground and it's kinda personal for my character, so I figured I'd make it personal in combat.
I think you are touching on something every important with the whole threat-level/death consequence thing. I have to be totally upfront and back off my earlier statement about letting you die, now that I understand the situation better. I would not have killed you. Nothing to do with sympathy either.
I have a lot more trouble killing off a PC who is putting themselves at risk while trying to roleplay their character. I thnk that trying to make the character breathe and live is worth a lot, and the last thing I want to do is negatively reinforce that action. I have killed off PC's gloriously before in said situation, by that is because they were going into hopeless odds, but the situation you describe with the dual 20's does not describe that.
I'm only bumping this thread because LC has not graced us with his presence.
While we wait, I will chime in. I have been DMing for nigh on 7 years now, and I can tell you my first character death was within the last year.
I will admit, I am a fan of heroes being heroes, so I use very generous ability scores, etc. I also am notoriously bad at continuing stories. I love pretty much all character and story ideas, so I want to try them all, so we normally only do a month or so (2-4 sessions) on any one story before I find a new one. (I am aware of the flaw, and have been working very dedicatedly to fixing it. I now run adventures for as long as two-three months without stopping.)
To the point, I believe a character should only die when it is appropriate. I am not sparing of my characters in most cases, though they have been known to bite off more than they can chew and pull out by the skin of their teeth. But after seeing the effect of my first death, and the second, (different group and campaign) I may be a little less lenient with some of my instituted house rules, as both times the deaths served as a way to advance the story in a new direction, and gave the players and characters a sense of the stakes. (The first death was a Charmed member of the party with issues Coup de graceing (gracing?) a Held Person, which led to his arrest by the paladin of the group, the second was the mage in a party on an island of zombies being overwhelmed by the tide of undead.)
Quote from: AllWillFall2MeWhile we wait, I will chime in. I have been DMing for nigh on 7 years now, and I can tell you my first character death was within the last year.
I will admit, I am a fan of heroes being heroes, so I use very generous ability scores, etc. I also am notoriously bad at continuing stories. I love pretty much all character and story ideas, so I want to try them all, so we normally only do a month or so (2-4 sessions) on any one story before I find a new one. (I am aware of the flaw, and have been working very dedicatedly to fixing it. I now run adventures for as long as two-three months without stopping.)
To the point, I believe a character should only die when it is appropriate. I am not sparing of my characters in most cases, though they have been known to bite off more than they can chew and pull out by the skin of their teeth. But after seeing the effect of my first death, and the second, (different group and campaign) I may be a little less lenient with some of my instituted house rules, as both times the deaths served as a way to advance the story in a new direction, and gave the players and characters a sense of the stakes. (The first death was a Charmed member of the party with issues Coup de graceing (gracing?) a Held Person, which led to his arrest by the paladin of the group, the second was the mage in a party on an island of zombies being overwhelmed by the tide of undead.)
Intetrsting post. I had a similat sea-change in attitude when I found that not only did my players not leave, but in a few cases the death deepened the storyline. I like the image of the mage going under the tide...
What did the players who lost characters do?
Quote from: LordVreegI'm only bumping this thread because LC has not graced us with his presence.
Oh man!
I have been reading this thread, you know. Writing my thesis and fighting the flu have kept me busy lately, but I guess I better post a reply, now that I've been called out by name. :yumm:
I guess I have mixed opinions about this whole death business.
On the one hand, it does seem that in many systems, it's too hard to die. (HP is a big culprit, and it's one of several reasons I don't really care much for HP as a mechanic.) In D&D, in particular, an ever-increasing (with level) buffer of HP makes it too easy at high levels to shrug off things that should be deadly-- say, a maniac with a knife, or a fall off a cliff. Healing is prevalent enough to make non-fatal wounds trivial, too many types of wounds are assuredly non-fatal, and even if you do get offed, resurrection is (often) (relatively) easy to attain.
I feel like the inclusion of save-or-die type mechanics, especially fiendish traps, and other "cheap deaths" is a way of overcorrecting for the above, and I think they cheapen death just as much. I think death is a pretty terrible way to punish players for having bad luck, or for not being prescient. "I died because I chose the horribly-trapped door on the right instead of the identical-seeming door on the left" is not a very exciting story.
I guess I think that death should stay, but in a different sort of way. My ideal system would be one where players are very fragile when they start taking damage, but the clever and cautious have a good chance to avoid it-- so there's definite incentive to keep your flesh intact, without making every combat a death sentence. Most player deaths ought to occur because of obviously foolish choices (not the "left door or right door" type of dilemma, or other randomness or carelessness), because they played long odds and lost (as sometimes happens), or because of a dramatic choice.
Dramatic choice is an important one, here. It's the one that leads to all the best stories. My favorite of my own characters' deaths was one in which my knight had been captured by the villainous warlord-- the antithesis of all my character stood for. I was struck down for refusing to to join his evil army. But I knew the consequences of that answer, both as a character and as a player, so the death was a good one. It felt like a defiant triumph of willpower, of good over evil, rather than the curbstomping it really probably was. I think a death based on a choice is usually a better one than a death based on running out of HP. There will always be something mesmerizing in the self-sacrifice of a doomed "You get to safety, I'll hold them off!", or "Let the hostage go-- take me instead."
Characters who go this route probably ought to die-- and they ought to stay dead if they do. Reversing the death undermines the sacrifice.
Then again, I agree with Thanuir that death tends to close more doors than it opens. I think people tend to overlook many equally effective (but less drastic) ways of taking a character out of commission for a while. Depending on the setting and the situation, dishonor, a curse, imprisonment, a broken leg, a brainwashing, or any number of other consequences can just as easily complicate things for a character, can be the consequences of stupidity or a fight gone wrong, can
prompt you to roll a new character, or can be "played through" with potentially interesting results. And if you need to reverse them later, they all strike me as less overplayed than "I came back from the dead."
I really like what LC said about the other methods of disabling a character.
The character in my campaign were recently defeated, but the opponents didn't kill them. See, the campaign is a very anti-mage themed, so the players have become used to crushing and breaking the hands of everyone they capture so that they can't cast spells. So, when they were captured, their hands were smashed in with a morningstar. The players all cringed as I described (in perfectly gruesome detail) their hands being obliterated with the giant, spiked ball. This disabled the captured party members pretty efficiently, but it also gave them a reason to really hate the enemy.
It was a beautiful moment.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonI guess I think that death should stay, but in a different sort of way. My ideal system would be one where players are very fragile when they start taking damage, but the clever and cautious have a good chance to avoid it-- so there's definite incentive to keep your flesh intact, without making every combat a death sentence. Most player deaths ought to occur because of obviously foolish choices (not the "left door or right door" type of dilemma, or other randomness or carelessness), because they played long odds and lost (as sometimes happens), or because of a dramatic choice.
I think the idea that a character in games like D&D can soak incredible amounts of damage is at least in some way related to that fact that it's pretty much the only way to make players feel cool in the basic combat sequence (= roll to hit, static AC, subtract from HP). "Oh look how many sword cuts and arrows I can endure!" is pretty much all you get to determine (I know people say that HP doesn't just represent actual physical damage, but somehow the example is still the same). Avoiding attacks is wrapped up entirely in AC: dodging, parrying, the hit glancing off armor. Aside from the occasional area attack which forces you to use Reflex you have no variety, and even Reflex is still the same problem: the system has already made your choice for you about how you deal with the attack.
There needs to be more to the initial attack than just "roll >> hit/miss". Fortunately some systems actually give you a choice of how to defend yourself:
True20 has both Dodge and Parry defense, so you can actually know what sort of action you're taking and you can even specialize in one (I think).
Goodman Games is coming out with "Eldritch Role-playing" (http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3129), which has a system where instead of determining a hit directly with a roll you determine "potential (to) harm" and then the player chooses which of their "defense pools (of points)" they want to use to deflect the harm.
[Don't really know any more.]
Now I'm the type that likes to play superheroes (literally) so I don't mind the idea that you can be stabbed several times in the gut and still be fine. But if there were a "your character is not super-tough" system that I was willing to try it would have to give me choices, as the battle was going, about exactly how I defended. I wouldn't want a complete war game of choices (and personally it would still have to be cinematic), but something more than a single value.
Quote from: JharvissI really like what LC said about the other methods of disabling a character.
The character in my campaign were recently defeated, but the opponents didn't kill them. See, the campaign is a very anti-mage themed, so the players have become used to crushing and breaking the hands of everyone they capture so that they can't cast spells. So, when they were captured, their hands were smashed in with a morningstar. The players all cringed as I described (in perfectly gruesome detail) their hands being obliterated with the giant, spiked ball. This disabled the captured party members pretty efficiently, but it also gave them a reason to really hate the enemy.
It was a beautiful moment.
So this is perfectly in keeping with what we were saying, that Death might happen sometimes, but it is better when it advances the plot or storyline, and means something. You did a great job of advancing the stoyline this way without having to kill them gratuitously.
Death MUST be dramatic. They are the PCs after all. Death without drama is a PB&J without bread.
We all know that the lives of the PCs are dangerous. Delving deep underground to uncover secrets best forgotten, or hacking their way through an undead army to smash it's heinous general... yes, yes, very dangerous. Now, I'm a big believer in letting them walk into situations that they know can kill them and start the dice a-rollin'. I also believe that running out of HP in a random battle sucks poop.
With so many ways to hamper the PCs, death is just so... lazy of the DM. I try to fill the battle field with things both sides can use and/or get befuddled by. Terrain and cover come up a lot as does range, line of sight and hide/move silent. Drains, poisons, evervations, deafening the spellcasters, blinding the grunts, slowing the acrobatically inclined, etc. There are so many other ways besides HP damage to screw with the lives of the PCs and still make them struggle and learn caution at the same time.
Me and one of my play buddies, each with 14th level characters, got killed by a single CR11 creature. Our characters were geared to whomp on evil outsider types (demons and devils) and undead. We encountered a Hill Giant wereboar Barbarian. Not undead, outsider, or even evil for that matter. We couldn't hurt this guy. We had a group of fragiles we needed to protect, so we fought defensively and used up plenty of our protection magics, but a few natural 20s (the only way he could hit us) later, we were paste. It sucked. A year with these characters hot and heavy each week-poof! Gone. Sometimes crap happens, but to go out like that, after the time investment we put in, well the wind was out of our sails and we haven't played as a group in nearly two years. Gotta be careful. Remember, it IS a game.