# Your character died.  Big deal.



## WarlockLord (Oct 12, 2008)

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."  Reading the article on character death (which, in 4e, you can pop out 500 gp for a low-level raise dead) and how people might feel bad if their imaginary elf dies, makes no sense to me.  Yes, your character is cool.  Maybe they have a personality, whatever.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're an imaginary elf in a fake world.  It's a game.


----------



## Chimera (Oct 12, 2008)

WarlockLord said:


> "Oh, no, my imaginary elf died."




I imagine it's a big deal.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2008)

The death of a character can mean a lot more then what you claim it is.  It all depends in the way your group plays and the effort put into a character.  You can't really tell people how to grieve everyone does it their own way.


----------



## Psion (Oct 12, 2008)

You have stumbled upon one of the great emerging divides in RPGs.

Some folks feel strongly--realy strongly--that you should have a player "green light" before axing their character.

For some folks (raises hand) risk is part of the game, and lack of token risk to the imaginary character takes an element of suspense and danger from the game.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 12, 2008)

The big deal with our games is that when a character dies in a game. It is as big as having a major character in a story dying, so Sturm's death, Gandalf's, etc. are like that.

So, for us the big deal is that it can fundamentally alter the story, campaign, etc.

Thus why death we try to keep away from, since for us the fun is playing through a story all-together with our characters from the beginning.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 12, 2008)

Psion said:


> You have stumbled upon one of the great emerging divides in RPGs.
> 
> Some folks feel strongly--realy strongly--that you should have a player "green light" before axing their character.
> 
> For some folks (raises hand) risk is part of the game, and lack of token risk to the imaginary character takes an element of suspense and danger from the game.





Yep. I don't like it when a character I like dies, and I don't know of anyone who is truly detached from their PC, and not bothered by their PC death.

Kill it before I "connect" to it, and I don't care, but do it after I "connect" and I will care, but I do take/accept it as part of the risk, and why this game ultimately is a challenge and fun to play.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 12, 2008)

WarlockLord said:


> But that doesn't change the fact that they're an imaginary elf in a fake world.  It's a game.



You're missing the point. Or the points, even.

1. Character death means you have to stop playing for a time, perhaps a significant amount of time. You're there to play the game, not watch others play it. Therefore character death is annoying.

2. With save-or-dies specifically, it's not death that's the problem, it's the instantaneous, one-d20-roll-determines-it-all nature of the death. Many people do not find that fun. "You rolled a 1 on your save? Too bad, you're dead. Stop playing now."


----------



## justanobody (Oct 12, 2008)

So then, why no save-or-die effects in 4th?


----------



## Emirikol (Oct 12, 2008)

Character death only matters if the DM has not told players what to expect for their "next" character:

WHAT WILL IT BE?

a. are they going to be the same level with the same xp and choice of equivalent items while the dead character is buried with his stuff (sans important campaign stuff of course)
or,
b.  You lose a level and the DM is going to be a big jerk about it and you start with a stick and not clothes and shut the heck up for whining
or,
c.  You put a lot of time into your character, including painting a miniature, and even though the DM preps for 2-4 hours every session, the mere thought of you having to spend 14 minutes creating a new character is just too ghastly
or,
d. you have to try to reintegrate your charcter into the group because the DM is one of THOSE DM's who feels it's necessary to have you play out how your character meets the other characters and make it like an agonizingly annoyingly trivial crap  hazing ritual or something.

Just my opinion..

jh


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So then, why no save-or-die effects in 4th?



See point 2 in my post immediately before yours. I believe that was the basic rationale for removing save-or-die effects.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 12, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> See point 2 in my post immediately before yours. I believe that was the basic rationale for removing save-or-die effects.




Well if death isn't supposed to be a big deal, so what?

All death is instantaneous. Some instants just take longer to get to than others and are more melodramatic.

Either you are alive or dead. So it is always an instant change, and dice always affect that.

Save-or-die means little in the big picture. No different than that last hit Orcus that did it. Except you don't have a chance to save from a hit from Orcus. Attack rolls offer no chance to save at all.

I would rather take the chance of that 1 on a dice, than have no chance at all.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Well if death isn't supposed to be a big deal, so what?
> 
> All death is instantaneous.



You're misreading me. Death by a single die roll, even when you are at full health and have taken reasonable precautions, but then say you roll sucky for initiative, and one failed save later, you're out of the game without even having had a chance to act, sucks to many people.

Anyway, there have been numerous threads on this very issue and I don't mean to start such a discussion again.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 12, 2008)

Psion said:


> You have stumbled upon one of the great emerging divides in RPGs.
> 
> Some folks feel strongly--realy strongly--that you should have a player "green light" before axing their character.
> 
> For some folks (raises hand) risk is part of the game, and lack of token risk to the imaginary character takes an element of suspense and danger from the game.




And, of course, there are many variations to the divide which don't fall into the categories above. For example, I like to have a fair amount of risk in the game and especially repercussions for failure on the part of the PCs. But I personally find death (especially permanent character death) to be a particularly boring risk/repercussion, plus I like my players to be able to play the characters they want (and to do so as a player). So I've eliminated death as a repercussion in my games, while retaining a lot of risk and consequences for failure. It's easy to do and my game is much the better for it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

Psion said:


> For some folks (raises hand) risk is part of the game, and lack of token risk to the imaginary character takes an element of suspense and danger from the game.



But by the OP's reasoning, _there is no risk_, because it's just an imaginary elf in a game of make-believe.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

shilsen said:


> And, of course, there are many variations to the divide which don't fall into the categories above.



Indeed. False dichotomies are frequent in these here parts.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 13, 2008)

Psion said:


> For some folks (raises hand) risk is part of the game, and lack of token risk to the imaginary character takes an element of suspense and danger from the game.




Me Three. I try to avoid playing with people who get way too attached to their pieces of paper.

Some of my fondest RPG memories are ways my characters died or the way PCs died at my hands (mewhahahahahah)

Of course it takes alot longer these days to make a character with 4E, and 3E is even worse, but oh well- roll up another PC, have a backup, whatever.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Of course it takes alot longer these days to make a character with 4E, and 3E is even worse, but oh well- roll up another PC, have a backup, whatever.



Having a backup character ready is a fine idea, but that doesn't mean the character will be able to get into the game immediately. Thumb-twiddling is still a real possibility.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You're misreading me. Death by a single die roll, even when you are at full health and have taken reasonable precautions, but then say you roll sucky for initiative, and one failed save later, you're out of the game without even having had a chance to act, sucks to many people.
> 
> Anyway, there have been numerous threads on this very issue and I don't mean to start such a discussion again.




IF death isn't that big a deal then what difference does it make whether you were at full health and it happened or not? Dead PC = dead PC. Roll a new one, or get a rez. How it happened doesn't matter as that is in the past. No sense crying over spilt milk.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 13, 2008)

Risk of death is part of what makes an adventurer an adventurer. Without it, he's just a tourist.

To me, saying you want to play D&D without the risk of character death is like saying you want to play Risk except that none of your territories can be conquered. What? That's what it's about: triumph or destruction.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> How it happened doesn't matter as that is in the past.



Sure it does. What matters is the perception that you couldn't do anything to prevent it. If you get into melee, at least you have a chance to whack the bad guys as they're trying to whack you. Even if you fail there, you at least had a chance. And death in melee is generally by degree, where your hit points get lower and lower, giving you chances to break off and flee (though certainly not always).

But if an enemy wizard beats your initiative and fires off a death spell, many players feel they didn't have any real chance of avoiding it. One roll and they're done.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 13, 2008)

I'd like to echo the sentiment that it's not (always) death that's annoying, it's having to waste time not playing for any reason.  So as much as I think risk is okay I'd actually err on the side of making death and disabling harder so one can have more game time.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> But if an enemy wizard beats your initiative and fires off a death spell, many players feel they didn't have any real chance of avoiding it. One roll and they're done.




That is the risk you take every time you enter into a potential combat situation. Don't want to worry about it, don't play an RPG or other game that involves death, or lose of your playing piece. Monopoly even has the jail to slow down your play......


----------



## Storminator (Oct 13, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I'd like to echo the sentiment that it's not (always) death that's annoying, it's having to waste time not playing for any reason.  So as much as I think risk is okay I'd actually err on the side of making death and disabling harder so one can have more game time.




I noticed this oddity yesterday: Playing 4e, and my stupid dwarf is making death saves again... or in this case, failing death saves... So after I've failed two, the warlock stabilizes me. So now, when my turn comes up, I don't have anything to do! 

PS


----------



## ppaladin123 (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> That is the risk you take every time you enter into a potential combat situation. Don't want to worry about it, don't play an RPG or other game that involves death, or lose of your playing piece. Monopoly even has the jail to slow down your play......




Or you could play an RPG that has rules that prevent seemingly arbitrary, anti-climactic deaths. Death in an RPG can be quite satisfying if it is suitably epic, heroic, tragic, whatever....if the death has meaning, the character "wins." Maybe save-or-dies remind me too much of the random, senseless deaths that populate the nightly news....too existential.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I'd like to echo the sentiment that it's not (always) death that's annoying, *it's having to waste time not playing for any reason*.  So as much as I think risk is okay I'd actually err on the side of making death and disabling harder so one can have more game time.




So you throw a tantrum when it is another player's turn and not your own?



ppaladin123 said:


> Or you could play an RPG that has rules that prevent seemingly arbitrary, anti-climactic deaths. Death in an RPG can be quite satisfying if it is suitably epic, heroic, tragic, whatever....if the death has meaning, the character "wins." Maybe save-or-dies remind me too much of the random, senseless deaths that populate the nightly news....too existential.




Death for a character is part of the game. If you didn't want to risk your playing piece to die, then play another game. Characters die for seemingly silly reason all the time. Ever made that wrong turn and fell into a deadly trap? You made a bad choice. That is your bad luck no different than if it had been bad luck on a die roll.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> That is the risk you take every time you enter into a potential combat situation. Don't want to worry about it, don't play an RPG or other game that involves death, or lose of your playing piece.



Another false dichotomy. There are more options than the two you have delineated. See ppaladin123's post for some applicable comments.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So you throw a tantrum when it is another player's turn and not your own?
> 
> 
> 
> Death for a character is part of the game. If you didn't want to risk your playing piece to die, then play another game. Characters die for seemingly silly reason all the time. Ever made that wrong turn and fell into a deadly trap? You made a bad choice. That is your bad luck no different than if it had been bad luck on a die roll.





Death is part of many games, but not all games deal with it in the same manner and not all games are equally fatal. You are presenting a false dilemma.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So you throw a tantrum when it is another player's turn and not your own?



That's a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the post you were replying to. 



justanobody said:


> Ever made that wrong turn and fell into a deadly trap? You made a bad choice. That is your bad luck no different than if it had been bad luck on a die roll.



Indeed, since generally you get a save against a trap. But that hardly disputes the point, since that trap *is* a save-or-die effect, which is what we're discussing. So you're just providing another example of something that many players don't like.

And as for playing another game, I imagine you would consider D&D-without-risk-of-arbitrary-death to be a different game, so many people already do that. And have a great deal of fun doing it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 13, 2008)

WarlockLord said:


> Reading the article on character death (which, in 4e, you can pop out 500 gp for a low-level raise dead) and how people might feel bad if their imaginary elf dies, makes no sense to me.  Yes, your character is cool.  Maybe they have a personality, whatever.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're an imaginary elf in a fake world.  It's a game.




I suppose if you invest no thought or involvement in a character, it would not make much difference. It depends on the PC, for me. If he's someone I've had a flash of inspiration for and done seven pages of background story and all, yeah, it's going to disappoint me greatly if he dies, especially if he dies because of some stupid game-related rules quirk or 'gotcha' monster or trap. That's a lot of time and involvement I've put in that now I'll never see realized.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

No you are creating dilemma where there isn't any. Death is death, plain and simple. Trying to categorize it is silly. Your bad luck in making a choice, is no different than your bad luck in rolling dice. Either can lead to a quick death. The rest is moot. So removing the dice does not change the outcome for bad player luck. That is all the dice represent is another chance for luck where you don't have to be held accountable for your decisions within the game, you can just blame the dice instead.

If you got into a fight that caused instant death to you then I would blame your own decision for going to the fight, rather than a dice that gave you a chance to live.

Suck it up and make the new character and stop crying about how you died.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No you are creating dilemma where there isn't any. Death is death, plain and simple. Trying to categorize it is silly.



You really see no difference between:

(A) Your character perishing after a pitched toe-to-toe battle with a vile opponent, and

(B) "I open the door."
"Make a Fort save."
"I got a 1."
"You're dead."

So you can stop the condescension any time now and try to understand the point that's being made.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

At any rate, I said I wasn't going to get into this discussion again. So that's all I'll be saying on the topic.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You really see no difference between:
> 
> (A) Your character perishing after a pitched toe-to-toe battle with a vile opponent, and
> 
> ...




Nope. No difference. The character is dead. Get a rez, or roll a new one.


----------



## rgard (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Suck it up and make the new character and stop crying about how you died.




Yes.

Kill people and take their stuff while they try to kill you and take your stuff.

Somebody is going to die.


----------



## Psion (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You really see no difference between:
> 
> (A) Your character perishing after a pitched toe-to-toe battle with a vile opponent, and
> 
> ...




For the record, I see the difference. Yet you were the one that implied I was pushing a false dichotomy. So re: condescension, practice what you preach.


----------



## Psion (Oct 13, 2008)

shilsen said:


> And, of course, there are many variations to the divide which don't fall into the categories above.




For clarity, I never said there wasn't. But those seem to be the core ideologies around which the sparks fly.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> (B) "I open the door."
> "Make a Fort save."
> "I got a 1."
> "You're dead."



LOL, this exact situation happened in my 3.5E game.  Long story short: the party was exploring an abandoned duergar mine.  The fighter did not heed the warning that was written on the door in Dwarven ("Eye Proteciton Required Beyond This Point,") and walked right into a bodak lair.  I asked the player for a Fort save, and he rolled a natural 1.

Now, years later, his cries of frustration have become a catch-phrase at our game table for whenever something goes horribly, horribly wrong: "I didn't say my eyes were going to be _open!!!_"

What was originally intended to be just another boobytrap, turned into a battle/rescue mission for the party's leader and derailed the story for the rest of the evening.  That said, the "Bodak In A Box" lives on in infamy as one of the funnest (and funniest) encounters I have ever ran.  We still laugh about it, almost five years later.

We like save-or-die situations at our table.  But ever since that ill-fated bodak encounter, I tend to use them very sparingly.  It's not because I want to coddle the players; we are all a bit too old for "you killed my elf and hurt my feelings" drama.   We don't get to game together very often and I don't want to derail the story, that's all.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So you throw a tantrum when it is another player's turn and not your own?



If another player is taking an inordinately long amount of time.

I said _waste_ of time.  Someone else's turn isn't a waste because they are adding to the story.  But when I can't add anything to the story other than a freshly cooling corpse?


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> If another player is taking an inordinately long amount of time.
> 
> I said _waste_ of time.  Someone else's turn isn't a waste because they are adding to the story.  But when I can't add anything to the story other than a freshly cooling corpse?




It may not add to the story for you, but does for the other players. You get a whole new story to start. The other players need to decide if they are going to loot you, or try to bring you back to life. Some race may want to use you for food.

Do they need to discard your body to prevent attracting nearby carnivores?

Your corpse can often add more to the story that if you were to have swung your weapon a second faster and killed your foe.

So if you make a new character, then they others have to find his replacement for the party or just may decide to write you out of their story.

That corpse has loads of story potential. Literal meat-shield comes to mind for a good use, as does decoy.

So many things you could do with a fallen comrades corpse, I wish I had them more often.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Suck it up and make the new character and stop crying about how you died.





You probably want to go review The Rules.

We expect you to show respect for your fellow posters, and their opinions, no matter how much you might disagree with them.  Your are not going to get anyone to see things your way by bludgeoning and insulting them, so please don't continue with that tactic.  Thank you.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Oct 13, 2008)

Risk is very important in an RPG, no doubt.  But let's not limit 'risk' to character death.  Loss of items or experience levels, failing to complete the mission - just a few ways to create risk or drama in a game.  Heck, in our rotating DMs game (which were homebrewed cyberpunk-types), we used to TORTURE each other's characters, both physically and emotionally.  Learning my in-game wife was barren, then finding out she had one egg left that no one knew about and hey, she's pregnant, then the child is abducted and oh, my wife and I now have to kill her because she's been mutated into a giant half-robotic spider monstrosity..  that was an extraordinarily memorable plot that created drama and risk for the character that had nothing to do with death.  Heck, most of our characters killed themselves after accidentally commiting genocides, being mutilated beyond recognition or after their families were slaughtered in front of them.  One of our campaigns ended when one character found out that the time-hopping BBEG we couldn't stop was actually him in the future..  he went nuts and in doing so, fulfilled the required role.  We rarely had character death because it was so anticlimactic and far more fun to just screw each other over in good fun.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2008)

Psion said:


> You have stumbled upon one of the great emerging divides in RPGs.
> 
> Some folks feel strongly--realy strongly--that you should have a player "green light" before axing their character.
> 
> For some folks (raises hand) risk is part of the game, and lack of token risk to the imaginary character takes an element of suspense and danger from the game.



And then there are those like me, who are practically _eager_ to have their character wacked. 

Death is an opportunity to play a new character. To play something different, another idea in my head, to try something _else_. 

I'm running a game right now where a player is perfectly happy for his paladin to get axed because he is very eager to play the character sitting in his pocket.


----------



## Runestar (Oct 13, 2008)

I am wondering which came first in 3e.

Did the numerous ways of raising a PC from the dead come about as a solution to the many sudden death scenarios running around, or did the designers evidently feel that it was okay to run save-or-dies frequently due to the prevalence of resurrection effects? 

I mean, it was not uncommon then for the rogue to fail a save-or-die against a finger of death, but it was just as easy for the party cleric to bring him back to life just as readily by casting revivify.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2008)

Runestar said:


> I am wondering which came first in 3e.
> 
> Did the numerous ways of raising a PC from the dead come about as a solution to the many sudden death scenarios running around, or did the designers evidently feel that it was okay to run save-or-dies frequently due to the prevalence of resurrection effects?




If I had to guess, I'd say neither.  Both save-or-die scenarios and multiple ways to come back from death were present (and, by my estimation, more prevalent) in 1e and 2e.  I expect that the structure was carried over as a whole.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 13, 2008)

Psion said:


> For the record, I see the difference. Yet you were the one that implied I was pushing a false dichotomy. So re: condescension, practice what you preach.



Sorry, in no way did I intend to imply that these are the only two possibilities. They are two extremes used to illustrate that there are definitely differences in the ways a PC can die. There are, of course, many others in between.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 13, 2008)

Umbran said:


> If I had to guess, I'd say neither.  Both save-or-die scenarios and multiple ways to come back from death were present (and, by my estimation, more prevalent) in 1e and 2e.  I expect that the structure was carried over as a whole.




Of course, that just pushes the question back to 1E.

My guess would be that resurrection magic was introduced in response to the high level of arbitrary death.  Arbitrary death is inherent in the mechanics of the early editions, so it seems unlikely that resurrection magic came first.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You're missing the point. Or the points, even.
> 
> 1. Character death means you have to stop playing for a time, perhaps a significant amount of time. You're there to play the game, not watch others play it. Therefore character death is annoying.
> 
> 2. With save-or-dies specifically, it's not death that's the problem, it's the instantaneous, one-d20-roll-determines-it-all nature of the death. Many people do not find that fun. "You rolled a 1 on your save? Too bad, you're dead. Stop playing now."



While both are issues, in my experience the biggest issue is the amount of time spent on a character.  If I spend 2 years developing a character, working out plotlines in the campaign (especially if many are far away from a chance of fruition) then the death of the character hurts.

This also applies as a DM.  I spend of a lot of time involving the PCs in the world.  I create plot threads to attach the character to the campaign, often foreshadowing important plot elements.  Significant amounts of work go down the drain when a PC dies (especially one with a lot of unresolved plot elements).


shilsen said:


> And, of course, there are many variations to the divide which don't fall into the categories above. For example, I like to have a fair amount of risk in the game and especially repercussions for failure on the part of the PCs. But I personally find death (especially permanent character death) to be a particularly boring risk/repercussion, plus I like my players to be able to play the characters they want (and to do so as a player). So I've eliminated death as a repercussion in my games, while retaining a lot of risk and consequences for failure. It's easy to do and my game is much the better for it.




Yes, the biggest fallacy I see from those who criticize campaigns that have eliminated death without player approval from the campaign.  They criticize that risk and repercussion are gone.

If done well that isn't the fact.  The only fact is that the repercussions aren't death.  They are other things.  In fact, I have seen games where the repercussions are things some players hate more than they would have hated their character's death.

I have nothing against the default assumptions about death being a risk taken.  However, that's not the only way to play and you can play without it and still have significant risks and repercussions.


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 13, 2008)

I wonder if there's a correspondance between attachment to PC (with consequent dismay at their death) and the amount of effort required to put one together.  3e is known for having relatively complex character creation, and it's the edition of D&D where I've seen the most distress over losing a PC.
-blarg


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

Personally...I hated losing OD&D or red set characters, even. Not only the work for me, but the fact that you have to build yourself back into the story somehow with the new character.

It is a distinct possibility for others, and 3rd did have a LOT of options you could add to them as the levels grew.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 13, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> I wonder if there's a correspondance between attachment to PC (with consequent dismay at their death) and the amount of effort required to put one together.  3e is known for having relatively complex character creation, and it's the edition of D&D where I've seen the most distress over losing a PC.
> -blarg



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.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> I wonder if there's a correspondance between attachment to PC (with consequent dismay at their death) and the amount of effort required to put one together.  3e is known for having relatively complex character creation, and it's the edition of D&D where I've seen the most distress over losing a PC.
> -blarg



It certainly created a lot more work, and considering the amount of purely mechanical choices one made to create your "perfect" character, there is a good chance that you have some more investment in the PC. You really wanted to try out your Polearm Wielding Barbarian/Fighter and the cool feat combo you found out. But it seems silly to just roll up a replacement character "Bob II." with the same set of abilities. 
The other source of PC investment usually comes from the story side. I'd like to think that this was true over all editions. 

But players have certain... "defense mechanism" to protect themselves from such investments - like no longer caring about the verisimilitude of rolling up Bob II, or just not getting too involved with the character, and just seeing him as a play piece. I think that is a danger of all games where death is arbitrary and relatively common. Save or Die but also CoC Insanity can lead this route...


----------



## Subumloc (Oct 13, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> I suppose if you invest no thought or involvement in a character, it would not make much difference. It depends on the PC, for me. If he's someone I've had a flash of inspiration for and done seven pages of background story and all, yeah, it's going to disappoint me greatly if he dies, especially if he dies because of some stupid game-related rules quirk or 'gotcha' monster or trap. That's a lot of time and involvement I've put in that now I'll never see realized.




This.

As a DM, I try to plan and run campaigns around my characters, taking plot hooks from their backgrounds and connecting major events to them, one way or the other (BTW - I don't demand my players overly long backstories, but a couple of them write a lot anyways :-D).
To me, a character death means scrapping evenings of work and chunks of campaign plot - if it happens, it happens, but I'm not trying to push it at every corner.
I've also played in games with a higher character turnover, but they were a lot more "beer&pretzels" than the campaigns I run. Not to say that I didn't enjoy them, but sure there wasn't much character development going on  YMMV of course.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 13, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> I wonder if there's a correspondance between attachment to PC (with consequent dismay at their death) and the amount of effort required to put one together.  3e is known for having relatively complex character creation, and it's the edition of D&D where I've seen the most distress over losing a PC.
> -blarg




I think it's got a lot more to do with the player and the group's style. The character I was most attached to was a 1st edition character that I played for several years.

Cheers!


----------



## cougent (Oct 13, 2008)

Indeed this is very player specific.  I have had players who were emotionally attached to their just created 1st level PC's and others who shrugged off the death of their 14th level PC's as "oh well" and all possible reactions in between.


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 13, 2008)

Yeah, I guess it really just comes down to individual players.  Despite having story attachment to my characters, I've always got a new character concept bubbling around in the back of my mind that I want to try out.  Learn from the mistake and move on.  In contrast, my girlfriend absolutely dreads losing a PC.  She's not particularly attached to the story or plot or anything - she just hates losing.
-blarg


----------



## Psion (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Sorry, in no way did I intend to imply that these are the only two possibilities. They are two extremes used to illustrate that there are definitely differences in the ways a PC can die. There are, of course, many others in between.




Thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify. Communication > presumption.


----------



## Psion (Oct 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> Of course, that just pushes the question back to 1E.
> 
> My guess would be that resurrection magic was introduced in response to the high level of arbitrary death.  Arbitrary death is inherent in the mechanics of the early editions, so it seems unlikely that resurrection magic came first.




Earlier editions carried no presumption that a character would start at any level other than first, and were rather unforgiving with regards to death. Recall that dying at -10 was not the original rule; times were, you died at 0 hp! You didn't need instant death effects to be courting death every adventure!

I think the central issue was that a 1st level character had trouble getting along in a troupe of high level characters, so at high levels, dying was a pain, whereas at low levels, a new 1st level character joining the party wasn't a big deal. So I think one of the central issues was a play dynamic thing.


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 13, 2008)

Psion: If you want my opinion, I think you're misreading 5th Element. Fifth Element has not quoted you in this thread, nor has he labeled your position a false dichotomy. He's been replying mostly to justanobody and used the false dichotomy comment directly to Shilsen, not you.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Oct 13, 2008)

The further I got through this thread, the more I realised that Ron Edwards GNS theory is a good (and accurate) thing.

Whatever works for you guys is right.

But remember: you might not mind your character being arbitrarily slaughtered, because you’ve got another in your back pocket, your fellow player may be sitting on a character whose family and background (s)he has lovingly created. Some players enjoy investing a lot of time in their characters, to create a more real and rounded person. They don’t want to see that person die. Some folk call that role-playing. You may not! Perhaps killing critters and taking their stuff is what you enjoy, Fair enough!

You can’t control how your fellow gamers get their fun. And you shouldn’t try to impose your values on them.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 13, 2008)

-- nevermind, late to the game.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Oct 13, 2008)

[When I play] I enjoy the challenge of keeping my character alive. There must be a risk of death. The fun for me comes from using intelligent strategy and tactics to stay alive. Save-or-die instakills usually preclude the use of strategy or tactics, so a death by those means is not fun play for me.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> You can’t control how your fellow gamers get their fun. And you shouldn’t try to impose your values on them.




Essentially. Because there's always a third choice between "play this game in a way that embraces frequent and random mortality" and "play another game" — "play this game with different people who are more in tune with what you want out of it." 

The whole "Suck it up and play like I want you to" argument gets thrown around almost as if it would win the poster and those who agree with him more potential players. I would argue that it wins fewer. You don't convince more people to play the game you want them to by telling them how wrong or weak they are, you just convince them not to play with you or people like you.


----------



## Psion (Oct 13, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> Psion: If you want my opinion, I think you're misreading 5th Element. Fifth Element has not quoted you in this thread, nor has he labeled your position a false dichotomy. He's been replying mostly to justanobody and used the false dichotomy comment directly to Shilsen, not you.




He was commenting on Shilsen's response to me. Hence the perceived implication.

But he's clarified, so let's not dwell on it.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> My guess would be that resurrection magic was introduced in response to the high level of arbitrary death.  Arbitrary death is inherent in the mechanics of the early editions, so it seems unlikely that resurrection magic came first.




Well, which came first is only interesting if you consider there to be a cause-and-effect relationship involved.  If they introduced raise dead because they found characters died too often, then it is interesting.  But correlation does not imply causation.

I don't think we have much evidence for (or against) that causation here.  These weren't guys who were applying modern design and game science to their work, because it was thirty years ago and RPGs were brand spanking new, and nobody had experience enough to have "design principles" for them.  Raising the dead could be in the game just because it was cool, rather than because gameplay experience called for it.

Anyone know offhand if the Chainmail fantasy rules had ways to bring units back after they were destroyed?


----------



## cougent (Oct 13, 2008)

Through the years I have lost many a PC, but the two that come to mind immediately as bothering me the most were both hp damage death from the (stupid) mistakes of fellow players.  They were not from save or die situations, they were not from an over zealous deathmonger DM, they were not even from my own stupid action or inaction (well other than being in a party that killed me!)

It was the utter helplessness that made them traumatic... not even a save chance to forego it.  I can see a save-or-die situation being traumatic, but for me the last chance save alleviates it enough to make it acceptable.  As mentioned earlier, I enjoy the challenge of trying to stay alive in a hostile world.  Sometimes I sucede and sometimes I fail... and sometimes my own archer shot me in the back!

I know that is not for everyone and as a DM I try to give my players options that will avoid death.  I do have a standing preface though that:
"Although I am NOT trying to kill your PC's; neither am I overtly trying to keep them alive either."


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Sure it does. What matters is the perception that you couldn't do anything to prevent it. If you get into melee, at least you have a chance to whack the bad guys as they're trying to whack you. Even if you fail there, you at least had a chance. And death in melee is generally by degree, where your hit points get lower and lower, giving you chances to break off and flee (though certainly not always).




I'd have to say that's a false notion as well. In a game where not all of the encounters are level-appropriate, you still might not have a real chance to survive a fight, nor flee once the fight has really started.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2008)

Runestar said:


> I am wondering which came first in 3e.
> 
> Did the numerous ways of raising a PC from the dead come about as a solution to the many sudden death scenarios running around, or did the designers evidently feel that it was okay to run save-or-dies frequently due to the prevalence of resurrection effects?




A lot of stuff, pretty obviously, is legacy from 1e and 2e. But with a lot fewer save or die stuff in 3e AND more ways ameliorate issues, I'd have to say that a lot of ways to bring PCs back (or protect them) were generated by save or die effects being in the game and not the other way around.
And once design of 3e got into full swing, we can see the debut of effects coupled with remedies. I'm thinking here, particularly, of stat damage and lesser restoration.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You really see no difference between:
> 
> (A) Your character perishing after a pitched toe-to-toe battle with a vile opponent, and
> 
> ...




I see a difference... I just don't think I'd make too much about it.
A death in a more dramatic way, in a knock-down, drag-out fight, feels better, more worthwhile than a blown save out of the blue. For that reason, I don't mind save or die effects going largely away.

But if the problem really is the "unfunness" of sitting out with a dead PC waiting to make up a new character and generate a way to bring him into the action, the difference between the two is very minor.  You're sitting out no matter what you do.


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No you are creating dilemma where there isn't any. Death is death, plain and simple. Trying to categorize it is silly. Your bad luck in making a choice, is no different than your bad luck in rolling dice. Either can lead to a quick death. The rest is moot.




There is a difference to me, though --  a bad streak of luck, versus several bad rolls or choices in turn. If you fail three saves, that's tough -- it just wasn't your day. If three or four monsters hit you in turn, and that kills you, it's rough, but c'est la vie. 

One bad roll taking you to dead, though -- that's harder for most folks to swallow. If you went to Las Vegas, and were on a hot streak, then lost it all to one roll, how would you feel? Now, compare that to going to Vegas, and losing your stake over three or four bets? It's a difference in perception, even if it's not a difference in outcome.



> Suck it up and make the new character and stop crying about how you died.




A little harsh way to phrase it, but I understand the main point. Keep in mind though how much it takes in some RPGs to build a character - it can take in some game systems a good 30 minutes or more to make a new PC. In some (Basic D&D, for example) it can take all of five minutes. That's a big difference in investment versus play time. Then you have situations where it takes forty-five minutes to an hour for a DM to reintroduce a PC into the game - have you watched a D&D game that you weren't playing in for an hour and realized how dry as dust that is? It is to me, at least. I can't even watch my own taped sessions after the fact. 

On the other side, I'm of the old school myself when it comes to level of attachment to characters. If my PC dies, I'm as happy with coming up with a new one as I am playing the one I have, as long as the game itself goes on. Having my PC eaten alive by rot scarabs is more fun than a productive fishing trip, to me. I'm sick, I know.


----------



## Ourph (Oct 13, 2008)

Storminator said:


> I noticed this oddity yesterday: Playing 4e, and my stupid dwarf is making death saves again... or in this case, failing death saves... So after I've failed two, the warlock stabilizes me. So now, when my turn comes up, I don't have anything to do!
> 
> PS



We noticed this too and thought it kind of sucked (especially since 4e combats are lasting about twice the number of rounds as 3e combats) so we made the house rule that you keep rolling after you're stabilized.  You can't get worse, but if you roll a 20 you get better.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Oct 13, 2008)

cougent said:


> It was the utter helplessness that made them traumatic... not even a save chance to forego it. I can see a save-or-die situation being traumatic, but for me the last chance save alleviates it enough to make it acceptable. As mentioned earlier, I enjoy the challenge of trying to stay alive in a hostile world. Sometimes I sucede and sometimes I fail... and sometimes my own archer shot me in the back!




I agree. Remember when my character was tortured in game. Not "it happened", no every detail, poured on me hot oil, etc.

By my own side! And the Scout was in on it. In fact, he attacked me when I tried to get cast to get out of my binds.

I blew up: I couldn't trust these guys. None of them had my back? (they were what; 30 feet away the whole time I believe).

I survived but I Dimed door outta there (made Concentration check). Dm said I'd be too far to make it back to the party for rest of session: like I cared.


I was actually crying: I like to put myself in my characters shoes to better roleplay.
I was already packing my stuff and leaving.
One guy said can we just go back to the game (before this happened). 

Apparently, the DM heard me wrong. He thought I insulted their commander: I still think he was just being a prick.

Only time I've ever cried for a characters death. But then again it was the helplessness and torture that was the problem I think.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 13, 2008)

Ourph said:


> We noticed this too and thought it kind of sucked (especially since 4e combats are lasting about twice the number of rounds as 3e combats) so we made the house rule that you keep rolling after you're stabilized.  You can't get worse, but if you roll a 20 you get better.




Yoink!


----------



## Angrydad (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> It may not add to the story for you, but does for the other players. You get a whole new story to start. The other players need to decide if they are going to loot you, or try to bring you back to life. Some race may want to use you for food.
> 
> Do they need to discard your body to prevent attracting nearby carnivores?
> 
> ...





LOL. We had a low level game once where the half-orc barbarian got skewered by a spear trap and the first thing out of another player's mouth was, "I've got dibs on his axe!" They then proceeded to use the half-orc's corpse as a shield and then jammed it in the gears powering the spear trap, thus disarming it. Dead bodies can be a lot of fun.


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2008)

Angrydad said:


> ..They then proceeded to use the half-orc's corpse as a shield and then jammed it in the gears powering the spear trap, thus disarming it. Dead bodies can be a lot of fun.




In a recent Gameday game, one PC got petrified when fighting a basilisk ten minutes in. They had later considered using his body as an anchor point for a rope bridge, but opted against it. 

Towards the end of the scenario, they freed from slaves from a slaver stronghold. They told the slaves, _"..we've cleared the way out. Take this tunnel, turn left, go over the plank bridge with the rope across it, and keep heading south until you find the open secret door. If you see a statue of a fighter with a big axe and a dead lizard carcass, you've gone too far." _


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2008)

As I've gotten older, I've come to prefer games that more-or-less take death of the table for PC's. So long as there are negative consequences for PC failure, make mine death-lite. I mean, the aforementioned "negative consequences" are as real a risk as PC death is (which is to say neither are). 

I have a limited amount of time to game these days, not to mention a limited number of good character concepts left in my unbounless imagination. So my preference is to confront a campaign's challenges with the protagonist of my choice. It don't matter if he (or she) wins or loses, so long as they get to keep playing the game.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 13, 2008)

Not blackleaf!  Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!


----------



## Delta (Oct 13, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> You can’t control how your fellow gamers get their fun. And you shouldn’t try to impose your values on them.




However, you should inform them how _your_ game is going to run, so they can make an informed choice about it.


----------



## jensun (Oct 13, 2008)

Mallus said:


> As I've gotten older, I've come to prefer games that more-or-less take death of the table for PC's. So long as there are negative consequences for PC failure, make mine death-lite. I mean, the aforementioned "negative consequences" are as real a risk as PC death is (which is to say neither are).
> 
> I have a limited amount of time to game these days, not to mention a limited number of good character concepts left in my unbounless imagination. So my preference is to confront a campaign's challenges with the protagonist of my choice. It don't matter if he (or she) wins or loses, so long as they get to keep playing the game.



We mostly take death off the table during the game but then we are dirty hippy indie gamers.  Death is mostly uninteresting and death "mid game" is generally anti climactic.  We find the argument that without death there can be no tension unconvincing.  It assumes death is the only likely or valid form of failure.  Death is simply one option among many and often the least interesting.

They way we do it is like this:

1. You can die at any part of the game but it is consensual between GM and player.  You want to make that heroic sacrifice to hold off the Balor as your group flees the Mines of Moria cool.  We dont need any dice for that, it is simply narrated out.  

2. If you are "killed" in a fight you are instead taken out.  You cant get back into the action.  You are too wounded or whatever.  After the fight you will recover but you have the raise dead penalty.  You recover with an injury or some form of trauma.  I havent yet had a tpk, if we did it would inevitably change the game but we are not going to discard the game we have created so far because some dice say everyone should be dead.  I link it very much to the "say yes" idea, or more accurately "yes but."  You are captured, what happens next.  

3. Some fights will be flagged as "Death On."  Essentially these are campaign critical encounters where you can die, really truly die and not just some revolving door "raise dead is only 500gp" cheap ass meaningless death.  These are the turning point sessions of the game and permanent character death is an option.  At the moment the only ones I have in mind for this are the end of Tier encounters. 

I entirely expect such a system to make the simulationis/gamist/old school/sandbox crowd scream bloody murder.  Fortunately I dont have to play with anyone possessing such sensibilities...


----------



## Delta (Oct 13, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Anyone know offhand if the Chainmail fantasy rules had ways to bring units back after they were destroyed?




They did not. There were no Clerics or rescusitation of any kind -- just Heroes and Wizards.

My own analysis is that the initial OD&D Cleric spell list has _almost_ a 1:1 inspiration specifically from scenes of Biblical miracles. Healing, protection from evil spirits, creating food and drink, parting a body of water, turning sticks to snakes, insect plague, etc. Was there raising of dead? You betcha (John 11) -- so there it is in the OD&D Cleric list, too.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Oct 13, 2008)

Henry said:


> Keep in mind though how much it takes in some RPGs to build a character - it can take in some game systems a good 30 minutes or more to make a new PC. In some (Basic D&D, for example) it can take all of five minutes. That's a big difference in investment versus play time. Then you have situations where it takes forty-five minutes to an hour for a DM to reintroduce a PC into the game - have you watched a D&D game that you weren't playing in for an hour and realized how dry as dust that is? It is to me, at least. I can't even watch my own taped sessions after the fact.




Ah Henry, you have hit the nail on the head.  Players need to know the lethality of the game ahead of time so that they can put the appropriate amount of time into character creation.  

You put less time into a grim and gritty character because their life expectancy is so low.  Surviving adventures at low level becomes the character back story (remember when we killed Raynard the Mad).  The death of the 4th level fighter who was the mentor to the first level fighter in the party is a big deal.  Surviving and becoming a hero is a big deal in a game like this.  Because of the high lethality level, character background should be the adventures the character is undertaking, not a massive back story.

On the flip side, if you are running a high fantasy saga type game (think Lord of the Rings), you probably want the PCs to last a little longer, develop, and grow.  Character death at that time becomes a key factor in the story line.  The amount of time a player should spend developing background and adventure hooks for the DM is rewarded by the style of the game.  The DM, Player, and other Players will expect to adventure with this character for a long time.

Let's look at Aragorn for a good example.  Before hooking up with Frodo and the fellowship, he has a mountain's worth of back story; a broken sword, a king in exile, an elven lover, etc, etc.  How cool is Aragorn's story if he is killed by wolves after leaving Rivendell with the fellowship?  Aragorn's back story is huge and having him randomly killed by the equivalent of wandering monsters is very anti-climatic.  A player who brings Aragorn to the grim and gritty game is going to be very disappointed as the time spent in building the character may be wasted before the first session ends.  On the flip side, Aragorn is perfect for the Lord of the Rings.  He has lots of interesting hooks for the DM to use and his story is a driving factor in the plot of the game.

So, PC death needs to be known by the Players before the game starts.  Managing player expectation is a key role of the DM.

---
Disclaimer - there is always middle ground between grim and gritty and high fantasy.


----------



## jensun (Oct 13, 2008)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Let's look at Aragorn for a good example.  Before hooking up with Frodo and the fellowship, he has a mountain's worth of back story; a broken sword, a king in exile, an elven lover, etc, etc.  How cool is Aragorn's story if he is killed by wolves after leaving Rivendell with the fellowship?  Aragorn's back story is huge and having him randomly killed by the equivalent of wandering monsters is very anti-climatic.  A player who brings Aragorn to the grim and gritty game is going to be very disappointed as the time spent in building the character may be wasted before the first session ends.  On the flip side, Aragorn is perfect for the Lord of the Rings.  He has lots of interesting hooks for the DM to use and his story is a driving factor in the plot of the game.




I think you have things a little backward.  The issue isnt necessarily that Aragorn has a lot of backstory.  Backstory is filler, its not very useful and if a character with lots of backstory dies so what, it hasn't actually affected the game very much.  The frustrated novel writer player can create another character with a new backstory and be very happy. 

The issue is that Aragorn has a lot of "story now", that is, issues in the character which demand to be addressed in play.  How will his love affair with the princess turn out, will he dump her for the affections of a pretty horsemaid, will he ever return to the white city and claim his throne, can he withstand the corruption of Sauron or desire for the ring. 

Killing Aragorn doesnt remove a bunch of backstory, it takes away a huge chunk of exciting and interesting drama and opportunities within the game.  You could bring a new character in but he wont be as tied to the events that you already have running and will, almost inevitably, be a much damper squib.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2008)

jensun said:


> We find the argument that without death there can be no tension unconvincing.



Same here, but I realize some people feel the opposite pretty strongly. 



> Some fights will be flagged as "Death On."  Essentially these are campaign critical encounters where you can die, really truly die and not just some revolving door "raise dead is only 500gp" cheap ass meaningless death.



I've read about various 'death-flag' rules and I'm intrigued.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Oct 13, 2008)

The game wouldn't be the same without characters dying 5 minutes into the game from beetles shooting napalm out of their butts. Or the wizard accidentally setting the rogue, who's writhing on the floor dying from poison, on fire.

In the world of swords & sorcery, life is cheap, horrible death awaits around any corners, and conan's player was a DAMN LUCKY ROLLER.

I my game, you always have a backup character prepared, you get hand-waved minutes after dying ("I was just exploring this dungeon by myself and I found you guys fighting trolls. Who's the dead guy?"), and your backstory is usually along the lines of "I am from the viking isles. I was cast out of my clan. I like to wear jewelry"


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Anyone know offhand if the Chainmail fantasy rules had ways to bring units back after they were destroyed?




Pretty much just like DDM 1.0, and Warhammer (probably every other miniature game.). Any unit that becomes a casualty or routes off the table, if out of the rest of the game.

*Chainmail 3rd edition by Gygax & Perren



> Reincarnation: A spell to bring a dead character back to life in some other form.




*Volume 1: Men & Magic - Gygax & Arneson -1974

@Henry:

Series of bad dice (that get fed to a chipper) always suck. There is nothing really you can do about it or a series of bad choices. I would rather keep playing than bother with being mad during the game. I can take my revenge for the fallen character out on the next enemy with the new character.

Death isn't something that should be minor in the game, but there is little you can do after it has already happened.

Don't even get me started on making characters in Rifts.  I would rather fill out my tax return.

I think those most folks may need a few more death of characters to understand. It is NOT fun to lose ANY character, but there really is nothing you can do except start rolling a new one, while you wait for the party to see if they can bring you back to life. I have seen players so mad to disrupt the game, and as fun as it is, you just have to take the loss with the gains. Nobody enjoys it, it is just how they handle it at the table that matters. In another thread I stated I would step outside, and have a smoke to digest where I made the mistake. I can blame the dice all I want at any time, but cannot go back in time to change anything, so just have to be more careful with the next character.

So I don't want to see people shrug off a death and be happy about it, but don't want someone to disrupt a game because of it either. It happens, it is just how you handle it that matters most.

Mundane survival tasks are boring until that thing jumps out of the lake! Which may cause death or dismemberment. I have not been lucky enough to be eaten by scarabs yet, but too often have been the meal for a mimic.


----------



## Simon Atavax (Oct 13, 2008)

Psion said:


> You have stumbled upon one of the great emerging divides in RPGs.
> 
> Some folks feel strongly--realy strongly--that you should have a player "green light" before axing their character.




I have never played with such a person, thankfully, and hope I never will.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

Simon Atavax said:


> I have never played with such a person, thankfully, and hope I never will.




I'm confused. What did I miss where? "green light"?

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


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I'm confused. What did I miss where? "green light"?
> 
> You need permission from the player to kill his character or something?




Pretty much, yes.

The "death flag" idea is one that I've been curious about too, though I've yet to play with it.  As I understand it, the concept is this: Under normal circumstances, your PC has Plot Protection.  You can't actually die - you'll just be knocked unconscious or taken prisoner or some such.  However, in a situation where you really want to put it all on the line, you can raise your "death flag."  This means you get a significant bonus to all your die rolls; however, it also means you waive your Plot Protection and are now subject to dying.

The basic concept appeals to me, although I dislike eliminating _all_ risk of death.  I might try some kind of variant, though.  For instance (this is just a rough idea, would need some tweaking): PCs who "die" might roll a number of "death dice," these being d6s.  If at least one of your death dice comes up 4 or higher, you're KOed and will recover after an extended rest.  Otherwise, you're dead.  You normally have three death dice, but at any point during an encounter, you can trade in a death die to improve a d20 roll you just made by 2.  At the end of the encounter, you get all of your death dice back.

Of course, I'd probably want to couple this with some more serious penalty for dying than what currently exists - maybe require all new characters to cope with a sizeable death penalty, so people willing to risk character death don't just trade in all three death dice every fight.  And of course you wouldn't be allowed to use death dice in situations where there isn't a significant risk of death.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 13, 2008)

The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me.  This ain't no writer's workshop.  If you want to tell the story about your hero's epic quest, then head on over to fanfiction.net.  The rest of us will be playing the game and, as a game, that means _there's a chance to fail._

The problem, I think, is this idea of "If I die, I LOSE THE GAME."  Personally, I LOVE dying.  It's very often that, not long after character creation, I get that perfectly timed "Oh wait, this idea is MUCH MORE AWESOME!"  So, just like someone else in this thread, dying gives me the chance to bring in more cool ideas.

You know, for a group that says "Don't take fantasy seriously," you sure do take your fantasy characters seriously ;p


----------



## Imaro (Oct 13, 2008)

Okay, I have a quick question for those who ascribe to the "green light" character death philosophy... does this apply to any of the DM's NPC's? I mean if you have an NPC who has tons of story potential or is integral to your campaign, or you just like using as a recurring villain for the characters. Does he/she only die at a narratively appropriate time? And if so who decides this and do your players know about it? Just curious.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I'm confused. What did I miss where? "green light"?
> 
> You need permission from the player to kill his character or something?




Yes, some groups, in some campaigns (or all) agree that character death is something special and must be meaningful (and heroic). 

I found the "Martyr" card in Torg particularly interesting. It was a card rarely actually played, usually it was turned in for a possibility. But sometimes, it was used, to get the party out of a fight that turned wrong. The player played it, and his actions would guarantee the rest of the party at least some sense of success - typically killing the opposition or forcing it to retreat, or at least giving the party the time to retreat - but you'd sacrifice your character for it. Of course, character death was possible without this card. 

The "Death Flag" idea is pretty similar, except that you normally agree to not kill anyone (well, any PC - loved ones, mentors, allies, innocent virgin sacrifices or what-else are still fair game) until the flag is raised.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This ain't no writer's workshop.



Yes, we know that. 



> The rest of us will be playing the game and, as a game, that means _there's a chance to fail._



Yes, we know that, too. What you seem to be missing is that (for some folks) the chance for character failure can exist even without the chance for character death. 



> The problem, I think, is this idea of "If I die, I LOSE THE GAME."



That's not true for me or anyone in my group. 



> So, just like someone else in this thread, dying gives me the chance to bring in more cool ideas.



I have fewer really cool ideas. However, the ones I do have are fairly remarkable. 



> You know, for a group that says "Don't take fantasy seriously," you sure do take your fantasy characters seriously ;p



How do you figure?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Okay, I have a quick question for those who ascribe to the "green light" character death philosophy... does this apply to any of the DM's NPC's?



It only applies to PC's.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 13, 2008)

Mallus said:


> It only applies to PC's.





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


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 13, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me.




It's kinda strange to me, too.

Every since I began playing, when you bring a character into a campaign, there's an implicit understanding that you are putting that character at risk of death, dismemberment or worse, and the only way to keep them safe and unblemished is to retire them.



> Personally, I LOVE dying.




While I wouldn't say I love it, I've made several characters that have a finite story arc that usually culminates in death (I'm a sucker for heroic speeches + sacrifice).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me.  This ain't no writer's workshop.  If you want to tell the story about your hero's epic quest, then head on over to fanfiction.net.  The rest of us will be playing the game and, as a game, that means _there's a chance to fail._



1) Death is not equal to failure and failure is not equal to death
2) I like this badwrongfun type of gaming. (Despite not actually doing this, aside from the aforementioned Torg method - of course, in a way it seems opposite, because it _guarantees_ death - but the important part is that it guarantees a meaningful death!)



> The problem, I think, is this idea of "If I die, I LOSE THE GAME."  Personally, I LOVE dying.  It's very often that, not long after character creation, I get that perfectly timed "Oh wait, this idea is MUCH MORE AWESOME!"  So, just like someone else in this thread, dying gives me the chance to bring in more cool ideas.



Of course, you know, you could just retire your character if you found a new concept you'd like to try. Or raise the death flag more often. Or play the martyr card to guarantee a "cool" character exit.



> You know, for a group that says "Don't take fantasy seriously," you sure do take your fantasy characters seriously ;p



It's all about the fun in using the game to tell a compelling story. It's not about seriousness, it is about achieving the player goals of playing the game. Which can be a lot. Fun, of course, is serious business.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 13, 2008)

I recently read a post by someone describing his campaing. In every fight, the DM signals the players if the "Death Flag" is on or off, meaning if random, non-player-initiatied death of a character is a possibility. It is clearly a concept which emphasizes the story-side of players and characers - some people simply like some kind of control about the narrative their char is in without being a DM. Especially about the way a narrative is going to end.

Though i do not use a system like that, it sure sounds interesting to me. And i didn´t want to deprive anybody in this thread of the chance to ridicule this playstyle as too soft. 
So i thought i´d mention it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Wow...this is like some kind of bizzaro-reverse-engineering-railroading...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")?



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.


----------



## Angrydad (Oct 13, 2008)

Henry said:


> In a recent Gameday game, one PC got petrified when fighting a basilisk ten minutes in. They had later considered using his body as an anchor point for a rope bridge, but opted against it.
> 
> Towards the end of the scenario, they freed from slaves from a slaver stronghold. They told the slaves, _"..we've cleared the way out. Take this tunnel, turn left, go over the plank bridge with the rope across it, and keep heading south until you find the open secret door. If you see a statue of a fighter with a big axe and a dead lizard carcass, you've gone too far." _




That reminds me of my brother's insane half-elf, Tyrus Onesimus. He was the defacto party leader (disagree with him and his alter ego will humiliate/destroy you), and managed to get petrified by a basilisk despite needing to roll not-a-1. Then, when the party tried to revive him with a Stone to Flesh spell he once again needed to roll not-a-1 and failed. It was an epic way to go out. I've had villains in that campaign go out in simliar fashion. A CR 23 lich that I designed as a BBEG ended up disintegrated in the second round of combat by the NPC wizard. SR was overcome, the lich needed to roll not-a-1 but failed. Hilariously karmic.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> Pretty much, yes.




HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's just silly. When you sit down to play, that is one of the possibilities of the game, otherwise there is no point in having any sort of combat or injury if you cannot die at any time without your own consent.

PvP may not always be flagged as "on", but the DM does NOT need your permission for your character to die.

If I met someone in a game claiming they didn't give their permission to have their character die, then the game would end, because I would be laughing so hard someone would have to call an ambulance for me to get oxygen so I didn't suffocate.

That sort of thing would be no fun at all because there is never any risk to any action.

Is it April 1st already?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Oct 13, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me.  This ain't no writer's workshop.  If you want to tell the story about your hero's epic quest, then head on over to fanfiction.net.  The rest of us will be playing the game and, as a game, that means _there's a chance to fail._




This is pretty much how I feel. 

I mean it's a valid playstyle I guess, just not one the I've ever run into or one that I'd be interested in at all. 

If you have a group that's more interested in crafting an adventure novel before actually having an adventure that's cool. I've personally found that the more interesting stories come AFTER the adventure and all sorts of unexpected occurrences have happened including character death and dismemberment. 

Every has some sort of attachment to a character whether it's because of the potential of the character or things that have happened in game and accomplishments of the character and what not. But the ability to let that character go is more important than the attachment, it's the difference between being percived as a good / decent roleplayer and a freak. A good/decent role-player is going wish the character hadnt died, but is going to accept that it is in fact just a character and either take a break or create a new character. The other type is going to get upset, cry, get angry at the DM or angry at his fellow players (although in some cases he/she might actually be justified in feeling that way...) and overall be a drama queen or king about it. IMHO of course.

Personally when, I'm playing a PC and I get even the inkling that there's a good chance that the character is in a situation where they might bite it, Im already thinking of a way my next character can still be involved in the game and the story. Either from the present character's back story or the story of one of the NPC's or even one of the other players. I try to keep it moving forward not be bogged down by character death. I appreciate a good story like the rest of you, I just don't find the fun in trying to void character deaths before hand. 

The solution? Play with a group of people who feel as you do about the game and how it should be played.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

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 (Oct 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> 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.


----------



## AndrewRogue (Oct 13, 2008)

I, on the other hand, feel that character death is in fact a big deal. *shrugs*

Character death carries a lot of ramifications. At the basic level, there's the personal general annoyance of losing a character and the work required to come up with a completely new character.

Beyond that, though, is the problem with RP being an interactive fiction medium. Simply put, character death severely disrupts the process. Yes, it can create new drama. At the same time, it creates plenty of new headaches. Plotlines crumble, interpersonal party dynamic gets thrown on its head and a lot of potential and direction generally goes to waste. Even worse, the introduction of new characters into an established group is often difficult in the best of circumstances and, in some cases, requires incredible stretches and strains of RP to make it work.

Glyfair said it best really. There're upsides and downsides to all styles.

For the heavy RP/character interaction style game I run, PC death being able to occur out of nowhere at any time because of a single incident of bad luck is incredibly disruptive and very permanent. We've had games where the RP simply fell apart because we had a revolving door of new PCs who'd show up and then leave later for RL reasons, and thus caused tons of issues. The ONLY reason the game survived as long as it did is we had a strong, centralized cast who, shock, stayed around and didn't die.

For a more game style game, then yeah, death works. Its just like a game over. *shrugs*

Play how you like, and I'll play how I like. I like my death flags.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 14, 2008)

AndrewRogue said:


> I, on the other hand, feel that character death is in fact a big deal. *shrugs*
> 
> Character death carries a lot of ramifications. At the basic level, there's the personal general annoyance of losing a character and the work required to come up with a completely new character.
> 
> ...




I am given the "green light" to kill a players character when they play in my games.

If they don't like that they are as free to go as they were to play in the first place.

When I join a game I am automatically giving them the "green light" to kill my character. If I don't like it (how they go about killing my character) I am as free to leave as I was to play in the first place.


Death=permanency? I don't get that, unless the game doesn't allow for raising of the dead in the first place. If a player wants to keep playing their PC, I make it happen, which is why I try to establish "friendships" between the PC's and high level NPC's who can "make it happen" within the context of the campaign setting and cast of characters.


----------



## apoptosis (Oct 14, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Death=permanency? I don't get that, unless the game doesn't allow for raising of the dead in the first place. If a player wants to keep playing their PC, I make it happen, which is why I try to establish "friendships" between the PC's and high level NPC's who can "make it happen" within the context of the campaign setting and cast of characters.




In this case is death really 'death'. 

When i talk about death being on the table i really mean and ending to the character. If raise dead or resurrection or easy to come by (eg having high-level NPCs readily available) then death is much less well 'death.' 

now obviously D&D has mostly always had resurrection possible but the permanency of it is probably a crucial part of this discussion.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 14, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> In this case is death really 'death'.
> 
> When i talk about death being on the table i really mean and ending to the character. If raise dead or resurrection or easy to come by (eg having high-level NPCs readily available) then death is much less well 'death.'
> 
> now obviously D&D has mostly always had resurrection possible but the permanency of it is probably a crucial part of this discussion.




Death is as permanent as the player and DM want it to be. The posters in this thread seem to have a problem with the "permanency" of death and how it screws up their campaigns story line. This makes it sound like to me they create their own problem by not allowing raise dead, etc... to be viable solutions.


As for is "death truly death", I find it depends on the player. They can either treat it like a "restart" like in a video game save, or they can look at it "realistically", the PC now knows that the gods are real, and that the "after life" is real, because they have been there and been brought back.

So the answer is obviously in how it is perceived by the player and/or GM. I perceive it as the "after life" is real, and the PC now knows it. So I think PC's that die should be very religious afterwards, they were raised by the will of a god. They saw the afterlife, they experienced it, possibly for days or weeks, depending on how quickly they were raised or resurrected. 

They may have even spent time as an undead creature, were destroyed, and then resurrected. 

So it is however it gets treated.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 14, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Every since I began playing, when you bring a character into a campaign, there's an implicit understanding that you are putting that character at risk of death, dismemberment or worse...




This is one thing that a few people are misunderstanding here.  In a campaign where a PC death requires player permission, it's agreed in advance.  Players don't just suddenly expect to impose that rule on a campaign they join.  It's part of the social contract for that campaign.



> ... and the only way to keep them safe and unblemished is to retire them.



In my games, once you retire you are part of the campaign world.  I control it as I control the rest of the world.  I might ask a player what there character might do in a certain situation, but the world around the active PCs are mine to do with as I choose (which can include giving PCs some input and control over some elements).


Treebore said:


> This makes it sound like to me they create their own problem by not allowing raise dead, etc... to be viable solutions.



In my experience these campaigns tend to be for groups that want strong storytelling elements in their game.  For some the regular raising of the dead breaks their connection to the world.  They often prefer death to be permanent and important in the game.  Raising the dead hurts this.

In fact, that's often why they prefer the player control of PC death.  That way when their character dies it will be an important, dramatic part of the campaign.  It won't be a random death that doesn't really serve the story.

And don't think that PC death doesn't occur in these games.  Players who play in this game often *want* to die a dramatic death.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 14, 2008)

Glyfair said:


> This is one thing that a few people are misunderstanding here.  In a campaign where a PC death requires player permission, it's agreed in advance.  Players don't just suddenly expect to impose that rule on a campaign they join.  It's part of the social contract for that campaign.
> 
> 
> In my games, once you retire you are part of the campaign world.  I control it as I control the rest of the world.  I might ask a player what there character might do in a certain situation, but the world around the active PCs are mine to do with as I choose (which can include giving PCs some input and control over some elements).
> ...




Well, I tried this pre arranged death idea. However, ignoring the fact that the fireball took their PC to -28 HP, or that the Giants hit took them to -18, was just as fake, and broke the "reality" of death just as much as using raise dead and resurrections do. So I went back to using these spells, and setting up NPC connections  as soon as I can, so that PC death can be handled as realistically as possible within the context of the campaign and the rules set being used.

Granted, everyones sensibilities are different, and different things break things for them to varying degrees, and I have simply chosen the way that ruins things the least for me.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Okay, I have a quick question for those who ascribe to the "green light" character death philosophy... does this apply to any of the DM's NPC's? I mean if you have an NPC who has tons of story potential or is integral to your campaign, or you just like using as a recurring villain for the characters. Does he/she only die at a narratively appropriate time? And if so who decides this and do your players know about it? Just curious.




It does for mine, unless the players come up with a really inovative and 'cool' method of defeating or disposing of said villain.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 14, 2008)

xkcd - A Webcomic - Aeris Dies

This is exactly what this thread makes me think of.

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.

When nobody dies, without approval, I honestly don't understand why you're even playing the game.  I'm not saying that to be mean or insulting - I simply cannot comprehend what the point is when you remove the consequences of a game.  By "saving" the characters too much, it VERY greatly removes the tension and it softens they fun of succeeding.


----------



## Runestar (Oct 14, 2008)

That said, I would like to ask another question.

How many of you actually make backup plans for when your character croaks, before the 1st PC actually dies? I mean, he has stats, and is this mortal, and can be killed. So the question is not so much of if he will die, but rather, when. 

In my games, my PCs have no special status or immunity to death just because they are supposed to be heroes. Back in 3e, you failed your fort save vs the medusa, got critted for 200+ damage (stupid scythe...) or got stunned by the mindflayer, it was really good-game, and we just pretty much took it in our stride. I mean, well - crap does happen. Just a day in the life of a typical adventurer.

So if one PC dies, we either just get him raised, or insert his backup at some point.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> When nobody dies, without approval, I honestly don't understand why you're even playing the game.  I'm not saying that to be mean or insulting - I simply cannot comprehend what the point is when you remove the consequences of a game.  By "saving" the characters too much, it VERY greatly removes the tension and it softens they fun of succeeding.




I played Teenagers from Outer Space a lot. It is impossible to die in that game. Literally. You cannot die from having machine guns fired at you; you either pass your Cool check and stand there unfazed as the bullets miss you, or you fail and you dive for cover like a scared marmoset, your outfit getting tattered and ruined as you look like a goof. Are there consequences in a TFOS game? Absolutely. They just aren't lethal ones.

Fun is a variable. For some, the possibility of having a character permanently removed from the game doesn't really make success any sweeter. It's more like a temporary reprieve than actual success; the only way to "win" is to stop playing your character while you're ahead, and the surest way to "lose" is to be stopped from playing your character via death. It's just one of those ways that people vary, same as how not everyone plays Nethack or Hardcore-mode Diablo. For some, death is absolutely the preferred consequence of choice, because it's so universal. For others, it's just not as interesting as having to live with other consequences.

Depends on what you favor, naturally, but the answer varies a lot from game to game, and I'm not at all surprised that it varies even within the same game system. People are inspired by different things.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me.  This ain't no writer's workshop.  If you want to tell the story about your hero's epic quest, then head on over to fanfiction.net.



This actually made me laugh so suddenly, I snorted Dr. Pepper into my sinuses.  Ouch, man.


----------



## malraux (Oct 14, 2008)

I don't really use the characters can't die rule, though I've considered it before.  But when I play other style of games, I can't say that game over options make it much better.  In the new MegaMan, sure it fits that you have only a finite number of lives, but really most forms of nintendo hard just aren't all that fun for me.  I care more about the story and if we can defeat the bad guy.  Having to start over with a new character for random reasons tends to break my immersion, not deepen it.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2008)

justanobody said:


> But LARPs are not D&D or PnP games. Things just don't translate over well.




Well, one must be careful how one tries to translate, of course.  But completely dismissing it isn't called for.



> When you have 3 STs and 110 players




Dude, pay attention.  I said 60 players.  I didn't say how many GMs.  There are no STs, as it isn't a Vampire/Mind's Eye Theatre game.  You don't get to say how many of what type of person there is involved, because this is my experience we are talking about, not yours.  

Hint #1 for getting the most out of EN World - _listen to other people_.  Generally, they will have some wisdom, or know something that you don't.  But you won't learn it if you jam the conversation full of your preconceptions.




> ...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.




This description bears almost no resemblance to the game I'm playing.  It avoids death for exactly the opposite reason - pretty much ever PC in the game is integral to several plots, such that their death due to one plot would have major impact on others.  Not that they forbid death, but they take its impact on the game seriously.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2008)

Some of the posts in this thread are a little surprising - purportedly definitive declarations of how character death _must_ be handled in an RPG from posters who, by their own admission, don't seem to be very familiar with the range of ways that character death (and action resolution more generally) is handled in contemporary RPGs.

I've got nothing against people having playstyle preferences. But it would be better if people didn't generalise so readily from their own experiences and preferences.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> http://xkcd.com/299/I simply cannot comprehend what the point is when you remove the consequences of a game.



What has been explained several times is that death is not the only negative consequence possible in a game. So your assertion that removing death removes "the consequences" is untenable.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 14, 2008)

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.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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...



Can't tell if you include me in this group, but I have never claimed such a thing, since death is a part of my games. Just not random, gotcha-type deaths. This part of the discussion seems to have been buried under the other.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me. This ain't no writer's workshop. If you want to tell the story about your hero's epic quest, then head on over to fanfiction.net. The rest of us will be playing the game and, as a game, that means _there's a chance to fail._




Er, isn't this the same argument that can be used against simulationist-style GMs ("if you want to simulate, there's many Sim* style games on the market already")

As for the Green Light flag, um, I've played other RPGs and this isn't exactly uncommon....


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Can't tell if you include me in this group, but I have never claimed such a thing, since death is a part of my games. Just not random, gotcha-type deaths. This part of the discussion seems to have been buried under the other.



*Nods* This is the same with my games, in a manner of speaking there is a sense of "player knowledge" in if a death is coming. 

There are in my games basically two types of encounters. Normal and serious. Normal is your basic encounter there may be plot points within it, but when it comes down to it there is not much substance there. A serious encounter though has major ramifications toward the plotline as such the chance of risk and failure is also higher.

Thus a player in some manner of speaking knows when a death is a possibility because the plot has been working up toward that point. Though in general as a DM I try not to go out of my way to kill my players, since that isn't what is enjoyable for us.

 For us it is seeing the plot and characters evolve and change from day one to the end of the campaign, yes... If a player feels that it is time for his character to reach and end either death or some other means that happens. But, I don't want to cut-short a players enjoyment of seeing his character progress through a plot because of some random death.

I think it should be said though that my games are very low-combat,which may play a difference in this debate. Since combat happens at the most maybe 20% of the time.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 14, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> As for the Green Light flag, um, I've played other RPGs and this isn't exactly uncommon....



I've played and GMed a lot of other RPGs, and I've found that to be *_extremely_ uncommon* indeed. Downright rare, even.  In fact, I can't think of even one, off the top of my head. 

Just goes to show, eh? _Dayumn_, there must be a lot of games out there.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 14, 2008)

Ok, now I'm getting a little confused...so some people have death...but it's not a random, gotcha thing???  WHAT???

If death in your game is not random...then it is controlled/scripted/determined by the player (and/or DM) and thus is not included in one's game in the same sense that it is part of the actual rules...and again I say this just seems odd... claiming a game is about killing things and taking their stuff  as long as the nasty orc has no chance to kill me unless I say it's ok just doesn't sound right... IMHO of course.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Ok, now I'm getting a little confused...so some people have death...but it's not a random, gotcha thing???  WHAT???



You're reading me far too literally. Clearly there's some randomness in any character death, given the fact that die rolls infuence so much.

But I'm talking about deaths caused by one single die roll that the player can do little or nothing about, save not play the game. Save-or-die type stuff. 

Or "gotcha" traps and monsters. Like when you walk into a room, and the floor is actually....a monster! Haha!


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> I've played and GMed a lot of other RPGs, and I've found that to be *_extremely_ uncommon* indeed. Downright rare, even.  In fact, I can't think of even one, off the top of my head.
> 
> Just goes to show, eh? _Dayumn_, there must be a lot of games out there.




I guess I should be clear. The other games I've played, it's really, REALLY, hard to die.

One of my first games was Teenagers from Outer Space and also AMBER. The former, it literally is impossible to die and the latter, there really is no such thing as "random" death.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 14, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I guess I should be clear. The other games I've played, it's really, REALLY, hard to die.
> 
> One of my first games was Teenagers from Outer Space and also AMBER. The former, it literally is impossible to die and the latter, there really is no such thing as "random" death.



Ah. Yes, I did get the wrong impression there.

Mind you, I still haven't played TFOS - or anything much alike - as far as I can remember. All (in this respect, anyway) rather conservative, 'old skool', standard, whatever.

It seems to be overwhelmingly a more modern phenomenon, and in addition a mostly niche, 'indie'-style approach. In origin, at least. Wouild that be right? I am referring to that 'green lighting' kind of thing, and totally deathless RPGs, in particular btw. If not, puzzlement will continue - perhaps I've simply managed to randomly sidestep RPGs that possess these traits, time and again, through the years.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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.



I don't see any disconnect between "D&D is a game about encounters" and "D&D is most enjoyably played as a game where certain sorts of (random, meaningless, ...) PC death are off the table".

For the encounters part of the game to be satisfying, presumably there has to be something at stake _for the players_ in the resolution of those encounters. I don't know of any reason why that something would have to be (random, meaningless) PC death.

I've played a lot of Rolemaster combats in which it's virtually impossible for the PCs to die (not because of "death flag" mechanics, but because of simulationist mechanics that have much the same consequence - all the PCs have access to Self Keeping and Self Healing magic, or carry intelligent items that can cast Lifekeeping spells upon them, or whatever). The combats weren't therefore meaningless, because something was still at stake for the players. And they still enjoyed the tactical/rules-heavy dimensions of the combat.

4e is clearly designed to change the incidence of PC death, by making it much more a consequence of failures of the PCs to do certain things (kill the monsters in time by way of the efficient synergistic use of powers, stabilise a downed comrade in time, etc) and less the result of unmediated dice rolls. I don't see how this creates any disconnect from a signficiant focus on combat encounters with a strong tactical dimension. What's at stake in those encounters? It needn't simply be the lives of the PCs.

I agree there is a bit more of a disconnect between the "death flag" style of play and the "kill things and take their stuff" play. But not necessarily, if the approach to the game is sufficiently light-hearted in a certain sort of respect (perhaps a bit like The Dying Earth, but with more bloodshed). And in any event, 4e need not involve taking things' stuff at all, given the treasure parcels can be distributed in the form of gifts from friendly NPCs just as readily as in the form of loot from foes.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Ah. Yes, I did get the wrong impression there.
> 
> Mind you, I still haven't played TFOS - or anything much alike - as far as I can remember. All (in this respect, anyway) rather conservative, 'old skool', standard, whatever.
> 
> It seems to be overwhelmingly a more modern phenomenon, and in addition a mostly niche, 'indie'-style approach. In origin, at least. Wouild that be right? I am referring to that 'green lighting' kind of thing, and totally deathless RPGs, in particular btw. If not, puzzlement will continue - perhaps I've simply managed to randomly sidestep RPGs that possess these traits, time and again, through the years.




*LOL*

I was playing Amber and TFOS way before 3e. *checks wikipedia* 

Yep, Amber was created in 1991 while TFOS is an 87 game (predates 2E? That, I did not know...)

I certainly wouldn't consider such games "modern". I consider any game created in the last 5 years, modern personally.

Amber is a niche game (and I think it still has one of the larger LARP communities after WW) whereas TFOS was recommended to me via my anime friends (it and Robotech were my genre RPGs as I'm one of the old school anime fans --*says it with pride*)


----------



## jensun (Oct 14, 2008)

justanobody said:


> HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's just silly. When you sit down to play, that is one of the possibilities of the game, otherwise there is no point in having any sort of combat or injury if you cannot die at any time without your own consent.
> 
> PvP may not always be flagged as "on", but the DM does NOT need your permission for your character to die.
> 
> ...



You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just screaming "one true way" as loud as possible while waving a giant "one true way" flag.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 14, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I was playing Amber and TFOS way before 3e. *checks wikipedia*
> 
> Yep, Amber was created in 1991 while TFOS is an 87 game (predates 2E? That, I did not know...)
> 
> I certainly wouldn't consider such games "modern". I consider any game created in the last 5 years, modern personally.



Sure. I already knew how old Amber Diceless is. TFOS, didn't (and don't) have a clue. Regardless, overwhelmingly/mostly != universally. My choice of words was quite deliberate.




> Amber is a niche game (and I think it still has one of the larger LARP communities after WW) whereas TFOS was recommended to me via my anime friends (it and Robotech were my genre RPGs as I'm one of the old school anime fans --*says it with pride*)



As I said, I was asking the question not about the two games you had already mentioned - one of which might or might not qualify anyhow - but about RPGs that do possess such traits (that is, either the green-lighting of PC death, or an absence of PC death altogether.)

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.


----------



## jensun (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me.  This ain't no writer's workshop.  If you want to tell the story about your hero's epic quest, then head on over to fanfiction.net.  The rest of us will be playing the game and, as a game, that means _there's a chance to fail._



And, on the flip side, this is a game you play with friends for enjoyment rather than an exercise in simulating some sort of vietnam survival story. 

Also, your play style is not the only play style.  Telling people to head over to fanfiction.net is dismissive, rude and uncalled for.  I could similarly dismiss the old school method as nothing more than a simulated board game hack and slash fest having all the grace or subtelty of a brick to the face but I dont.  

Finally, you continue to equate death as the only form of failure when it is quite obvious that this isnt true.  Continuing to assert it just makes you look foolish.


----------



## jensun (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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.



I have no idea if this is aimed at me (I support taking death off the table) but I dont treat treat the game as about nothing more than killing things and taking their stuff.  I am not sure where you would have that impression or is this just one of those "lets take an unsupported general swipe at people" things?


----------



## jensun (Oct 14, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

> 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. 



Imaro said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

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 (Oct 14, 2008)

DeusExMachina said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

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 (Oct 14, 2008)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

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 (Oct 14, 2008)

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 (Oct 14, 2008)

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.


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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.)




For those of us not members of that community, please explain. They won't let us in without a password.


----------



## jensun (Oct 14, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> 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.



To which you can add novels, films, plays and almost every other form of storytelling. 

Of course now howandwhy will come in and tell us that if we are trying to tell a story then we arent actually roleplaying.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> For those of us not members of that community, please explain. They won't let us in without a password.



Basically, the critic leveled against GNS seem to come from a certain degree of elitimsn among Edwards and his fans, and that some (especially Ron Edwards himself) seem to try to redefine terms so it becomes harder to understand then, and that they possibly even change the meaning of what was originally understood by the terms. What a "normal" role-player would understand on casually reading the terms no longer is how they are being defined, confusing even Forgeists, and seemingly making the whole theory less useful, for reasons I don't understand. 

Especially seems Ron limit narrative play to "discussing" morality or ethics in the game, which constricts its meaning and makes others, "narrative-seeming" aspects work less well. The example I remember is that a Star Wars game is "simulationist" if anger leads to the Dark Side, and good triumphs over evil, and narrative (but no longer really Star Wars) if you allow evil to triumph or anger (or the Dark Side) lead to good results. 
But this would mean that the "Death Flag" might be something you could find in both types of games - Simulationist or Narrativist, since the player in the "Anger leads to the Dark Side" Simulation game might not want his angry Jedi to die before he has turned to the Dark Side - and he might exactly choose to Raise the Death Flag in the scene where the character has the chance to redeem himself...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> But if an enemy wizard beats your initiative and fires off a death spell, many players feel they didn't have any real chance of avoiding it. One roll and they're done.




Just for those of us who are numerically challenged:

1 Init roll + 1 save = 2 rolls, not one.

IMHO, most "one roll" deaths (if not all) are actually multiple roll deaths.  Just as in this example, the aggrieved party "drops" one or more rolls when counting.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> 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.




But RPGs are not TV Shows! How dare you compare them! If I would want to watch a TV show, I'd turn on the TV, not get my character sheet out!  

Comparisions like this usually work for me. But maybe what's really in question here is that RPGs are supposed to be "serial narratives" in the first place, or should try to emulate anything in them.

Maybe the only answer to this is to say - you play your games with your goals, I play them with mine. 

Unfortunately, this might not settle the issue, because in the attempt to finding the perfect definition of role-playing games, we have to FIGHT TO THE DEATH* on whether MY GOAL IS BETTER THEN YOUR GOAL*, and I am not actually playing a "story-telling" or "acting" game instead of an role-playing game and which of these D&D has, should and will always be.

*) pardon my Cirnoismn


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just for those of us who are numerically challenged:
> 
> 1 Init roll + 1 save = 2 rolls, not one.
> 
> ...




2 Rolls you don't have any control about. They happen immediately after each other, without you making any decisions in between. (And of course, traps don't require rolling Initiative - or skill checks. Only a rogue (or other classes with the Trap Sense feature) is allowed to detect certain traps at all, and he usually has to consciously search for them.).


----------



## billd91 (Oct 14, 2008)

jensun said:


> I have no idea if this is aimed at me (I support taking death off the table) but I dont treat treat the game as about nothing more than killing things and taking their stuff.  I am not sure where you would have that impression or is this just one of those "lets take an unsupported general swipe at people" things?




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.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> But D&D IS meant to have deaths.



I imagine Dungeons and Dragons is meant to have, well, dungeons and dragons, and I've ran whole multi-year campaigns with neither. Perhaps you've noticed that people play the game differently. What's integral in one group's campaign is discarded in another's, and yet they're both still playing D&D. 



> Heck, the whole point of the game, according to many, is to simply find new and interesting creatures and kill them.



Don't make too much that little chestnut. It's a just a clever shorthand. Well, usually. 



> Lastly, while you can have consequences that aren't death, don't you think it really starts to stretch it a bit?



The entire game is contrived (like the utterly unrealistic fiction that informs and inspires it). What's one more contrivance? 



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



Some people have more difficulty creating characters that they're interested in playing. They need a PC to click -- if you haven't guessed, I'm one of them. So it's not always merely a question of seamlessly inserting another character off the PC assembly line.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just for those of us who are numerically challenged:
> 
> 1 Init roll + 1 save = 2 rolls, not one.



Yay for pedantism!



Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, most "one roll" deaths (if not all) are actually multiple roll deaths.  Just as in this example, the aggrieved party "drops" one or more rolls when counting.



I already posted an example of a literal one-roll death. Many traps are literal one-roll deaths. But you're reading it too literally and missing the point. See Mustrum_Ridcully's reply above.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 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_?




Sure. But play styles vary even within a game, as people learn what they like. 

Say, for example, that people play a pretty low-lethality fantasy game. Maybe it's D&D, and the DM is very soft on the players, secretly fudging rolls. Maybe it's another game that's nudged to be a little less lethal (including, these days, 4e). There are still consequences within the game, though: but they might be social ones or world-changing ones rather than PC death. You fail, and a hamlet is razed or you turn a noble into an enemy or a friendly NPC becomes hideously cursed. 

Now where you start to get divergences is sometimes people who play games in that vein _like_ them. If a gamer plays in both a traditional "failed your save, roll up another character" game and a lower-lethality "I'm not going to kill you unless you really do something stupid, but if you screw up you may lose things in the world that you care about," one of three things can happen. The player may decide they like the traditional game better. She may decide she likes both styles equally, and would enjoy alternating. Or she may decide she likes the latter style better, even though she likes the other trappings and tropes of D&D. 

So let's say we have a gamer who likes elves and dwarves and dragons and hippogriffs and beholders and mind flayers and drow and fireballs and flaming swords, but who isn't that interested in a high-lethality style of play. You can't really argue that he should play some other game: D&D still has 90% of the stuff he likes, he just wants to mess with a 10% that somebody else finds to be absolutely sacred. But that's what everyone does with D&D. Everyone drops out something in their 10% that somebody else finds vital and invigorating, be it drow, gnomes, dragonborn, a given setting. And the game still works.

Honestly, I'll admit I see people talking about styles of gaming I'm not into a lot, and I wonder exactly what it is that they see in it. But the thing is, my default assumption is they must be doing something _right_. They must be doing some good gaming in order to prefer that style, or they probably are good at identifying what they like and acting on it. The attitude that they're doing it wrong... that's something you can only invoke if they're not having any fun. If they are, then it's just crazy egotism to assume they'd have more fun if they did it _your_ way.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 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.



ProfessorCirno said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

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 (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

DeusExMachina said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 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.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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.



But you're taking it out of context. Of course such a system doesn't work if the players do stupid stuff ("I jump off the 500' cliff"). It only works if the players are in the right mindset, and don't abuse it with metagamey, "I know I can't die so let's do *this*" actions.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2008)

Since we're talking about consequences other than death, I'll bring up one that I think may resonate:

Having to live with humiliation.

Let's consider a game in which character aren't necessarily going to be in peril of death unless the game's moving to a climax. But in such a game, even minor maneuvers that end in failure can result in your character being humiliated. Worse, you can be humiliated in such a way that you cannot simply kill everyone who was witness, or who heard the rumors. And unless it's a samurai chambara flick (and that's probably high-lethality anyway), you're not going to kill yourself rather than live with the shame. 

You can fight your way back from this sort of thing, of course. But restoring your good name with crucial people — the aristocracy, the girl you're crazy for, the thieves' guild — is probably going to be harder and more work than shelling out for a _raise dead_ spell. 

Personally, I know players who would rather risk death on a random die roll than risk their characters being shamed. I tend to play with others, though, who are more interested in a high-stakes social aspect to a game to go along with the high-stakes mortal combat aspect. In a way, some "old school" campaigns flinch away from consequences like living with shame or humiliation in the same way that low-lethality campaigns shy away from random death. Does this mean that the people who are all "Death before dishonor!" are cowards, ready to quit the game rather than suffer a lasting setback that might make them look less than heroic? I don't think so. But it's a good example of how lethality is just one of many categories of risk that isn't for everyone.

(Edit: Completely forgot to even talk about people who refuse to establish social links with NPCs: you know, who are orphans so the DM can't use their parents against them, who don't want to forge a relationship with an NPC just because they fear betrayal, who don't want to have a romantic relationship because maybe the DM will kill off their intended, etc. That's yet another category of risk that some people embrace and others avoid at all costs.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> I thought we are discussing the way death and resurrection was handled in 4e?



Sort of. We're discussing the dislike some people have of save-or-die, which can be removed from editions previous to 4E by using, you guessed it, house rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 2 Rolls you don't have any control about. They happen immediately after each other, without you making any decisions in between. (And of course, traps don't require rolling Initiative - or skill checks. Only a rogue (or other classes with the Trap Sense feature) is allowed to detect certain traps at all, and he usually has to consciously search for them.).




Because there were no choices or rolls that got you to that initiative roll, right?    Pardon me if I think these sorts of circumstances are largely mythological.  



Fifth Element said:


> Yay for pedantism!




I aim to please!  



> See Mustrum_Ridcully's reply above.




See my reply.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> 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.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and read that as "this is how *I* prefer it" rather than the way it's written, which is "this is they way *you should* prefer it."

But I'd suggest being more careful with how you word things. People might think you're telling them how to have fun.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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.



This is a problem.. if it's a problem. It assumes
1) There is actually a player playing his character this way
2) The group or at least the DM do not like where this leads the game (bizarre world?)

In other words, it becomes a problem if the play styles between DM and player don't match. Imagine if the same player would continually play such characters in your campaign - every time he plays his character stupid and mindless, and if his PC dies, he just rolls up another character that acts the same way (or gets him raised). If you don't like it with the Death Flag, you won't like it without it.



> 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.



Well, as others have said, Death Flags for NPCs are a possibility. Especially if this is a house rule, you can do it how you prefer anyway, and some groups might definitely prefer to meet their arch villain multiple times (I sometimes miss this opportunity. The satisfaction of defeating a recurring villain is potentially a lot larger then just defeating the villain of the session)

I am not running any "Death Flag" games, but I always considered to use a certain meta-game mechanics to facilitate the story in certain ways. Some games allow the DM to offer "amping up" the risks (or even force it) for the PCs, but has to reward them. But if the players disagree, they might have to spend some game resources to decline this option. You could do the same in a villain encounter: "You know guys, this villain is pretty important. You get one action point, but the villain can't be killed. Don't like it? Raise your Death Flag, and the guy can be killed - just like you."


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Because there were no choices or rolls that got you to that initiative roll, right?



Of course there were choices. The same types of choices that lead to *any* encounter, regardless of whether it has the possibility of save-or-die effects. Since these choices are the same either way, they are irrelevant.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> 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?



None, if nothing else is at stake. The death-lite approach makes the assumption that other consequences for failure exist, that there are other things at stake (such as the PC's kingdom getting destroyed if they don't stop the tarrasque).

If all you do in a campaign is kill things and take their stuff, then death-lite is the wrong technique to use.


----------



## Runestar (Oct 14, 2008)

> 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?




If you wish to phrase it that way, then obviously nothing heaven-shaking is going to come out of running dnd your way. The earth is not going to stop spinning on its axis as a consequence or anything...

To me (and no offence), it just seems like running a lv20 character in a 1st lv game, and then boasting when you steamroll over the opposition. Yeah, there certainly is nothing stopping you from running your game in said manner, but that sure begs the question - why do you even bother?

Dnd is a wargame first and foremost. The main aim of the game is to kill stuff and loot their belongings, and then somehow attempt to rationalize your own actions with some storytelling (in a nutshell). 

Basically, I just feel that if it is less of a tactical wargame, and more of an immersive, storytelling experience you are after, I believe there are easily better alternatives rather than dnd which would suit your purpose better. It is not so much that I am so totalitarian that I expect everyone else to play dnd the same way I do, but more that it seems that you would be missing out on a lot by not playing it the way the designers intended it be run.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> 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?



There is no victory if the entire party is trampled on by the Tarrasque and awakes a few hours later to see that their home town has been obliterated - and after searching for survivors, all they find is the chewed on corpses of their allies, lovers or parents...


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Dnd is a wargame first and foremost. The main aim of the game is to kill stuff and loot their belongings, and then somehow attempt to rationalize your own actions with some storytelling (in a nutshell).



That may be how you play D&D, but many people don't. And yet they still have an enormous amount of fun, and prefer D&D to other systems.

I don't understand the focus on "designer intent". If you can have fun playing the game your way, who cares what the designers intended?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There is no victory if the entire party is trampled on by the Tarrasque and awakes a few hours later to see that their home town has been obliterated - and after searching for survivors, all they find is the chewed on corpses of their allies, lovers or parents...



Precisely. "No death" does not automatically imply "you win every encounter."


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> ... but more that it seems that you would be missing out on a lot by not playing it the way the designers intended it be run.



The best thing about D&D is that people have been playing it in ways the designers *didn't* intend/expect/foresee it to be run since the very start.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Dnd is a wargame first and foremost. The main aim of the game is to kill stuff and loot their belongings, and then somehow attempt to rationalize your own actions with some storytelling (in a nutshell).




Only if you learned to play that way. Some people have never known D&D as something where you establish no social relationships, where you don't work toward anything other than your own self-betterment, just because they grew up playing with more character-oriented gamers. To them, that's why D&D is worth bothering with. 



> Basically, I just feel that if it is less of a tactical wargame, and more of an immersive, storytelling experience you are after, I believe there are easily better alternatives rather than dnd which would suit your purpose better. It is not so much that I am so totalitarian that I expect everyone else to play dnd the same way I do, but more that it seems that you would be missing out on a lot by not playing it the way the designers intended it be run.




That's really up to the individual group to determine, though. What if somebody wants to play an immersive, storytelling experience with bugbears and holy avengers and aboleths and temples to Hextor? If they think D&D is the simplest and easiest way to go about that, even if it means a few house rules, they're probably not wrong.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Oct 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, as others have said, Death Flags for NPCs are a possibility. Especially if this is a house rule, you can do it how you prefer anyway, and some groups might definitely prefer to meet their arch villain multiple times (I sometimes miss this opportunity. The satisfaction of defeating a recurring villain is potentially a lot larger then just defeating the villain of the session)




Many years ago, I used to run a Justice Inc. campaign (and that's a game whre it's difficult to kill the PC's) they kept running up against a criminal mastermind. They trapped him in a flooding sewer and only just got out, they sho down his zeppelin - well, you get the idea...

They soon got used to what they called this the Fu Manchu gambit and had a great time.

Badwrongfun???

Not for us.

A lot of posters seem to think that theres is the only way, it isn't guys.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Because there were no choices or rolls that got you to that initiative roll, right?    Pardon me if I think these sorts of circumstances are largely mythological.



What was the choice between the Initiative Roll and the Saving Throw? 

There is a two step process that's cruicial here:
- Percieving the actual threat.
- Making a decision on how to deal with the threat.

When I open the door to the Save or Die room, I don't know the actual threat. I know just a lot of potential threats, and I have no way of knowing what kind of threat to expect. It's a Schrödinger threat - until I open the box, I don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, until I open the door, I don't know whether there is a Goblin or a Bodak behind it. The situation is in an undetermined state, and I can not make any decisions based on them.

The moment I open the door, I see either a Goblin a Bodak. I know the actual threat. Now, do the rules allow me to react to the actual threat (and especially one that allows me to deal with it?)

Things change a lot if I knew there was a good chance for a Bodak behind this door. Maybe careful research did point it out. In that case, a "Save or Die" threat can be fine, because I obviously decided to ignore the actual threat (or misjudge it). Like when I am killed in the fourth round of combat by my opponents attack. I knew that with my characters current state there was a good likelihood for this to occur. I probably choose to ignore the risk in hope of better luck. Or because it helped me achieve another goal (maybe my comrade wouldn't have to take the blow).


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The best thing about D&D is that people have been playing it in ways the designers *didn't* intend/expect/foresee it to be run since the very start.



Indeed. 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.


----------



## Fenes (Oct 14, 2008)

Depending on how much time is invested in a character (writing new concept, building new character's stats, backstory, miniature, sketch, getting inserted into the party), it's a serious drawback for a working player to make a new character. Not everyone has that time to spare.

Not everyone has fun changing characters often.

Not everyone has fun losing a favorite character.

Not everyone has fun risking their favorite character.

And not everyone has fun if there's no risk of character death.

If not everyone has fun, then the game failed at its goal. Such a group should either adjust the playstyle, or split.

As far as "risk" in a game is concerned, compare::


A) GM: "Sir Bolivar died. Make a new Character."

Player 1: "Oh, cool, I can try this new concept with the new build I read about, using the new splatbook I bought. Standard treasure for average party level? My new character will blow my old one away."


B) GM: "The last of your group falls before the might of the Archdevil. You have failed! All is lost, the Fair World is plunged into eternal darkness, and fiends prey on the last free humans!"

Players: "Ok, for the next campaign, I say we pick Greyhawk. I'll be playing a fighter this time."


C) GM: "You failed to foil the plot against Sir Bolivar, and now you all have been branded a traitor to the crown, your families banished and you are on the run from the royal order of knights while the bards spread the fake tale of your treason. Friends turn their back on you, and common folk spit at the mentioning of your name."

Player 1: "Ok... We need to clear our name, and avenge the dead prince. But first we need to escape this island where we jumped ship to, then find a way to tople the real traitor, all while we are reviled throughout the land... Can anyone get rid of those chains, by the way?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> When I open the door to the Save or Die room, I don't know the actual threat. I know just a lot of potential threats, and I have no way of knowing what kind of threat to expect.



Precisely. The claim that such circumstances are "mythological" seems to mean "I always know what's behind the door", so to speak. A claim which I find hard to believe.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2008)

For me, it really depends on what kind of campaign I'm trying to run.

When I ran the World's Largest Dungeon, it was Viking Hat time and take no prisoners.  PC death every three sessions on average.  And that was PERMANENT PC death.  Never mind the raise deads and whatnot that came as well.  Out of 6 players, on one managed to survive 50 sessions (and died about 2 sessions later).

It was a blast.  But, by the tenth or fifteenth PC death, I could sense a fair bit of reluctance on the part of the players in coming up with much of a backstory for their new toon.  

OTOH, in my current campaign, I've drastically reduced lethality.  Action Points allow you to not die (takes all your current AP's to stablize at -9, if the whole party get's whacked, or someone decides to CDG you after that, then you're in the dead books).  A healbot NPC cleric with lots of healing feats makes sure that they are not going to go down easily.

Can they fail?  Oh certainly.  There's lots of storylines that could go absolutely sideways.  Complete and utter failures.  But, for the most part, the PC's are going to be the same ones throughout most of the campaign, barring any pretty spectacular deaths.

I have no problems going either way.  It really does depend on your campaign.  Decide on what works for you and make sure the players are on the same page.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Of course there were choices. The same types of choices that lead to *any* encounter, regardless of whether it has the possibility of save-or-die effects. Since these choices are the same either way, they are irrelevant.




I don't think so.

(1)  I decide to strip down and dance in the lava.  That is a choice, and if my DM allows me a save I am lucky to have it.

(2)  I enter a dungeon that is the known lair of a medusa.  I don't know it, though, because I chose not to use Gather Information, or to role-play gathering information, or to do anything to increase my knowledge, and therefore my ability to prepare for it.  When I meet the medusa, I get a save, and I am lucky to have it.

The choices I make definitely affect the odds of my surviving an encounter with a save-or-die effect.  As do my choices in any other circumstance.  It is simple to cry "Woe is me!  Oh noesss!  Bad DM!  Bad game system!" but that doesn't make it the correct response.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2008)

Heh, yes, because, every medusa out there is registered in the local Medusa Watch book and you must always be able to learn that they are there.  They are also mentally retarded and leave victims out and about for other people to stumble on and learn of their presence.

Oh, and they MUST stock Stone to Flesh scrolls as well.


----------



## apoptosis (Oct 14, 2008)

Mallus said:


> None, if nothing else is at stake. The death-lite approach makes the assumption that other consequences for failure exist, that there are other things at stake (such as the PC's kingdom getting destroyed if they don't stop the tarrasque).
> 
> If all you do in a campaign is kill things and take their stuff, then death-lite is the wrong technique to use.




I wanted to say this about 2 pages ago.

This goes back to play games with rules (or house rules) that support the goals of the players/characters.

In a game where killing things and taking their stuff is the goal then taking death off of the table (where the consequence is that this character can no longer do that) is probably going to lessen the fun of the game (except for those who are interested in the mack bolan style of play).


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  I enter a dungeon that is the known lair of a medusa.  I don't know it, though, because I chose not to use Gather Information, or to role-play gathering information, or to do anything to increase my knowledge, and therefore my ability to prepare for it.  When I meet the medusa, I get a save, and I am lucky to have it.



Are you saying such information will always be available? That the players will always be able to find out what's behind the next door? I suggest such circumstances are mythological.



Raven Crowking said:


> It is simple to cry "Woe is me!  Oh noesss!  Bad DM!  Bad game system!" but that doesn't make it the correct response.



If that's how you're going to characterize certain posters in this thread, we would all be better off if you stayed out of it, I think. Stick with the points being discussed, and leave out the hyperbolic dismissiveness.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There is a two step process that's cruicial here:
> 
> - Percieving the actual threat.
> - Making a decision on how to deal with the threat.




I would agree with this, but IME, the "Save or Die" room is yet another gloss of mythology.  Now it is not the encounter, and how the encounter is dealt with, but the room itself that makes you save or die.  

Maybe you have had experiences with really bad DMs -- the kind of lazy DM that doesn't care to think through encounters, perhaps -- but IMHO and IME creatures leave signs of their existence, which in turn allows you to predict the type of creature(s) you are liable to meet long before you meet them.

If a party is entering an abandoned tomb, which they believe hasn't been opened in centuries, it makes sense to expect undead and/or constructs.  And traps.  It also makes sense to consider that the tomb has actually been breached and now has living beings making part or all of it into their home.  D&D in all editions (except, perhaps 4e?) has had more than ample means to allow you to have some idea of what you'd meet.

Even in infamous meat grinders like the original Tomb of Horrors -- the King of Save or Die (if you even get a Save) -- you had a chance to perceive and deal with a threat before you made a potentially lethal save.  And if you were unable to recognize threats for what they were, you certainly discovered the need for caution in that dungeon.  I took the entire group of "Name" characters from the back of the Rogue's Gallery into that one (as a player) and managed to get them all slaughtered.  But that was bad play on my part; I would certainly have been capable of better had I used a bit of forethought.

Divination spells have been provided since Day One for a reason.  Although they are not as flashy as fireballs, they are, in fact, the most valuable spells in the game.  Players ignore them at their peril.....or, at least, they do so in games where there is a risk of death.

I have seen one or two bad DMs who revel in PC deaths.  I have never played with them twice, however.  And, in the end, I haven't known any of these DMs who was capable of sustaining a player group.  For obvious reasons, I should think.

OTOH, I have seen many, many players who drift from group to group, always wanting the game to be about them, seldom contribuiting to the group as a whole, and always complaining that the DM is a bad DM because dancing naked in molten rock turns out to be a bad idea.

In conclusion, if your DM likes to spring SoD on you without any chance for you to perceive a threat, without any chance to make any choices relevant to the threat, and so on, that is simply bad DMing.  Of course, radically more powerful monsters have the same effect as SoD in this case, so removing SoD is unlikely to help all that much.

For the most part, I stand by my statement that the complaint arises less from incompetent DMs and more from players who mythologize their failures so as to avoid responsibility for them.  The "My bad DM killed me and I had no chance to do anything" problem is, IMHO, far more mythology than fact.

Individual cases may vary.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Are you saying such information will always be available? That the players will always be able to find out what's behind the next door? I suggest such circumstances are mythological.




Assuming that you haven't massively house ruled the system, the availability of information is not very different from the availability of combat prowess.  Divination magic is more precious than fireballs, and if you retreat when the offensive spells are gone, you should seriously consider retreat when the information gathering spells are gone, too.

However, no creature should live in a vaccuum.  If your DM is throwing monsters that skew the local ecology at you, while leaving no signs of said skewing, then there is a problem.  And it is not a problem with the game system.

See previous post.



> If that's how you're going to characterize certain posters in this thread, we would all be better off if you stayed out of it, I think. Stick with the points being discussed, and leave out the hyperbolic dismissiveness.




How did you get to be king, then, eh?  I didn't vote for you.  


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would agree with this, but IME, the "Save or Die" room is yet another gloss of mythology.  Now it is not the encounter, and how the encounter is dealt with, but the room itself that makes you save or die.



I think your comprehension will improve if you stop reading things so literally. A "save or die" room is shorthand.



Raven Crowking said:


> In conclusion, if your DM likes to spring SoD on you without any chance for you to perceive a threat, without any chance to make any choices relevant to the threat, and so on, that is simply bad DMing.



There's some truth to that. And many people think it's a good thing that the 4E rules were designed to help overcome such bad DMing, by nearly eliminating SoD stuff. Not everyone has any real choice in DMs. Sometimes a bad DM is the only one around.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> How did you get to be king, then, eh?  I didn't vote for you.



No claims of being king here, Mr. Crow*king*. But like any poster I am entitled to request that another poster not be rude in his responses.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 14, 2008)

The "Oh your imaginary friend died, get over it, it's just a game." argument never really sat well with me and it took a long time for me to finally figure out why. 

Imaginary or not, characters in a long term campaign do represent a significant and substantial investment of both time and effort. A six hour session 2-4 times a month over a couple of years, is not a minor amount of time. Then there's the out of game time spent working up character sheets, planning out future levels, trying out different class/item/buff combos, writing up replies, posts, story hour entries, selecting spell load-outs, etc... 

Anything that I have spent that much time on and invested that much effort in, is something I have a right to get seriously annoyed at if it gets casually trashed or wrecked.

Besides as far as character deaths go. If you kill them, then the suffering stops...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I think your comprehension will improve if you stop reading things so literally. A "save or die" room is shorthand.




Granted.  But, then, my whole point is that the complaint relies on a "shorthand" that removes the actual choices/information available.



> There's some truth to that.




Thank you.



> And many people think it's a good thing that the 4E rules were designed to help overcome such bad DMing, by nearly eliminating SoD stuff. Not everyone has any real choice in DMs. Sometimes a bad DM is the only one around.




Of course, then we should hope that 5e removes monsters more powerful than the PCs, so that such bad DMing can be overcome as well...... 

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this line of reasoning (he said, stating the obvious).  Removing SoD monsters removes an element of the game that is not easily replaced in any other way.  A medusa was scary not because of its combat prowess, but because it could turn you to stone.  This meant that you needed to be clever to overcome certain monsters, and that there were sometimes better methods than melee combat to deal with threats.  There is a certain....mental elasticity....that these monsters promote.  They encourage players to think outside the box.

And, if you cannot find a good DM, you always have the option to become one.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> No claims of being king here, Mr. Crow*king*.




_*That*_ is the fault of a lady lying in a pond distributing swords at random.  I mean, really, can I be blamed if some moistened tart lobs a scimitar at me?  



> But like any poster I am entitled to request that another poster not be rude in his responses.




"The poster doth protest too much, methinks." 


EDIT:  Seriously, though, sorry if the way I made my point seems dismissive.  I mean, it is dismissive of the idea that dying in an RPG is somehow worthy of serious angst -- although I do understand the investment aspect of it as ably described by Rackhir.  It is not intended to be dismissive of _*posters*_, however.  Posters I dismiss via use of the Ignore list, and so far mine has only one name on it.  Overall, most everyone on EN World has interesting things to say!  


RC


----------



## Kishin (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> _*That*_ is the fault of a lady lying in a pond distributing swords at random.  I mean, really, can I be blamed if some moistened tart lobs a scimitar at me?




Permission to sig the following quote?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> A medusa was scary not because of its combat prowess, but because it could turn you to stone.



You know that in 4E, a medusa can turn you to stone, right? It's just no longer fail one save, and you're petrified. First the attack slows you (you feel your body starting to seize up). The first failed save means you're immobilized (you can't move, your feet are too heavy and your legs are too stiff). The second failed save means you're stone. Some argue it's more exiciting and suspenseful this way.

4E did not remove petrification. It removed single-die-roll petrification. The danger is there, you just have more decision points to work with.

That's all I'm talking about. The reduction of the ability for a single die roll to totally screw you over. The dangers remain, but the mechanics are different.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Seriously, though, sorry if the way I made my point seems dismissive.  I mean, it is dismissive of the idea that dying in an RPG is somehow worthy of serious angst -- although I do understand the investment aspect of it as ably described by Rackhir.



The idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is a strawman. The posters arguing in favour of reduced-death games certainly don't strike me as angsty. They've described why they prefer lower-death games, and without the "oh noes!" implied by your post.

That being said, apology accepted. I do think we (ENWorld in general) need to be more careful in how we express ourselves, because a lot of things come off as dismissive, and there are a lot of mischaracterizations of arguments going on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Kishin said:


> Permission to sig the following quote?




Granted.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You know that in 4E, a medusa can turn you to stone, right? It's just no longer fail one save, and you're petrified. First the attack slows you (you feel your body starting to seize up). The first failed save means you're immobilized (you can't move, your feet are too heavy and your legs are too stiff). The second failed save means you're stone. Some argue it's more exiciting and suspenseful this way.




I would say that it is a different kind of excitement.  And, actually, I do think that there is (or should be) a place in the game for both kinds of mechanics.  "Slow petrification" is less mythological/folkloric than all-or-nothing petrification, of course, and if it simply disappears after the monster is slain it is questionable why it is more suspenseful than hit point loss.



> 4E did not remove petrification. It removed single-die-roll petrification. The danger is there, you just have more decision points to work with.




Sometimes, though -- assuming a reasonably competent DM -- knowing that you have only a single save means your decision points are more important.  Does 4e encourage you _*not to fight*_ the medusa?  Does it encourage you to deal with it in some other way?  If not, it fails to encourage the form of mental elasticity I was referring to earlier.

Back in the 4e preview threads, I agreed that the "reduction of the ability for a single die roll to totally screw you over" was often, but not always, a good thing.  I disagree, though that "The dangers remain", because one specific danger does not, i.e., "the ability for a single die roll to totally screw you over", and I maintain that this danger specifically has value.

One of the design parameters of 3e was that it is fun to roll dice.  Knowing that one bad die roll can kill you is a profoundly different sort of fun.  It is the fun of solving a problem.  Specifically, the problem of "How can I do this without having to roll any dice?  Or, if I must roll dice, how do I hedge my bets?"

Ultimately, in any game system, there is a point where the characters are low on hit points, have run out of spells, and are unsure if one last hit will do it.  Those moments -- whether they succeed or fail -- are the moments we gamers tend to talk about long after the actual campaign has passed.  Although admittedly in moderation, gamers IME overwhelmingly _*like to*_ let their fate hang on a single die roll.  Or, at least, they certainly find great enjoyment in doing so after the fact.



> The idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is a strawman. The posters arguing in favour of reduced-death games certainly don't strike me as angsty. They've described why they prefer lower-death games, and without the "oh noes!" implied by your post.




I have no problem with different strokes for different folks.  I do have a problem with those for whom the idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is _*not*_ a strawman.  And I think we both know that they exist.



> That being said, apology accepted.








> I do think we (ENWorld in general) need to be more careful in how we express ourselves, because a lot of things come off as dismissive, and there are a lot of mischaracterizations of arguments going on.




That's true.  And we also need to try to give the "best possible reading" to each other's comments, because we lack body language and tone of voice to convey meaning.  Well, until the other person proves to be a prat.  Then the Ignore list works exceedingly well.

(I imagine that I am on one or two Ignore lists myself.)


RC


----------



## Janx (Oct 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> But by the OP's reasoning, _there is no risk_, because it's just an imaginary elf in a game of make-believe.




I think it's a case of badwrongfun.

The OP seems to state that death is not a big deal, that it should not matter to the player if their PC dies.

Let's change games for a second, where this kind of thinking results in bad game play.

Texas Hold'em is an excellent case.  When you play for chips (no money, no risk), the only way you get good game play (rational betting and strategy) is when everyone wants to win.  They don't want to die (run out of chips).  Players who don't care will not play rationally, which messes with the results.  It's not fun.  This is why many serious players refuse to play without money on the line.  It makes people concerned about losing, and thus they will back down on bad hands that might get lucky.

Here's the odd thing.  Some people find it hard to care about the outcome in hold'em without money.  Yet, people play chess which also commonly has nothing at stake with no problem.  The key variable might be randomness (or percieved randomness).  Chess has no randomness (it's human vs. human, no randomizer).  Poker has a deck of cards (the random factor), but the humans are still in control, deciding which hands to play, and what to bet.

My key thesis here is that a game is fun when the players are interested in winning (not dying).  Hold'em and chess prove it (chess would suck if the other player just did random crap).  I posit that this is true for all games (true enough anyway).

Likewise, playing D&D with somebody who doesn't care about the outcome, is not likely to be as fun.  This caring about the outcome is implemented by caring about your PC (trying to keep him alive and being successful in the game world).  Therefore, dying is against that (barring a deliberate sacrifice), and would thus be undesirable.

This is why dying is a big deal.  It means you failed.  You lost.

Now what happens next when you die further modifies the impact and signifigance of PC death (how big a deal is it).  If the GM pops you right back in the scene, or does a do-over (like some video games), then it's not much of a big deal, just annoying.  If it makes the game challenge harder and costs your party much, then it's a big deal.  If you're forced to sit and re-roll a PC and wait for the next game, then there is  real world price to PC death, lost fun time.


I suppose somebody will jump on and claim the OP has a valid way to play the game.  My experience says players with the OP's stated philosophy are not fun to play with in any game.  Not being concerned in your character's survival is an extreme disconnection from your PC, something which is against the grain in RPGs.

I would recommend looking at the problem from the other angle.  Somebody who is OVER concerned with their PC's survival, aka overly competitive player who hates losing, is also a bad thing.  THose kind of players suck to be around.

So, I think a middle ground is best.  A player should be emotionally interested in winning (not dying/losing).  A player should feel something if they do lose.  A player should not become overly upset or distressed about losing, however.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

Janx said:


> A player should be emotionally interested in winning (not dying/losing).  A player should feel something if they do lose.  A player should not become overly upset or distressed about losing, however.




Exactly!




RC


----------



## malraux (Oct 14, 2008)

I still think that dying is not the only element of the set losing.  You can get captured and then used as part of the evil ceremony letting Tharizdun out of his prison.  You can not get the princess out of the castle.  You can get lost in the maze of the dungeon surviving on nothing but rats.  Having to stick another quarter in the life machine doesn't necessarily make the game fun for everyone.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> How did you get to be king, then, eh?  I didn't vote for you.





He doesn't need to be king to be allowed to ask you politely to knock off the hyperbolic overstatement of other people's positions.  He's asking you to raise the level of your rhetoric, and not be dismissive - that is not too much to ask.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

malraux said:


> I still think that dying is not the only element of the set losing.  You can get captured and then used as part of the evil ceremony letting Tharizdun out of his prison.  You can not get the princess out of the castle.  You can get lost in the maze of the dungeon surviving on nothing but rats.  Having to stick another quarter in the life machine doesn't necessarily make the game fun for everyone.




Sure.

But is there anything about getting captured and then used as part of the evil ceremony letting Tharizdun out of his prison that prevents one from using the same arguments about "unfun" that are used in relation to character death?

Likewise getting lost in the maze of the dungeon and surviving on nothing but rats?

Likewise any form of failure at all?

Surely if, as a player, I can take death off the table, I can also take getting lost in the dungeon off the table?


RC


----------



## malraux (Oct 14, 2008)

But with all of those, the story of the character can keep going.  You can start working on how to escape.  You can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them.  But if you are dead, you can't do any of that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

malraux said:


> But with all of those, the story of the character can keep going.  You can start working on how to escape.  You can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them.  But if you are dead, you can't do any of that.




(1)  With character death, the story of the campaign world can still continue.  The game still continues.  You can start working on a new character.  Your new character can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them.  There really isn't that much difference.

(2)  Assuming that every story comes to an end at some point (because the character dies, the campaign ends, what-have-you), then we are talking about the player taking authorial control as to how that story comes to an end.  In this case, why not also take authorial control over whether or not you can get lost in the dungeon and live only on rats?

(3)  What qualitative difference is there between having the character die, or having the character lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?  If you answer, as I do, "very bloody little", then surely you would see how a person who thought characters should not die without player consent would also quite possibly argue that the character should not be lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?


RC


----------



## jensun (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Likewise getting lost in the maze of the dungeon and surviving on nothing but rats?



Getting lost in the dungeon and having to survive on rats while avoiding being eaten by the minotaur clan hunting you until you reach the exit at the far end of the complex introduces new and interesting complications. 

Dying in random encounter number 4 when an orc shoots you through the eye in the first round of combat is dull and tedious.  The game ends for that player, possibly for quite a while and all of the story complications introduced by that character fall away.

Now, I can understand that some people like that mode of play.  I am not one of them and neither are my players so we make changes to remove it.


----------



## jensun (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (3)  What qualitative difference is there between having the character die, or having the character lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?  If you answer, as I do, "very bloody little", then surely you would see how a person who thought characters should not die without player consent would also quite possibly argue that the character should not be lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?



Your use of excessive hyperbole isnt helping you to make your point.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 14, 2008)

malraux said:


> But with all of those, the story of the character can keep going. You can start working on how to escape. You can learn if there's another way to prevent the last chains binding the god from breaking and race to fix them. But if you are dead, you can't do any of that.




Which begs the question of...are these "consequences" for failure in any way meaningful to the player? Or are they just steadily more convulted ways for a player to avoid any sense of "real" responsibility for the actual choices he made for his character by displacing the consequences of his acions on a totally imaginary "character" instead of accepting them himself.

I don't know, to me this path seems to at the least partially ignore the "game" part of a roleplaying game in that most games have consequences (loosing a turn, being out of the game, having to restart) for the actual player.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  With character death, the story of the campaign world can still continue.  The game still continues.



We're specifically talking about the desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story using the same character, so I'm not sure what your point is here.



> Assuming that every story comes to an end at some point (because the character dies, the campaign ends, what-have-you), then we are talking about the player taking authorial control as to how that story comes to an end.  In this case, why not also take authorial control over whether or not you can get lost in the dungeon and live only on rats?



We're specifically talking about giving players authorial control w/r/t character death. That's it. Death-lite isn't about allowing players to circumvent in-game challenges, it's about allowing them to face those challenges using the characters of their choice. 



> What qualitative difference is there between having the character die, or having the character lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?  If you answer, as I do, "very bloody little", then surely you would see how a person who thought characters should not die without player consent would also quite possibly argue that the character should not be lost in the dungeon eating rats for 27 consecutive game sessions?



You can do better than that, RC. No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


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



The death-lite approach assumes that the players and DM communicate openly and have reached some consensus as to what's meaningful to the characters/players. 



> Or are they just steadily more convulted ways for a player to avoid any sense of "real" responsibility for the actual choices he made for his character by displacing the consequences of his acions on a totally imaginary "character" instead of accepting them himself.



Huh?



> I don't know, to me this path seems to at the least partially ignore the "game" part of a roleplaying game in that most games have consequences (loosing a turn, being out of the game, having to restart) for the actual player.



Would you be satisfied if the DM slapped a player whenever their PC died? 

Also, forcing a player to restart the game, with a character that's just as powerful (or very, very close) seems pointless. How is that a meaningful consequence? I mean, in 3.5, if a player replaces a dead monk or bard with a live cleric or druid, then the net effect of their character's death is 'get a stronger character'. Is that what you mean by consequence?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

jensun said:


> Dying in random encounter number 4 when an orc shoots you through the eye in the first round of combat is dull and tedious.  The game ends for that player, possibly for quite a while and all of the story complications introduced by that character fall away.





Let us say that we run different sorts of games.

Being chased around a dungeon by a minotaur while eating rats can be as dull and tedius as getting killed by an orc.

The game does not have to end for that player.

The story complications introduced by that character do not have to fall away.  In fact, had I been DMing Star Wars, and Luke died in Empire Strikes Back, I can guarantee you that the story complications introduced by his parentage would have long and striking effects for many sessions to come.


RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 14, 2008)

Again, I'm not trying to attack the playing style, and I apologize if it seems that way.  I simply cannot wrap my head around why a person would be so adamant about the whole death thing.

Edit: Oh, and I think the TV comparison is a really bad one.  You watch TV, you don't play it.  You have no control over the TV show.  At no point in time do your feelings matter in the context of that show, nor can you do any action to change things the way they are.  Watching TV is, well, watching it - you just sit there and listen/watch what other people are doing, without any input or output from yourself.  That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."

Oh, or better yet, play Baron Munchausen.  That game's PERFECT.  No, not "perfect in this context," I mean it may be the greatest game ever created in the history of mankind.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 14, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The death-lite approach assumes that the players and DM communicate openly and have reached some consensus as to what's meaningful to the characters/players.?




The characters and players are not the same thing, that's exactly what I'm getting at. The fact that a player has made it so that his character will not die...speaks volumes about what is "meaningful" to that player. Now as far as what's important to his/her character...the character doesn't really exist. 




Mallus said:


> Huh?




Just read what I wrote above.



Mallus said:


> Would you be satisfied if the DM slapped a player whenever their PC died??




Go...go...hyperbole!! 



Mallus said:


> Also, forcing a player to restart the game, with a character that's just as powerful (or very, very close) seems pointless. How is that a meaningful consequence? I mean, in 3.5, if a player replaces a dead monk or bard with a live cleric or druid, then the net effect of their character's death is 'get a stronger character'. Is that what you mean by consequence?




I have seen more people in this thread talk about how annoying or booring it is to have to sit out of the game for a period of time as the major con against death...how about that as a "real" consequence. Yeah you messed up, something bad happened in most games that means a detrimental effect for that player. Does that clarify things a little better?


----------



## Starbuck_II (Oct 14, 2008)

malraux said:


> I still think that dying is not the only element of the set losing. You can get captured and then used as part of the evil ceremony letting Tharizdun out of his prison. *You can not get the princess out of the cast*le. You can get lost in the maze of the dungeon surviving on nothing but rats. Having to stick another quarter in the life machine doesn't necessarily make the game fun for everyone.



 Wait, why can't you get the Princess: is she in another castle?

So that was why Mario had those extra lives...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2008)

jensun said:


> Your use of excessive hyperbole isnt helping you to make your point.




I am sorry that you are reading my points as "excessive hyperbole".  They are not. 



Imaro said:


> I don't know, to me this path seems to at the least partially ignore the "game" part of a roleplaying game in that most games have consequences (loosing a turn, being out of the game, having to restart) for the actual player.




Indeed.



Mallus said:


> We're specifically talking about the desire to continue experiencing the campaign's story using the same character, so I'm not sure what your point is here.




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.

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)?

Obviously, these would all be equally valid.  What is the qualitative difference between them?  None.  Why is "giving players authorial control w/r/t character death" the cut-off line?

In fact, if "No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures." then I submit that the cut-off line we are discussing _*is not and cannot be*_ simply character death.


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Edit: Oh, and I think the TV comparison is a really bad one.  You watch TV, you don't play it.  You have no control over the TV show.  At no point in time do your feelings matter in the context of that show, nor can you do any action to change things the way they are.  Watching TV is, well, watching it - you just sit there and listen/watch what other people are doing, without any input or output from yourself.  That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."




Consider this: Someone approaches roleplaying with the idea that "It's like TV or writing fanfiction, but better. It's interactive!" Now, such a person may not go all the way into "And you can get killed off at any time!" as one of the advantages over TV or writing fanfiction. But they like the interactivity, the complications introduced by other people, better.

It's a false presumption to say "all [you] want to do is tell stories about yourself." It's not _all_ they want. They want the things that are unique to roleplaying games. But they don't want all _you_ want. They don't say "Well, with the bonuses of interactivity I also absolutely want the risk of having my character terminated in a fashion I would find unacceptable." There's this middle ground that lies between writing fanfiction and playing your favorite style of RPG. And it's pretty vast.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In fact, if "No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures." then I submit that the cut-off line we are discussing _*is not and cannot be*_ simply character death.




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

Take a game like poker. 

Poker is based on a random hand of cards being dealt to each player. A good poker player, can then look at his hand, and get a rough idea of the percentage chance of it being a "good" hand based on what cards they are. He then decides whether to continue betting, knowing when to hold em, and when to fold em... 

A D&D player can do a similar trick with his PC. He can look at his stats, current HP, powers etc, and know roughly what his chances of survival are, with a level of randomness based on dice rolls.

The poker player is pitting his ability to play the game vrs his opponents. The D&D player is doing a similar thing. he's pitting his ability to play against teh challenges the DM tosses at him.

A good poker player uses his knowledge of the game/cards/math/opponents to his advantage. 

A good D&D "player" does the same. He knows his character, his abilities, his teammates. 

Even if he "looses" he might be a bit upset, but overall it's a challange to do better. 

Save or Die would be akin to adding a card into the poker deck that says "fold now." 

While it might be interesting for a bit, overall it doesn't really add to the player's invlvement of the game. There's nothing the player can really do to account for it, aside from hope he doesn't get dealt the card. Even if he's got all his math down, knows all the strategies in the world, and could be considered the "best" poker player, drawing the fold now card invalidates all that. Blam... sucker!

Since there isn't a way to really compensate for it, it just kind of sits there as a thing the player just hopes doesn't happen and the player feels kind of cheated when it does. All that time and energy spent becoming a better player is pointless.

I'd be wiling to bet that the majority of gamers out there prefer the game to challenge their ability to play it, and not just determine their level of luck...


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I do have a problem with those for whom the idea that death in an RPG is the subject of serious angst is _*not*_ a strawman.  And I think we both know that they exist.



They might well exist, but I haven't seen any of them here. You're addressing the arguments of posters in this thread. It's poor form (and just plain confusing) to argue against a hypothetical person's hypothetical argument while doing so.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

Imaro said:


> The fact that a player has made it so that his character will not die...speaks volumes about what is "meaningful" to that player.



Really? What do you think it says about the player? Other than that they would prefer it if there's something else at stake in the campaign beyond simple survival.



> Just read what I wrote above.



I tried. I _think_ you're saying that someone who prefers a death-lite campaign is trying to shirk some sort of responsibility they have for getting their made-up avatar killed, or rather, that they are secretly trying to set their made-up avatar as a fall guy. Which can't be right because it doesn't make any sense. 



> Go...go...hyperbole!!



I thought it was funny.  



> I have seen more people in this thread talk about how annoying or booring it is to have to sit out of the game for a period of time as the major con against death...how about that as a "real" consequence. Yeah you messed up, something bad happened in most games that means a detrimental effect for that player. Does that clarify things a little better?



Yes. I that's perfectly clear. I completely disagree, but at least I see what you're saying. As DM, I have no interest in making one of my friends 'sit out' because they 'messed up' in-game. This isn't hockey. There's no need for the penalty box. I prefer to have my players engaged for as much of the game as possible.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You watch TV, you don't play it.  You have no control over the TV show.



The point is you still watch adventure programs on it where you know full and well the main characters won't die.



> Oh, or better yet, play Baron Munchausen.  That game's PERFECT.  No, not "perfect in this context," I mean it may be the greatest game ever created in the history of mankind.



Thanks, but my group will just keep playing D&D (with a hearty dash of Baron Munchhausen sprinkled in).


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 15, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I thought it was funny.



I did too, for the record. True LOL.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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.



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.

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?



> In fact, if "No one is suggesting that character's be rendered immune to death only to be subjected to tedious further adventures." then I submit that the cut-off line we are discussing _*is not and cannot be*_ simply character death.



Who's saying that?  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.

Of course if you have a tendency to throw boring adventures at me, especially if it's for no good reason than it fits the story you want to tell, then that's another problem all on it's own.  You'd better just give up the damn DM Manual and let me drive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2008)

Eric Tolle said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> @ 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

WarlockLord said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2008)

Runestar said:


> 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





ProfessorCirno said:


> 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.



Runestar said:


> 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.



Raven Crowking said:


> 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.



Imaro said:


> 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.



Raven Crowking said:


> 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).



Raven Crowking said:


> 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.



ProfessorCirno said:


> 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.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Especially seems Ron limit narrative play to "discussing" morality or ethics in the game, which constricts its meaning and makes others, "narrative-seeming" aspects work less well.



I don't think he limits it to _discussing_ moral matters. But he does suggest that narrativist play must _address_ moral or ethical matters. I agree that this is too narrow (eg Edwards seems not to have read Neitzche, who presents a plausible case for the difference of the aesthetically appealing from the moral), but that is a quibble with an excessively narrow conception on his part of literary or aesthetic merit. It is not an objection to the structure of GNS theory.

I think that it is hard for D&D to address what modern people would regard as moral matters, because D&D is mostly about brutal combat and most modern moral dillemas begin from some conception of the value of life and the wrongness of (much) killing (pre-4e alignment is a mostly unsuccessful attempt to try and stipulate by way of game mechanics that this dissonance does not exist - and is for that reason perhaps the most anti-narrativist of all traditional D&D mechanics). But D&D (and fantasy RPGs in general) can address ethical questions about the nature or purpose or worth of a certain sort of life, provided that the ethical is allowed to reach beyond the moral into the more purely aesthetic (in a Neitzchean sort of way, perhaps).



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The example I remember is that a Star Wars game is "simulationist" if anger leads to the Dark Side, and good triumphs over evil, and narrative (but no longer really Star Wars) if you allow evil to triumph or anger (or the Dark Side) lead to good results.



That is probably too simplistic. But it is an obstacle for narrativist play if the issues of moral or aesthetic decision are already predetermined. In playing narrativist Star Wars, it would have to remain the case that anger leads to the Dark Side (this is a given for Star Wars), but Lucas's moral judgement about the wickedness of the Dark Side would have to be up for grabs during the course of play.

I haven't played "morally ambiguous" Star Wars, but I have GMed a game in which one PC sacrificed another on the altar of Hextor before going on to become an ally of Vecna in his quest to become Emperor. That PC prospered, while another PC who was an ex-slave, and was campaigning to free the slaves, and who lived a comparatively normal and non-sociopathic life, suffered many vicissitidues with ignoble consequences. I don't know if the player of the sociopath really thought that what his PC was doing was morally permissible, or constituted a good life, nor whether he personally shared the contempt and condescension towards the other PC that his PC displayed in the gameworld. But I do know that the game could not have worked if there were already mechanics in play that predetermined an answer to these questions about what constitutes an ethically viable life.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But this would mean that the "Death Flag" might be something you could find in both types of games - Simulationist or Narrativist, since the player in the "Anger leads to the Dark Side" Simulation game might not want his angry Jedi to die before he has turned to the Dark Side - and he might exactly choose to Raise the Death Flag in the scene where the character has the chance to redeem himself...



Agreed - although the "redemption" scene might well occur in a narrativist game. The death flag used in a simulationist game would typically be a way of nudging the game away from "purist-for-system" simulationism (of the RQ/RM/Traveller variety) and towards "high concept" or genre simulationism (of the Call of Cthulhu/Ars Magic variety) - the death flag would then support genre simulation by preventing certain sorts of genre-breaking events happening in the game.

A recurring criticism of GNS is that it distinguishes narrativism from high-concept/genre simulationism, but that in practice these two sorts of play travel closely together (eg both are concerned with the production of story). My own view is that Edwards is right to draw the distinction, because (as drawn by him) it turns on the crucial question of "whose story" or "whose thematic vision" - and genre simulation is primarily about retelling someone else's story and inhabiting the thematic vision that the original author has already predetermined.

But I readily admit that to identify this as the crucial question is already to adopt a certain aesthetic preference that not everyone may share - especially those who, like many fantasy RPGers, are fans of genre literature and film.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe the only answer to this is to say - you play your games with your goals, I play them with mine.
> 
> Unfortunately, this might not settle the issue, because in the attempt to finding the perfect definition of role-playing games, we have to FIGHT TO THE DEATH* on whether MY GOAL IS BETTER THEN YOUR GOAL*, and I am not actually playing a "story-telling" or "acting" game instead of an role-playing game and which of these D&D has, should and will always be.
> 
> *) pardon my Cirnoismn



I did enjoy this particular post. Thanks.


----------



## Ourph (Oct 15, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."



Or, you know, play the game however the heck you want, without getting permission first from ProfessorCirno.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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".



In a game I run where there is only death by player permission, I choose the consequence as the DM.  The player doesn't.  

I'll also note that in such games, it's not so much a "do you want to die" question that comes up in all possible death situations.  The assumption is that PCs won't die in the game.  However, the player can decide that it is proper for their character to die for the best dramatic effect on the campaign.

Han Solo dying in "the Empire Strikes Back" in order to have Luke see the possible consequences of the his fight against the Empire would be appropriate dramatically, for some.  Han dying because Greedo critical hit in the first scene of "A New Hope" wouldn't.


----------



## Delta (Oct 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Take a game like poker...
> 
> Save or Die would be akin to adding a card into the poker deck that says "fold now."
> 
> ...




I'm going to disagree with this analogy. Honest question: Do you actually play poker? I can't tell one way or the other.

(1) Luck is inherently a part of poker. There's a phrase called "bad beat" for when a poker player does everything correct, was ahead in the hand, and still gets beaten anyway. It's specifically a mark of a good poker player that they can emotionally take a "bad beat" and deal with it. (IMO it's actually the most interesting thing about the game!)

Bad beat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2) It seems like the best analogy is whole poker match = character life; one hand = one encounter; folding = running away; busting out of chips = death. Then a "fold now card" would be = "you must run away from encounter", which I suppose is not that different from a _fear_ effect. It would take a "you instantly lose all your chips" card = instant death.

(3) Of course, the equivalent to automatically losing your hand is just when an opposing player gets an unbeatable hand and you don't know about it. Of course, that's called "drawing dead" and it definitely happens; it's one of the recognized categories of "bad beats", having a strong hand clobbered by an even stronger hand (see link). And again, professional players play with that risk all the time, and some of us think it's the most interesting mental challenge about the game.

So then it's really just a question of how frequently you wind up "drawing dead" against a "monster hand". And poker has engineered that to happen maybe at least a few times on any night of poker play.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 15, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I think the TV comparison is a really bad one.  You watch TV, you don't play it.  You have no control over the TV show.  At no point in time do your feelings matter in the context of that show, nor can you do any action to change things the way they are.  Watching TV is, well, watching it - you just sit there and listen/watch what other people are doing, without any input or output from yourself.  That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."



One question - why is the only alternative to watching TV (which someone else wrote) rolling dice to see what happens (which is still something that someone/thing else wrote). What's wrong with wanting to do some of the writing oneself? Or as part of a group of fellow players?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 15, 2008)

I think I already mentioned a... "variant" Death Flag mechanic - Torgs "Martyr" card. A player that got this card in a game of Torg would be allowed to either turn it in after play for a possibility (something like a mix of Action Point and Experience Point, or like a Shadowrun (pre 4E) Karma Dice) - or he can play it and have his character sacrifice himself, for the benefit of his comrades or his characters (or players) goals. 

It's not exactly a Death Flag mechanic, because you can still die by "normal" means in Torg (and even unnormal - Torg allows skills like "Trick", "Maneuver", "Test of Wills", "Taunt", "Intimidate" to create a deadly effect, though this is hard to achieve). But it has a similar goal - the player wants to ensure his characters death is meaningful. "Game Tactically", it is a great card to use in any scenario that might lead to a TPK (thought you won't find the card too often). 

The Death Flag mechanic gives a little more control - you can only die (but you're not even guaranteed to die) if you raise the flag. But it assumes that there will be situations where you want to raise the flag.

For example, if you don't like the idea of the Tarrasque tramping the party down and then destroying your home town, or if you don't like the idea of being stranded with very limited resources in the middle of a dungeon, you can raise your Death Flag, get a mechanical benefit, and possibly get out. Or you die, avoiding the undeserired outcome of the scenario.


----------



## Fenes (Oct 15, 2008)

"Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> "Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.




It depends. If "Save Save Save or Die" and it works like "ROll Perception, Roll Initiative, Roll Save vs Death", it's just different odds.

If it's "Save" "every party member can try something to get you out of the situation" "Save or Die", it is more than that - you can react to the situation. In 3E, the Wizard might cast a Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment spell to get you out (depending on the effect), a Cleric could cast a "Death Ward" (if a death effect). In 4E, a character might give you a potion that allows you to make a save with a bonus, or use a power to grant you a bonus to your next save, or anything like that. 
There is not a guarantee for success, but you can at least make a conscious choice that can affect your chances.


----------



## AndrewRogue (Oct 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> "Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.




I think the Bodak does the best job of demonstrating the difference.

3.X Bodak, you can flat out get caught by a death gaze walking into a room and die.

4th, the Bodak has to catch you with its attack first to Weaken you, and then a second attack to drop you to zero. This gives you, the PC, quite a bit of room to deal with the problem comparatively. You have a window of action in which you can do something meaningful, unlike the 3.X version wherein you either die or don't (preparations not withstanding).

The Save, Save, Save or Die method gives you more space in which you can react and take your own fate (or your allies' fates) into your hands.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Oct 15, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Again, I'm not trying to attack the playing style, and I apologize if it seems that way. I simply cannot wrap my head around why a person would be so adamant about the whole death thing.




Really? It’s the easiest thing for me to wrap my head around - people are different!

Example? Some folk think Budweiser is a good and tasty beer, others think you can’t beat a pint of Ruddles.

There are two conclusions you could draw from this. First: Budweiser drinkers (or Ruddles drinkers dependoing on your POV) are wrong. Second: people are different and like different things, neither is wrong. (I hope that’s cleared things up for you).



ProfessorCirno said:


> This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net.




I don’t think that anyone wants to tell stories about themselves. Telling stories about the adventures of a character they have carefully and lovingly created, that’s a different matter entirely. Some folks (like me) think that that’s what role-playing games are for. Are you saying they’re wrong?


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Oct 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


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




No argument from me here, more focus on the players choices is the most important thing IMO.



Scribble said:


> Poker is based on a random hand of cards being dealt to each player. A good poker player, can then look at his hand, and get a rough idea of the percentage chance of it being a "good" hand based on what cards they are. He then decides whether to continue betting, knowing when to hold em, and when to fold em...
> 
> A D&D player can do a similar trick with his PC. He can look at his stats, current HP, powers etc, and know roughly what his chances of survival are, with a level of randomness based on dice rolls.
> 
> ...




I don’t think that the poker analogy is very good. At least, it doesn’t work for me. 

When I sit at the gaming table it’s to have fun with my friends. I have always regarded games rules as “more your actual guidelines”  . In my games having fun is ALWAYS more important than rules. It is possible to play ANY rpg this way, most of them have the equivalent of a “rule zero” which says “have fun.” I don’t know about 4th edition DnD, but earlier editions did (or something similar). Unfortunately you can’t play poker like this (more’s the pity – I might be able to win).

Also your idea of a good D&D "player" is, apparently different to mine. A good player (to me) is one who has his (or her) character react as a ‘real’ person would act under the circumstances. This is not likely to be the same as playing the odds, but I’m prepared to give a lot of leeway to players who do this. A D&D player CAN “look at his stats, current HP, powers etc, and know roughly what his chances of survival are” but that is NOT the only way to play.



Scribble said:


> I'd be wiling to bet that the majority of gamers out there prefer the game to challenge their ability to play it, and not just determine their level of luck...




I’d like to think that the majority of of gamers out there prefer the game to be an enjoyable time had with friends, regardless of their knowledge of rules. But, perhaps we’re both wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> "Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.




I wrote "I fully agree", but on second consideration, I don't.

I think it depends very much on how you tweak the odds.  SoD tweaked so that death is almost always the result, for example, would obviously change the game in a fundamental way.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2008)

pemerton said:


> 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.




In the case of (i), we note that within a death-flag-style game that the player can still change PCs.  In fact, there is nothing within that style that mandates that it is the given PC that is desireable.

In the case of (ii), we note that there is no qualitative difference between a death-flag-style game and a GM-complications-of-any-other-type-flag-style game.  



> 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).




IME, this is not true.  The few death-flag games I have had the misfortune to be involved with have been very "I don't like Z; let's just have Y", often followed by a realization that they didn't really like Y either, so let's have X, etc.  I realize, of course, that my experience in this matter might differ greatly from your own. 



> 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.




IME, also, this "authorial control" is rather similar to that of DMs who won't allow the players to change their precious campaign worlds because they want "authorial control" not only over the initial set-up, but also over what the future holds.

I personally find neither of these sorts of "authorial control" conducive to good gaming.  Of course, YMMV, and my experience may be colouring my position here.


RC


----------



## Janx (Oct 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Save or Die would be akin to adding a card into the poker deck that says "fold now."
> 
> While it might be interesting for a bit, overall it doesn't really add to the player's invlvement of the game. There's nothing the player can really do to account for it, aside from hope he doesn't get dealt the card. Even if he's got all his math down, knows all the strategies in the world, and could be considered the "best" poker player, drawing the fold now card invalidates all that. Blam... sucker!
> 
> ...




actually, that's a bad analogy.  Save or Die is not like getting a Fold Now card (that's no big deal).  It's more like this:
you get dealt AA on the pre-flop.  You raise a good amount.  Some idiot with  72o calls.  Flop comes out, and there's a 2 and some other random crap (he's got a pair of 2s, you got aces).  You raise again, and stupid calls.  Turn comes up with a useless card.   You raise.  Dork boy calls.  River comes up with a 7.  You raise again.  Dork boy calls.  He's got 7722, you got AA.  He sucked it out on the river with a pre-flop hand he should have folded, and should have folded the entire time because a pair of 2's was so weak up until the river.  That's a bad beat.

It sucks when it happens, and it happens because the idiot player doesn't care about winning or losing, he just wants to see the next card.

It's like children sword fighting with sticks.  They think it's about making the sticks clack together.  It's about stabbing the other guy and taking his stuff.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> "Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds.



No, it's really not. If you're only looking at the math (the percentage chance that the three saves are failed), you're missing the point. The point is, after the first failed save, the player has a chance to react to the new circumstances.

I think that's why many people don't like SoD: the perception of helplessness. One second, you're okay. Then one roll later, and you're out of the game. With save-save-save or die, or what have you, you have a chance to counter the effect or the creature or whatever, because you're not just making three rolls instead of one. You have decision points in between the rolls. This is a critical difference. Even if you fail and ultimately succumb to the effect, you had a chance. You weren't helpless.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 15, 2008)

Kishin said:


> Permission to sig the following quote?




You do know that's just a slighly changed knock off of a line from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?

It's at about 2:40 in this clip.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434[/ame]


----------



## Scribble (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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.






			
				 Delta said:
			
		

> I'm going to disagree with this analogy. Honest question: Do you actually play poker? I can't tell one way or the other.
> 
> (1) Luck is inherently a part of poker. There's a phrase called "bad beat" for when a poker player does everything correct, was ahead in the hand, and still gets beaten anyway. It's specifically a mark of a good poker player that they can emotionally take a "bad beat" and deal with it. (IMO it's actually the most interesting thing about the game!)




I do, but not with any regularity. I'm not very good at it. 

But I think you're dissagreeing with a point I'm not trying to make. Or I'm not doing a good job communicating that point. Which is the more likely case, as I'm posting while at work, and it was the end of the day, and sometimes I ramble. 

I'm NOT arguing that death shouldn't be a part of the game, or that all of the randomness should be removed. Those elements are very important to the game. Sometimes the dice just roll low, and you get screwed. 

Poker analogy aside, what I AM saying is that the randomness needs to be tempered, and controlled to a degree. When I enter a D&D fight, there are several things happening that let me see the degree of the challange and modify my strategies to suit.

If I enter the battle, and the creature takes a swing, I can get a rough idea of the creatures strength. He hits well, or he does a lot of damage. I can then say either I think I can take em, or Oh crap lets ditch.  It even teaches me a bit about what strategies work well, what strategies don't. Random dice should modify this event. That's part of the fun.

Put a SoD into the mix though, and things change. None of the buffers I normally utilize to learn about an enemy are in effect. I don't get that "oh man, I gotta ditch!" moment. It ALL resides on hoping I make my save. If I don't make that save, then that's it. 

Turning it into a save save or die gives you a slight buffer zone. It's not a huge thing. It's still going to kill you if you don't react properly, or quickly, just like the heavy hitter will still kill you if you keep trying to go toe to toe. It's just not forcing you to rely soley on hoping your dice roll well.

Raven: I get what you're saying about the DM throwing things in there to alert the players about the pending SoD danger... The issue I have is that you're now no longer relying on the game. You're relying on the imagination of the players, and everyone's imagination is different. What's clearly obvious to you, could be completely opposite of what I'm seeing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> No, it's really not. If you're only looking at the math (the percentage chance that the three saves are failed), you're missing the point. The point is, after the first failed save, the player has a chance to react to the new circumstances.




But, even so, there is some "final" save, which is the same as the first save in a SoD game.

If I have SoD or 10 saves then SoD, I still have SoD.



Rackhir said:


> You do know that's just a slighly changed knock off of a line from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?




Indeed.  The line about "How did you get to be king, then?" is from the same, just badly mauled because I was going by memory....being too lazy to look it up.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm NOT arguing that death shouldn't be a part of the game, or that all of the randomness should be removed. Those elements are very important to the game. Sometimes the dice just roll low, and you get screwed.




With you so far.



> what I AM saying is that the randomness needs to be tempered, and controlled to a degree. When I enter a D&D fight, there are several things happening that let me see the degree of the challange and modify my strategies to suit.




Again, I agree.  However, I don't think that the randomness needs to be temprered only through game mechanics.  Part of good play, in the old school sense anyway, is to temper randomness through the choices that you make.



> Raven: I get what you're saying about the DM throwing things in there to alert the players about the pending SoD danger... The issue I have is that you're now no longer relying on the game. You're relying on the imagination of the players, and everyone's imagination is different. What's clearly obvious to you, could be completely opposite of what I'm seeing.




IMHO, relying on the imagination of the players (DM included) is the whole point of the game.  I do agree that it is incumbant upon the DM to telegraph in such a way that he has communicated with his players.  The mental elasticity that I talked about earlier....the things I think are actually valuabe about SoD situations.....dissolve into a fine mist if there is no foreshadowing to create tension and allow the players to have options.

Really, though, if the DM isn't communicating with his players well, is there any set of rules that will save them?


RC


----------



## malraux (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, even so, there is some "final" save, which is the same as the first save in a SoD game.
> 
> If I have SoD or 10 saves then SoD, I still have SoD.




But the primary objection to SoD was never that eventually it came down to one die roll.  It was that often it involved only one die roll and that there was little a player could do beforehand.  Moreover, most of the things that players could do were things like always have Death Ward going.  There's little thought involved, just following the checklist of things adventures should have.

Save, save, save or die is better in that the later saves can be boosted, the effect countered, or the creature killed.  It gives the party options at the time, rather than just relying on someone having played the game before and knowing the right spells to have.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2008)

malraux said:


> But the primary objection to SoD was never that eventually it came down to one die roll.




It always eventually comes down to one die roll, and it is (IMHO) a myth that there was little a player could do beforehand or that "There's little thought involved, just following the checklist of things adventures should have."

I remember having this same discussion, on EN World, where an example was given of an orc guarding a bridge, winning initiative, and killing a PC on a crit.  Oddly enough, when the example was broken down, at least one poster realized that, with the same setup in his game, he would not have ended up dying under that orc's axe.  Simply put, there was a lot that he could have done that had been hidden by the way the example was explained, and none of it required that he know an orc be there ahead of time.


RC


----------



## Janx (Oct 15, 2008)

So I'm getting RC's point.  The last die roll that kills you is = a Save or Die roll.

Imagine a fight against the BBEG, he zaps you each round with a spell of increasing level and damage, until he gets to his Save or Die Death spell.  That's the same as if he hacked you to bits with an axe over 9 rounds, until you died.

I think I see the viewpoint difference.  The "real" Save or Die scenario is where you start the round relatively healthy, and right away a single die roll makes you dead.  And the cause of the die roll stands out blatantly from any of the other dangers in the scene (had the bad guy swung blades at you, the fight would have lasted longer).  

The result is the player doesn't feel like there was anything they could do.

It could have been a rigged ceiling that collapses when somebody opens the door on the opposite side of the room, releasing the 50 ton ceiling block on top of the entire party, killing them all if the rogue fails his single detect traps roll (which he can only do from inside the room, and the party likely thinks is safe so is in there with him while he works on the next door).

This is the same gripe players have when out of the blue, their low level party is confronted by a high CR dragon who wants to eat them, and quickly does.

Both scenes leave the players feeling mad.  The problem really is, the DM built a scene to kill PCs, not challeng them.  Short of staying in the village, the players don't feel there's much they could do.  With div. spells, the DM may obfuscate the answer so they don't know about the danger (or have multiple versions, so they only learn about 1).

HEck, in the trap example, if the party casts and asks "is the door trapped".  Answer yes.  Party leaves room, theif picks lock and fails and trap goes off squishing thief.  Had the trap been a poison dart or something, he'd have gotten a saving throw.  The 50 ton block has long been the "no saving throw" reality wins example that you can't reflex save your way across a room to get out of the other door .

The 50 ton block was specifically listed in 2E as cause of immediate death in the DMG.  In fact you could use it in an illusion, and if they failed their save, would die (assuming you had it in a believable way, like in a dungeon, after a trap trigger went off).

However, the state of the art in DMing has shifted such that these kind of traps are considered bad GMing.  The Save or Die spell is now facing the same opinion by many players, by applying similar logic.

I don't know how other people play.  At my house we play it this way:
death happens, as RAW
encounters range from easy to really hard
every encounter should be beatable (though it may take some luck and brains)
death happens infrequently (unless the players are plain stupid)
the GM may ease up if players play well, roll badly by not doing as much damage, skipping or shrinking future encounters, providing supplies to heal up
raise deads are also rare, thus dying is likely end of character

in a good session, the players should feel like the odds are stacked against them, that they're losing the big fight, only to turn it around with clever plan and save the day.

I don't have action points or death cards or whatever.  We just play the dang game, and as GM, I try to keep them on their toes, and sometimes I give them a break if things are going too badly for them.


----------



## malraux (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> It always eventually comes down to one die roll, and it is (IMHO) a myth that there was little a player could do beforehand or that "There's little thought involved, just following the checklist of things adventures should have."




IME, that's totally wrong, but there seems to be little I can do to dissuade you on this, so I see little reason to continue, other than to say that a very large number of people do find that SoD, at least as it works in 3e, to be a very significant problem.  It describes at least one campaign ending event that I've been involved with.


----------



## malraux (Oct 15, 2008)

Janx said:


> So I'm getting RC's point.  The last die roll that kills you is = a Save or Die roll.
> 
> Imagine a fight against the BBEG, he zaps you each round with a spell of increasing level and damage, until he gets to his Save or Die Death spell.  That's the same as if he hacked you to bits with an axe over 9 rounds, until you died.



Unless the BBEG goes in the opposite order, starting with SoD spells.


----------



## Janx (Oct 15, 2008)

malraux said:


> Unless the BBEG goes in the opposite order, starting with SoD spells.




I cover that in the next paragraph after what you quoted.  I'm establishing RC's point in what you quoted.

Then I'm setting up what the "Save or Die sucks" camp feels is their point.

My goal, is that y'all see RC's point about Save or Die as literrally interpreted.  And then I want RC to see your point, that encounters that make the PCs feel like there was nothing they could do are bad.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2008)

Janx said:


> And then I want RC to see your point, that encounters that make the PCs feel like there was nothing they could do are bad.




I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.

It is definitely true that, if the DM wants to kill you, he will kill you.  That is bad DMing.  Not having SoD effects in the game will not help you.

If we discuss SoD from any standpoint where it is assumed that the DM isn't out to kill you, it follows that the DM _wants the players to anticipate the SoD effect_.  In this case, the players always have a plethora of options available to them.  These options don't necessarily involve rolling dice.

As an obvious example, the room with the 50-ton block (resetting, ala 3e, as odd as that may be) can have definite signs of past victims, pulverized by the block.  The DM doesn't require a roll for the PCs to spot this; he tells them.  Perhaps they chase a creature that stumbles into the block.  Perhaps the block is ultimately a weapon that they can lure another creature into stepping under.  The might not have to fight the ubermonster if they can get it under the block.  The mere existence of the block creates possibilities that don'e exist without it.  It becomes the gun on the wall in Act I that is fired before the end of Act V.

The film, _Clash of the Titans_ has another example.  The medusa is a SoD monster (effectively) which Perseus has a chance of beating; the titan isn't SoD, but is so tough that Perseus needs the medusa's SoD effect on his side to have a chance.  And, in the film, "DM Zeus" makes sure Perseus has the means to defeat medusa...a magical mirrored shield he can look in, a magic sword, and pegasus.  Of course, pegasus is stolen by Caliban (who Perseus made an enemy of earlier in the story), because we don't want to make things too easy......

You can remove these effects, and still have a game.  But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances.  That is a real loss, IMHO.  And it is a loss based upon the idea that the player believes that there is nothing he could do, which, assuming the DM isn't either out to kill you or incompetent, is false.

(And, yes, 3e had some problems, largely because the designers removed/altered parts their survey showed to be "unfun" without -- AFAICT -- really understanding why those parts were as they were in the first place.  IMHO, 4e suffers from the same.)


RC


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is definitely true that, if the DM wants to kill you, he will kill you. That is bad DMing. Not having SoD effects in the game will not help you.




There is another case: a novice DM simply doesn't realize how bad the effects are. Yes, that too is bad DMing - but the rules _can_ help you by _defaulting_ to the assumption that such effects are either rare or nonexistant.

It's considerably easier to recognize that you _need_ to telegraph such decisions when you are making them deliberately, instead of misunderstanding the default decisions built into the game.



Raven Crowking said:


> You can remove these effects, and still have a game. But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances.




This is the only statement I really disagree with you on. Focusing the game on players using their wits to avoid combats with dire chances simply does not require save-or-die effects.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.




Who is arguing that? 

I'm saying that extending SoD into SSoD allows more choices to be made, and more reactions based on what is happening, which is more in line with the rest of the game.



> If we discuss SoD from any standpoint where it is assumed that the DM isn't out to kill you, it follows that the DM _wants the players to anticipate the SoD effect_.  In this case, the players always have a plethora of options available to them.  These options don't necessarily involve rolling dice.




Same is true with SSoD effects.



> As an obvious example, the room with the 50-ton block (resetting, ala 3e, as odd as that may be) can have definite signs of past victims, pulverized by the block.




Or they could be signs of a boulder, or enhanced gravity, or a creature nearbye with a giant fist...  (There's the imaination issue.)



> The DM doesn't require a roll for the PCs to spot this; he tells them.  Perhaps they chase a creature that stumbles into the block.  Perhaps the block is ultimately a weapon that they can lure another creature into stepping under.  The might not have to fight the ubermonster if they can get it under the block.  The mere existence of the block creates possibilities that don'e exist without it.  It becomes the gun on the wall in Act I that is fired before the end of Act V.




SSoD doesn't negate any of this. It just allows a chance to deal with a situation that is occuring.



> The film, _Clash of the Titans_ has another example.  The medusa is a SoD monster (effectively) which Perseus has a chance of beating; the titan isn't SoD, but is so tough that Perseus needs the medusa's SoD effect on his side to have a chance.  And, in the film, "DM Zeus" makes sure Perseus has the means to defeat medusa...a magical mirrored shield he can look in, a magic sword, and pegasus.  Of course, pegasus is stolen by Caliban (who Perseus made an enemy of earlier in the story), because we don't want to make things too easy......




All of which can still be possible with SSoD. 



> You can remove these effects, and still have a game.  But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances.  That is a real loss, IMHO.  And it is a loss based upon the idea that the player believes that there is nothing he could do, which, assuming the DM isn't either out to kill you or incompetent, is false.




No you don't. You just open up more choices for the player who finds himself in that situation to make, aside from simply :Man I hope I save.

The choice to avoid combat is still yours.


----------



## malraux (Oct 15, 2008)

Can I also point out that its odd to assume that its ok for the DM not to play certain monsters to the fullest (ie, that the BBEG wouldn't capture a bodak or basilisk to drop on intruders, or hire a medusa as guard but not give hints of such things so that adventurers would find out) but that its inconceivable to move such meta-rules out into the open with the no deaths rule.


----------



## Delta (Oct 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm NOT arguing that death shouldn't be a part of the game, or that all of the randomness should be removed. Those elements are very important to the game. Sometimes the dice just roll low, and you get screwed.
> 
> Poker analogy aside, what I AM saying is that the randomness needs to be tempered, and controlled to a degree. When I enter a D&D fight, there are several things happening that let me see the degree of the challange and modify my strategies to suit.
> 
> ...




Well, I guess I can respect your different opinion about D&D, but I must say that you're looking for a game very unlike poker, then. Part of poker is the specific goal of someone hiding their "monster hand" and not revealing it until the moment that they knock you out of the game. Someone having a "tell" and clueing you into that would be seen as a major failing, when they get such a "monster hand".

Furthermore I might argue that the appearance of SOD abilities moves the intelligence operation in D&D from the tactical encounter to the strategic level. At that point you need to scout, survey, scry, whatever, to know what abilities the enemy has and prepare in advance of the battle. Going into every encounter blindly and hoping to respond on the fly could be seen as low-level (first order) player skill.

I can respect it if you don't like that kind of alternate strategic gaming, though. That's fair. But stuff like that is why I like Classic D&D, and see it a lot like poker.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 16, 2008)

Hrm, in the Savage Tide AP, at one point one of the BBEG's sends a hit squad after the party.  A number of bodaks riding templated undead dinosaurs teleport in on the party at some random point.

From the context of the game it makes 100% sense.  The bad guys have these kinds of resources available.  It also means that the party is now in the SOD Room with no warning.

Guess it does exist after all.


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 16, 2008)

Runestar said:


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




Correction. They don't die random deaths _because it is collaboratively decided that they will not_ by the creator, the staff writers, the actors, their agents, the networks, and the threat of critics and fans smearing your show if you decide to _prove that death can be random_ for no dramatic purpose other than that proof. 

TV is no more the creation of an individual than a DnD game is the sole creation of the DM. They are both collaborative serial story-telling art forms. It's completely apt. Because the real point was that there are alternatives to random death as a story telling principle and that billions of people find those alternatives incredibly appealing.


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 16, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Edit: Oh, and I think the TV comparison is a really bad one.  You watch TV, you don't play it.  You have no control over the TV show.  At no point in time do your feelings matter in the context of that show, nor can you do any action to change things the way they are.  Watching TV is, well, watching it - you just sit there and listen/watch what other people are doing, without any input or output from yourself.  That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."




Only if you assume that I was talking primarily about consuming television rather than the two things that I was talking about: decades of audience demand for stories not involving random deaths of important characters and that the collaborative process of creating television bears some similarity to the collaborative process of creating a DnD game. (I will admit, however, that I assumed that most people know that television is incredibly collaborative, which may have been a bad assumption.)

Also, I recommend taking a look at the Buffy the Vampire Slayer role playing game for one example of how serial narrative techniques can be usefully adapted to role playing games.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 16, 2008)

My whole beef with Save or Die boils down to two things.

First, when it's a SoD gaze attack, it's not really SoD, it's just die.  When EVERYONE has to make a saving throw, every round, someone's going to die.  The chance of death is extremely high.  Too high for me.

Second, SoD takes the notion of balanced encounter out into the pasture and puts a gun in its ear.  It's not a balanced encounter.  It can't be.  If the party is prepared for the encounter, then it's a cakewalk.  If the party is unprepared, it's a death sentence.  It's just way too binary for me.  

As for the notion that one save is the same as three saves spread over multiple rounds, I just don't see it.  When you have only one save, it's either yes or no.  Alive or dead.  Totally binary.  When you have three saves, then you have (on average) 12-15 other actions by the rest of the party and yourself before you die.  It's really no different than a creature that can do lots of damage that tags one target for the entire fight.  You have loads of options that can change your death sentence - kill the monster, run away, magical help, mundane options, heck surrender might work.

With earlier edition SoD, it's one roll.  Do you live or die?  Or, do you have the blocking card and therefore make the encounter totally not interesting?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 16, 2008)

I accept that RPGs are just games.

And with almost any RPG, I accept the possibility that my PC will not get to run the entire race.  However, that doesn't mean that I'm not attached to a PC, and I may be ticked off that he or she or it bit the big one.  Or I may not be- not all of my PCs are created equal- some are mere scribbles on paper, others seem much more real to me.

Depending upon the campaign, the game and my relationship to the PC in question, I may start over or I may try to get my PC brought back from oblivion.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, I agree.  However, I don't think that the randomness needs to be temprered only through game mechanics.  Part of good play, in the old school sense anyway, is to temper randomness through the choices that you make.



This is something I have said before in another thread, but it seems to require repeating here. 

A major part of the "tempering randomness" requires the DM to be aware of the pitfalls of Save or Die and to include scenes or narration that allow the PCs to figure out the danger (and their preperations against it). The DM doesn't have to force the PCs to figure this out, but he basically needs to hold up some warning signs.

The problem is that the game doesn't tell the DM so or force it. Why is Save or Die a part of the mechanics then, but not the "Warning Signs"? 
If the entire scenario leading up to a "fair" Save or Die encounter requires the DM to prepare the party for it (in giving them chances to figure the danger out if they are smart enough), why shouldn't we make the final part, "Save or Die" not also a part of the DMs responsibility. Why can't the DM not just create the final "Save or Die" step himself.

This way, there is no cheap excuse "But the RAW allows me to use Save or Die this way". It is obvious whether the DM was using Save or Die "responsibly" or not. And anyone unaware of the pitfalls of Save or Die effects will not "accidentally" use them just because the system provides them.


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This is something I have said before in another thread, but it seems to require repeating here.
> 
> A major part of the "tempering randomness" requires the DM to be aware of the pitfalls of Save or Die and to include scenes or narration that allow the PCs to figure out the danger (and their preperations against it). The DM doesn't have to force the PCs to figure this out, but he basically needs to hold up some warning signs.
> 
> ...




Random encounter tables frequently have SoD monsters on them as well, which makes it harder for a DM to remember to give plenty of hints regarding the SoD. Whenever I use a random encounter it means that I didn't have time to prepare one for this part of the adventure, which means I'll probably have my first look (in a while. I browse through each MM when I buy it, of course) at a particular monster the moment I want to insert it into my game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> Focusing the game on players using their wits to avoid combats with dire chances simply does not require save-or-die effects.




It's considerably easier to make such decisions when they are built into the game.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

malraux said:


> Can I also point out that its odd to assume that its ok for the DM not to play certain monsters to the fullest (ie, that the BBEG wouldn't capture a bodak or basilisk to drop on intruders, or hire a medusa as guard but not give hints of such things so that adventurers would find out) but that its inconceivable to move such meta-rules out into the open with the no deaths rule.




How, exactly, does one keep a baskilisk, a boadak, or a medusa, without anyone knowing it, and without leaving any sign of its existence?


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> How, exactly, does one keep a baskilisk, a boadak, or a medusa, without anyone knowing it, and without leaving any sign of its existence?




Gate spell and a big dungeon?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> It's considerably easier to make such decisions when they are built into the game.
> 
> 
> RC






Raven Crowking said:


> How, exactly, does one keep a baskilisk, a boadak, or a medusa, without anyone knowing it, and without leaving any sign of its existence?




It would be nice if the rules would remind you of that, especially when using random encounter tables. 
But see Hussars example - when the enemy comes to you, things change a lot. If you wanted to, you could drop a Wizard memorizing Teleport and Gaze Screen together with a Medusa onto your PCs. At best you get the warning from detecting the Scrying sensor then, but would you be prepared for a Medusa? 

And there is nothing in the rules forbidding it, nor is it entirely unreasonable to assume that such a thing could happen. Especially the enemy going after the PCs is something that one would expect to occur from a verisimilitude* point of view. 

*) Hey, long time, no see, _verisimilitude_! And even typed correctly on the first attempt!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Hrm, in the Savage Tide AP, at one point one of the BBEG's sends a hit squad after the party.  A number of bodaks riding templated undead dinosaurs teleport in on the party at some random point.



BTW: Be careful with spoilers! 

I wonder how my DM will convert this encounter to 4E... But I would bet I would lose my PC in such an encounter. Bodaks are bane to all my characters, even if they have a Fort Save upped to the wazoo.


----------



## FentonGib (Oct 16, 2008)

I agree with the analogy that when watching TV we get no control. However when Ensign X gets killed in Star Trek no-one cares. Kill off a major character and people get upset.

I remember in the Star Wars NJO books they kill off two major characters and a lot of people complained. Many saw it as a great thing, since even major characters could die... so you never know if Han's next flight is his last or not... but many didn't like it because they lost forever a character they loved reading about.

In my games players like an element of risk, and accept the consequences if they die (for good), but like films, the reactions are relative. New characters they've not yet connected with they don't mind much, but when you've been playing a character for years and he's grown from a level 1 church guard to a high level general commanding the whole army against enemy or evil forces - I've seen players cry when they've lost characters.

Most of my players don't mind "meaningful deaths" - sacrificing themselves for players, maybe holding that Balor off long enough for the church's Paladins to turn up and save the day. Players often remember these times nostalgically with "you remember x... that was a great death!" But they hate it when a random level 1 guard gets a straight 20 on an arrow shot followed by another 20 to confirm and a third 20 for a sudden death critical threat (or a 1 on a Fort save DC 15 when they have a +20 Fort save). They feel that the death has no meaning and is pointless. This ends up with players (in my experience) becoming frustrated and, if it happens too often, detaching from their characters and metagaming more with a "If I play my character concept I'll get killed by a random die roll, so I'll do what I think best to preserve my character."

In normal D&D raising dead is fairly easy for mid-high level players, but in games such as Ravenloft and other d20 games, it's not so easy because there's less magic, less money, or (in Ravenloft) a chance of returning not-quite-normal (undead). This heightens the issue for the players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It would be nice if the rules would remind you of that, especially when using random encounter tables.




Agreed.  

But, prior to 3e, the use of specific spells had potential major reprecussions for the caster (or those it was used on).  If the argument is that WotC bunged up the system by making changes/additions without understanding why things were as they were in the first place, I have already agreed to that a long time ago.  

I have also argued, if you recall, that the design blogs for 4e show signs of the same problem.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But, prior to 3e, the use of specific spells had potential major reprecussions for the caster (or those it was used on).  If the argument is that WotC bunged up the system by making changes/additions without understanding why things were as they were in the first place, I have already agreed to that a long time ago.



Quite possible that 3E made things worse, but if you mention divination spells to discover threats - these seem even harder to get or use in earlier editions then 3E, so I don't see how these can turn out to be a default solution.

Under the premise that the rules or guidelines make it very clear that pure "Save or Die" situation without the DM providing opportunities for the players to become aware of the danger and prepare themselves against it, I would also allow Save or Die spells. But I am also fine with it removed from RAW and entirely be a DM decision to rule a certain scenario with a "Save or Die" effect after he has provided enough warning. 

Keep of the Shadowfell even includes a "Die" effect in the final encounter. But it is very unlikely to be triggered accidentally, unlike a cavalry charge by Bodaks or a Medusa imprisoned in a dungeon room.



> I have also argued, if you recall, that the design blogs for 4e show signs of the same problem.



I don't think I recall, especially because I don't know if you argue that the 4E design team didn't notice the problematic changes between AD&D and 3E, or if they saw the same problems.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Quite possible that 3E made things worse, but if you mention divination spells to discover threats - these seem even harder to get or use in earlier editions then 3E, so I don't see how these can turn out to be a default solution.




In any edition, knowledge is power.  Heck, this is a truism in real life as well.  Divinations are always worth more than fireballs.



> Under the premise that the rules or guidelines make it very clear that pure "Save or Die" situation without the DM providing opportunities for the players to become aware of the danger and prepare themselves against it, I would also allow Save or Die spells.




Again, if you look at the 1e books, you will discover that the DM had control over what spells were available in his world.  An NPC didn't have the best available spell merely because it was the best available spell.



> Keep of the Shadowfell even includes a "Die" effect in the final encounter. But it is very unlikely to be triggered accidentally, unlike a cavalry charge by Bodaks or a Medusa imprisoned in a dungeon room.




If the imprisoned Medusa is the one in KotB, do you know anyone who actually fell for it?  I don't.  Without exception, every player I know twigged to the fact that you couldn't see her face.



> I don't think I recall, especially because I don't know if you argue that the 4E design team didn't notice the problematic changes between AD&D and 3E, or if they saw the same problems.




Our discussion of it related specifically to the 15-minute adventuring day, and lethality of combats.  I argued that the 4e paradigm, as described, would cause the DM to eventually throw more and more powerful challenges at his party, eventually requiring them to use their dailies and then rest, or the party would find the combats too predictable.  This is because the 4e model creates too narrow a gap between what is a challenge and what is lethal.

(I expected that the "shine" of the new game would last a year before reports of this started coming in.  I was wrong in this; I am hearing them already.)


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, even so, there is some "final" save, which is the same as the first save in a SoD game.



I've written this before: you're being far too literal. Please consider the context of the discussion, rather than just the three specific words being used.

It's all about the decision points, as stated earlier. It's not the fact that there's a single die roll causing death, it's this single die roll with nothing the players can do about it. And no, divination magic and Gather Information will not always (often?) do it for you.

See the bodak example above for a non-mythological example.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, if you look at the 1e books, you will discover that the DM had control over what spells were available in his world.



But what about 2E? 3E? We're not just talking about 1E here. We're talking about editions that have "traditional" SoD effects.



Raven Crowking said:


> If the imprisoned Medusa is the one in KotB, do you know anyone who actually fell for it?  I don't.  Without exception, every player I know twigged to the fact that you couldn't see her face.



We're very impressed. I remember I didn't "fall" for it either.

That changes nothing. This is a single encounter example, which is easily countered by the bodak encounter described above.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> It always eventually comes down to one die roll, and it is (IMHO) a myth that there was little a player could do beforehand or that "There's little thought involved, just following the checklist of things adventures should have."



Again, see bodak example above. Or should characters immediately start casting _death ward _every time they detect a divination sensor? That wouldn't help against teleporting medusas anyway.

There are just too many different types of SoD effects to be adequately prepared for all of them. And adequate information is not always available.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In any edition, knowledge is power.  Heck, this is a truism in real life as well.  Divinations are always worth more than fireballs.



No, they are not. Sometimes just having the Fireball is better then knowing that you need a Fireball.



> Again, if you look at the 1e books, you will discover that the DM had control over what spells were available in his world.  An NPC didn't have the best available spell merely because it was the best available spell.



Yes, he does have the control. But how does he use this control? And a Medusa or Bodak doesn't need any spells to know, they just do their tricks.



> If the imprisoned Medusa is the one in KotB, do you know anyone who actually fell for it?  I don't.  Without exception, every player I know twigged to the fact that you couldn't see her face.



I haven't played Keep of the Borderlands. Remember, I am a child of 3E (or Shadowrun, but the majority of my RPG life I played 3E)



> Our discussion of it related specifically to the 15-minute adventuring day, and lethality of combats.  I argued that the 4e paradigm, as described, would cause the DM to eventually throw more and more powerful challenges at his party, eventually requiring them to use their dailies and then rest, or the party would find the combats too predictable.  This is because the 4e model creates too narrow a gap between what is a challenge and what is lethal.



Maybe it is my awareness of the 15 minute adventuring day problem that makes me try my best to avoid it these days... I feel like I am still challenged - dailies are used with great care. Though we've noticed that it might be best, overall, to use one or two dailies total (over the entire party) in most encounters.

We'll talk again in a year or 8 years.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I've written this before: you're being far too literal. Please consider the context of the discussion, rather than just the three specific words being used.
> 
> It's all about the decision points, as stated earlier. It's not the fact that there's a single die roll causing death, it's this single die roll with nothing the players can do about it. And no, divination magic and Gather Information will not always (often?) do it for you.




I don't expect divination magic or Gather Information to be able to do anything in a vaccuum.  I expect that the player uses his intelligence, and determines when it is judicious to do the same.

And those three words -- save or die -- imply that there were no decision points leading up to them.  You realize that there is always a SoD, regardless of the effect, and then having you decision points that lead you there.  Where we disagree is whether or not your decision points lead you to the SoD effect in specific instances which you refer to as "SoD" as though they were different from the others.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSoD still has an SoD in it, wherein the player can claim that no decision he makes has any meaning.  Let us say that the big D (D) is Die and the little D (d) is decision.  You have SdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSoD.  I am arguing that, in the general case of SoD effects that is being complained about, you have ddddddddddddSoD.  It is the appearance of the multiple "d"s which is important, not the S's, or the SoD.



> See the bodak example above for a non-mythological example.




Can you give a quick recap, including the level of the characters, what they have done to have the BBEG send the bodaks, and what they know about the BBEG at that point?  And, in this case, does the "or Die" in "Save or Die" mean that you lose the character, or that you have to sit it out until you are restored at the end of the fight?

Because I'm betting that the example is more mythological than you think.

RC


----------



## National Acrobat (Oct 16, 2008)

I don't know if this has been addressed in this thread or not, but does anyone's attitude change when the pcs, who have been given ample clues, warning and hints that they shouldn't do something because it will prove lethal, simply decide to ignore the warnings and do something stupid, which becomes lethality?

My group still plays 1e, and always will, although I personally have played plenty of 3e as well, and I have to say, that even though the gm I have had in 3e took many pains for several encounters that were balanced but could have been lethel without proper preparations, the group as a whole ignored the hints, warnings and what not, convinced that they could overcome, and in several cases, it ended very poorly.

While attached to their characters, they did ultimately concede they had made very poor decisions.

However, they also agreed that they probably would do so again and the dm shouldn't go easy on them because they ignored everything.

I think there comes a time when pc death just is, it just happens, and you can't fudge the dice rolls or be lenient when you have done as much as you can as a gm to move the story forward while presenting a challenging environment.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.



No one is arguing this. But see the bodak example above. 



Raven Crowking said:


> If we discuss SoD from any standpoint where it is assumed that the DM isn't out to kill you, it follows that the DM _wants the players to anticipate the SoD effect_.  In this case, the players always have a plethora of options available to them.  These options don't necessarily involve rolling dice.



And this differs from non-SoD how? You'll always do better if you know what you're coming up against. Fights can be tough or deadly, even without SoD.



Raven Crowking said:


> The mere existence of the block creates possibilities that don'e exist without it.  It becomes the gun on the wall in Act I that is fired before the end of Act V.



And the block _cannot exist_ without SoD? Please explain. The mechanics are different to be sure, but what prevents the inclusion of such a trap?

It has nothing to do with the in-game presence of a deadly effect. It has to do with how said effect is resolved mechanically.



Raven Crowking said:


> You can remove these effects, and still have a game.  But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances.



That doesn't follow at all. Have you tried playing D&D without SoD effects? I have. I've found it doesn't change how players behave at all. They just enjoy knowing they won't lose a character or a fight on a single roll (and remember the context of my argument before you respond to that.)

They don't charge headlong into every battle just because they know there are no SoD effects. Do your players charge headlong into any encounter they know doesn't have SoD? If not, why would expect others to do it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Here's another question:  Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?


----------



## Janx (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> How, exactly, does one keep a baskilisk, a boadak, or a medusa, without anyone knowing it, and without leaving any sign of its existence?




a) DM forgot to add details to dungeon hinting at this
b) cleaning crews (maybe the medusa hates being reminded of her curse, so she has the statues removed)
c) teleports (as some other folks mention)
d) medusa just got there, hasn't started making statues

I would not expect your average GM to pay attention to environmental details to maintain consistency with the monsters in an area and the area itself.  This would require going through the process for each monster of figuring out where it would be, why it would be there, how it would eat, sleep, work, play, etc, and who it was friends with....

It's much easier to roll on the random encounter table for the relevant environment and use the results to place monsters.


I don't have a huge problem with Save or Die effects.  I hate rolling a 1 with my high level PC against such spells.  Those suck.  I think that's the point the anti-SoD's are making.  It sucks starting an encounter with your powerful PC and getting hit with a SoD that you can't possibly fail, and rolling a 1.  All those cool levels were useless.  Maybe in reality there was something I could do, but at that moment, the FEELING OF HELPLESSNESS exists.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am arguing that, in the general case of SoD effects that is being complained about, you have ddddddddddddSoD.



"General case", sure. Certainly this applies much of the time. Perhaps even most of the time.

But the other times are frequent enough that a large number of players complain about it. All of my players, for instance, before I nerfed SoD effects in my games. 

Really, if the DM _always _allows clues to be found about the SoD effect, what's the point? If they're prepared, the effect is irrelevant. If they're not, dire consequences. That's what a "gotcha" effect is. And many players dislike them intensely.

Ultimately, your argument that bad SoD situations are mythological is very dismissive, given the number of posters here who have stated that they dislike SoD. Are they to read your response as "You're just not using your wits, *I *would never fall for that" or "you're just not playing the game properly"? Because that's how it's coming off.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here's another question:  Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless they decide otherwise?



Since I apparently can't pass up answering a dumb question... no. All lava-bathers must die.

The death-lite approach assumes that players won't flaunt their plot-protection. They'll keep the _player_ knowledge separate from their _character's_ knowledge. Meaning the player is free to have their character take ridiculously brave actions, like any good action hero (say like John McClane, or Captain Kirk, or Conan), but they'll _refrain_ from immediately and irrevocably suicidal behavior (say like jumping off the top of the Nakamura Tower without a helicopter to grab hold of or an awning to break their fall, trying to breathe hard vacuum, or skinny-dipping in the aforementioned pool of lava).


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here's another question:  Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?



I doubt it. But that is such a ridiculous misrepresentation of the argument that it probably doesn't require a response.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The death-lite approach assumes that players won't flaunt their plot-protection. They'll keep the _player_ knowledge separate from their _character's_ knowledge. Meaning the player is free to have their character take ridiculously brave actions, like any good action hero (say like John McClane, or Captain Kirk, or Conan), but they'll _refrain_ from immediately and irrevocably suicidal behavior (say like jumping off the top of the Nakamura Tower without a helicopter to grab hold of or an awning to break their fall, trying to breathe hard vacuum, or skinny-dipping in the aforementioned pool of lava).



Yes. This point has been made several times in the thread already. Apparently it bears repeating.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Here's another question: if the players ignore all the clues you provide about a SoD effect, why should they even get a save? Just make it like Fighting Fantasy. "If you choose this, turn to 147". 147: "You are dead."

Why not just doD? Because ultimately, it's only the last "d" that actually causes death.


----------



## FentonGib (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here's another question:  Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?



Hahaha

Yeah that happens a lot in my games... the players often do things like get a dagger and say "I am Conner Macloud of the Clan Macloud... and I am immortal!" and stab themselves with a dagger. They know that they can easily survive 1d4+str mod hp damage even if treated as a coup-de-grace. 

I have had players get annoyed when I rule that a (usually daft) action results in their death because common sense would dictate that there's no way to survive.

I recall in one game putting a shotgun into someone's mouth and pulling the trigger and only scratching him... but a shot to the backside killed him... 

My players know that I won't kill them off pointlessly and randomly, they they know that if they can run or fight, and choose to fight, that if they die then it's their fault and they have to live with it (pun deliberately intended).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here's another question:  Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?




What do you expect for an answer? Well, for the record: No, I am fine with the PCs just dying in there. I might not even care about rolling the 20d6 of damage 3E would suggest. I don't know how Death Flag game would rule such a situation, but maybe the PC would drop unconscious from the gases and heat before he could actually enter the lava.

I am not sure if you fail to see where we agree and where we disagree.

The fundamental problems of "real" save or die effects (like that created by a Bodak or a Medusa, not one created by the fact that the last 2 rounds you took 40 points of damage and have now 5 hit points left and don't try to to heal or run away or do something to avoid the next amout of damage) is that they can be used in an "information vacuum". There are no "safeguards" in the system that ensure that your PC will know of the danger and can protect himself from it. This allows an "abuse" (in the sense of creating unfair or uncontrollable situations for the players) even if is not intended.

No one is advocating that there should be no consequences for bad decisions. 
The point is that there can be decisions that are bad without the players having the possibility to see this. If I ignore the hints of a Medusa, well, I shouldn't be surprised that I get turned to stone. But what if the Medusa just didn't leave any such hints? Was I supposed to open every door with my eyes closed? Or should I have known to cast my Augury or Diviniation spell now instead of for the next door? How should I know this? Even if I knew the Medusa is somewhere around, what can I do, especially if my goal is to find her?

Another point is - the consequence of bad decisions doesn't have to be death, and in some games and for some groups death is an uninteresting consequence. If the players make an error, the characters will have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## FentonGib (Oct 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> the consequence of bad decisions doesn't have to be death, and in some games and for some groups death is an uninteresting consequence. If the players make an error, the characters will have to deal with the consequences.



Agree totally. I often do that to my players when they're playing their characters right and/or make a bad (stupid) decision that should get them killed, but I feel is unfair for whatever reason. I'll leave them crippled, half-dead, petrified or something, but have it POSSIBLE to save them - but then the emphasis usually shifts to "WILL the other players bother saving them?"

It's often interesting how often players abandon each other in these situations because irl they're fed up of some of their decisions (e.g. the "not serious player" who keeps getting the whole group into trouble)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Oct 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Why not just doD?




I prefer CoD?: Cake or Death? Cake please. 

I think 5th has hit upon the really ungratifying part of "Gotcha!" effects. There are too many things that can go wrong and make it not so fun for all involved. You can hand clue after clue to your group and you may think they are the best clues ever given, but your players might not be on the same wavelength that day, miss your clues and dies ignobly. Or like 5th has said, you get the clues and the encounter becomes a non-encounter (oh no! watch out! her snakes might give you a nasty bite!) or if they don't a possible TPK. Swings too far one way or the other. I prefer the way 4E has handled the issue. It creates more tension and gives the party a chance to do something while their comrade slowly turns to stone.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> "General case", sure. Certainly this applies much of the time. Perhaps even most of the time.
> 
> But the other times are frequent enough that a large number of players complain about it. All of my players, for instance, before I nerfed SoD effects in my games.




Not IME, although this may be a difference in our DMing styles.  OTOH, I have noticed that some players (including some DMs!) will complain whether they have good reason to or not.

When 3e was being formed, the WotC survey took in the complaints of lots of gamers.  And they made changes on the basis of those complaints.  There are all kinds of examples, however, where removing the object of the complaint made the game worse, not better.  The most obvious, perhaps, is the potential rammifications of casting certain spells.

It seems to me that 4e is an answer to complaints about 3e.   Grappling too tough for you?  Now you don't have to worry about whether your target is incorporeal or not!  Don't like Vancian casting?  We can get rid of that by making melee classes more Vancian!  Yuck.  



> Really, if the DM _always _allows clues to be found about the SoD effect, what's the point?




Already answered, in detail, upthread.



> Ultimately, your argument that bad SoD situations are mythological is very dismissive, given the number of posters here who have stated that they dislike SoD.




My argument is that bad SoD situations _which are not the fault of bad/lazy DMing_ are _largely_ mythological.



Mallus said:


> Since I apparently can't pass up answering a dumb question... no. All lava-bathers must die.
> 
> The death-lite approach assumes that players won't flaunt their plot-protection.




And what if they don't?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Here's another question: if the players ignore all the clues you provide about a SoD effect, why should they even get a save? Just make it like Fighting Fantasy. "If you choose this, turn to 147". 147: "You are dead."
> 
> Why not just doD? Because ultimately, it's only the last "d" that actually causes death.




IMHO, swimming in lava _*is*_ doD.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with including doD situations in a game.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And what if they don't?



Than you have a misunderstanding in your group, and have to deal with it, as usual. If the group failed communication their respective goals or figure out that the communicated goals clash, they have to find a solution that the game system cannot provide them.

What if you play a Call of Cthhulhu game with the intention of running a high mystery horror game, and one player whips out an ex-soldier equipped with an elephant gun and a shotgun and tries to "solve" all problems with firepower? 

How long do you try to deal with it "in-game" until you talk with the player that you didn't plan for a high-action/violence game, and discuss how the group deals with that?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And what if they don't?



Then you can't use the death-lite approach with that group.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Than you have a misunderstanding in your group, and have to deal with it, as usual. If the group failed communication their respective goals or figure out that the communicated goals clash, they have to find a solution that the game system cannot provide them.




So, IOW, if a system allows for SoD, one set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it, and if a system does not allow for SoD, then another set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it?  Because, if this is the case, then I don't see how the game having/not having SoD is, in fact, the problem.  



> What if you play a Call of Cthhulhu game with the intention of running a high mystery horror game, and one player whips out an ex-soldier equipped with an elephant gun and a shotgun and tries to "solve" all problems with firepower?
> 
> How long do you try to deal with it "in-game" until you talk with the player that you didn't plan for a high-action/violence game, and discuss how the group deals with that?




My basic philosophy in running a game is that the GM sets up the initial parameters of the world, and runs the NPCs, but doesn't tell the players how their characters may react to those initial parameters.  So, I would never discuss it with the group _*as a problem*_ per se, but just keep running the world and see what happens.  

That is the way, IMHO and IME, the most fun games arise.

(And please note that this is different, IMHO, from bringing a Jedi into the game.  I do think that the GM has the right to limit initial player options; this is part of setting the initial parameters of the world.  I do not think that the GM should tell the players how their characters react to the world, or how their characters try to solve problems.)



Mallus said:


> Then you can't use the death-lite approach with that group.




So, basically, if the group understands death-lite you can use it, and if they do not understand death-lite you should not.  This is different from SoD how?  From where I am sitting, the "problems" are not necessarily caused by SoD (or death-lite) mechanics, but by misuse of those mechanics.


RC


P.S.:  Still waiting on those bodak encounter details.


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, basically, if the group understands death-lite you can use it, and if they do not understand death-lite you should not. This is different from SoD how? From where I am sitting, the "problems" are not necessarily caused by SoD (or death-lite) mechanics, but by misuse of those mechanics.




Well, that and the desire to sell people a system that defaults to something closer to what they want.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, basically, if the group understands death-lite you can use it, and if they do not understand death-lite you should not.



Yes. Though "understand" is the wrong word to use here... "agree to" and "prefer" are better choices.



> This is different from SoD how?



I have no idea what you mean.

Death-lite means facing the game's challenges using the same character (or, implicitly, the character of the players choosing).

Death-standard (hey, I coined a new term) means creating a new character each time a character fails a certain kind of in-game challenge.

Both approaches have advantages. Both have drawbacks. They are not, however, identical.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Death-lite means facing the game's challenges using the same character, or character of the players choosing
> 
> Death-standard (hey, I coined a new term) means creating a new character each time a character fails a certain kind of in-game challenge.
> 
> Both approaches have advantages. Both have drawbacks. They are not, however, identical.




This we agree with, although I wouldn't call a game with SoD effects in it "death-standard".  "Death-possible", maybe, is a better term.  And, of course, "death-possible" games don't need SoD effects in them to kill PCs.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD is as much "death-possible" as "SoD", depending upon whether or not the decision points along the way represent real decisions or not.  




EDIT:  Oh, and both styles allow for "facing the game's challenges using the same character, or character of the players choosing".....unless your DM forces pregenerated characters on you.    In a "death-possible" game, though, the player (not the GM or game system) is responsible for ensuring a continued ability to face the game's challenges using the same character, if that is what is desired.

Maybe "guaranteed survival" and "non-guaranteed survival" are better terms overall than "death-lite" or "death-whatever-you-wanna-call-it-but-it-can-happen".


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This we agree with, although I wouldn't call a game with SoD effects in it "death-standard".



Cool. We agree. 



> "Death-possible", maybe, is a better term.



Fine.



> And, of course, "death-possible" games don't need SoD effects in them to kill PCs.



Never said they did. Actually, SoD (and it's even more consonant-ful variants) are irrelevant to my position.  



> EDIT:  Oh, and both styles allow for "facing the game's challenges using the same character, or character of the players choosing".....unless your DM forces pregenerated characters on you.



Fine, fine... that's not what I meant. 



> In a "death-possible" game, though, the player (not the GM or game system) is responsible for ensuring a continued ability to face the game's challenges using the same character, if that is what is desired.



Unless, of course, the player's dice go cold at the wrong time. 



> Maybe "guaranteed survival" and "non-guaranteed survival" are better terms overall than "death-lite" or "death-whatever-you-wanna-call-it-but-it-can-happen".



We could use a term for a kind of game were survival isn't the priority. Perhaps "role-playing"?


----------



## malraux (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> How, exactly, does one keep a baskilisk, a boadak, or a medusa, without anyone knowing it, and without leaving any sign of its existence?




What evidence would be apparent if the BBEG's number 2 were a medusa?  Hats of disguise are relatively cheap, giving a base medusa a +21 to disguise.  So its entirely reasonable that most of the BBEGs henchmen have no idea about it.  Statues, like other bodies, would be removed from hallways and such.  What evidence would you say there would be in such a situation?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, IOW, if a system allows for SoD, one set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it, and if a system does not allow for SoD, then another set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it?  Because, if this is the case, then I don't see how the game having/not having SoD is, in fact, the problem.




Well, in the sense that RPGs have a long history of house rules, you are correct, of course.  

But remember that the logic applies to everything you might like or dislike in your game.  If you are going to dismiss the complaint because it can be done away with by house rules, then you have to dismiss all complaints in the future, including your own.  

It is always best to have a tool designed to do what you want it to do.  If it fails to do the job, it makes sense to discuss how and why it fails.  If you are led to believe that the tool was supposed to do the job, and fails, it is not irrational to think the fault may lie in the tool's design.

You should also consider whether it was a fault in the hands of the tool-user, of course.  

But if you make hammers, and the heads frequently fall off, don't be surprised if many people don't accept that the problem is that they are bad hammer-users.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> We could use a term for a kind of game were survival isn't the priority. Perhaps "role-playing"?




Sure.  D&D (as originally conceived) was a role-playing _*adventure*_ game.  

An adventure is an activity that comprises risky, dangerous and uncertain experiences. The term is more popularly used in reference to physical activities that have some potential for danger, such as skydiving, mountain climbing, sex with multiple partners and extreme sports. The term is broad enough to refer to any enterprise that is potentially fraught with risk, such as a business venture or a major life undertaking. An adventurer is a person who bases their lifestyle or their fortunes on adventurous acts.  (Adventure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)​
or

The adventure genre, in the context of a narrative, is typically applied to works in which the protagonist or other major characters are consistently placed in dangerous situations, and a fictional character who lives by their wits and their skills is often called an adventurer.  (Adventure (genre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia))​
Role-playing games do not have to be adventure games.  They do not have to include dangerous situations or the potential for harm.  Players may or may not want to feel the thrill of risk associated with (fictional) dangerous conditions.  Some who desire to feel the thrill of risk might be content with the "safety net" of having a fictional character take the risks; others are not comfortable with this level of risk (although they want to feel that they are experiencing risk), and want authorial control not only of the fictional character's actions but (to varying degrees) the outcomes of those actions as well.

You can have a role-playing game about folks sitting around playing role-playing games if you want, a role-playing game about deciding what to watch on TV, a role-playing game about mercantile trade with little real risk (many early Traveller games I was in were like this), or a role-playing game where the point is to enter dangerous areas and face dangerous foes...and to have the danger be "real" insofar as it can be when using a fictional character as a surrogate.

Role-playing has nothing to do with the level of risk involved, one way or the other.  I would hate to see that term co-opted to mean a game where risk levels must remain below the threshold of death.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

malraux said:


> What evidence would be apparent if the BBEG's number 2 were a medusa?  Hats of disguise are relatively cheap, giving a base medusa a +21 to disguise.  So its entirely reasonable that most of the BBEGs henchmen have no idea about it.  Statues, like other bodies, would be removed from hallways and such.  What evidence would you say there would be in such a situation?




"Hats of disguise are relatively cheap" is an example of how the 3e design team made changes without understanding why things were as they had been.

But, if you really want me to answer your question, you need to supply more information.  In this world, where do medusae come from?  Why do they turn things into statues?  What do they eat?  What do they want, and how do they go about getting it?  Who is the BBEG?  What does he want, and how does he go about getting it?  Why does he have a medusa as his #2?  How does he protect himself from her?  Why is she willing to be his #2?  What does she get out of it?

Answer those questions, and I can easily come up with plenty of ways to clue the PCs in long before any actual confrontation.  Anticipation of the encounter is the spice that makes the encounter worthwhile, after all.  


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, swimming in lava _*is*_ doD.



Of course it is.



Raven Crowking said:


> There is nothing whatsoever wrong with including doD situations in a game.



My question to you was: given that a good DM always provides clues that a SoD effect is upcoming, why even give the characters saves at all? If they ignore the warnings, they're dead. Simple as that.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Role-playing has nothing to do with the level of risk involved, one way or the other.  I would hate to see that term co-opted to mean a game where risk levels must remain below the threshold of death.



On this we agree. High-death games do not preclude roleplaying any more than low-death games preclude risk and excitement.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> It seems to me that 4e is an answer to complaints about 3e.   Grappling too tough for you?  Now you don't have to worry about whether your target is incorporeal or not!  Don't like Vancian casting?  We can get rid of that by making melee classes more Vancian!  Yuck.



I agree with this to a degree. However, we're addressing a specific point here (SoD), so the overall changes to 4E are hardly relevant.

Even if all other changes made in 4E were bad, that does not mean the changes to SoD were bad.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> They do not have to include dangerous situations or the potential for harm.



Or they can operate like most adventure fiction, which does include dangerous situations without the potential for lasting harm to the protagonists. 



> You can have a role-playing game about folks sitting around playing role-playing games if you want...



Stop that, you're making me miss David Foster Wallace (god rest his soul). 



> I would hate to see that term co-opted to mean a game where risk levels must remain below the threshold of death.



There is no *must*, Grasshopper. Only *can*, *maybe*, if you *prefer* it like that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> My question to you was: given that a good DM always provides clues that a SoD effect is upcoming, why even give the characters saves at all? If they ignore the warnings, they're dead. Simple as that.




There are times within the context of the game that the players may choose to take a calculated risk.  If you remove the random element, you remove this ability.  For example, when facing a medusa, the players may choose to take a calculated risk and fight it in melee (either blindfolded, or trying to avoid meeting its gaze, both of which have attendant risks) or try to defeat it without actually engaging it (through a trap, subterfuge, turning another creature -- perhaps a blind one -- against it, etc.).  If meeting the creature in combat always meant death, then there would be no choice to be made.  Essentially, the element of decision would be rendered meaningless.



Fifth Element said:


> On this we agree. High-death games do not preclude roleplaying any more than low-death games preclude risk and excitement.




Survival-guaranteed games do, by definition, preclude at least one form of risk.

Of course, the survival-guaranteed meme has already been extended to "paralyzed in fight = unfun", so the x-guaranted meme can preclude other forms of risk as well, depending upon how far you take it.

(It should be pointed out here that the "the x-guaranted meme" is present in most survival-not-guaranteed games, because the players recognize that they find certain things distasteful.  "No-rape-of-PCs-guaranteed" is pretty common, even when it is not stated explicitly.  Every group has to decide what consequences they are unwilling to accept; this does affect the risks characters are likely to take, however, because it precludes given consequences as being risked by actions in-game.)


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Essentially, the element of decision would be rendered meaningless.



Similar to situations where you have the thingy ready that counters the monster's SoD effect.



Raven Crowking said:


> Survival-guaranteed games do, by definition, preclude at least one form of risk.



I guess that's why I said "low-death" games, not "no-death games".


----------



## Janx (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "..snip...
> But, if you really want me to answer your question, you need to supply more information.  In this world, where do medusae come from?  Why do they turn things into statues?  What do they eat?  What do they want, and how do they go about getting it?  Who is the BBEG?  What does he want, and how does he go about getting it?  Why does he have a medusa as his #2?  How does he protect himself from her?  Why is she willing to be his #2?  What does she get out of it?
> 
> Answer those questions, and I can easily come up with plenty of ways to clue the PCs in long before any actual confrontation.  Anticipation of the encounter is the spice that makes the encounter worthwhile, after all.
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Even if all other changes made in 4E were bad, that does not mean the changes to SoD were bad.




Not for you, if you're happy with the changes.  

Me, I think that they are nice alternative rules, and it is good to have more than one set of options.  Of course, this requires not using 4e per RAW.



Mallus said:


> Or they can operate like most adventure fiction, which does include dangerous situations without the potential for lasting harm to the protagonists.




From the point of view of the protagonists, there is a potential for lasting harm.  From the point of view of the reader, suspension of disbelief includes a willingness to believe that there is a potential for lasting harm.  Knowing that there can be no lasting harm when you are playing the part of the protagonist, though, steps outside of that point of view.

And, in adventure fiction, there certainly is a potential for lasting harm to the protagonists.  Not all REH protagonists survive their stories, for example.  In The Princess Bride, Wesley is only brought back to life temporarily, and Inigo's wound reopens.  



> There is no *must*, Grasshopper. Only *can*, *maybe*, if you *prefer* it like that.




If the player chooses when the character dies, there is no risk of death.  There may be death, but no risk associated with it.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, the survival-guaranteed meme has already been extended to "paralyzed in fight = unfun", so the x-guaranted meme can preclude other forms of risk as well, depending upon how far you take it.



Stop right there, Mr. Slippery-Slope. Death-lite means not having to change your in-game avatar (if you don't want to). That's all.

It has nothing to do with more technical critiques of play elements.


----------



## malraux (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Answer those questions, and I can easily come up with plenty of ways to clue the PCs in long before any actual confrontation.  Anticipation of the encounter is the spice that makes the encounter worthwhile, after all.
> 
> 
> RC




I'll agree that there are a multitude of ways the PCs might be informed.  The issue is that there is no guarantee that the PCs will be informed.  SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around and a bad DM will relish.  But they are also the kind of thing less experienced DM can easily screw up.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2008)

Delta said:


> Well, I guess I can respect your different opinion about D&D, but I must say that you're looking for a game very unlike poker, then. Part of poker is the specific goal of someone hiding their "monster hand" and not revealing it until the moment that they knock you out of the game. Someone having a "tell" and clueing you into that would be seen as a major failing, when they get such a "monster hand".




My argument wasn't that D&D and Poker are the same game. What I was trying to show as the main point was how a card like that would effect the game.

It's not that SoD are inherently bad, it's more that they stick way out in left field compaired to the design of the rest of the game.

Sure in Poker there are the moments when you think you've done everything right, but you still loose, but a "fold now" card is still much different then the rest of the design of the game.  You can't really plan for it, because either you don't get it, or you do. You have to continue playing as normal because really what's your defense? Fold anyway on the off chance you'll get dealt the card that tells you to do so? You'd end up having to fold every hand you're dealt. It ends up being something you just hope doesn't get dealt into your hand.

And that's how I see SoD. Even if you are armed with the knowledge that there is a SoD ahead (You decoded the GMs hints that it's there, or used a divination spell to deduce such facts) how does it change things?

You can either face it and just hope it doesn't get you like you would the fold now card, or you can avoid the threat completely.

Which again, is why I prefer SSoD effects. They kind of change the card from fold now, into if you don't have any pairs in your hand, you must fold. 

SSoD doesn't eliminate your ability to find other ways to deal with the problem. In fact they might be the safest option available. 

It just means now it effects the math and percentages instead of existing as something along side of it.

What it boils down to is how it effects the threat level of a foe. If the game is designed along the concept of A character of Level X should have enough resources to stand against a threat of level X (dice rolling well) things like SoD throw that math off completely.

They ignore HP, which is a significant part of what makes up the staying power of a level X character.

Where does one put that on the power level match up?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not for you, if you're happy with the changes.



You know I was arguing from a logical standpoint. Each rule change must be judged, you can't say "I think 80% of the changes are bad, therefore all of the changes are bad." It doesn't hold any weight in an argument.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> From the point of view of the reader, suspension of disbelief includes a willingness to believe that there is a potential for lasting harm.



Of course...and this same suspension of disbelief works for the players in a death-lite game. 



> Knowing that there can be no lasting harm when you are playing the part of the protagonist, though, steps outside of that point of view.



I'd say for people who prefer death-lite game, this "break" of POV offers no serious impediment to enjoying the game. The game is full of activities that pull you out of your character (start with "rolling dice"). They are part of the game. 



> And, in adventure fiction, there certainly is a potential for lasting harm to the protagonists.



Insert the word "serial" before the words "adventure fiction". And stop being so literal. You know I'm right about this...


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Answer those questions, and I can easily come up with plenty of ways to clue the PCs in long before any actual confrontation.  Anticipation of the encounter is the spice that makes the encounter worthwhile, after all.



What about random encounters? Are DMs expected to come up with so much detail on a random encounter? How does your "good DMs prevent SoD from sucking by providing information" mesh with random encounter rules?


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here's another question:  Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?




HPs assume the character is doing everything in his/her power to not die. If the lava does not kill a PC it doesn't mean the PC can survive bathing in lava. It means the character did something to somehow avoid actually ending up bathing in the lava... (Maybe he ducked and covered...)

If a player decides to sit in the lava bathtub style, he's essentially choosing to not attempt to not die. It would be the same as a player saying "I kill myself" or "I fail my save."


----------



## Nyaricus (Oct 16, 2008)

Frodo died. Big Deal.

----------------
Now playing: Belphegor - Justine: Soaked in Blood
via FoxyTunes


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Umbran said:


> But remember that the logic applies to everything you might like or dislike in your game.  If you are going to dismiss the complaint because it can be done away with by house rules, then you have to dismiss all complaints in the future, including your own.




Um.....Not what I was saying at all.

I dismissed the complaint because it relies upon the idea that "SoD" is a bad tool, and then assumes that based upon a playstyle preference.  What I was attempting to do is demonstrate the faults in the logic that lead to "SoD = bad tool" in the first place.

If you go back upthread, you will see that I have been willing to concede from the begining that "survival-guaranteed" games are completely fine by me, so long as you don't attempt to take away my "survival-not-guaranteed" game to get what you want.

I am arguing that there is nothing inherently problematical in character death, not that some people don't like it.  



Janx said:


> I think RC examines his encounters and adds fluff and explanation for how things got there.
> 
> I do not think every DM does this.
> 
> ...




I note that there is a difference between "statblock workload" (which 3e has in spades) and "setting up the fluff" workload, which, IMHO, must be completed in order to run a good game.....even if you are able to complete it and hold it in your head.  

When people complain about the workload of 3e, I don't think that they are complaining about how hard it is to think about the circumstances that lead to their adventure setting being the way it is.  In fact, doing so drastically decreases the actual workload you must do.



Mallus said:


> Stop right there, Mr. Slippery-Slope. Death-lite means not having to change your in-game avatar (if you don't want to). That's all.
> 
> It has nothing to do with more technical critiques of play elements.




There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed.  It is, IMHO, a slippery slope, and one that 4e is sliding down.



malraux said:


> I'll agree that there are a multitude of ways the PCs might be informed.  The issue is that there is no guarantee that the PCs will be informed.  SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around and a bad DM will relish.  But they are also the kind of thing less experienced DM can easily screw up.




Rather than saying SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around, I would say that SoD provide a toolset for a skilled DM that, when removed, damages the game.  As I said upthread, at greater length & with examples.



Fifth Element said:


> You know I was arguing from a logical standpoint. Each rule change must be judged, you can't say "I think 80% of the changes are bad, therefore all of the changes are bad." It doesn't hold any weight in an argument.




Agreed.  Nor do I think 100% of the changes are bad.



Mallus said:


> Of course...and this same suspension of disbelief works for the players in a death-lite game.




It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk. 



> Insert the word "serial" before the words "adventure fiction". And stop being so literal. You know I'm right about this...




Even in serial adventure fiction, major characters can die.

And, as has been pointed out upthread, the game format means that the stories are what arises from setup + decisions + outcomes of those decisions.  We are not writing fiction.  You can write fiction about your game, and you can game within a fictitious environment, but the minute you begin to plan the outcome prior to the decisions that lead there, you enter a zone where it is questionable whether or not what you are doing is actually a game, or rather some other form of recreational activity.



Nyaricus said:


> Frodo died. Big Deal.




Good to see you, Nyaricus!  

Frodo dying in the _novel_ would have been a big deal.  Frodo dying in an rpg?  Not so much.  I think most people agree that a DM who bases the whole campaign upon the decisions and/or survival of one out of nine PCs (or eight PCs if you say Gandalf was an NPC) needs some serious retraining.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> What about random encounters? Are DMs expected to come up with so much detail on a random encounter? How does your "good DMs prevent SoD from sucking by providing information" mesh with random encounter rules?




Remember that the tables in the 1e DMG were intended as aids to stocking dungeons, and as aids for devising appropriate random encounter tables for specific locations.  If you place a medusa in your encounter table, it is a creature who is in the area.  It might have a lair, be known to other monsters, have left some orc statues about, etc., that are part of the design of the complex itself.



Scribble said:


> HPs assume the character is doing everything in his/her power to not die. If the lava does not kill a PC it doesn't mean the PC can survive bathing in lava. It means the character did something to somehow avoid actually ending up bathing in the lava... (Maybe he ducked and covered...)
> 
> If a player decides to sit in the lava bathtub style, he's essentially choosing to not attempt to not die. It would be the same as a player saying "I kill myself" or "I fail my save."




I agree.  Exactly the same difference between trying to dodge a knife thrust (1d4 hp) and intentionally cramming a knife in your guts (coup de grace, if you are lucky).  However, a game that would allow the _character_ to do these things and automatically survive unless the _player_ decided otherwise is, frankly, too far out there for me.  


RC


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree.  Exactly the same difference between trying to dodge a knife thrust (1d4 hp) and intentionally cramming a knife in your guts (coup de grace, if you are lucky).  However, a game that would allow the _character_ to do these things and automatically survive unless the [iplayer[/i] decided otherwise is, frankly, too far out there for me.




Well in a way D&D then has always been too far out there for you. 

The difference in this case is only in how you narrate what you're doing.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed.



So you don't recognize the difference between a) the character being temporarily impaired and b) the character being removed from the game and replaced with another character? Okay. 

Hint: in the case of a) the player gets to keep playing the same character!



> It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk.



Don't try to cloud the issue with nonsense sentences, RC. In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience _pretends_ that Bond is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger. In a death-lite campaign, a player _pretends_ their character is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger.  



> Even in serial adventure fiction, major characters can die.



The point is they usually don't. 



> You can write fiction about your game, and you can game within a fictitious environment, but the minute you begin to plan the outcome prior to the decisions that lead there, you enter a zone where it is questionable whether or not what you are doing is actually a game, or rather some other form of recreational activity.



Survival is only one kind of victory condition. So long as other victory conditions exists (with the possibility of failure, contingent on player action/skills ) then you're still playing a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Well in a way D&D then has always been too far out there for you.




Not so.  D&D, thankfully, hasn't embraced "death flag" mechanics.



Mallus said:


> So you don't recognize the difference between a) the character being temporarily impaired and b) the character being removed from the game and replaced with another character? Okay.




"There is, IMHO, no difference between *preferring* survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed" =/= "There is, IMHO, no difference *between* survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed."



> Don't try to cloud the issue with nonsense sentences, RC.




Don't try to cloud the issue with ad hominem attacks.



> In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience _pretends_ that Bond is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger. In a death-lite campaign, a player _pretends_ their character is in actual (well, actual-fictional) danger.




In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience cannot predetermine the outcome, and is not in control of Bond's actions.   The audience knows that there is a limit to what can happen to Bond.  The audience doesn't, however, want to believe that Bond knows that he is in no real danger.  The fact that the audience cannot control Bond's actions heightens the experience -- the script can highlight dangers we can see but Bond cannot, so that we can anticipate future problems for our hero.

Now, let us say that you are in an RPG where you are playing Bond.  The risks you are likely to take are based not only upon what you know of Bond's fictional world (where the dangers are real), but also upon the mechanics of the game you are playing.  If, in those mechanics, the dangers are real, then it is easy to suspend disbelief.  If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take.  _It becomes inherently harder to suspend disbelief, because "good play" within the context of the game rules doesn't support your doing so._ 

It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk.  That isn't a nonsense statement.  That is tautological fact.



> Survival is only one kind of victory condition. So long as other victory conditions exists (with the possibility of failure, contingent on player action/skills ) then you're still playing a game.




Sure.  Potentially even one with almost the same level of risk (risk being inversely proportionate to how much the outcome is preplanned).  Just not one with the same risks.


RC


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed. It is, IMHO, a slippery slope, and one that 4e is sliding down.




Well, there's the difference that people actually have a preference for it, for one.

There's also the fact that 'survival-guaranteed' isn't even really the default in 4E. If we are on that slippery slope, somebody's poured syrup all over it.


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Now, let us say that you are in an RPG where you are playing Bond. The risks you are likely to take are based not only upon what you know of Bond's fictional world (where the dangers are real), but also upon the mechanics of the game you are playing. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are real, then it is easy to suspend disbelief. If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take. _It becomes inherently harder to suspend disbelief, because "good play" within the context of the game rules doesn't support your doing so._




Dubious. You're talking about _James Bond_. If the game does anything at all well, it _ought_ to be encouraging me to take risks. Otherwise, I'm failing to take risks that I otherwise would take, because _I'm frikkin' James Bond_.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not so.  D&D, thankfully, hasn't embraced "death flag" mechanics.




When did I say anything about death flag mechanics?

A Dagger does 1d4 damage. Technically by the rules if I cram a dagger into myself it will do 1d4 damage. If I have 15 HP it won't kill me. I've automatically avoided death. 

For it to make sense, you need to not do things that don't make sense. This has always been the case in D&D.

So if a system that allows you to avoid dying from things that should kill you is too much for you, then D&D has always in some way been too much for you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> Well, there's the difference that people actually have a preference for it, for one.




If you really believe that no one has a preference for a game in which they are not paralyzed during combat, you certainly disagree with at least one WotC article that specifically called it "unfun".  Likewise rust monsters and sunder.  Someone, obviously, has a preference for a game in which equipment cannot be destroyed.



> If we are on that slippery slope, somebody's poured syrup all over it.




There is a difference between being at the top of the slide and being at the bottom.  Not being at the bottom yet doesn't mean that you're not at the top.



Lacyon said:


> Dubious. You're talking about _James Bond_. If the game does anything at all well, it _ought_ to be encouraging me to take risks. Otherwise, I'm failing to take risks that I otherwise would take, because _I'm frikkin' James Bond_.




One of the things that the more recent movie captured well, and the Sean Connery films also captured well, IMHO, is that Bond doesn't expect to come back.  The reason Bond doesn't worry about his longterm health or relationships is that he doesn't expect there to be a long term.  Likewise, the reason Bond never moves on Moneypenny is because he really does care for her, and he cannot be there for her.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Bond takes less risks in the average Bond movie than PCs take in the average D&D adventure, BTW, even though the PCs know that death is a real risk.

Finally, let's look at Conan.  _He's frikkin' Conan._  Yet one of the first things REH tells us about Conan is that he is dead.  He died so long ago that his bones are now dust.  He is no less mortal than us.  All of his escapades eventually amount to nothing, and Conan is subject to great melancholies because he knows it.

REH was also fond of the story told from the POV of a reincarnation of the hero, so that the hero can die at the end, despite his victory (or, in a few cases, lack thereof).  In fact, some of the REH stories can seem like he is writing about a series of characters, each run by the same player.  "I was X, and yet I was not X.  I could dimly remember the story of X's life." (Not an actual quote!)

Moorcock might be known for the "Eternal Champion", but REH beat him to the concept (if not the term) by a long shot.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> When did I say anything about death flag mechanics?
> 
> A Dagger does 1d4 damage. Technically by the rules if I cram a dagger into myself it will do 1d4 damage. If I have 15 HP it won't kill me. I've automatically avoided death.




Nah.  D&D 1e was explicit that if it didn't make sense, the DM didn't have to go with the roll.

BTW, I just noticed your sig.  Congrats on getting married!


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "There is, IMHO, no difference between *preferring* survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed" =/= "There is, IMHO, no difference *between* survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed."



Okay. But if you recognize the sizable difference between a) and b) then surely can can see the reasons for preferring a) over b).  



> Don't try to cloud the issue with ad hominem attacks.



Sorry, I couldn't resist. Your phrasing gave me a bit of a headache. 



> In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience cannot predetermine the outcome, and is not in control of Bond's actions.



No they aren't... but that's not relevant. 



> The audience knows that there is a limit to what can happen to Bond.



Yes. He'll not only survive, he'll succeed (though he'll probably take a few lumps and a girl --might-- get killed). 



> The audience doesn't, however, want to believe that Bond knows that he is in no real danger.



I doubt most audience members ever think about that. They're too busy suspending their own disbelief enough in order to find Bond's hi-jinks exciting to worry whether 007 recognizes his own plot-immunity.

That is, until Charlie Kaufman writes the next Bond movie, which is all about Bond becoming impotent after realizing he's a fictional character who's never in any real danger. Let's call it "Shaken, not Stirring".  



> If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take.



Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that. 



> Just not one with the same risks.



Let's end on a high note. Agreed. As I've said before, death-lite is not without it's drawbacks, and to some gamers, those drawbacks are completely unacceptable.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Going back to a question that has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer yet:

Why even have a Save for Save or Die powers? If the only responsible/fair use for them is providing ways for the players to predict the risk and prepare a failure-safe counter-measure, why do we still have a Save at all? 
Is it a mechanic that is there to give "bad" players a chance? 
Is it to reward system mastery for players that ensures that their Saves are "unbeatable" or that they never have to make the save in question (like for example casting a permanent Death Ward on themselves, or having a contingency spell prepared to cover Petrification and Death Effects?)

The latter would certainly make sense with 3E that rewarded system mastery by offering "powerful" options alongside weak options. But do we really want to reward system mastery at all in an ideal version of D&D?


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  D&D 1e was explicit that if it didn't make sense, the DM didn't have to go with the roll.




There's that narration thing again. What makes sense to one person might not make sense to others. By the rules a character can survive a dagger attack. You're left to your own devices to determine where you want the rules to bow out.

It does not specify the dagger only does 1d4 damage when you're not attacking yourself. 

If you've chosen to interpret attacking yourself as instant death, that's fine. But nothing in the rules prevents it from being equally valid to choose to survive. (Since you have enough HP to take the damage.)




> BTW, I just noticed your sig.  Congrats on getting married!




Thanks!


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is a difference between being at the top of the slide and being at the bottom. Not being at the bottom yet doesn't mean that you're not at the top.




Death is still likely or guaranteed if you pick a fight with an opponent (or hazard, or what have you) that outmatches you.

There is a great deal of tools you can use to determine when an opponent (or hazard, or what have you) outclasses a group of PCs.

There's not, to my awareness, anything indicating that such opponents cannot and should not occasionally threaten PCs.

It's more like being aware that a slide exists.

PS: Before this goes on much longer, I'd like to say thanks, RC. This discussion has been a really good one I think, and some of your larger posts have really helped me to see some areas where I might be able to improve my games. We have our disagreements, but hashing them out has helped me. I hope you get something out of it too


----------



## Delta (Oct 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> And that's how I see SoD. Even if you are armed with the knowledge that there is a SoD ahead (You decoded the GMs hints that it's there, or used a divination spell to deduce such facts) how does it change things?
> 
> ... Where does one put that on the power level match up?




Largely in the realm of player-skill (see the "challenge the players thread"). Which lots of us old-schoolers (and old new-schoolers that I introduce the game to) prefer.

- Gaze-turns-to-stone? Close your eyes or get a mirror.
- Charming song? Plug your ears or counter-song.
- Finger of death? Go craft a scarab of protection.
- Other? Get a rogue to backstab 'em before they can act.

Etc., etc.

(Again, a "fold now" card misses the analogy of SOD pretty badly, and you're not addressing that, but whatever.)


----------



## Delta (Oct 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Going back to a question that has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer yet: Why even have a Save for Save or Die powers?




For this you have to go back to the origins of D&D, and really why there are saves in the first place. Answer: So even when everything goes wrong, your hero still has a chance to survive. But, you don't get to choose when. It could happen at any time, so actual risk is in the picture of the actual life-or-death encounter. It's a gift that you look to the dice to give you. It's a "happy little accident", and that's what makes it a game (and not a story).

See explanation on saves in 1E DMG.


----------



## AndrewRogue (Oct 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> Largely in the realm of player-skill (see the "challenge the players thread"). Which lots of us old-schoolers (and old new-schoolers that I introduce the game to) prefer.
> 
> - Gaze-turns-to-stone? Close your eyes or get a mirror.
> - Charming song? Plug your ears or counter-song.
> ...




But those aren't really player challenges at this point (its not like the answers are particularly clever or unexpected anymore, and, besides, they can also easily be dealt with in game  means as well), and, again, asks the question of why bother with the save part. It essentially amounts to a checklist. Either you breeze through the difficult part of the fight, or you get horribly maimed.

Furthermore (and I realize this is all a taste thing, so keep in mind that this is all IMO type stuff) it furthers a very dull, checklist type of gameplay. Do you have tool X to negate monster ID Y? If yes, continue, if no, game over. Hell, at high levels in 3.X, it gets particularly obnoxious and basically requires arms racing unless you are specifically ignoring a very prominent part in the game.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Now, let us say that you are in an RPG where you are playing Bond.  The risks you are likely to take are based not only upon what you know of Bond's fictional world (where the dangers are real), but also upon the mechanics of the game you are playing.  If, in those mechanics, the dangers are real, then it is easy to suspend disbelief.  If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take.  _It becomes inherently harder to suspend disbelief, because "good play" within the context of the game rules doesn't support your doing so._



Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should encourage the players to have their PCs take outlandish risk. Death flag mechanics presumably would encourage this. (This would be an example of the use of the death flag to support high-concept simulationist play.)


----------



## pemerton (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You can remove these effects, and still have a game.  But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances.  That is a real loss, IMHO.



Well, to the extent that this is true, there is no loss for those play groups who prefer the game to consist of encounters rather than exploration. 4e is clearly aimed at such groups.



Raven Crowking said:


> And it is a loss based upon the idea that the player believes that there is nothing he could do, which, assuming the DM isn't either out to kill you or incompetent, is false.



I tend to think that it is a change (not a loss) based upon the assumption that the players prefer encounters to exploration. If you are a player for whom this assumption does not hold, you may not like 4e.



Raven Crowking said:


> I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.





Raven Crowking said:


> I don't think that the randomness needs to be temprered only through game mechanics.  Part of good play, in the old school sense anyway, is to temper randomness through the choices that you make.



This is a huge part of 4e. It's just that 4e locates this decision-making within the context of an encounter, rather than as part of the prelude to the encounter (the element of play that the 4e rulebooks call "exploration").

In short, 4e's shift of the locus of play from exploration to encounter (the degree of this shift I think may be highly variable from group to group - most 3E play that I'm aware of, for example, seems to focus on the encounter, and hence to find SoD mechanics problematic) does not alter the balance of player choice versus dice rolling in any obvious fashion.



Raven Crowking said:


> I dismissed the complaint because it relies upon the idea that "SoD" is a bad tool, and then assumes that based upon a playstyle preference.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am arguing that there is nothing inherently problematical in character death, not that some people don't like it.



I'm not sure what the criteria are for "inherently problematical". The problem with SoD is that it doesn't work well in a game which takes the locus of play to be the encounter rather than exploration. This is what most 3E play defaults to, as far as I can tell (and is the focus of play in the 3E rulebooks) - for example, compare any WoTC module to a classic module like C2 or the S series, and you can see the increased emphasis on encounters over exploration. 4e is quite explicit in the rulebooks that play is primarily about (combat and non-combat) encounters.

_Given this playstyle_, which is now - and probably has been for 1 or 2 decades - the default playstyle for D&D - SoD is a bad tool. This has nothing to do with whether or not player choices should matter. It has everything to do with whether players want to make those choices in the context of encounters, or in the context of exploration.



Raven Crowking said:


> However, a game that would allow the _character_ to do these things and automatically survive unless the _player_ decided otherwise is, frankly, too far out there for me.



So is it just a matter of playstyle preference?



Raven Crowking said:


> Rather than saying SoDs are an issue a skilled DM can work around, I would say that SoD provide a toolset for a skilled DM that, when removed, damages the game.



Is this "inherently problematical" damage? Or just playstyle-relative damage? Removing SoD prevents a certain sort of play that some players (especially a certain sub-set of 1st-ed AD&D players) enjoy. It enhances a different sort of play. This is largely zero-sum, and WoTC have taken a punt on where the majority of their customers' preferences lie.

If your contention is, though, that there is something inherently unskilled about GMing or playing in a death flag game, I think that's a little uncalled for.



Raven Crowking said:


> We are not writing fiction.  You can write fiction about your game, and you can game within a fictitious environment, but the minute you begin to plan the outcome prior to the decisions that lead there, you enter a zone where it is questionable whether or not what you are doing is actually a game, or rather some other form of recreational activity.



Ah. Your contention is the RPGs with death flag mechanics are not actually games. Well, perhaps on one (somewhat narrow) meaning of that word they are not - Ron Edwards did distinguish "gamism" as one approach to RPGing, and death flag mechanics would be more often associated either with narrativist or with high-concept/genre simulationist play. But as Wittgenstein famously pointed out in the Philosophical Investigations not all games involve competition or winning and losing in the way you seem to be assuming. In this broader sense I don't see why death-flag RPGing should not qualify as gaming.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> if the DM isn't communicating with his players well, is there any set of rules that will save them?





malraux said:


> Can I also point out that its odd to assume that its ok for the DM not to play certain monsters to the fullest (ie, that the BBEG wouldn't capture a bodak or basilisk to drop on intruders, or hire a medusa as guard but not give hints of such things so that adventurers would find out) but that its inconceivable to move such meta-rules out into the open with the no deaths rule.



As Malraux points out, there are at least two ways of communicating: ingame, and metagame. Metagame is typically easier. It's no surprise that 4e - a game expressly designed to reduce the preparation burden on GMs - has opted for metagame communication of risks.



Raven Crowking said:


> From the point of view of the protagonists, there is a potential for lasting harm.  From the point of view of the reader, suspension of disbelief includes a willingness to believe that there is a potential for lasting harm.  Knowing that there can be no lasting harm when you are playing the part of the protagonist, though, steps outside of that point of view.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the player chooses when the character dies, there is no risk of death.  There may be death, but no risk associated with it.



The second paragraph runs together risk in the real world with risk in the gameworld. It goes without saying that in "death flag" play the players do not run these things together. That is, they are happy to "step outside of the point of view" of their PC. "Death flag" play is metagame-heavy play.



Mallus said:


> I'd say for people who prefer death-lite game, this "break" of POV offers no serious impediment to enjoying the game. The game is full of activities that pull you out of your character (start with "rolling dice"). They are part of the game.



Exactly.



Raven Crowking said:


> The audience doesn't, however, want to believe that Bond knows that he is in no real danger.



And likewise the players don't want to believe that the PCs know they are in no real danger. Luckily, the players can easily bring about this result, because they get to determine (through the standard means that roleplayers use) what the PCs do and don't believe. And they can choose not to have their PCs break the fourth wall.



Raven Crowking said:


> It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk.





Raven Crowking said:


> It is inherently far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when your character actually faces potential risk.  That isn't a nonsense statement.  That is tautological fact.



And death flag mechanics don't remove the tautology - the PC faces risks in the gameworld, but the mechanics of the game mean that those risks are never realised unless a certain metagame constraint is satisfied (ie the player raises the death flag).

But I assume that you really means something like "It is far, far easier to suspend your disbelief about potential risk to your character when the risk that your character faces in the gameworld is actually modelled by some randomness in the real world." And this is an empirical claim, not a tautology. What evidence supports it? As far as I know a lot of people are playing with death flag and similar mechanics and do not find it hard to play their PCs without breaking the fourth wall. It is no different from any other time that a player knows something that his/her PC does not.



Raven Crowking said:


> Here's another question:  Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?



I don't know. But in the typical "death flag" game it wouldn't come up, just the same as in the typical 1st ed AD&D game the player of the high-level fighter won't deliberately flaunt the wackiness of the hit point rules by having his/her PC take head-first dives of 100' cliffs for fun.

"Death flag" mechanics, like any other set of RPG mechanics, presuppose that they are being used for a certain purpose and that the players won't set out to break them by turning them to another purpose for which they don't work.



Raven Crowking said:


> There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed.



This is an entirely empirical matter. It depends upon such considerations as what motivates players to enjoy "death flag" mechanics and what options exist in the game for a player whose PC is paralysed. I don't find it very hard to imagine a death flag game in which paralysis of PCs is possible. To work well, however, it would probably have to be the case that the paralysis was only temporary _in real life_, which would mean either that it lasts only briefly in the gameworld also, or else that there is some way of accelerating the gameworld to the point at which the paralysis is lifted.

If the real question is "Does thinking about the death flag make us wonder whether other deprotagonising mechanics should also be dropped from the game?" then the answer is Yes. But paralysis need not be a deprotagonising mechanic, depending how it is handled.


----------



## Delta (Oct 17, 2008)

AndrewRogue said:


> But those aren't really player challenges at this point (its not like the answers are particularly clever or unexpected anymore, and, besides, they can also easily be dealt with in game means as well), and, again, asks the question of why bother with the save part. It essentially amounts to a checklist. Either you breeze through the difficult part of the fight, or you get horribly maimed.




That's probably because they're just the first few things I could think of. (Remember, Scribble was asserting that _nothing could be done_ about SOD, even if known in advance. I disagree -- sounds like you concur.) 

Furthermore, the new players I introduce to Classic D&D _do_ find them to be clever and challenging also make sense to them. It's better than some arcane power vs. power interaction. 

I think that one of the worst things that could happen is for D&D to evolve to cater only to jaded hyper-experts of the game. Unfortunately, I do believe that's exactly what's happened at WOTC.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> if the DM isn't communicating with his players well, is there any set of rules that will save them?



If you ask this, why do you bring up "lava bathing" scenarios as a point against Death Flag mechanics? The same applies here - if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> Largely in the realm of player-skill (see the "challenge the players thread"). Which lots of us old-schoolers (and old new-schoolers that I introduce the game to) prefer.
> 
> - Gaze-turns-to-stone? Close your eyes or get a mirror.
> - Charming song? Plug your ears or counter-song.
> ...



The key is to have these counter-measures in place, and make the Save or Die effect irrelevant. 



Delta said:


> For this you have to go back to the origins of D&D, and really why there are saves in the first place. Answer: So even when everything goes wrong, your hero still has a chance to survive. But, you don't get to choose when. It could happen at any time, so actual risk is in the picture of the actual life-or-death encounter. It's a gift that you look to the dice to give you. It's a "happy little accident", and that's what makes it a game (and not a story).
> 
> See explanation on saves in 1E DMG.




Therefore, the Save aspect is strictly seen unnecessary and just a boon for those that weren't smart enough to figure the counter-measure out. But it has an unfortunate side effect: It might create the belief that the Save is all that you need to care about, both as the DM and the player. And that is something that seemed to have happened in 3E. Save or Die effects can easily happen - enemy spellcasters have enough spell slots and spells known that they could always carry a save or die spell around. The attempted "counter" is that you can greatly affect your saving throw chance. Unfortunately, this just makes the experience of simply rolling low a lot more bitter - there is nothing you could have reasonably done to prepare yourself against the enemy with SoD and all comes down to luck. Unless you want to cast a divination spell for every encounter and rest after each encounter (or at least once all divinations and counter-spells are cast)

If we go back before 3E, the situation might have been better. The "encounter" focus of the game wasn't there yet, and probably few would have used Save or Die effects without the warning signs that at least a clever player should be able to figure out. But there, Saves aren't really needed, because smart play doesn't want you to a save at all - you already failed at that point, and the death or survival of your PC is basically a formality. 

So, after this thread, I would say the problem is not as simple as "how many rolls till I die or survive?", but it is about the decisions that lead you to your death. And it also matters about how we set the context for a decision making process.

At least since 3E, the decision making process is mostly seen per encounter, not per session. So any talk about ample warning should let you avoid the effects are fine and dandy, but don't work in the encounter-context. The warning would have to come in the encounter, not later.



> I think that one of the worst things that could happen is for D&D to evolve to cater only to jaded hyper-experts of the game. Unfortunately, I do believe that's exactly what's happened at WOTC.



I wouldn't worry too much about this. I think it has less to do with "hyper-experts" or experience at all, but just different play styles. Some people might even enjoy both - but a system can affect which play style work better (and I dare say). 

Also note - if you wanted a (Save or) Die effect in a 4E game, you could do that. Again, it requires the necessary communication, but if you wanted, you could create a scenario in where the PCs can learn that if they are not prepared, they will just die. Part of the communication that still follows the 4E spirit might be that you tell them when they are not adequately prepared. If they ignore your warning them - well, let's just say this is a nice chance to try a different character concept then. Maybe a non-suicidal one this time?


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 17, 2008)

Sorry 'bout this, but I can't resist:

"Save, save, save or die
gently roll the dice
merrily merrily merrily killing me
that's not very nice"

And I have a game-wide Death Flag.  It's called my DM screen, and it's up every session.  

If I as player know I can't be killed then I know that I as player *will* have my characters do riskier things than they otherwise might.

As for those worried about the death spiral (example a few pages back was of a fighter who died, came back one level down, was then at greater risk of dying again to thus become two levels down, etc.), fear not: if things are going according to plan, there'll be enough death to go around that the fighter won't be far behind for long.  (that said, I *far* prefer 1e's Con-loss mechanic, if only because levels in my game are hard to come by)

Someone way upthread said something like "This isn't hockey.  There's no need for a penalty box."  Would you believe that on my board there's a small rectangle chalked out that's often referred to as - wait for it - a penalty box!  If a character's fate is unknown due to being captured, wandering off, etc., the character piece goes in the box until its fate is determined later. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 17, 2008)

Eric Tolle said:


> 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.
> 
> 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?



I consider the party as a whole, and the game as a whole, to be more important than any one character within it...and that includes yours.







> Who's saying that?  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.
> 
> Of course if you have a tendency to throw boring adventures at me, especially if it's for no good reason than it fits the story you want to tell, then that's another problem all on it's own.  You'd better just give up the damn DM Manual and let me drive.



If the games you play in are all about you to the extent shown by this post I'm quoting, you can drive all you like but I'll take the next bus.

Lanefan


----------



## cougent (Oct 17, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> Sorry 'bout this, but I can't resist:
> 
> "Save, save, save or die
> gently roll the dice
> ...



THIS mostly.

I have had players that were risk takers WITH SoD firmly in place, and sometimes it paid off for them and sometimes it did not.  Take away SoD and they escalate on the risk factor 10 fold!  Your players may not, but some/most of mine would.

There is also a flip side that seems to have gotten lost here somewhere also, for my group some of the most recounted fond memory stories are from MAKING that SoD save.  Beating the incredible odds, rolling a 5 when you "only" had to make a 12 and being damn thankful for that +7 bonus.  Those have been some of the BEST moments of our games, and I don't think any of my players would even remotely consider trading those moments away for "No SoD situations" even if they got back the (rare) times when they did fail and died.

IMNSHO, You simply cannot have the big massive highs without at least the risk of the devastating lows.  As a DM you can make the SoD's rare, or even fudge them in the players favor on occasion, but to totally eliminate them, I find that unacceptable.  As a player, (and one who likes the tables in Vegas) I want that risk, even if it means I have to go roll up a new PC because of it; because the flip side is awesome.

BTW:  I survived the Tomb of Horrors with 1 PC, barely, but I can claim that... can you? [Not a literal challenge to anyone, but an example of the joy of beating the SoD]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Okay. But if you recognize the sizable difference between a) and b) then surely can can see the reasons for preferring a) over b).




Hardly.  The difference is sizeable, perhaps, but it is easier (IMHO) to believe in a universe without monsters that can paralyze human-sized prey than to believe in a universe where you don't die unless you really, really want to.  It is easier to suspend disbelief in the paralysis-proof game than the death-proof one.



> No they aren't... but that's not relevant.




We disagree on that point.



> Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that.




Then why have dice or mechanics?  Why not just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters?

Clearly it is more complicated than that.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Going back to a question that has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer yet:
> 
> Why even have a Save for Save or Die powers?




The answer I gave is upthread.



Lacyon said:


> It's more like being aware that a slide exists.




Sorry, but I think "sunder-proof" (for example) is a step towards "death-proof", and the nerfing of deadly attacks is a much larger step, IMHO.  I wouldn't mind their using two systems, so that (say) solo death attacks were really deadly, and elite death attacks not so much, but that is not the route they took.  I look at this in light of the pre-4e announcement WotC articles about how X, Y, and Z are "unfun", and I think we are past the point of mere awareness of the slide.

YMMV, of course.



> PS: Before this goes on much longer, I'd like to say thanks, RC. This discussion has been a really good one I think, and some of your larger posts have really helped me to see some areas where I might be able to improve my games. We have our disagreements, but hashing them out has helped me. I hope you get something out of it too




If I didn't, I wouldn't be posting.  

Thanks, though.  



pemerton said:


> Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should encourage the players to have their PCs take outlandish risk. Death flag mechanics presumably would encourage this. (This would be an example of the use of the death flag to support high-concept simulationist play.)




Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should allow the players to have their PCs experience the same risk that Bond does.



pemerton said:


> Well, to the extent that this is true, there is no loss for those play groups who prefer the game to consist of encounters rather than exploration. 4e is clearly aimed at such groups.
> 
> I tend to think that it is a change (not a loss) based upon the assumption that the players prefer encounters to exploration. If you are a player for whom this assumption does not hold, you may not like 4e.




Agreed.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you ask this, why do you bring up "lava bathing" scenarios as a point against Death Flag mechanics? The same applies here - if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.




Because lava bathing highlights the problem with survival-guaranteed mechanics, whereas the problem with SoD is, IMHO, the universal one with all rules:  if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.



cougent said:


> I have had players that were risk takers WITH SoD firmly in place, and sometimes it paid off for them and sometimes it did not.  Take away SoD and they escalate on the risk factor 10 fold!  Your players may not, but some/most of mine would.
> 
> There is also a flip side that seems to have gotten lost here somewhere also, for my group some of the most recounted fond memory stories are from MAKING that SoD save.  Beating the incredible odds, rolling a 5 when you "only" had to make a 12 and being damn thankful for that +7 bonus.  Those have been some of the BEST moments of our games, and I don't think any of my players would even remotely consider trading those moments away for "No SoD situations" even if they got back the (rare) times when they did fail and died.
> 
> IMNSHO, You simply cannot have the big massive highs without at least the risk of the devastating lows.  As a DM you can make the SoD's rare, or even fudge them in the players favor on occasion, but to totally eliminate them, I find that unacceptable.  As a player, (and one who likes the tables in Vegas) I want that risk, even if it means I have to go roll up a new PC because of it; because the flip side is awesome.




This was brought up earlier, but not necessarily so well.  Thank you.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hardly.  The difference is sizeable, perhaps, but it is easier (IMHO) to believe in a universe without monsters that can paralyze human-sized prey than to believe in a universe where you don't die unless you really, really want to.  It is easier to suspend disbelief in the paralysis-proof game than the death-proof one.




I think one of the fundamental difference is: The "Death Flag" is not creating a universe where you can't die. It's creating a story in where your character doesn't die without the "author" agreeing with the possibility. 
In the world, there is nothing preventing you from dying. But the story told about this world - and told through the game - doesn't involve your characters death until the point where the players wanted it to. 

Most games do not have rules that tell us when a PC is angry, falls in love or wants to recite a poem. This is left as decision for the player. In a Death Flag game, the decision to die is also up to the player. Yes, that is a step far further then the aforementioned example, but it's still a similar principle. (And realistically speaking, how further is it? People in the real world don't get to decide when the fall in love, yet player can decide this about their characters!)



> Then why have dice or mechanics?  Why not just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters?



Because there is more to RPGs then just the story-telling. But sometimes the story-telling is more important then the other aspects. Role-Playing Games are a unique mix of several aspects. Different people just prioritize different aspects - and don't expect this priorities to be always the same for the same person, either. 



> The answer I gave is upthread.



Since I missed it the first time, I am not sure I am not lazy enough to miss it the second time... 



> Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should allow the players to have their PCs experience the same risk that Bond does.



Some games would try to have the PCs experience the same _risks _Bond does. Some games would try to have the players experience the same _stories _Bond does.

And some people want a mix of both. If a game would really create the same risks Bonds has, the way you'd played Bond would look very different on how he looks on screen. 

An example for such experiences my players told me about was Call of Cthulhu - either play resulted in no longer being invested in your PC, or being invested enough that you tried to get the biggest guns and most effective combat abilities so you at least had a slight chance to survive the horrors. 
If you'd expect a "regular" horror game where the characters are unaware of the horrors until they are confronted with them, and worry more about running away then shooting, this creates a disconnect between what you desired from the story and atmosphere and what using the rules as a model for the fictional reality leads you to play.

In a way, CoC is the opposite end of the narrative spectrum here - we don't expect characters to survive or keep their sanity - we actually fully expect them to die horribly or end in an asylum - or both, and feeling nearly helpless against the horrors of this world (or the world beyond). Using the "simulation" of the world though, we end with paranoid characters armed with heavy weapons acting very violently... (well, at least we got the insanity part right - but what happened to the reporter that just ends up babbling some incoherent thoughts?)



> Because lava bathing highlights the problem with survival-guaranteed mechanics, whereas the problem with SoD is, IMHO, the universal one with all rules:  if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.



Medusas and Bodaks without a warning or context are very similar! The DM didn't communicate the risk that could have allowed the PCs to figure out a counter-measure. In a "Death Flag" game, a DM apparently hasn't communicated that he doesn't expect the players to make unreasonable actions (or didn't define "unreasonable" well enough for them to get it.)

And this errors in both cases can stem from the rulebooks not explaining its mechanic well enough. 
"If you use save or die, remember that the PCs are expected to have at least some chance to predict the danger and create a protection against it. Of course, the chance and the difficulty depends on your estimation of the players and their characters abilities." 
"If you use the Death Flag, all players should remember to act reasonably and avoid situations that shouldn't leave another end result as the characters death. Of course, reasonable depends on a mix of common sense and the group preference and can thus vary for different groups."

Suddenly, Save or Die doesn't look like such a bad mechanic too me, if it comes with this big qualifier. There would probably "more" to it - I wouldn't, for example, give a Medusa a Challenge Rating usable in a combat encounter, but a level for its "Quest" difficulty, or any other rating that helps me using it effectively inside an adventure, and not just in an encounter.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 17, 2008)

RC said:
			
		

> Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should allow the players to have their PCs experience the same risk that Bond does.




This came up in the Mundane/Fantastic thread too.  The problem here is that if you have PC's experience the same risks that Bond does while maintaining a real world chance of failure, then your PC's have zero survivability.  When you try to jump your car over the river, you die.  Car's don't jump rivers.   ((at least not without some SERIOUS set up beforehand - and they certainly don't drive away afterwards.  There's a reason they went through something like a couple of dozen General Lee cars every Dukes of Hazard episode))  When you try to fight the shark off with a knife, you die.  When you try to wrestle someone out of their parachute while plummeting to the ground, you die.  On and on.  

Bond is a perfect example of why you need to mitigate the chances of death in order to make a good game.  If you want to play a spy game with realistic chances of death, then Bond is NOT the inspiration you should start with.  In order to do Bond as a game, you have to have mechanics in place that allow you to mitigate lethality.

And, oh look, the Bond game does in fact HAVE mechanics to mitigate death.  Hero points back in the 80's.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 17, 2008)

Mustrum said:
			
		

> Suddenly, Save or Die doesn't look like such a bad mechanic too me, if it comes with this big qualifier. There would probably "more" to it - I wouldn't, for example, give a Medusa a Challenge Rating usable in a combat encounter, but a level for its "Quest" difficulty, or any other rating that helps me using it effectively inside an adventure, and not just in an encounter.




See, to me, this is the big problem.

The SoD mechanics force me as the DM to set up the monster in a completely different way than any other monster.  I can drop an ogre into that orc strong hold and not even blink.  No one would be terribly shocked, and, if the party meets it, they can either fight or run away.

But, if I use a medusa, suddenly I have to pretend that the medusa is mentally retarded (never cleans up after herself), that she stays in one place long enough that people learn about her, and I have to give ample opportunities to the players to learn all this.  And, in addition, in order for the forewarning to be effective, I have to pretty much tell the players EXACTLY where the medusa is, because the durations of any protective magic mean that they cannot simply turn on their shields and go exploring.  But, if they get caught without their protection on, it's no different than if I didn't warn them at all.

For me, it's just too much of a PITA.

And, one other thing.  Since RC's bringing up older editions so often.  Considering how many purely mundane monsters in 1e had SoD (snakes, spiders, etc), how exactly do you communicate to your players that there is a SoD monster in the area?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think one of the fundamental difference is: The "Death Flag" is not creating a universe where you can't die. It's creating a story in where your character doesn't die without the "author" agreeing with the possibility.




I _*did*_ say "unless you really, really want to".  

There have been a lot of threads about poor DMing, where the consensus has been that, if the DM wants to be an author, he should write instead of playing D&D.  I see this as the flip side, personally.  IMHO, the "story" arises out of what occurs in the game; it should not be foreordained.

YMMV, obviously.  



> Since I missed it the first time, I am not sure I am not lazy enough to miss it the second time...




I am not sure I am not lazy enough to go back through the thread, and then cut & paste, to give you a second time.  



> Some games would try to have the PCs experience the same _risks _Bond does. Some games would try to have the players experience the same _stories _Bond does.




I call that second category "movies" and "novels".



> In a way, CoC is the opposite end of the narrative spectrum here - we don't expect characters to survive or keep their sanity - we actually fully expect them to die horribly or end in an asylum - or both, and feeling nearly helpless against the horrors of this world (or the world beyond). Using the "simulation" of the world though, we end with paranoid characters armed with heavy weapons acting very violently... (well, at least we got the insanity part right - but what happened to the reporter that just ends up babbling some incoherent thoughts?)




This is just a good example of how trying to force the game to match authorial control simply doesn't work.



> And this errors in both cases can stem from the rulebooks not explaining its mechanic well enough.
> "If you use save or die, remember that the PCs are expected to have at least some chance to predict the danger and create a protection against it. Of course, the chance and the difficulty depends on your estimation of the players and their characters abilities."




Here we agree.  Of course, when D&D first appeared, it was imagined that it would spread virally.  You would play under a good DM, learn how the rules worked and should work, and then (perhaps) you would DM yourself.

We all know, however, that this isn't the model today, and probably wasn't even the model three weeks after the game was released.



> "If you use the Death Flag, all players should remember to act reasonably and avoid situations that shouldn't leave another end result as the characters death. Of course, reasonable depends on a mix of common sense and the group preference and can thus vary for different groups."




The rules of the game constrain player actions, IMHO.  The role of the DM in the game makes the constraints on the DM different than the constraints on the players.  _Why_ should the players behave reasonably?  It the players are avoiding incidents that should result in death anyway, why do you need to guarantee survival?  What happened to the "death flag" being the means to allow the PCs to _*be*_ unreasonable in their behaviour?



> Suddenly, Save or Die doesn't look like such a bad mechanic too me, if it comes with this big qualifier.




Then we agree, to some degree at least, on this one point.  


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I _*did*_ say "unless you really, really want to".
> 
> There have been a lot of threads about poor DMing, where the consensus has been that, if the DM wants to be an author, he should write instead of playing D&D.  I see this as the flip side, personally.  IMHO, the "story" arises out of what occurs in the game; it should not be foreordained.



The story isn't entirely prescripted, regardless of "Death Flags" or other narrative elements. You can't have everything. YOu still follow rules that limit your control on the story. The cleverness on how you use the rules, and how players and DM interact with each others define the outcome, and while you might select certain "themes" and enable certain outcomes, there is still a "unsafe" element. 

In Torg, there were "subplot" cards like "Romance", "Connection", "Mistaken Identity", "Martyr". These cards were distributed at random - there wasn't even a guarantee you get a particular one. This random element alone meant that pure luck changed how the story told in the game would look like. And just because you had the card didn't mean you need to play it - maybe you never need a Connection to help you during the adventure. Or at the point you get the Romance card and play it, the DM doesn't have a suitable "target" and instead rewards you with a possibility. Maybe the group never gets into deep enough trouble to require a Martyr to get you out... 




> I am not sure I am not lazy enough to go back through the thread, and then cut & paste, to give you a second time.



 



> I call that second category "movies" and "novels".



You might call them that, but your call would be wrong. 

In an RPG that tries to recreate a certain feel and story, it is YOU that is making it possible. You are using rules that constrain your options. Random Chance and your skills in using the system affects the outcome of the story. It gives you a relationship to the resulting story that reading a novel or writing a novel doesn't give you. It is a unique experience that can't be replicated by becoming a novel writer or movie watcher or something like that. Only an RPG can give it you.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> ... but it is easier (IMHO) to believe in a universe without monsters that can paralyze human-sized prey than to believe in a universe where you don't die unless you really, really want to.



This is just something we won't agree on. It's easy for me to believe in a universe where the protagonists don't die. It same kind of universe found in James Bond movies or episodes of Star Trek, the kind of universe typically found in serial adventure stories.

Perhaps I should have said this earlier, but I think of RPG's as fiction simulators. The universes being simulated (to the extent that they're being simulated at all) are the ones found in adventure stories. So where you find death-proof PC's harm believability, I find that they enhance it, because death-proof protagonists are a defining characteristic of the fictional worlds that (I believe) RPG's simulate. 



> Then why have dice or mechanics?



What point are you trying to make here? I state that same ability to suspend disbelief during a James Bond film w/r/t Bond being in jeopardy would work for PC's in death-lite games and your response is "why have a task resolution system at all?" I am confused.


----------



## Delta (Oct 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Therefore, the Save aspect is strictly seen unnecessary and just a boon for those that weren't smart enough to figure the counter-measure out.




You are playing word games. Saves give the hero one more chance to keep fighting even if things go wrong. They're a good thing.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about this. I think it has less to do with "hyper-experts" or experience at all, but just different play styles. Some people might even enjoy both - but a system can affect which play style work better (and I dare say).




I have to worry about this (experience of new players vs. hyper-experts) because I'm in the habit of introducing first-time RPG players to my games. I see a stark difference in games which new players ask for more of (simulationist, player-challenging, death on the line), vs. the ones they ask for less of (narrativist, stat-challenging, more abstract plotty threats).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> You are playing word games. Saves give the hero one more chance to keep fighting even if things go wrong. They're a good thing.



I see several drawbacks. For example - in which story of the Medusa does a hero survive her look without a counter-measure handy? 
Oh, damn, there is the story word again... 



> I have to worry about this (experience of new players vs. hyper-experts) because I'm in the habit of introducing first-time RPG players to my games. I see a stark difference in games which new players ask for more of (simulationist, player-challenging, death on the line), vs. the ones they ask for less of (narrativist, stat-challenging, more abstract plotty threats).



I personally think most new players will probably accept either route. And they might do this all the time. It all depends on what the DM is good at. If you're good at creating the "simulation" game, with intricate dungeons and "mundane" resource management, a new player will probably find this very enjoyable. But when you're good at the narrative stuff and your beginning player gets the opportunity to basically "do what Conan does" and feels like he can take exactly the risks Conan could have taken, he will want more of that, too. 
And I would say that any individual player might figure out he can enjoy either route - provided the group (with a certain priority the DM) are capable of making it work, too. 

But I could also see getting eventually tired with this stuff. After going through another trap infested dungeon that needed careful navigation and water resource management, the players might in for something different. After another story-telling heavy adventure where the players explored the moral and ethical meaning of their character decisions, the players might like something different. 

And to avoid "wanting something different", most groups will probably actually play a mix of styles.

For my group there needs to be a certain mix. We don't play Death Flag games. We played D&D 3.5 (wartssave and die and all), and are now playing 4E. I don't think we could play a game with so many narrative "non-combat" elements like Exalted or Storyteller games. I don't think most of the Indie games would work for us. But I also know that non one of us would want to go back to OD&D or AD&D (and now 3E). 

My first experience with what "narrative" can mean - and how simple it can be - was in a Torg game. My newly created character had an add in Throwing Weapons, but owned no thrown weapons. I asked if I could see any stone lying around to throw at our enemy - the DM said something to the effect: "Sure there's a stone around if you need one!" No mechanic invoked or anything, just: "You know, just do it, if it makes sense to us!" But just because there was a stone to throw around didn't mean I didn't have to use the rules to resolve throwing it. 



> (narrativist, *stat-challenging*, more abstract plotty threats).



I don't think this is an adequate description. A narrativist game is still a game. The player has to use the mechanics to excercise his narrative control, which means he is challenged using the tools at the right time - when to spend his possibility points or play a Drama Card (if we're using Torg as an example). And in any scenes where you can't or don't want to use your narrative abilities, you face the same player-challenging problems as in the "simulationist" game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The story isn't entirely prescripted, regardless of "Death Flags" or other narrative elements.




No; it is just _more_ prescripted.

When I was working on _The Game of Rassilon_, to create adventures in the _Doctor Who_ universe, I had to devise a system where it was both possible to die, and where it was unlikely to die.  I gave the players several methods to prevent PC death....but not ultimate carte blanche.

I could see a James Bond game working this way.  As with _Doctor Who_, you want the bad guys to be able to get the drop and James and capture him.  How else will he learn Goldfinger's plan?  And, when Goldfinger has Bond strapped to a table with a laser beam inching towards his crotch, you want the player to have to do something so James survives.  

Something other than just choosing not to allow Bond to die.

You can't have everything.  But, IMHO, you can do better than "survival-guaranteed". 



> In Torg, there were "subplot" cards like "Romance", "Connection", "Mistaken Identity", "Martyr". These cards were distributed at random - there wasn't even a guarantee you get a particular one.




Sounds like a workable mechanic.  Not "survival-guaranteed", I note. 

 




> In an RPG that tries to recreate a certain feel and story, it is YOU that is making it possible. You are using rules that constrain your options.




Also true when writing a novel.



> Random Chance and your skills in using the system affects the outcome of the story. It gives you a relationship to the resulting story that reading a novel or writing a novel doesn't give you. It is a unique experience that can't be replicated by becoming a novel writer or movie watcher or something like that. Only an RPG can give it you.




And, if you remove random chance, or remove opposition to getting the outcome you want, doesn't it become more like a novel, and give you less of the experience that only an RPG can give you?



Mallus said:


> What point are you trying to make here? I state that same ability to suspend disbelief during a James Bond film w/r/t Bond being in jeopardy would work for PC's in death-lite games and your response is "why have a task resolution system at all?" I am confused.




No, Mallus.  You said "Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that."  But the need for dice and mechanics, the random chance and the opposition to your desires -- in effect, the "real" dangers presented by the system to thwart player will -- amply demonstrate that it is far more complicated than that.  If it were not, you could just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters, and have the same thrill of victory.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I see several drawbacks. For example - in which story of the Medusa does a hero survive her look without a counter-measure handy?
> Oh, damn, there is the story word again...




"Story" is what happens after the fact.

The events in an RPG generate a story.  The more that the story is generated prior to the events, the less meaning choices or events have.



> But I could also see getting eventually tired with this stuff. After going through another trap infested dungeon that needed careful navigation and water resource management, the players might in for something different. After another story-telling heavy adventure where the players explored the moral and ethical meaning of their character decisions, the players might like something different.




Survival-non-guaranteed allows for both story-telling heavy adventures and adventures with a real need to be careful.  It is, in fact, extremely easy to alter the danger levels in survival-non-guaranteed systems.  



> My first experience with what "narrative" can mean - and how simple it can be - was in a Torg game. My newly created character had an add in Throwing Weapons, but owned no thrown weapons. I asked if I could see any stone lying around to throw at our enemy - the DM said something to the effect: "Sure there's a stone around if you need one!" No mechanic invoked or anything, just: "You know, just do it, if it makes sense to us!" But just because there was a stone to throw around didn't mean I didn't have to use the rules to resolve throwing it.




Hmmm......not sure how this is any different from AD&D 1e, with the possible exception that a stone is a more effective weapon in Torg?  I know of no adventure module, nor of any DM, who so fully catalogued the world that he could tell whether or not there was a stone lying around without relying on spur-of-the-moment fiat.  Would you be surprised in an AD&D game if you were in a bar fight, and asked if there was a mug around to conk your opponent with -- only to discover that there was one!  I wouldn't be.



> I don't think this is an adequate description.




I think it is a false distinction.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> No; it is just _more_ prescripted.
> 
> When I was working on _The Game of Rassilon_, to create adventures in the _Doctor Who_ universe, I had to devise a system where it was both possible to die, and where it was unlikely to die.  I gave the players several methods to prevent PC death....but not ultimate carte blanche.
> 
> I could see a James Bond game working this way.  As with _Doctor Who_, you want the bad guys to be able to get the drop and James and capture him.  How else will he learn Goldfinger's plan?  And, when Goldfinger has Bond strapped to a table with a laser beam inching towards his crotch, you want the player to have to do something so James survives.



Dropping James Bond or the Doctor is not forbidden. Just killing him. The laser beam scenario could be a point where "all bets are off" and the Death Flag is raised. Or there is a secondary stake - yes, you still get out if you fail your "Escape Artist" roll, but give your enemy enough time to succeed at a part of his plot. (And remember, villains do always succeed at something in Doctor Who or James Bond.) 
Torg doesn't have a Death Flag, but there are Cards and Possibilities that would allow you to escape most situations (in fact, there is even a "Escape" Card that lets you autoamtically flee any encounterscene) - until the point where you have tried this too much, and are out of (suitable) cards and possibility points. (And overall, it succeeds very well at emulating "pulp", with Indiana Jones or The Mummy very often becoming our standard model to explain Torg 



> Also true when writing a novel.



Well, maybe the "you" was not clearly defined in this context. It was not just me "the writer", it was also "me, the protagonist".



> And, if you remove random chance, or remove opposition to getting the outcome you want, doesn't it become more like a novel, and give you less of the experience that only an RPG can give you?



Not if the random chance fails at delivering the stories I enjoy. I don't want to just to experience/create any story that comes out, I have certain concepts in minds. This starts even without narrative mechanics - if I create a Monk character I have different expectations from the story then when I play a Sorcerer.



> No, Mallus.  You said "Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that."  But the need for dice and mechanics, the random chance and the opposition to your desires -- in effect, the "real" dangers presented by the system to thwart player will -- amply demonstrate that it is far more complicated than that.  If it were not, you could just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters, and have the same thrill of victory.



I think Mallus works under the assumption that the random elements are already part of both concepts. The random elements still require you to pretend they mean anything.



> "Story" is what happens after the fact.
> 
> The events in an RPG generate a story.  The more that the story is generated prior to the events, the less meaning choices or events have.



I think generally the goal is to set a "theme". We want a story about a group of secret agents that - under daring risks - try to uncover the plot behind the assassination attempt on the prime minister. We want to avoid that the players avoid risks because... well, they are risky. SO we give them some advantage when doing something very risky, an incentive to risk things. And this advantage can be: "If you fail in the risky action, you won't die. But you still fail at it. So, if you want to jump onto the car you chase and you fail, you won't die on a failure or be severely injured - you're knocked out and the car escapes. The uncertainty is not "do I survive this madness?" but "do I succeed at it?"

The thrill is created from the question: "Do I succeed at my characters goals" not just "Do I survive". The appeal of this is particularly - if all I wanted was to survive, I would just say the character stays at home, never going on an adventure. But that's not enough.



> Hmmm......not sure how this is any different from AD&D 1e, with the possible exception that a stone is a more effective weapon in Torg?  I know of no adventure module, nor of any DM, who so fully catalogued the world that he could tell whether or not there was a stone lying around without relying on spur-of-the-moment fiat.  Would you be surprised in an AD&D game if you were in a bar fight, and asked if there was a mug around to conk your opponent with -- only to discover that there was one!  I wouldn't be.



It was something I hadn't, at that point, ever thought about. I haven't been playing that long then. But the idea that it could just be there because I needed it was new to me. It was something I had never thought about till that point in my role-playing experience. It was, of course, when I had little experience with RPGs.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You said "Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that.



Yes I did. Because it isn't. 



> But the need for dice and mechanics, the random chance and the opposition to your desires -- in effect, the "real" dangers presented by the system to thwart player will -- amply demonstrate that it is far more complicated than that.



In our death-lite D&D campaign, the mechanics still produce all the "real" in-game dangers that all-options-on 3.5e can produce. We just ignore  (or edit out through various means) the lethal results. This works for my players because they "pretend the fake dangers are real". 

That's the heart of the matter. The specific rule set or mechanics used is irrelevant. We could be playing GURPS, Hero, Traveler, etc. 



> If it were not, you could just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters, and have the same thrill of victory.



My wife would strenuously object to that! 



> "Story" is what happens after the fact.
> 
> The events in an RPG generate a story.



So what do you call a story that's in the process of being written?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Dropping James Bond or the Doctor is not forbidden. Just killing him. The laser beam scenario could be a point where "all bets are off" and the Death Flag is raised.




But, again, what if it isn't raised?  What if the GM establishes Goldfinger's "No, Mr. Bond.  I expect you to die." and the player does nothing but sit back because he knows _something_ will happen to save him.  Has the death-flag mechanic delivered the kind of story you are looking for?

IMHO, and IME, the mechanics determine win conditions, and the mechanics determine what the players have available to meet those win conditions.  If the player can't think of anything to save Bond, he simply isn't going to raise the Death Flag.  In fact, I can think of no reason whatsoever that would compel a player to raise the Death Flag under the circumstances described.  That would, quite simply, be the easiest way to fail to meet the win conditions of the game.

Main characters don't die often in _Doctor Who_, but they do die.  Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, K-9 Mark III (replaced by K-9 Mark IV), Dr. Grace Holloway (raised), Chang Lee (raised), "Captain Jack Harkness" (later raised & killed multiple times), possibly Peri (do you believe the Matrix or the Master?).  In my game, when a time lord regenerated, another player took that character over, so it meant that "dying" removed your ability to play that character, even if the character went on.



> Or there is a secondary stake - yes, you still get out if you fail your "Escape Artist" roll, but give your enemy enough time to succeed at a part of his plot. (And remember, villains do always succeed at something in Doctor Who or James Bond.)




This doesn't require a Death Flag mechanic.



> Not if the random chance fails at delivering the stories I enjoy. I don't want to just to experience/create any story that comes out, I have certain concepts in minds. This starts even without narrative mechanics - if I create a Monk character I have different expectations from the story then when I play a Sorcerer.




You can emulate survival-guaranteed with survival-optional.  You just lower the threshold of danger.  Make your PCs 10th level and their opponents 1st level.  Give those opponents means to thwart the PCs that don't rely on combat prowess.

I don't believe you can emulate survival-optional nearly as well with survival-guaranteed.  In fact, I believe it to be a stretch to say that you can emulate it at all.



> The thrill is created from the question: "Do I succeed at my characters goals" not just "Do I survive".




This thrill is not limited to survival-guaranteed gaming.  "Survival-optional" doesn't mean "You gonna die, horribly and soon!"



> It was something I hadn't, at that point, ever thought about. I haven't been playing that long then. But the idea that it could just be there because I needed it was new to me. It was something I had never thought about till that point in my role-playing experience. It was, of course, when I had little experience with RPGs.




And it has little to do with the point you were trying to make.   



Mallus said:


> Yes I did. Because it isn't.




 



> In our death-lite D&D campaign, the mechanics still produce all the "real" in-game dangers that all-options-on 3.5e can produce. We just ignore  (or edit out through various means) the lethal results. This works for my players because they "pretend the fake dangers are real".




I have a set inclusive of all whole numbers 1-10.

You have a set inclusive of all whole numbers 1-10, but you decided to remove 8-10.

You then claim that your set is as large as mine.

Hopefully, you understand why I am not convinced.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, again, what if it isn't raised?  What if the GM establishes Goldfinger's "No, Mr. Bond.  I expect you to die." and the player does nothing but sit back because he knows _something_ will happen to save him.  Has the death-flag mechanic delivered the kind of story you are looking for?




But, now we're right back to lack of communication.  The Player is deliberately short circuiting the system.  The player hasn't bought into the system.




> IMHO, and IME, the mechanics determine win conditions, and the mechanics determine what the players have available to meet those win conditions.  If the player can't think of anything to save Bond, he simply isn't going to raise the Death Flag.  In fact, I can think of no reason whatsoever that would compel a player to raise the Death Flag under the circumstances described.  That would, quite simply, be the easiest way to fail to meet the win conditions of the game.




Not everyone plays to "win".



> Main characters don't die often in _Doctor Who_, but they do die.  Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, K-9 Mark III (replaced by K-9 Mark IV), Dr. Grace Holloway (raised), Chang Lee (raised), "Captain Jack Harkness" (later raised & killed multiple times), possibly Peri (do you believe the Matrix or the Master?).  In my game, when a time lord regenerated, another player took that character over, so it meant that "dying" removed your ability to play that character, even if the character went on.




Funnily enough, the original Doctor Who game went a different route.  Made combat so intensely lethal that you'd have to be suicidal to try.



> This doesn't require a Death Flag mechanic.




No one has said that death flag mechanics are a requirement.  Just that death flag mechanics are one possible mechanic to use.



> You can emulate survival-guaranteed with survival-optional.  You just lower the threshold of danger.  Make your PCs 10th level and their opponents 1st level.  Give those opponents means to thwart the PCs that don't rely on combat prowess.
> 
> I don't believe you can emulate survival-optional nearly as well with survival-guaranteed.  In fact, I believe it to be a stretch to say that you can emulate it at all.
> 
> {quote]The thrill is created from the question: "Do I succeed at my characters goals" not just "Do I survive".




This thrill is not limited to survival-guaranteed gaming.  "Survival-optional" doesn't mean "You gonna die, horribly and soon!" [/quote]

But, save or die certainly does.




> /snip for snark
> 
> I have a set inclusive of all whole numbers 1-10.
> 
> ...




Closer to you have a set of 1-1000 and choose to remove 1000 and 999.  Sure, the set is smaller, but, the amount smaller is pretty minor and easily ignored.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 18, 2008)

Really, I think we likely agree more than disagree.  Lowering lethality doesn't seem to be an issue, it's only the point of removing death from the table that RC seems to have an issue with.

That entirely comes down to playstyle really.  Some games, it would make no sense to have a death flag mechanic.  That's 100% true.  Other games, I could see it nicely.  Particularly genre games like Bond or Dr Who.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If the player can't think of anything to save Bond, he simply isn't going to raise the Death Flag.



For which players is this true? Not those playing death flag games. 



Raven Crowking said:


> But, again, what if it isn't raised?  What if the GM establishes Goldfinger's "No, Mr. Bond.  I expect you to die." and the player does nothing but sit back because he knows _something_ will happen to save him.  Has the death-flag mechanic delivered the kind of story you are looking for?



No, because the player is not playing the game as it is intended to be played. There is no point playing a death-flag game with Monty Haul and Friends. Equally, those who enjoy death-flag games probably don't want to play 1st ed AD&D in its traditional form.



Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, and IME, the mechanics determine win conditions, and the mechanics determine what the players have available to meet those win conditions.



So if the win conditions are "tell a thematically satisfying story" then the death flag mechanics help determine what resources the players have available. (Or did you mean "resources the PCs have available"?)  



Raven Crowking said:


> You can emulate survival-guaranteed with survival-optional.  You just lower the threshold of danger.



As Mustrum said, you can also have your PC not leave home to adventure. For most people who are actually playing a fantasy RPG that is not going to provide a thematically satisfying story.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 18, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Really, I think we likely agree more than disagree.  Lowering lethality doesn't seem to be an issue, it's only the point of removing death from the table that RC seems to have an issue with.



Normally I (more-or-less) agree with you, Hussar, but on this occasion I don't. RC seems to be either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying. Of course it may not be satisfying for _him_, but that biographical point was known to most of the participants in this thread before the thread started. But I find it pretty outrageous to assert that it is objectively inferior RPGing.

It's as if no one ever actually played a satisfying game of OGL Conan (which has a death-flag mechanic), or HARP (which has a similar Fate Point mechanic), or any of the myriad other games in which PC death is not what is at stake during play.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 18, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Really, I think we likely agree more than disagree.  Lowering lethality doesn't seem to be an issue, it's only the point of removing death from the table that RC seems to have an issue with.




Well, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn't there?  At some point lowering lethality removes death from the table as a practical matter, even if it doesn't completely do so in theory.  So, where does the line fall, and why.

And, we can then discuss the difference between the cases of the party knowing it, and not knowing it.  I have, in fact, run a game where no PC could die - it was part of the world metaphysic.  But, I didn't tell them that.  Played by the normal rules, two of the PCs would have kicked the bucket, but in manners such that still, the players remained ignorant that they've been saved.

Is this different than removing lethality such that the players know it has been done?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> No, because the player is not playing the game as it is intended to be played. There is no point playing a death-flag game with Monty Haul and Friends. Equally, those who enjoy death-flag games probably don't want to play 1st ed AD&D in its traditional form.




Right.  

I've seen people make a similar argument about Dread.  In Dread, resolution takes the form of a pull from a Jenga tower.  If you successfully pull, you succeed.  If you don't pull, you fail.  If the tower falls, you die.  You can refuse to pull at any time, which guarantees that you fail at that action, but at least you don't die.

Critics say "But you can ensure your survival, just by never ever attempting a pull!"

Someone swings an axe at you.  Pull to avoid?  No way!  Whatever the penalty for failing to avoid the axe, it can't be as bad as dying!

And sure... you could play the game that way, and ensure your survival.  But _why would you_!?  If that's the attitude you bring to the table, _you're playing the wrong game_.

If someone sits down at a Death Flag game thinking "Aha!  If I never raise the flag, I can _never die_!", they're at the wrong table.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 18, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Well, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn't there?  At some point lowering lethality removes death from the table as a practical matter, even if it doesn't completely do so in theory.  So, where does the line fall, and why.
> 
> And, we can then discuss the difference between the cases of the party knowing it, and not knowing it.  I have, in fact, run a game where no PC could die - it was part of the world metaphysic.  But, I didn't tell them that.  Played by the normal rules, two of the PCs would have kicked the bucket, but in manners such that still, the players remained ignorant that they've been saved.
> 
> Is this different than removing lethality such that the players know it has been done?




This occured to me this morning as well.

Lots of DM's fudge things.  It's fairly common at a number of tables.  Is this not the same thing as a Death Flag rule, just with the DM making the decision?  Personally, I dislike the idea of fudging rolls, and, since I make almost all my rolls in the open now, it would be very difficult.

However, a Death Flag mechanic, in an appropriately themed game, would allow me to make all my rolls in the open, but allow the player to have a very limited control of fudging that was traditionally reserved for DM's.  Is this a bad thing?

Like I said, it's completely dependent on the game you want to run.  In a sandbox exploration survival game, I would never dream of using this.  In a quest based campaign where the individual characters actually matter to the story (PC is playing the descendant of the deposed king - return him to the throne, for example), I could see this being very much in keeping with what I want.

In my current Savage Tide game, I allow the PC's to spend all their Action Points to turn any lethal attack into leaving them at -9 and stable.  This makes death very difficult, but, not impossible.  After all, if they happen to be taking a bath in lava at the time, they still die next round.  

This is pretty close to a death flag mechanic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Normally I (more-or-less) agree with you, Hussar, but on this occasion I don't.




Strangely enough, normally I (more-or-less) disagree with Hussar, but this time he is correct.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> But I find it pretty outrageous to assert that it is objectively inferior RPGing.




Not objectively inferior, but objectively less dangerous.  And, because it is known to be objectively less dangerous, less easy to suspend disbelief about the dangers involved.  Actually, since books and movies were brought up previously, you should be well aware that this same criticism has been levelled against the type of storytelling (and far more than once) in those media where it is obvious that the hero will survive from the first page.



> It's as if no one ever actually played a satisfying game of OGL Conan (which has a death-flag mechanic), or HARP (which has a similar Fate Point mechanic), or any of the myriad other games in which PC death is not what is at stake during play.




Sure......But that doesn't alter the fact that a survival-guaranteed game can be played using a survival-not-guaranteed ruleset (generally by RAW), but the reverse is not true.

Moreover, as I said upthread, I have no problem with "different strokes for different folks"....until those folks try to take valuable tools (SoD) out of my game (D&D) because they don't understand how to use them well, or (worse) try to turn my game into something I don't want to play.  



Umbran said:


> Well, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn't there?  At some point lowering lethality removes death from the table as a practical matter, even if it doesn't completely do so in theory.  So, where does the line fall, and why.




The important line, IMHO, is that death is there in theory.  No characters need actually be harmed in the making of this game.  However (and it is a big however), my experience with 2e (which actively encouraged DMs to save characters who would otherwise die) is that this causes players to engage less with the gameworld.  IME, the percentage to which this is true is 100%, although my sample set is only about 50-75 players in two countries.



> Is this different than removing lethality such that the players know it has been done?




IMHO, yes.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> RC seems to be either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying.





Oh, and for the record, strenuously defending that purist-for-system 1e AD&D play is both possible and satisfying is not in any way shape or form denying that your non-purist game is impossible, or less satisfying for you.

It is this sort of problem, actually, that made me enter this thread:  "I can't use SoD well, therefore it is broken wrongbadfun."  When a defense saying, in effect, that it is not broken wrongbadfun becomes "either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying" there is something wrong.

But, in terms of setting up a role-playing game for general consumption, a survival-not-guaranteed game can be fully satisfying for all involved if the Gm is good at his job.  I have experienced this, from both sides of the screen, with hundreds of different players and dozens of different GMs.  Conversely, every player in your survival-guaranteed better be top-notch to avoid a "No pull on the Jenga tower" game.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 18, 2008)

RC said:
			
		

> The important line, IMHO, is that death is there in theory. No characters need actually be harmed in the making of this game. However (and it is a big however), my experience with 2e (which actively encouraged DMs to save characters who would otherwise die) is that this causes players to engage less with the gameworld. IME, the percentage to which this is true is 100%, although my sample set is only about 50-75 players in two countries.




On the flip side though, if you burn through five characters in seven sessions, I'm going to guess that the vast majority of players out there won't put quite as much effort into that sixth character.

And, RC, trying to claim any sort of authority here is a bit strange.  I've played with over a hundred gamers from four different CONTINENTS, never mind countries.  Does that mean my points trump yours?

My big beef with this:



> It is this sort of problem, actually, that made me enter this thread: "I can't use SoD well, therefore it is broken wrongbadfun." When a defense saying, in effect, that it is not broken wrongbadfun becomes "either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying" there is something wrong.




is that it treads dangerously close to Oberoni territory.  "The rules aren't bad, you just aren't a good enough DM to use them" is what it sounds like RC is saying.  Now I know he wouldn't do that would he?

See, I reject the idea that SoD monsters have to be prescripted so that every SoD monster must be 100% knowable.  Even if you KNOW that there is a medusa somewhere in those caves, unless you know exactly where, you can still run into SoD unprepared.  And, this also assumes that SoD monsters are mentally handicapped.  Medusa are actually human intelligence.  How hard would it be for a medusa to think, "Hrm, if I leave statuary all over the place, it's a big freaking hint to my enemies.  Maybe I should tidy up." ?

Heck, the module Heroes Tale from 2e features a medusa with grimlock servants.  And it specifically calls out that the medusa normally cleans up after herself (only, she didn't this one time because of the situation in the module  )  Never mind all the creatures in 2e and earlier that were entirely mundane and had SoD.  Snakes were SoD.  Does that mean I have to give fair warning for every snake?  How is that believable?  The whole point of getting bitten by a snake is that you probably tripped on the damn thing.

RC's whole point about knowledge=power fails.  If the party does have perfect knowledge, then the SoD creature is a pushover.  Yawn, that's an exciting encounter.  If the party doesn't have perfect knowledge (which they usually don't), then there is a fairly reasonable chance of getting poked with SoD.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 18, 2008)

Out of curiosity - and well, there could be another question to follow. . . - how close does 4e come to Save or Die, or for that matter 'Save or Suck', as it's often referred to around here (e.g., paralysis, or other forms of being rendered utterly useless and/or _extremely_ vulnerable) ?

And yes, I have read the core books, but that seems like ages ago now, and well, I haven't looked at them again (partly because I don't own any copies.) So, if someone could remind me, or fill in some details that mightn't have made much impression at the time, that'd be great.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 18, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Out of curiosity - and well, there could be another question to follow. . . - how close does 4e come to Save or Die, or for that matter 'Save or Suck', as it's often referred to around here (e.g., paralysis, or other forms of being rendered utterly useless and/or _extremely_ vulnerable) ?
> 
> And yes, I have read the core books, but that seems like ages ago now, and well, I haven't looked at them again (partly because I don't own any copies.) So, if someone could remind me, or fill in some details that mightn't have made much impression at the time, that'd be great.




As I recall, and others probably know better than me, SoD does exist in 4e.  Typically you get about three saves before you die however.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 18, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Out of curiosity - and well, there could be another question to follow. . . - how close does 4e come to Save or Die, or for that matter 'Save or Suck', as it's often referred to around here (e.g., paralysis, or other forms of being rendered utterly useless and/or _extremely_ vulnerable) ?
> 
> And yes, I have read the core books, but that seems like ages ago now, and well, I haven't looked at them again (partly because I don't own any copies.) So, if someone could remind me, or fill in some details that mightn't have made much impression at the time, that'd be great.




There are a few Save or Stun effects - but stuns don't last long (one round or save ends). The Medusa turns you to stone if you your second save against the power. (First you're slowed, then immobilized, then petrified.)

Bodaks might be closer to "real" Save or Die.
SLam attack weakens you, and once per encounter it can use its Death Gaze power to drop you to 0 hit points if you're weakened. If you#re not weakend, you "just" lose a healing surge and take some damage. 

Sleep on the players side is the closest to Save or Die - you're always slowed, and if you fail your first save, you drop unconcious (but save each round to go up again.)


----------



## Delta (Oct 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I see several drawbacks. For example - in which story of the Medusa does a hero survive her look without a counter-measure handy?
> Oh, damn, there is the story word again...




It's _almost_ as if this wasn't dealt with in the 1E DMG now 30 years ago: 



> Someone once sharply criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you accept firebreathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not? The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes ~ or fails to escape- the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game...
> 
> So a character manages to avoid the full blast of the fireball, or averts his or her gaze from the basilisk or medusa, or the poisonous stinger of the giant scorpion misses or fails somehow to inject its venom. Whatever the rationale, the character is saved to go on. Of course, some saves result in the death of the character anyway, as partial damage causes him or her to meet death. But at least the character had some hope, and he or she fought until the very end. Stories will be told of it at the inn, and songs sung of the battle when warriors gather around the campfire. Almost, almost he managed to reach the bend in the passage where the fell breath of the blue dragon Razisiz could not reach, but at the last moment his toe struck a protrusion, and as he stumbled the dragon slew him!​


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 18, 2008)

Hm. OK, well, for these closest things in 4e [to SoD/SoS] - I wonder if it is generally considered better or worse (by players) that if or when it comes to such things, the DM is making the roll that determines the PC's fate.*

That was the supplementary question, of course. Put another way, for 'real' SoD in any other edition, I wonder if it was in fact an attack roll vs. one of the PC's Defences (assuming for a second such things existed), rather than a Saving Throw against one of the [presumably] DM-controlled enemies' attack values, would player attitudes be any different toward the game feature in question. In general, that is.


* Though, if it can never be simply 'one roll, you die', I guess this mightn't matter so much, to many. But I am, as ever, still curious.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 18, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Hm. OK, well, for these closest things in 4e [to SoD/SoS] - I wonder if it is generally considered better or worse (by players) that if or when it comes to such things, the DM is making the roll that determines the PC's fate.*



The DM makes the first roll, but the saving throws that you have to fail for the full effect are the players.  Not too far from a lot of earlier D&D editions where there was an initial attack roll and then a saving throw (for example, a lot of poisoned attacks).


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 18, 2008)

Glyfair said:


> The DM makes the first roll, but the saving throws that you have to fail for the full effect are the players.  Not too far from a lot of earlier D&D editions where there was an initial attack roll and then a saving throw (for example, a lot of poisoned attacks).



Oh. 

As I said, it's been a while, and I only read through them once. I got the impression somehow - or misremembered, anyhow - that saving throws were gone, static defences being the replacement. Gah.

Oh well, hypothetically then (and, it seems, totally irrelevantly!) - I wonder if it was the DM's roll, whether more players would see this as a good or bad thing. Or neither, perhaps.


----------



## malraux (Oct 19, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Oh.
> 
> As I said, it's been a while, and I only read through them once. I got the impression somehow - or misremembered, anyhow - that saving throws were gone, static defences being the replacement. Gah.




You're correct.  Now attacking the will/fort/ref is just like attacking AC.  A saving throw is a d20 roll taken at the end of your turn (or other times based on powers).  10+ is a save, typically removing the condition.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 20, 2008)

Delta said:


> It's _almost_ as if this wasn't dealt with in the 1E DMG now 30 years ago



My favourite thing about that quote is that it offers a very clear account of a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic _in a 30-year-old rulebook.

Yet people complain about them in 4e as if they were new to D&D! (Admittedly 4e makes them more extensive - but still, they were there way back when.)_


----------



## pemerton (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not objectively inferior, but objectively less dangerous.  And, because it is known to be objectively less dangerous, less easy to suspend disbelief about the dangers involved.



This is the bit I don't get. Less dangerous to whom? Not less dangerous to the player, who is (I hope) not especially in danger at any gaming table. And within the conetext of the gameworld, not less dangerous to the PC, whose world is as full of peril as the next one. There is a reduced likelihood _in the real world_ of the player having to change PC due to PC death - but the claim that this harms suspension of disbelief is not one I accept as anything like a universal truth.



Raven Crowking said:


> my experience with 2e (which actively encouraged DMs to save characters who would otherwise die) is that this causes players to engage less with the gameworld.



If I had to diagnose a cause for disengagement in this sort of 2e play, it would be the railroading. Death flag mechanics expressly avoid railroading and engage the player by fostering protagonism rather than deprotagonising.



Raven Crowking said:


> But that doesn't alter the fact that a survival-guaranteed game can be played using a survival-not-guaranteed ruleset (generally by RAW), but the reverse is not true.



As I said upthread, this has the problem that it preserves game/metagame tranpsarency at the cost of removing the danger in the gameworld. Death flag mechanics reduce game/metagame transparency but permit the gameworld to remain chock full of peril.



Raven Crowking said:


> Actually, since books and movies were brought up previously, you should be well aware that this same criticism has been levelled against the type of storytelling (and far more than once) in those media where it is obvious that the hero will survive from the first page.



The only adventure type stories I have read in the past many years are REH Conan and Kull stories, in which I do know from the first page that the protagonist will survive. What is key is that the obviousness isn't itself part of the fiction. As I noted upthread, death flag play requires the same sort of non-breaking of the fourth wall. If players want to go all Order of the Stick (bathing in lava, etc) the game has broken down (just as an AD&D game has broken down when the fighter describes his daily routine of jumping off a 200' cliff before breakfast, then having his friendy cleric Heal him up).



Raven Crowking said:


> Oh, and for the record, strenuously defending that purist-for-system 1e AD&D play is both possible and satisfying is not in any way shape or form denying that your non-purist game is impossible, or less satisfying for you.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is this sort of problem, actually, that made me enter this thread:  "I can't use SoD well, therefore it is broken wrongbadfun."  When a defense saying, in effect, that it is not broken wrongbadfun becomes "either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying" there is something wrong.



Fair enough. I'm personally sympathetic to some of Hussar's arguments that SoD has problems that go beyond implementation by poor GMs, but that's not why I'm here. I'm here to defend the claim that death-flag play can be fully meaningful roleplaying without lava-bathing nonsense or other failures of suspension of disbelief.



Raven Crowking said:


> But, in terms of setting up a role-playing game for general consumption, a survival-not-guaranteed game can be fully satisfying for all involved if the Gm is good at his job.  I have experienced this, from both sides of the screen, with hundreds of different players and dozens of different GMs.  Conversely, every player in your survival-guaranteed better be top-notch to avoid a "No pull on the Jenga tower" game.



This again is an empirical claim that I'm not sure about. WoTC are taking a punt with 4e that it's not as hard as you think - it just requires a different mind-set (or, to use some jargon, a different set of metagame priorities).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 20, 2008)

A general observation: purist-for-system/Gygaxian/Pulsipherian 1st ed AD&D-style play leads to the sort of game that Hong derides as "Advance Squad Leader" - an emphasis on preparation, small unit tactics, exploration as the locus of play rather than encounters, etc.

For those who like it this can be fun, but it differs a great deal from actual pre-modern types, who tended (on the whole) to have different attitudes to death (their own as well as that of others) and whose processes for everything, including warfare and exploration, tended to be less rationalised (see eg Weber's discussion of the rationalisation of colonial merchant enterprises in his introduction to The Protestant Ethic; or Foucault's discussion of these "normalising" processes in Discipline and Punish).

So modern players, playing a 1st-ed style game, won't produce an outcome that actually resembles the behaviour of medievals. We'll get modern soldiers in medieval dress.

An interesting feature of REH's Conan and Kull characters is that they are in a certain fashion pre-modern in their behaviour - they act rather than think, unlike the effetec "civilised" people who surround them. (In other respects, however, particularly in their attitudes to religion and other traditions, they are quintessentially modern.)

Death-flag play is not the only way to produce RPGing that more closely emulates the pre-modern. Nor is it by any means guaranteed to produce such roleplaying. But implemented in the right sort of way it might be one way to do it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2008)

pemerton said:


> So modern players, playing a 1st-ed style game, won't produce an outcome that actually resembles the behaviour of medievals. We'll get modern soldiers in medieval dress.



Interesting note. The past was a strange time...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

pemerton said:


> This is the bit I don't get. Less dangerous to whom? Not less dangerous to the player, who is (I hope) not especially in danger at any gaming table. And within the conetext of the gameworld, not less dangerous to the PC, whose world is as full of peril as the next one. There is a reduced likelihood _in the real world_ of the player having to change PC due to PC death - but the claim that this harms suspension of disbelief is not one I accept as anything like a universal truth.





I wouldn't say _universal_, no, but I would say that it is _inherently more difficult_ to suspend disbelief about the potential harm the PC can face in the gameworld when you know the limits of that harm.  The more limited the potential harm, the harder it is to suspend belief that it is unlimited.

Moreover, the death-flag relies upon every player at the table using the mechanic as it is meant to be used.  This has the same problem as the "locked door & two tools" problem from the other thread.  If the player has the ability to specify that one of the tools is a key, if and only if that player has some reason not to make one tool the key will a more creative solution be presented.

I have no doubt that a group that all "gets" the death-flag mechanic can enjoy this style of play.  I wouldn't want to take your susvival-guaranteed away from you, any more than I want my SoD taken away from me.

But I wouldn't recommend a death-flag for the general gaming public, and I certainly wouldn't want to use it in a pick-up game with people I didn't know well.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

pemerton said:


> This again is an empirical claim that I'm not sure about. WoTC are taking a punt with 4e that it's not as hard as you think - it just requires a different mind-set (or, to use some jargon, a different set of metagame priorities).




I would actually like to see WotC put out an edition with a death-flag, and see how it was received.  That would be a truly empirical test.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But I wouldn't recommend a death-flag for the general gaming public, and I certainly wouldn't want to use it in a pick-up game with people I didn't know well.



I would say the same on "Save or Die" effects... 

Maybe "Death Flag" and "Save or Die" are both advanced mechanics, each aimed at facilitating a certain style of play?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is this sort of problem, actually, that made me enter this thread:  "I can't use SoD well, therefore it is broken wrongbadfun."



As someone who argued against you on this topic, I will say once again this is a terrible misrepresentation of the argument.

"I don't like SoD, and here's why" is *not* the same thing as "I don't like SoD, therefore anyone who does is wrong."

If I had to characterize anyone's arguments as asserting badwrongfun, it would be you, since you repeatedly argued that anyone who disliked SoD just wasn't playing the game right.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would actually like to see WotC put out an edition with a death-flag, and see how it was received.  That would be a truly empirical test.
> 
> 
> RC




Unfortunately, they will not create an edition of D&D with just one mechanical change. But maybe there will be an Unearthed Arcana variant for D&D 4 that could put it in.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I would say the same on "Save or Die" effects...



Point to Mr. Ridcully.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I would say the same on "Save or Die" effects...
> 
> Maybe "Death Flag" and "Save or Die" are both advanced mechanics, each aimed at facilitating a certain style of play?




SoD can be used effectively if only one person at the table understands how to use it....namely, the DM.  Death-Flag can be used effectively only if everyone at the table understands how to use it.  That is, IMHO, a very big difference.

While I agree that no DMG to date has done a good job of explaining how to use SoD mechanics effectively, I submit that this is far simpler to get across than how to use DF mechanics effectively, if only because SoD has no effect on the "win conditions" of the DM, whereas DF changes the "win conditions" of the players radically.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> If I had to characterize anyone's arguments as asserting badwrongfun, it would be you, since you repeatedly argued that anyone who disliked SoD just wasn't playing the game right.




Can you direct me to the post(s) you are referring to?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Unfortunately, they will not create an edition of D&D with just one mechanical change. But maybe there will be an Unearthed Arcana variant for D&D 4 that could put it in.




That would no more be a test of DF mechanics than the 3.5 UA was a test of WP/Vitality.  


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can you direct me to the post(s) you are referring to?



I'm not going back through the thread, but you asserted that anyone who dislikes SoD is just using it wrong. The DM is supposed to provide clues, etc, whenever a SoD effect might be encountered.

So if a DM does not do this, he is presumably playing the game wrong.


----------



## malraux (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> SoD can be used effectively if only one person at the table understands how to use it....namely, the DM.  Death-Flag can be used effectively only if everyone at the table understands how to use it.  That is, IMHO, a very big difference.




I'd disagree with that though.  Everyone needs to understand exactly how and when to use death ward to avoid SoD.  Everyone needs to understand what the clues about other creatures mean, etc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 20, 2008)

malraux said:


> I'd disagree with that though.  Everyone needs to understand exactly how and when to use death ward to avoid SoD.  Everyone needs to understand what the clues about other creatures mean, etc.



That's a very good point. The clues are only useful if they are understood by the players, and the players know what to do to avoid the effects of the SoD in question.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> SoD can be used effectively if only one person at the table understands how to use it....namely, the DM.  Death-Flag can be used effectively only if everyone at the table understands how to use it.  That is, IMHO, a very big difference.




Certain of that - if I wasn't aware that the DM should hint to me the dangers of Save or Die, and I should make special precautions to defeat them, I would still find the eventual SoD effect unfair. "How was I supposed to know that a mirror could work against the Medusa? I mean, where does the RAW state it does?" or "Heck, how was I supposed to know that a Medusa would go around my Hit Points? I mean, why should it even do that?"

And if you find the player I describe stupid, I would find any player that abuses the Death Flag mechanic similarly stupid. 

No, both mechanics require the DM and the players to be on the same page.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm not going back through the thread, but you asserted that anyone who dislikes SoD is just using it wrong. The DM is supposed to provide clues, etc, whenever a SoD effect might be encountered.
> 
> So if a DM does not do this, he is presumably playing the game wrong.




If a tool can be used effectively to generate fun, but it is instead being used to generate dislike of said tool, then either (1) the tool is being used incorrectly, or (2) the goal is not to have fun, but perhaps to generate dislike.  Wrongbadfun means that you are calling someone else's fun "wrong" and/or "bad".  If the way you are using something is not fun for you, it is not a claim that you are having "wrongbadfun" to suggest using it in a different manner.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Certain of that - if I wasn't aware that the DM should hint to me the dangers of Save or Die, and I should make special precautions to defeat them, I would still find the eventual SoD effect unfair. "How was I supposed to know that a mirror could work against the Medusa? I mean, where does the RAW state it does?" or "Heck, how was I supposed to know that a Medusa would go around my Hit Points? I mean, why should it even do that?"
> 
> And if you find the player I describe stupid, I would find any player that abuses the Death Flag mechanic similarly stupid.
> 
> No, both mechanics require the DM and the players to be on the same page.




Well, no doubt the RPGs of the future will all have wildly popular DF mechanics, thus proving me wrong.  

Until then, years of experience suggest to me that a D&D player in any edition using SoD (but in particular, using Holmes Basic or AD&D 1e) require no previous exposure to D&D or to D&D rules to understand SoD mechanics.  Conversely, the "keep 'em alive" advice in the 2nd Ed AD&D DMG led to the nadir of my gaming experience.  Using similar mechanics to keep down PC death in _The Game of Rassilon_ also demonstrated to me that (IME, of course) most players can *easily* understand SoD, but few players can so readily accommodate DF-like mechanics.

YMMV, of course.  

(I've heard "A giant spider?  But what do these cobwebs have to do with spiders?!?!" so it is true that clues are not always on the same page.  But that player easily understood the concept of SoD despite this, and despite it being her first game of D&D.)


RC


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If a tool can be used effectively to generate fun, but it is instead being used to generate dislike of said tool, then either (1) the tool is being used incorrectly, or (2) the goal is not to have fun, but perhaps to generate dislike.




or (3) the tool is not applicable in the particular situation.

A hammer and nail can join two pieces of wood together, except when you don't have room to swing the hammer, or when your pieces of wood are two fragile for the violent process of hammering.  Then, you need glue, or some other method of binding wood together.

Not all tools are equally effective in all situations that have the same general goal.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> SoD can be used effectively if only one person at the table understands how to use it....namely, the DM.




I've been reading along, and I just have to interject, because my experiences with SoD are completely differently than what anyone else here has discussed.

I use SoD like any other attack in 3e, and I use SoD monsters like any others in 3e. No special treatment. In fact, PCs die to SoD left and right in my games. But, here's the real kicker - there has never, ever, in all my 3e games, been a _permanent_ death to any SoD ability or spell in my years of playing it. Every single time, the dead PC was raised.

I think everybody is looking at SoD in 3e wrong. You weren't meant to avoid it. You were meant to die! And, of course, be subsequently raised from the dead.

Well, at least that's how we played it, saw it, and that playstyle worked fine. It seems like SoD was built as only a minor inconvenience in 3e, which is fine, because I like keeping the same PCs through the whole campaign like the Death Flag guys. Of course, I never had to use a Death Flag in 3e to accomplish the exact same thing, since there was no need.

I assume 4e will work the same way.

I know we didn't do much raising in 2e, but I don't know if that was because about half the Factions had a "no raising from the dead" clause built into them. I know there was still raising going on in my 2e games when allowed, but that was Planescape, so I'm already outside the norm there.


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 20, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> Well, at least that's how we played it, saw it, and that playstyle worked fine. It seems like SoD was built as only a minor inconvenience in 3e, which is fine, because I like keeping the same PCs through the whole campaign like the Death Flag guys. Of course, I never had to use a Death Flag in 3e to accomplish the exact same thing, since there was no need.




The fascinating truth is that you had an implicit "Death Flag"-like mechanic in 3E - a character can always refuse to be raised from the dead!

The fact that nobody did says a lot.


----------



## Delta (Oct 20, 2008)

pemerton said:


> My favourite thing about that quote is that it offers a very clear account of a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic _in a 30-year-old rulebook.
> 
> Yet people complain about them in 4e as if they were new to D&D! (Admittedly 4e makes them more extensive - but still, they were there way back when.)_



_

Your guys' lingo has reached a point where I don't understand what you're saying anymore._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you will re-read the bit you quoted, you will notice that the first words are "If a tool can be used effectively to generate fun".  This makes what follows an IF/THEN statement, which already acknowledges your (3) by requiring an IF that the tool is applicable.

So, I'll stand by the statement as written, thank you.  


RC


----------



## malraux (Oct 20, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> I think everybody is looking at SoD in 3e wrong. You weren't meant to avoid it. You were meant to die! And, of course, be subsequently raised from the dead.
> 
> Well, at least that's how we played it, saw it, and that playstyle worked fine. It seems like SoD was built as only a minor inconvenience in 3e,




But its more than just a minor inconvenience in 3e.  Its a pretty steep cost through ~10th level, plus you end up weaker and less able to deal with the next SoD.  Plus, you end up having to sit out the game till the party can drag your body back to town to find a cleric.

If Raise Dead were available sooner, were cheaper, and didn't involve a level loss, then I'd agree that it wasn't much different from just being really knocked out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The fascinating truth is that you had an implicit "Death Flag"-like mechanic in 3E - a character can always refuse to be raised from the dead!
> 
> The fact that nobody did says a lot.




Quoted For Truth.

RC


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, I'll stand by the statement as written, thank you.




You're free to stand by it, if you like standing next to something vague 

I maintain that it was underspecified.  "If the tool can be used" is insufficient to tell us whether you mean in the general sense, or in a particular case - the statement is not actually meaningful without that differentiation.  Now that we have extracted that you mean the individual case, we can move on.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The fascinating truth is that you had an implicit "Death Flag"-like mechanic in 3E - a character can always refuse to be raised from the dead!
> 
> The fact that nobody did says a lot.



Well, I would say: People never really died for "all the right reasons" - like in a crucial moment when fulfilling one of the character goals, or just plain when defending a friend. Save or Die tends to rarely put you in such a situation. Unless you somehow manage to grant cover for a Disintegrate or Finger of Death spell, you die just for yourself, not for someone else, not for a greater thing. Why would I want to stay dead for that?

A Death Flag mechanic works thematically different - you put up the flag when you want to spend all your effort, risk your characters life, to achieve something. The same is true for Torgs "Martyr" card - you don't just die because a stray bullet hit you, because you rolled low on your save - you died because you tried to take down that Oger before he could hit your friend another time, you died because you had to stop the cultist leader, you died because you took the bullet for a friend.

And in my games, characters occassionally died. After the _n_rd death of my Fighter in our Shackled City campaign, I announced that he no longer wanted to be raised. I was getting tired of the constant dying...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 20, 2008)

malraux said:


> But its more than just a minor inconvenience in 3e.  Its a pretty steep cost through ~10th level, plus you end up weaker and less able to deal with the next SoD.  Plus, you end up having to sit out the game till the party can drag your body back to town to find a cleric.




My last 3e game ran from 1-20. They could afford _Raise Dead_ at 5th level. Not many SoD effects at that level, so that spell worked. By the time they hit SoD stuff, they could easily afford the good stuff. As for losing a level, with individual XP awards in 3.5, a dead PC easily made up the XP loss, and could even come out ahead of the other PCs after a session. The having to sit out part of the game, however, is a _huge_ deterrent for death.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 21, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The fascinating truth is that you had an implicit "Death Flag"-like mechanic in 3E - a character can always refuse to be raised from the dead!
> 
> The fact that nobody did says a lot.




Happened in my Age of Worms game, disproving your point.

Cheers!


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 21, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Happened in my Age of Worms game, disproving your point.



Happened about a month ago in the campaign I'm playing in as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 21, 2008)

Umbran said:


> You're free to stand by it, if you like standing next to something vague




Sorry, but over the course of the thread I gave lots of specifications about how the tool could be used.  If the job at hand is "fun play", and the tool can be used for that job in specific ways (and there is no such thing as a tool that can be used in all ways), then failure to have fun with the tool is using the tool incorrectly.

Saying something is "wrongbadfun" means that my way of having fun with that tool is better than your way of having fun with that tool.  If you are not having fun, though, then suggesting a change is not wrongbadfun.

Admittedly, the meaning is only specified within the context of reading the post, especially in context of the statement I was replying to.  However, reading a post before replying to it is standard protocol, IMHO.  I find it highly odd that anyone would fail to understand what was meant, unless they were predisposed to finding offense?


RC


----------



## Ydars (Oct 21, 2008)

Just read some of this (lengthy) discussion and would like to say that I understand both positions because I have DMed/played in both types of campaigns, although we were not sophisticated enough to have death flags; just the implicit knowledge that a certain DM would avoid killing us.

I don't know which game type I prefer; I LOVE immersive roleplaying and tend to get very attached to my characters. On the other hand, the risk of combat is very thrilling, and I love the chance of dying.

I am really happy to hear that both of these play styles are still alive and well. Both have much to recommend them. Neither, as far as I can tell, is superior and in fact I think they are best when combined, though this is not easy.

As an example; in my current group, we are playing a great 3.5E Undermountain compaign. I think I tend to make both the most mechanically optimised characters and the ones with the most flesh-out backgrounds, because many of the group I play with are not hard-core yet, though they are starting to get there.

Despite this, I tend to die more than the others, because the DM seems to apply a slightly different standard to me than to the other players, though I think this is unconcious.

However, I now find that everytime I die, the next character I invent is better than the last; not necessarily mechanically better, but that they seem to have more of a personality. I must add here though that despite DMing RPGs for nearly 20 yrs, this is the first real run at playing I have ever had.

So I agree with those of you who feel that RP is incredibly important but I also love the thrill of deadly combat. I would not be without either of these elements now and feel that I need BOTH to enjoy myself. Character death is pretty traumatic for me but I do enjoy the process of creating a new character and plus it is allowing me to learn all the player rules, like feats etc that a DM doesn't really have time to grapple with.

Oh and I think people who DM need to play alot more; it reminds you what makes a good game and of what it feels like to be a player.


----------



## Ydars (Oct 21, 2008)

And to chime in with Merric et al; I NEVER allow my dead characters to be raised when I play. Death is death, even if the DM killed me as a result of a bad rules call (has happened once already).

So this is one campaign, at level 5-6 and I have already had 3 characters.I am LOVING it, because it reminds me of how it used to be!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 21, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The fascinating truth is that you had an implicit "Death Flag"-like mechanic in 3E - a character can always refuse to be raised from the dead!
> 
> The fact that nobody did says a lot.





Raven Crowking said:


> I would actually like to see WotC put out an edition with a death-flag, and see how it was received.  That would be a truly empirical test.





Raven Crowking said:


> Well, no doubt the RPGs of the future will all have wildly popular DF mechanics, thus proving me wrong.



4e takes the game in a direction much closer to death flag/stakes style play (eg aspects of the skill challenge system, the metagame aspects of power use and their interaction with the saving throw and healing rules). It will be interesting to see whether it becomes/remains (choose one's preferred verb!) a popular RPG.



Raven Crowking said:


> the "keep 'em alive" advice in the 2nd Ed AD&D DMG led to the nadir of my gaming experience.



I think that I've already mentioned that this (like GM fudging of dice) has nothing to do with death flag mechanics, because it is deprotagonising - wherease death flag mechanics take the control _out of_ the hands of the GM and give it to the player.

It is one of the weaknesses of 2nd ed AD&D, and also other games that describe themselves as "storytelling" games, that they make an implicit assumption that it is the GM's role to tell a story, and the players' role to go passively along. Railroading (or "illusionism" ie railroading with a cloak drawn over the rails) is in my view one of the worst ways to play an RPG.

Hence the attractiveness, to me, of mechanics that hand control to the players.



Raven Crowking said:


> While I agree that no DMG to date has done a good job of explaining how to use SoD mechanics effectively, I submit that this is far simpler to get across than how to use DF mechanics effectively



I don't know that I agree - until 4e I've never found D&D rulebooks to be very good at explaining, in simple metagame terms, what the play experience is meant to be like. The rules for death flag/conflict resolution/stakes games tend (in my experience) to be easier to read just because they are written in a more self-conscious fashion.

But I've got no doubt that one might write a completely clear ruleset explaining how to use SoD.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 21, 2008)

Me said:


> My favourite thing about that quote is that it offers a very clear account of a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic in a 30-year-old rulebook.





Delta said:


> Your guys' lingo has reached a point where I don't understand what you're saying anymore.



In the quoted passage, it is very clear that we don't know what happened in the gameworld, or exactly what was attempted by the PC, untl the saving throw is resolved. The narration of events in the gameworld is then adapted to be consistent with the roll. This is much like "dying" in 4e, in which we don't know exactly what state a PC is in, or what the dying save roll means, until the mechanical situation is fully resolved.

One label for such mechanics is "fortune-in-the-middle" because the dice are rolled in the middle of the narration, and set the parameters for the rest of the narration.


----------

