Stupid Death: Characters perishing in undramatic / unlucky ways (A plot armor debate)

[Rixx]

I had a conversation last night with my DM that actually got somewhat heated, as we disagreed on a certain aspect of the game: The circumstances under which it's appropriate to not prevent a character from dying.

My DM's normally pretty fair, and he's often fudged things in our favor or let us invoke rules incorrectly (usually without letting us know either way, which is good, I think) in order to keep us alive. However, he believes that characters should face death in every circumstance, even by relatively mundane means - I.E. suffering a double-critical from a kobold during a routine/mundane encounter, or critically failing your reflex save against a fireball trap. He says that if there isn't a sense of constant danger and threat of death in the world, then the challenges we face are meaningless.

However, I'm of the belief that if you're playing in an overarching campaign where character development and story are very important, then character death in places that don't make sense in the context of the narrative shouldn't happen. I don't think a character should die by unfortunate accident, as it doesn't advance the plot in a meaningful way. It would be like if Frodo Baggins failed his climb check on the Black Step in Mordor and fell to his death - it would leave the audience feeling cheated, and anything that'd leave the audience feeling cheated would count double for the players. That isn't to say I'm against character death - I just think that character deaths should be meaningful, not to mention the fact that DMs can punish players in myriad ways that aren't death (I.E. permanent disfigurement / stat reductions, death of plot-important or loved NPCs).

It's all a matter of playstyle, and depends on the nature of the campaign (Gygaxian dungeon crawl versus narrativist character-based epic) but if the players and the DM disagree on this point, results could be disastrous. What's everyone's opinion on this conundrum?

[Piedmon_Sama]

My opinion is it's a good idea to have a reserve character pre-statted, and keep his sheet updated as your active character goes up in levels. Which should tell you something about my DM/Playing style, I guess. :p

[Kylarra]

Instant death rules are lame and should be avoided at all cost, statistically it will hurt you guys more than any given NPC/mob.

In a properly constructed encounter you should feel passably threatened with death, without needing to invoke hax "oops I got a 1:400 roll and you're dead now".

[arguskos]

You know, I think that using the pejorative "Gygaxian dungeon crawl versus narrativist character-based epic" comparison is perhaps not the best way to present your argument. Just sayin'. :smallwink:

On your topic, I am a fan of a world in which death can come for you at any time. Sometimes, even the greatest of adventurers, in the grandest of stories and most epic of tales are laid low by misfortune. The Life is a harsh taskmaster, and death is unforgiving.

Now, I'm not saying I go out of my way to kill off the players, nor that each random encounter is deadly beyond words, merely that I don't pull my punches. If the party is level 7, and is ambushed by bandits (who are, lets say, level 3), and perhaps one of the bandits gets a lucky hit in on a party member, knocking them to negatives. The logical and smart thing for that bandit to do is threaten the party, saying "I'll kill him if you don't hand over all your money!" If they react poorly, and don't give him the money, he'll follow through with his threat.

[Rixx]

Hey, some of the funnest games I've ever played are Gygaxian dungeon crawls! Having a character you aren't afraid of losing is refreshing.

I think the thing about instant deaths / unfortunate accidents is that it's more or less out of the players' hands. I don't think players should be forgiven for doing stupid things, or reacting inappropriately to certain situations, but in the case where the player could do little to nothing to prevent it, death is too harsh a punishment.

[Lapak]

I'm not a fan of instant-death mechanics myself, but I do think that letting the dice fall as they may can be as valuable to story-building as fudging the characters out of 'meaningless' deaths.

On a 'heroic epic' level, how heroic is an action if it carries absolutely no risk? If that fight against kobolds really can't kill the hero, if it is just another tick-mark on the XP chart to allow him to advance, then what was the point? Just ad-hoc experience gains, leave out the trivial challenges or collectively narrate past them, and play out the significant encounters.

On a 'character-centric' level, real people have curveballs and tragedy thrown at them all the time. How would the other characters react if one of their number died, with all of kinds of unresolved issues left behind? Would they take up the quest to avenge his murdered family, or conquer a nation in her name to raise a suitable monument, or would they press onward because they must? Any answer is potentially fantastic and could cause more character development in one session than ten 'harmless' challenges ever could. On the flip side, if a character does have crucial issues to resolve, and they can't afford to die, how will that change their approach to adventuring? Will they bypass a quest or a challenge because it is too risky and doesn't really apply to their personal goals? What if it DOES support the goals of one of their companions?

So if you're going epic, go EPIC and skip the speed-bump challenges that don't mean anything. If you're going for real people and strong character development, risk and loss are two truly powerful influences.

[Kylarra]

Now, I'm not saying I go out of my way to kill off the players, nor that each random encounter is deadly beyond words, merely that I don't pull my punches. If the party is level 7, and is ambushed by bandits (who are, lets say, level 3), and perhaps one of the bandits gets a lucky hit in on a party member, knocking them to negatives. The logical and smart thing for that bandit to do is threaten the party, saying "I'll kill him if you don't hand over all your money!" If they react poorly, and don't give him the money, he'll follow through with his threat.Yeah, I'm fine with that sort of thing. There's an out and possibly roleplaying that benefits from that. On the other hand "Kobold sneaks up on you and slits your throat during a surprise round"... not so much.

[GreyMantle]

Games where there's always the possibility of death and games where death is almost always part of some plot event are both fine, as long as everyone playing agrees on what they're playing.

The only thing that people need to be aware of is the idea of Iterative Probability. Basically, if there's, say a 5% chance of any given character dying in any given encounter, and the campaign is going to consist of 500 encounters, then a lot of people are going to die just from simple math.

My solution is to make any dead character revivable with a simple Heal Check as long as they died within 1 minute/level. It lets monsters and characters use SoD abilities and be able to knock someone out of a combat but makes Absolute Death unlikely from a stupid die roll.

Character's, as long as they've been in the party for a certain amount of time, are also allowed to do a Heroic Last Stand, where they get a massive power boost for a short amount of time and then permanently die. It works for my games.

[arguskos]

Yeah, I'm fine with that sort of thing. There's an out and possibly roleplaying that benefits from that. On the other hand "Kobold sneaks up on you and slits your throat during a surprise round"... not so much.
Well, if the situation is one in which such behavior is warranted from the kobold, and the party hasn't taken measures to prevent such things, then they deserve what they get. If you charge into a kobold den without thinking they might, I don't know, sneak up behind you and cut your throat? You deserve what you get.

Characters face death every damn day. They should be cautious. Of course, if you're also wearing full plate and a gorget (as any full plate fighter should be), you can afford to be brave. That's the idea.

It's about treating the world as a real one, with all the danger that comes along with it. Just be smart, and you'll fit in fine. :smallamused:

[Rixx]

The hard part about this is that there are a lot of convincing arguments for both sides - neither of them are really "right", so long as the players and the DM agree.

[Kylarra]

Well, if the situation is one in which such behavior is warranted from the kobold, and the party hasn't taken measures to prevent such things, then they deserve what they get. If you charge into a kobold den without thinking they might, I don't know, sneak up behind you and cut your throat? You deserve what you get.

Characters face death every damn day. They should be cautious. Of course, if you're also wearing full plate and a gorget (as any full plate fighter should be), you can afford to be brave. That's the idea.

It's about treating the world as a real one, with all the danger that comes along with it. Just be smart, and you'll fit in fine. :smallamused:Well yes, as I am saying in the other thread, player stupidity shouldn't get any sort of plot armor, but on the other hand, the 1:400 chance of that "minion archer" insta-gibbing you isn't really my cup of tea. And I'm sure we all know how significantly losing 20-25% of the party before the first round can affect an encounter.

[Nightson]

Totally random death is neither fun nor interesting. If the kobolds do enough damage to kill you then you die, but they shouldn't kill you just because the DM happens to roll two 20s in a row.

[arguskos]

Well yes, as I am saying in the other thread, player stupidity shouldn't get any sort of plot armor, but on the other hand, the 1:400 chance of that "minion archer" insta-gibbing you isn't really my cup of tea. And I'm sure we all know how significantly losing 20-25% of the party before the first round can affect an encounter.
Of course it sucks, but I'm not going to retcon Mr. Minon Archer's lucky shot. Luck happens. Now, if the level 3 bandit somehow manages to auto-kill a level 7 player... that's some amazing shooting there. If he doesn't, then his attack was just a good shot, and nothing to worry about.

I personally think that any silly crit=death rules are face-palmingly stupid, so I think we're on the same page with that one. :smallcool:

[zarakstan]

I've died a couple of stupid deaths in my time. I liked it :smalltongue: it made the game feel more real, made all my actions seem more heroic when I knew that when why DM rolled the dice the enemies' sword could puncture and kill me, then again it can be annoying to loose a great character without the possibility of resurrection, but hey I played as a cleric/radiant servant of pelor along side a ranger/knight of ravenloft and defeated the ravenloft adventure with no DM fudging which was more rewarding because I knew the risk :smallsmile:

[Ninetail]

I had a conversation last night with my DM that actually got somewhat heated, as we disagreed on a certain aspect of the game: The circumstances under which it's appropriate to not prevent a character from dying.

Your DM's game, his rules.

Both approaches are valid. I tend toward a middle ground, myself. I do not kill characters by surprise without warning. However, if the PC does something to bring his death on himself, I don't fudge it, even if it's a mundane circumstance.

Something like a lucky arrow crit during an ambush, when the player hasn't had time to act yet? I'll drop the damage a little bit, enough to put him down and dying, but not far enough negative to instantly die. If the character is revived and then chooses to continue fighting, rather than run, surrender, or whatever? Well, he knows the kind of damage he might be facing. If he takes another crit like that, he's dead.

In the case of a TPK, I tend to capture rather than kill, provided the enemy is intelligent. The purpose can range from interrogation to ransom to "saving them to eat later." Doesn't really work with things like oozes or uncontrolled undead, but then, the party knows they're fighting oozes or undead...

Some traps do inflict instant death... the catch here is, they're things the players would be aware of, if they were paying attention. Never does it come out of nowhere.

[Kylarra]

Of course it sucks, but I'm not going to retcon Mr. Minon Archer's lucky shot. Luck happens. Now, if the level 3 bandit somehow manages to auto-kill a level 7 player... that's some amazing shooting there. If he doesn't, then his attack was just a good shot, and nothing to worry about.

I personally think that any silly crit=death rules are face-palmingly stupid, so I think we're on the same page with that one. :smallcool:In the hypothetical situation that I am playing with the instant death rule, then I agree, the player is dead by virtue of rolls, but we are definitely in agreement about them being stupid. :smallbiggrin:

[Jair Barik]

The Frodo example isn't really apt. In a campaign if you decided to climb a very tall, near vertical slope that was very slippery and could potentially leave you vulnerable to attacks from winged beast riding Nazgul I think the DM would have every right to say you die due to failing the roll (unless he railroaded you down that path).

[Rixx]

The Frodo example isn't really apt. In a campaign if you decided to climb a very tall, near vertical slope that was very slippery and could potentially leave you vulnerable to attacks from winged beast riding Nazgul I think the DM would have every right to say you die due to failing the roll (unless he railroaded you down that path).

Anyone who's read DM of the Rings knows that he clearly did. ;D

But what I'm talking about is situations in which the player did everything essentially "right", but still dies because of bad luck - especially at a point in the story that it makes no sense for them to die at.

On the other hand, we can take another Lord of the Rings example that works against my argument - the death of Boromir. He wasn't killed off in an epic showdown of any sort - he just got pegged with arrows from low-level orcs. However, his death, while it might seem like it came early and out of nowhere from a game standpoint, ended up working really well for the plot in the long run. So the real threat of death even in mundane encounters can work towards the plot, not always against it.

[Mr.Moron]

I think my previous post was more of a rant about deaths than it was a real answer to the question.


I believe it's fine for bad luck and undramatic things to be fall as they do. However well designed encounters and challenges should be relatively unable to kill when you don't want them to. With access to player sheets the DM knows the player's to-hit, health, AC saves, skill modifiers, spells known and everything else. With that information a DM can tune things pretty tight. Especially if you avoid silly things like save-or-dies and x4 critical weapons on NPCs.

EDIT:
Of course, I'm fairly willing to homebrew the heck out of my monsters and skill DCs. If you're just pulling things off-the-shelf from the MM & PHB it's harder.

[arguskos]

See, that point you made right there, Rixx, that's another reason I never pull punches. Ideally, if a player gets scrubbed thanks to Mr. Minon Archer, the others will pull together and make this a plot point. They'll go off to avenge their fallen comrade, which to my mind is a good thing. Even if I have to compensate for the random death, it still can turn into something great.

EDIT:

Especially if you avoid silly things like save-or-dies and x4 critical weapons on NPCs.
I can't really agree with this. If save-or-dies or x4 crit weapons exist in the game world, why SHOULDN'T NPCs get them too? Players can have them, why not NPCs? In a consistent world, NPCs and PCs are on similar footing, no?

[Jair Barik]

Anyone who's read DM of the Rings knows that he clearly did. ;D

But what I'm talking about is situations in which the player did everything essentially "right", but still dies because of bad luck - especially at a point in the story that it makes no sense for them to die at.

On the other hand, we can take another Lord of the Rings example that works against my argument - the death of Boromir. He wasn't killed off in an epic showdown of any sort - he just got pegged with arrows from low-level orcs. However, his death, while it might seem like it came early and out of nowhere from a game standpoint, ended up working really well for the plot in the long run. So the real threat of death even in mundane encounters can work towards the plot, not always against it.

Best stupid LotR character example is in the Hobbit. "uh oh, the dragon is aware that i'm here but can't see through my invisibility ring... I know I'll bluff my way out!"

Yeah Bilbo's stupid...

[Rixx]

I agree with deaths that can be made plot-important, to be honest - the only ones I take issue with are those that can't be made plot-important at all, like getting killed by forces that one can't take reasonably take vengeance on (like traps made by already-dead civilizations, unintelligent animals in their natural habitat, etc.)

[Kaziel]

Personally, my feeling is if they don't create a real, credible threat, then why should you have them at all? So that the players can feel "epic" or "heroic" by beating up little guys that represent no real threat? Player characters are already better than 99% of the world's population. They piss with the force that most NPCs punch.

Now that doesn't mean the DM should create traps which hit for 200% of the weakest player's health, or that a monster should automatically coup de grâce someone the moment they are lying on the ground dying and defenseless. For the former, you should obviously balance the damage of a trap around the players, but if they are "relatively speaking" dumb enough to walk around weak enough that the trap one-shots them, then it's not the DM's fault. For the latter, even if the monster could easily finish off the player in front of them, they aren't a threat... instead the other players who are still standing are a much more real issue. When/if the enemies have finished off everyone else and the downed player is still alive, they can then come back and do a little throat-splitting. :D

Addendum: I think part of this is also that certain monsters have become associated with being "fodder". Kobolds are brought up as an example, but in the normal D&D worlds for the average person, anything monstrous even a Kobold, is a small but fierce monster, intent on slaughtering him and Gods only know how many others.

As a counterpoint, demons and devils are always viewed as a threat, no matter what the level. You could be fighting some demons summoned to slow you down to getting to the big baddie, and if someone would die, I think most people would view this as an "acceptable" death because they are demons or devils, or whatever. You know... "real" monsters. :smallannoyed:

I'd say to try to stop looking at it from the mentality of a player, and that these are little sacks of XP that are just speed bumps on the way to the real boss. Instead, consider how NPCs would see them and use that as your point of view.

[Kylarra]

I feel that as far as player enjoyment goes, they should at least feel like they had a chance to even try, assuming they aren't being stupid. Sure you might lose some realism, but again, I'm not having fun if my character was wiped out by an instant death crit in the surprise round. If my char goes down in a swarm of bandits, sure that's rather ignoble, but at least I did something (probably).

[Kantur]

My DM's pretty good about this sort of thing. If you've picked something stupid to do, he won't try to save you and if the dice decide to punish you, you'll be punished (Amusing story of evidence later). But, if he's misjudged how tough an encounter is, I have a feeling he adds a few points of damage sometimes to speed things up without punishing us for his mistake. Of course, I don't have any proof of that, but that's the way it should be. But in a fair fight, the dice don't get altered once they've hit the table. (In the final fight of last Sunday's adventuring, 2 of the party were at -9 hit points against a Dragon and it was only because of the Cleric's acting quickly each time everyone survived).


Last Sunday, something very amusing happened that should've killed our 2nd ed AD&D Barbarian. We came across 2 Kobold guards, guarding an area in the other direction from the one we were approaching, we managed to get close enough to charge them without difficulty. They were standing at the edge of a 50 foot cliff - our Dwarven Fighter ran in and hacked one down with his sword easily, the Barbarian decided to run up and kick the Kobold off the edge of the cliff.

Natural 1. In this campaign if a Natural 1 is rolled, you roll again to hit, if you hit the creature's armour class, it's just a miss, if you miss again, it's a fumble. He'd fumbled before in a crowded combat, belting my character (a Bard) with his battleaxe for more hit points than were comfortable. He fumbled. Being reasonably kind, the DM had the alerted (Well, you'd be alerted if your friend had just been hacked down) Kobold make a Strength check against his strength - a 9 or less for the Kobold to throw the Barbarian past him, rolled it in the open. A 9 was rolled. The Barbarian should have died. The DM wasn't going to pull anything out of thin air to rescue to him. The one thing that saved him was my Bard liking to wear heavy armour and get into melee, which meant he tended to memorise spells without Somatic components. Like Featherfall. If it hadn't been for me memorising that spell, we'd have lost our Barbarian to a silly choice and some bad luck.

You probably wonder what happened to the Kobold. Confronted with lots of people, he took the only sensible choice. He quickly started climbing down a rope before we started hauling it up. At the end of the rope and still 30' from the ground, the poor Kobold wasn't left with many options. He jumped. Onto the Barbarian. Then jumped onto the ground and splatted into a pool of gore realising that the Barbarian wasn't going to be reasonable when he landed on the ground.

[Jair Barik]

Kobolds were a major threat in the game Baldurs Gate, I remember that.

On the topic of night Coup de Graces I did this once but made it nigh on impossible for the party to not hear it at all. As expected they woke up and fought back but the kobold assasins obviously had an advantage that made it an exciting encounter. Nobody had armour on, everyone was in seperate rooms and they had very little gear close to hand. As it was the guards were timed to enter eventually so the party would be rezed regardless of what happenned.

The outcome? 1 party member incapped by having strength reach 0 due to the leader assasins poisoned blade, 2nd party member incapped by being reduced 2 0 hp by the leaders sneak attack. 3rd party member impaled the leader on his sword but not before taking some damage. The party only managed to face him 1 at a time due to being seperated at it was by far one of the most fun encounters of the game.

[Mongoose87]

Kobolds were a major threat in the game Baldurs Gate, I remember that.



Were they ever! You went down into those mines, no idea what to expect, and the little buggers start shooting fire arrows at you, and you've never seen anything like it (if you didn't take your time getting there).

[Umael]

Communication, communication, communication.

That's the key.

Obviously what the OP wants and what the OP's DM wants are two different things, or at least, what they expect out of the games are two different things. And as others have already said, both are valid ways to run the game, and it is the DM's game, so the OP needs to play by his rules.

But the DM is also in the wrong for failing to take the OP's feelings and desires into consideration.

For me, I don't get to play often enough to have a game where I won't be caring about the character. Furthermore, the story seems to benefit more when the characters last long enough to finish a critical storyline for which said character was integral to the plot - and it's a view I think all of the people in our group share.

After all, if I tell the DM about my character's backstory involving an evil prince, how my character was abused, my character's mother was rape, my character's father beheaded... then I get my character killed because of a few lucky rolls by the DM, I might feel just a little cheated.

Now I know there are ways to circumvent this. But the point is, there is a story to be told, one that I put time and energy into creating and one in which I am trusting the DM will help me tell. If the DM kills off my character before I get to tell this story (either with or without the DM's assistance), I'm probably going to re-think playing anymore with said person as DM.

(By the by, this has happened to me, on more than one occasion.)

Of course, this is just my take on things. Others might feel very differently.

[Drakyn]

Were they ever! You went down into those mines, no idea what to expect, and the little buggers start shooting fire arrows at you, and you've never seen anything like it (if you didn't take your time getting there).

Firewine bridge was worse. That thing had more kobold commandos (fire-arrow using little buggers who would ALWAYS HIT) than bricks. Repeat after me: endless maze of tight corridors, shoddy NPC ally AI, slow characters, infinite hail of massively-damaging arrows from sniping kobolds that swarm in packs and are always within sight of another, incredibly tetchy pack that will join in should you close with their buddies. Repeat for a fairly spacious dungeon floor and chill for one hour before serving cold with rage.

[Mr.Moron]

I can't really agree with this. If save-or-dies or x4 crit weapons exist in the game world, why SHOULDN'T NPCs get them too? Players can have them, why not NPCs? In a consistent world, NPCs and PCs are on similar footing, no?

Not really. The world only needs to have the appearance of consistency. NPCs only need to be in-line with the PCs to the degree it takes for them to not set off alarms for the duration of time they're "In Focus".

Even then if you're with Mook #82 or Gromdamonous the Ocean-Drinker, they can be pretty far out of line with the PCs without raising any eyebrows.

After all if things were really consistent every NPC would generate their stats in the same manner as PCs, get the same WBL, and just as much time would be dedicate to their stories.

[Gerbah]

One thing I've never really liked about D&D are the too common "no save" abilities, ones that just drain a stat, level, etc.. It makes it seem all too cruel, like there was nothing you could have even done to prevent it. I tend to stay away from those or actually give them a save.

I try to keep my encounters somewhat interesting and threatening, though it seems like the group has just been steam-rolling through it. Makes it hard to come up with a well balanced encounter, but I suppose since none of them have died yet (with one exception, but that was the players who did that one).

[Mongoose87]

Firewine bridge was worse. That thing had more kobold commandos (fire-arrow using little buggers who would ALWAYS HIT) than bricks. Repeat after me: endless maze of tight corridors, shoddy NPC ally AI, slow characters, infinite hail of massively-damaging arrows from sniping kobolds that swarm in packs and are always within sight of another, incredibly tetchy pack that will join in should you close with their buddies. Repeat for a fairly spacious dungeon floor and chill for one hour before serving cold with rage.

Of course, if you found a wand of fireballs or cloudkill, you were set.

[Drakyn]

Of course, if you found a wand of fireballs or cloudkill, you were set.

Stupid AI and casting times would seal your fate nevertheless :( "Oh, let me walk directly into those kobolds so I can see that spot where I'm firing at properly. There we go....now to blow myself up! Ow, arrows, cast fail."

[Johel]

He believes that characters should face death in every circumstance, even by relatively mundane means - I.E. suffering a double-critical from a kobold during a routine/mundane encounter, or critically failing your reflex save against a fireball trap. He says that if there isn't a sense of constant danger and threat of death in the world, then the challenges we face are meaningless.

I support your DM.

Adventurers are heroes but that doens't make them immune to mundane dangers. What's the point of even having random encounters with kobolds if you know they cannot kill you ? Even the wizard's going to fight with HIS DAGGER because he won't bother wasting spells or even crossbow bolts on such useless monsters.

Minions are meant for adventurers to "let it go" and play axecrazy. But they are also a way to weaken you if you aren't careful. You don't use a fireball on a group of kobolds (unless it's a really big group...).

Traps are meant to be a danger, not just a "Oh, crap. If we weren't heroes, THAT should have hurt !!" device. The fact that you really risk serious injury and even death while dealing with traps make your success even more enjoyable.

You play it safe, you survive but it's boring.
You play it smart, it's safe but less boring.
You play it smart and risky, you might survive and have fun.
You play it risky "because we are heroes"...well, sorry guys, heroes that just trust their luck get a swift death.

[Rixx]

For the record, the DM and I are best friends, and we came to an agreement before I posted this. (We're not immune to mundane death, but we are changing the way instant death works.) There's no argument between us anymore - I just wanted to hear the general public's take on things.

Plus I'm well aware that it's no fun to play a game where we're coddled and there's no challenge. This topic was made specifically about deaths that are either unfair from a game standpoint (the player had no way to prevent it and no reason to be punished for his actions) or story standpoint (the way the character dies is destructive to the narrative or doesn't make sense in the context of a story). Or, as they often are, both.

[Kingweasel]

Dusty cobwebby open box with several Beads of Force at the bottom + my character of 3 years trying to clear the cobwebs away with sword = BOOM/Death.

I thought the cobwebs were across the top of the box when I said "I use the end of my sword to get rid of the webs"

My DM thought I was stirring the sword through the whole depth of the box, since he knew the webs filled it.


Death by miscommunication!

[Rixx]

...Brutal.

[Gnaeus]

Now that doesn't mean the DM should create traps which hit for 200% of the weakest player's health, or that a monster should automatically coup de grâce someone the moment they are lying on the ground dying and defenseless. For the former, you should obviously balance the damage of a trap around the players, but if they are "relatively speaking" dumb enough to walk around weak enough that the trap one-shots them, then it's not the DM's fault.

I once played in this game of Rolemaster. We spent about 3 hours rolling and building characters (we had some experience with the system). We walk up to the ruined castle. We walk in the front gate of the ruined guardhouse, and an unseen mook drops boiling water on our head. 2 deaths, with every other party member badly maimed in a way that would require way more money than we had to fix. Less than 10 minutes of play, including rolling the heat criticals. Thats a bad death. I think if we had been older at the time, we would have ignored that result.

I do think that smart monsters should coup de gras or the equivalent in many circumstances. Enemy casters, or enemies familiar with casters, know that a PC cleric with one round can restore a bleeding opponent to a credible threat in a round. As long as in combat healing is in a game, I think it makes all sorts of sense for the dragon to follow its breath weapon with a fireball, just to make sure the squishies stay down.

[Harperfan7]

There's a gnome rogue/illusionist in the group I'm Dming for who just dies unluckily almost every adventure, and it's really not his fault, so what I did is this...

1st time - Gnoll greatbow arrow crit through the head, the gnoll was standing in entangle, so I said I forgot to roll his save for the round (ok, so I did forget, but I still had to go back).

2nd time - Hobgoblin with light crossbow crit through the head. I said that instead of dead, he is at -9 and bleeding, and the cleric got to him that round, so he was ok. After that he had a constant shaken penalty which went down to 1 the next session, and zero for the one after that. Strike 1.

3rd time - Opened a grate on the floor which was a magic trap (summon swarm). The swarm won initiative, and knocked him to 0 before he could even go. Half the party died on that one, so I said that instead, they were all at the door leading into the room (and not dead). Strike 2.

4th time - TPK. Two CR 1 dread guards whooped up on the 1st level party. I just said everybody is now at strike two, and after the next death, they have to roll new characters at 1 level below the rest of the party.

Hey, the campaigns continuity was at -9 and bleeding. I had to stabilize it.

[Claudius Maximus]

I typically run my games with the possibility of character death present even from ignominious sources. If a mook crits a PC, I would go by the rolls, even if it meant the PC died. I do, however, see the appeal of the other side; it's pretty disappointing when a character with a huge backstory dies to a random encounter, especially when there's no chance of resurrection. In the last session I DM'd, the PCs ran into a Catoblepas. In the first round of combat, it hit the Barbarian with a death beam, and he rolled a 1. I could tell that that player was pretty disappointed, since he pretty much had to sit the rest of the session out. I'm actually considering making this campaign "softer" with respect to character death.

[Curmudgeon]

My solution is to make any dead character revivable with a simple Heal Check as long as they died within 1 minute/level. I'm not fond of messing up the game mechanics that way to cheat death, unless you allow the enemies to do the same.

The 4th level spell Revivify will let you bring a recently deceased character back long enough to get it healed. And really, how many characters without healing spells are going to have any reason to spend points on the Heal skill? It's pretty much a niche skill.

[Rixx]

It kind of depends on how people play the game and the way they feel about their characters, as well. To me, for example, D&D (Well, Pathfinder, but... same difference.) is a character-building exercise - not character-building from a game standpoint, but from a story standpoint. I don't even take feats or new skills without having an in-character reason for doing so, and I'll roleplay my characters' actions even if it's detrimental to the current situation. (For example, my reckless ranger charging an assassin twice his level just to keep him busy while his friends try to stop a Lich-making ritual, disregarding his own safety). Therefore, I consider it a noble destiny of my character dies in a way that makes sense for the character (their own recklessness or stupidity, a self-sacrifice, to be killed by an opponent that's been antagonising them for a while, or to be undone by their own fatal flaws or those of their friends). However, if my character were to die in a way that doesn't mesh easily with the context of the story, I'd be very upset, since it's a perfectly good waste of what could have been a very interesting and dramatic plot.

So this isn't really an argument against character death as it is an argument against critical success/failure insta-death.

[Brauron]

In the game I'm DMing, a PC Half-Orc Barbarian, level 3, died after getting hit by an attack of opportunity from an Ogre, who scored a critical.

[DragonBaneDM]

I run rivals for my 4e campaign. I promised each and every character that they won't die in their rivals fights, so that they don't freak out and bring down the whole game.

The Eladrin Wizard in the game has an at-will Fey Step. So, to counter, I made a ShadowBorn Tiefling Rogue with Teleport 7. I critted with a shuriken and brought the wizard down to ten hit points. The player knew that this was an elaborate scheme on the Tiefling's part to persuade him to become a lich.

The wizard jumped off of a building into his own FireWall... Player suicide. I felt awful.

[CDR_Doom]

It kind of depends on how people play the game and the way they feel about their characters, as well. To me, for example, D&D (Well, Pathfinder, but... same difference.) is a character-building exercise - not character-building from a game standpoint, but from a story standpoint. I don't even take feats or new skills without having an in-character reason for doing so, and I'll roleplay my characters' actions even if it's detrimental to the current situation. (For example, my reckless ranger charging an assassin twice his level just to keep him busy while his friends try to stop a Lich-making ritual, disregarding his own safety). Therefore, I consider it a noble destiny of my character dies in a way that makes sense for the character (their own recklessness or stupidity, a self-sacrifice, to be killed by an opponent that's been antagonising them for a while, or to be undone by their own fatal flaws or those of their friends). However, if my character were to die in a way that doesn't mesh easily with the context of the story, I'd be very upset, since it's a perfectly good waste of what could have been a very interesting and dramatic plot.

So this isn't really an argument against character death as it is an argument against critical success/failure insta-death.

This is pretty much how I feel about it too. To use your Boromir example from earlier, dying while trying to defend the hobbits is a good plot-centric death, and if I was playing him as a character that would be cool with me. But if he went out to collect firewood and slipped on a rock, falling into the river and drowning because I rolled a one on a check, I'd be pretty pissed. I think the key to making an enjoyable campaign for people who care more about the story than the simulation is that as a DM, if it isn't plot related, you shouldn't be making anyone roll any dice. Now if you really enjoy the simulation aspects of the system, then go ahead and make a roll for everything. Neither way is wrong, as long as everyone playing feels the same way.

[Saph]

Plus I'm well aware that it's no fun to play a game where we're coddled and there's no challenge. This topic was made specifically about deaths that are either unfair from a game standpoint (the player had no way to prevent it and no reason to be punished for his actions)

If a player said something like this to me, I'd know it was time to sit down and have a LONG talk with him, because it's obvious that there are some serious miscommunication issues going on.

The major red flag in that sentence is "punished". What does the player think I am, a kindergarten teacher? "Punished" implies that there's a right thing to do, and a wrong thing to do, and that I'm trying to force the player into the correct decision. That's not how I run games. From my point of view, there's no "right" outcome to their choices, or to their adventures - the whole point is that they decide what to do.


or story standpoint (the way the character dies is destructive to the narrative or doesn't make sense in the context of a story). Or, as they often are, both.

Well, here's the thing. Are the PCs in your game allowed to kill an enemy in a lucky, random, or anticlimactic way?

If no, then I agree, the same rule should apply to them. If their enemies get a plot shield, they get a plot shield too.

If yes . . . then I'm sorry, but the rules apply across the board. Fair's fair.

How many NPCs and monsters has your character killed? What would be his death count if you tallied it all up? I don't have much patience for players who kill enemies by the truck load but then cry foul when they get killed themselves. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

- Saph

[Milskidasith]

Well, here's the thing. Are the PCs in your game allowed to kill an enemy in a lucky, random, or anticlimactic way?

If no, then I agree, the same rule should apply to them. If their enemies get a plot shield, they get a plot shield too.

If yes . . . then I'm sorry, but the rules apply across the board. Fair's fair.

How many NPCs and monsters has your character killed? What would be his death count if you tallied it all up? I don't have much patience for players who kill enemies by the truck load but then cry foul when they get killed themselves. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

- Saph

I believe the point of a plot shield is that you get shielded by being plot important. Giving plot shields to random kobolds you meet doesn't make sense, since they aren't important to the plot. They can't even die in an anticlimactic way, because the climax of their story is dying (and the falling action is the party looting their corpses).

[Saph]

I believe the point of a plot shield is that you get shielded by being plot important. Giving plot shields to random kobolds you meet doesn't make sense, since they aren't important to the plot. They can't even die in an anticlimactic way, because the climax of their story is dying (and the falling action is the party looting their corpses).

See, that's not how I run games. I don't include creatures in the gameworld whose purpose is to get insta-gibbed by the PCs. Even minions and mooks are still sentient creatures. The PCs might treat them like ants, but that doesn't mean that they are ants. If the PCs take the time to talk to them, they'll find they're basically the same as them.

- Saph

[Rixx]

In our campaign, we don't just mow through mooks, though. As a matter of fact, in the campaign I'm thinking about, we've only had one mooks-battle... which our characters solved by not waking them up and tying them up instead, since they didn't want any meaningless bloodshed. (Our DM was even expecting us to start fighting, and made most of them asleep to start with to give us a fair chance.) So thinking of unlucky deaths as karmic payback doesn't always apply to every party.

Plus the plot-armor applies - the PCs are important. The NPCs are not. And if you want to punish the PCs for not treating the NPCs as actual living creatures (which we usually do), there are better ways than applying the insta-kill rules both ways.

[Rixx]

That's not how I run games. From my point of view, there's no "right" outcome to their choices, or to their adventures - the whole point is that they decide what to do.

But this is about deaths independent of choice or decision - just really bad luck. From a game standpoint, if there's no way a player could have predicted it or taken measures to avoid or escape from the death, then it isn't fair. Take video games for example - the best designed ones are games where you can feel like every death is your own fault. (Sorry for the double-post, by the way.)

[arguskos]

Plus the plot-armor applies - the PCs are important. The NPCs are not. And if you want to punish the PCs for not treating the NPCs as actual living creatures (which we usually do), there are better ways than applying the insta-kill rules both ways.
Uh, the PCs are NOT always important. Yours may be, but mine sure as hell aren't. They're just adventurers, making their way through life, when they stumble across something of importance, and potentially get mixed up in it.

When taken that way, plot armor suddenly seems silly, since from the game world's perspective, the PCs don't matter.

Just an alternate thought.

[Rixx]

Yeah, it's a case-by-case thing. There isn't a "right" way or a "wrong" way to do things - that's a huge part of D&D and tabletop roleplaying in general. Both are perfectly valid ways to play. I'm just saying that applying one style of conflict resolution to the wrong style of games can leave people feeling cheated.

For example, applying plot armor to a campaign where the adventurers aren't important to the world is silly and pointless, and takes away from the challenge and danger of the game. The reverse is true, too - withholding any amount of plot armor from the PCs in a campaign where the focus is on their backstories, their interactions with each other, and their effect on the world could be destructive to the campaign's premise.

Man, I have to go through this thread and read all my arguments! I feel like I've made a dozen points that have nothing to do with each other. Geez...

[Saph]

In our campaign, we don't just mow through mooks, though. As a matter of fact, in the campaign I'm thinking about, we've only had one mooks-battle... which our characters solved by not waking them up and tying them up instead, since they didn't want any meaningless bloodshed. (Our DM was even expecting us to start fighting, and made most of them asleep to start with to give us a fair chance.) So thinking of unlucky deaths as karmic payback doesn't always apply to every party.

In that case, I'd have enemies mostly try to capture rather than kill the PCs, too. Partly for OOC reasons (you're playing a game with a low bloodshed factor) and partly for IC reasons (if the enemies know that the PCs aren't killers, they're more likely to try and use nonlethal methods to subdue them).


But this is about deaths independent of choice or decision - just really bad luck. From a game standpoint, if there's no way a player could have predicted it or taken measures to avoid or escape from the death, then it isn't fair.

Again, are the PCs allowed to kill NPCs through good luck? Is every NPC death 'fair'?

If the players are saying "We want a less random combat system", then I'll listen to them and maybe make some changes. If they're saying "We want to be able to kill other guys with lucky shots, but not have the same apply to us" then I'm going to laugh. :)

- Saph

[Rixx]

Yeah - part of our agreement is that we don't get insta-kills either. I'm willing to give that up. Lucky victories are kind of hollow.

There's also the house-rule that if the DM has to get you out of a situation you got yourself into, you don't get any experience from the encounter.

Something interesting I'm noticing is that people who usually DM are in favor of the no plot-armor ruling while people that usually play tend to go the other way.

[Swordguy]

You know, the fascinating thing is the juxtaposition of opinions expressed in this thread and the DMing and the game of balancing responsibility as DM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119830) thread.

In this thread, good DMing is being expressed as not killing players without a plot-centric reason and with much thought about whether the death would make a better story, while in that thread, good DMing is being expressed as presenting challenges appropriate to the game world, and happily killing the PC if they aren't smart enough to run away if the challenge is too great.

Both are valid styles, but having both threads next to each other on the forum is amusing.

[Avilan the Grey]

Stupid AI and casting times would seal your fate nevertheless :( "Oh, let me walk directly into those kobolds so I can see that spot where I'm firing at properly. There we go....now to blow myself up! Ow, arrows, cast fail."

Firewine bridge without Dynaheir or wand of fireballs was hell. But if you actually used the pause function (as soon as a party member had executed an order, pause, and issue a new one. Of course that is how I played the entire game(s).

[Raum]

I had a conversation last night with my DM that actually got somewhat heated, as we disagreed on a certain aspect of the game: The circumstances under which it's appropriate to not prevent a character from dying.

My DM's normally pretty fair, and he's often fudged things in our favor or let us invoke rules incorrectly (usually without letting us know either way, which is good, I think) in order to keep us alive. However, he believes that characters should face death in every circumstance, even by relatively mundane means - I.E. suffering a double-critical from a kobold during a routine/mundane encounter, or critically failing your reflex save against a fireball trap. He says that if there isn't a sense of constant danger and threat of death in the world, then the challenges we face are meaningless.I agree with your DM. However there's a second, more important, reason for the DM not saving characters artificially - responsibility. Guilt if you prefer. A DM shouldn't be in the position of arbitrarily killing characters. Yet, if I save them in some situations and not in another, I've chosen (by inaction) to kill that character at that time. The only difference between "I'm not saving you this time." and "Rocks fall, you die." is syntax. That's not the way I want to play...no matter which side of the table I'm on.


However, I'm of the belief that if you're playing in an overarching campaign where character development and story are very important, then character death in places that don't make sense in the context of the narrative shouldn't happen.Wait a sec, 'doesn't make sense in context'? Dropping dead from DM fiat for no reason is something I'd consider bad or at least unusual. But falling off a thousand foot cliff should kill. It makes sense in context.


I don't think a character should die by unfortunate accident, as it doesn't advance the plot in a meaningful way. It would be like if Frodo Baggins failed his climb check on the Black Step in Mordor and fell to his death - it would leave the audience feeling cheated, and anything that'd leave the audience feeling cheated would count double for the players. That isn't to say I'm against character death - I just think that character deaths should be meaningful...Meaningful? No. Interesting? Yes. Frodo falling off a cliff would have been interesting. Sam would need to recover the ring and continue the mission...lots of challenges in doing so. But, that was a story not a game. In a game, the participants are more important than the audience. In a game, random events (rolls) and player choices (choosing to fight / climb / whatever) should result in something interesting. And yes, failure and even death may well be an interesting outcome. What it really comes down to for me is this: Don't roll unless both failure and success are interesting. Life and death are certainly interesting. Either should have a material affect on the game.


...not to mention the fact that DMs can punish players in myriad ways that aren't death (I.E. permanent disfigurement / stat reductions, death of plot-important or loved NPCs).Gah! DMs should not be "punishing" players. It's a game! And the DM isn't mom.

Perhaps you simply meant choices should have consequences (good or ill), if so, I agree. That's what character death is - one potential consequence. It's not, or at least shouldn't be, a punishment.


It's all a matter of playstyle, and depends on the nature of the campaign (Gygaxian dungeon crawl versus narrativist character-based epic) but if the players and the DM disagree on this point, results could be disastrous. What's everyone's opinion on this conundrum?It is a matter of play styles. But you oversimplify. Even a 'narrativist character based epic' game can have unexpected events and consequences. Only stories are static.

[Raum]

Plus I'm well aware that it's no fun to play a game where we're coddled and there's no challenge. This topic was made specifically about deaths that are either unfair from a game standpoint (the player had no way to prevent it and no reason to be punished for his actions) or story standpoint (the way the character dies is destructive to the narrative or doesn't make sense in the context of a story). Or, as they often are, both.It's not punishment! Or if it is, that's not a DM I want to game with.

But moving past that, if it doesn't make sense within the game context, how / why did it happen? Did lightning strike out of a blue sky suddenly kill someone?

When I GM I do my best to avoid being arbitrary. I'm not going to arbitrarily kill or save a character. What happens, happens.


But this is about deaths independent of choice or decision - just really bad luck. From a game standpoint, if there's no way a player could have predicted it or taken measures to avoid or escape from the death, then it isn't fair. Take video games for example - the best designed ones are games where you can feel like every death is your own fault. (Sorry for the double-post, by the way.)Is it really independent of choice? Was there no way to avoid the combat? Or win it without dying?

I'm not certain I'm clear on what you're railing against. If you're simply saying you dislike DM's arbitrarily killing off characters, I agree. But if you're saying you should only risk death in fights somehow designated as 'boss' or important fights, I disagree. Adventurers who want to avoid risk should buy a farm. :smallwink:

[Umael]

If you're simply saying you dislike DM's arbitrarily killing off characters, I agree. But if you're saying you should only risk death in fights somehow designated as 'boss' or important fights, I disagree. Adventurers who want to avoid risk should buy a farm. :smallwink:

As a DM, I craft stories. If the story is something out of the Black Company or the Myth computer game series, then I let the dice fall where they may. If I want any particular PC to get their story told, I try to keep that PC alive until the story is told.

As a player, I want the same things. If I have a story to tell, it is not that I should play my character as "invincible", but that as long as I don't do something stupid, I'll get my character's story told - including if that story has a dramatic ending for my character.

To wit, I played in a Vampire LARP game while the Prince, in a fit of annoyance, ordered my character executed. I had played maybe five games by that point. All that work into my character - gone. On the flip side, I played another Vampire character who got to the point where I felt I needed to end the character, so, with the Storyteller's permission, I manipulated the other characters into killing mine.

[Raum]

As a DM, I craft stories. If the story is something out of the Black Company or the Myth computer game series, then I let the dice fall where they may. If I want any particular PC to get their story told, I try to keep that PC alive until the story is told.

As a player, I want the same things. If I have a story to tell, it is not that I should play my character as "invincible", but that as long as I don't do something stupid, I'll get my character's story told - including if that story has a dramatic ending for my character.Assuming we're still talking about a game, no single person's story should be paramount. Gaming is a group activity. RP gaming is synergistic story telling taking advantage of (and relying on) player interaction and (often) chance. The sum is often greater than the individual parts.

When gaming, I'm not interested in unilateral story telling. I have books, movies, and camp side fires for storytelling. Don't misunderstand, sitting around and telling stories to friends is a great pass time. It's just different from playing a game with those same friends.

A story teller's focus is narrower than a game referee's. Story tellers shape a story, build to a climax, and provide a solution. The referee doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attempt to shape the outcome of the game. He should seldom, if ever, provide solutions. His focus is keeping it interesting.

In the context of RPGs, the referee inserts conflict while leaving resolution to chance and the players.

[Umael]

Assuming we're still talking about a game, no single person's story should be paramount.

Who said it is?



Gaming is a group activity. RP gaming is synergistic story telling taking advantage of (and relying on) player interaction and (often) chance. The sum is often greater than the individual parts.

Nice rhetoric. But this re-enforces that you are adding concepts to my intent.



When gaming, I'm not interested in unilateral story telling.

And who said I did?



I have books, movies, and camp side fires for storytelling. Don't misunderstand, sitting around and telling stories to friends is a great pass time. It's just different from playing a game with those same friends.

Again, nice rhetoric.

Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you on your rhetoric. But it has a lot less to do with my point than you think.



A story teller's focus is narrower than a game referee's. Story tellers shape a story, build to a climax, and provide a solution. The referee doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attempt to shape the outcome of the game. He should seldom, if ever, provide solutions. His focus is keeping it interesting.

In the context of RPGs, the referee inserts conflict while leaving resolution to chance and the players.

Huh.

So White Wolf was completely off-base when it named the person in charge of running the game "the Storyteller"?

Okay, so I know not to run a White Wolf game with you, or be in one with you at all, by the sounds of it. I could be wrong, of course.

Let's just breakdown what you said for a moment.



A story teller's focus is narrower than a game referee's.

Debatable. Even in the context of an RPG, calling the storyteller's focus "narrower" than a referee's focus.

A storyteller, what was it again?

shape a story, build to a climax, and provide a solution

And a referee?

inserts conflict while
keeping it interesting

So, using your own words, the storyteller is doing a lot more... but has a narrower focus?

...like I said, debatable. And that's just in the context of an RPG.


What's next?

Story tellers shape a story, build to a climax, and provide a solution.

From a writer's viewpoint... no. A writer, as a storyteller of the written word (compared to other writers), is defined by writing a story. A basic elements of a story are introduction, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Remove the writing part, and you have a storyteller, whatever the form. So saying "build to a climax" is a redundancy. And provide a solution? Not in all stories.

But that's just talking about the written word. I believe we were talking about RPGs.

Okay, so as a Storyteller, I shape a story... true. I tend to leave parts of the story open to be written by the players, writing in the parts of the protagonists, but okay, I'll grant you that, I shape a story. Build to a climax... maybe, but then I'm sure what I consider the "climax" is different from what you consider.

THEORY TIME:

Every scene is its own story. Every scene will have its own "payoff". This payoff is not necessarily a "climax". It is, however, a reward for the audience (in the case of RPGs, the participating audience and the storyteller) for sticking around for the whole scene.

END THEORY TIME

Provide a solution? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes it is a solution the player has suggested. Sometimes it is better to just build up to the story and let the players "write the ending", so to speak.


What's next?


The referee doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attempt to shape the outcome of the game. He should seldom, if ever, provide solutions. His focus is keeping it interesting.

In the context of RPGs, the referee inserts conflict while leaving resolution to chance and the players.

...fair enough. I have no problem with your definition of the referee, at least insofaras it deals with RPGs.


Now, if you do me the courtesy, please go back and re-read the first paragraph you quoted. As I said, sometimes, I like to run those games. I "let the dice fall where they may". Then I mentioned (in the second paragraph) that, as a player, I "want the same things". By implication, I mean that sometimes I want to run an impartial game just as much as I want to play in an impartial game.

So, for gods' sake, don't pigeonhole me, please!

I am not advocating that all PCs get "plot armor". Even if I have "designs" for a PC, I'm not going to let that PC survive if they do something stupid*. It is just that if I put 3 hours of work into the character and the backstory and my character dies in the first 15 minutes of game, no take backs, I'm going to be thinking, "Why did I put that much work into a character?"

* - Unless it is more fun for everyone if I forbid them from dying. Unlikely, extremely.

What if my character concept requires only a small token?

Let me put you on the spot, Raum.

Let's say that you are running a game, pretty much any system. I come up with a character backstory that involves my character being an ex-slave. My character has a hatred of slavers and slavery, and wants to overthrow that system. I come up to you, the "referee", and say, "Look, this is part of my character background. I would like the chance, maybe a scene or two, in which my character gets the spotlight. Could you do something that highlights my hatred, maybe get a chance to attack some slavers, and then give me another scene where I get to make a speech to get the slaves to rise up in revolt?"

So... what would you do?

The way I see it, a good Storyteller would give me those two scenes. An excellent Storyteller does it so subtly that no one knows.

But a referee is under no obligation, written, implicit, or otherwise, to give me those scenes. They might come up in the course of the game, and even so, if the slavers are supposed to show up in Chapter 9, there is no guarantee that the referee would bother stepping in in Chapter 8, when my PC is about to die for whatever reason**.

** - Including a mistake by the referee in overestimating the difficulty of the encounter my PC would face.

So if I find myself in a situation where the person is going to just run the adventure, letting the dice fall where they may, with no regard for my character at all, then my character becomes pretty much interchangeable. I could play an ex-slave, a noble, a street urchin, a prostitute, a merchant-turned-adventurer, an avenging parent - it wouldn't matter. My character, my backstory, becomes less and less relevant the less the referee bothers to take it into consideration. In that case, why don't I just play an MMO?

[Thrawn183]

I look at it from the perspective of capabilities.

Lets say a party of level 7 characters get's attacked by a level 3 NPC. The characters aren't paying attention and fail the spot and listen checks to notice him. At least as far as archery is concerned, how exactly does the level 3 NPC kill anybody in the party on the surprise round? I mean, a crit from a bow is going to do ~25 damage assuming a max roll. A wizard is going to have (assuming 12 Con, 4+2.5*6+7=) 26 HP. Honestly, the only way this guy is going to kill the wizard, the character most likely to get killed in such a fashion I might add, is if he rolls spectacularly on his hide and move silently, spectacularly on his attack roll and confirmation rolls, spectacularly on initiative and spectacularly on his next attack roll.

This guy just literally had the luckiest day of his entire life. Are you surprised that he succeeded?

I think sudden death rules (roll 3 20's in a row and it's an instant kill) are setting yourself up for problems, but if an NPC rolls 7 or 8 20's in a row, they earned their win over the party.

As a foil to the previous example, an ogre is a CR 3. Compare this to a commoner 1. This thing is terrifying! This isn't some random guy walking around that's a threat. Take a bunch of commoner's with the equivalent of baseball bats (clubs) and think how many would have to mob an ogre to take it down! And that's with terrible feat selection.

Instead of describing an ogre as some puny foe that wanders around waiting to get it's head cut off like a chicken, describe it as the village slaughtering terror that it is!

[Raum]

Who said it is?You did. At least that's how I interpret "I craft stories" and " If I have a story to tell...I'll get my character's story told". Perhaps you meant it to include more than just your stories, but that's not how it comes across.


Nice rhetoric. But this re-enforces that you are adding concepts to my intent.

And who said I did?

Again, nice rhetoric.

Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you on your rhetoric. But it has a lot less to do with my point than you think.Please remember, communication in a forum is limited to text and inadequate emoticons. I've simply responded to what you wrote...which was very 'me' centric. The only time it seemed to allow for other's input is "If I (you) want any particular PC to get their story told". You don't seem to have allowed for cooperative play except in whatever small pieces you are willing to allow.


Huh.

So White Wolf was completely off-base when it named the person in charge of running the game "the Storyteller"?

Okay, so I know not to run a White Wolf game with you, or be in one with you at all, by the sounds of it. I could be wrong, of course.Sigh. Yes, I accept blame for all that's wrong with said game - even if I'm not playing.

Don't get hung up on titles. I didn't capitalize either 'storyteller' or 'referee' because I was referring to a function not a title. It doesn't really matter whether the title is DM, GM, Storyteller, Referee, Director, or something else. What matters is function - is the person facilitating a game, telling a fantastic tale, or something else?


Let's just breakdown what you said for a moment.

Debatable. Even in the context of an RPG, calling the storyteller's focus "narrower" than a referee's focus.

A storyteller, what was it again?

And a referee?

So, using your own words, the storyteller is doing a lot more... but has a narrower focus?

...like I said, debatable. And that's just in the context of an RPG.

What's next?Shrug. There's more than one dimension. Call it narrow and deep vs broad and shallow. Or call it whizbang, GNS, or whatever you want. Lack of precision in descriptive terms is why I attempted to define the responsibilities / functions. They're more important to me than semantics.

Back to actual analysis...
From a writer's viewpoint... no. A writer, as a storyteller of the written word (compared to other writers), is defined by writing a story. A basic elements of a story are introduction, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Remove the writing part, and you have a storyteller, whatever the form. So saying "build to a climax" is a redundancy. And provide a solution? Not in all stories...or not. You appear stuck on semantics still. Your version has five steps where I'd shortened it to three. Resolution and solution share the same root. I'll accept your version, it doesn't change my central point or argument at all.


But that's just talking about the written word.Err, no. Tales do not need to be written. In fact, verbal traditions have been around much longer than written.


I believe we were talking about RPGs.I'm not always certain of that. :smallwink: It's difficult to get a definition of what constitutes an RPG. Take GNS as an example, do any of the extremes qualify as an RPG? Is the Narrativist playing a game? What about the Simulationist? Is the Gamist telling a story? Shrug. Enough of my tangent. :smallredface:


Okay, so as a Storyteller, I shape a story... true. I tend to leave parts of the story open to be written by the players, writing in the parts of the protagonists, but okay, I'll grant you that, I shape a story. Build to a climax... maybe, but then I'm sure what I consider the "climax" is different from what you consider.Perhaps not.


THEORY TIME:

Every scene is its own story. Every scene will have its own "payoff". This payoff is not necessarily a "climax". It is, however, a reward for the audience (in the case of RPGs, the participating audience and the storyteller) for sticking around for the whole scene.

END THEORY TIMEI suspect this is a significant point of difference. When I GM I don't want an audience and when I play I don't want to be an audience. Not even if the tale spinner leaves little spots open for me to add a touch of color on occasion.

Stories are what you tell after the events have occurred. Games are interactive - making choices which shape the events you'll tell stories about later.


Provide a solution? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes it is a solution the player has suggested. Sometimes it is better to just build up to the story and let the players "write the ending", so to speak.Ok, I suspect we're in general agreement here. I'd simply rephrase to say the solution / resolution should be a logical consequence of the choices made in game by all characters. PC and NPC alike.


What's next?

...fair enough. I have no problem with your definition of the referee, at least insofaras it deals with RPGs.

Now, if you do me the courtesy, please go back and re-read the first paragraph you quoted. As I said, sometimes, I like to run those games. I "let the dice fall where they may". Then I mentioned (in the second paragraph) that, as a player, I "want the same things". By implication, I mean that sometimes I want to run an impartial game just as much as I want to play in an impartial game.

So, for gods' sake, don't pigeonhole me, please!As mentioned above, that first paragraph appeared very arbitrary to me. It didn't seem to allow for 'synergistic' tale creation - letting the game revolve around the player characters while they, individually and as a collective, impart their own unique vectors. Hmm, too much rhetoric perhaps. Put simply, the story results from interaction, choices, and even chance. It shouldn't be set before the game begins.


I am not advocating that all PCs get "plot armor". Even if I have "designs" for a PC, I'm not going to let that PC survive if they do something stupid*. It is just that if I put 3 hours of work into the character and the backstory and my character dies in the first 15 minutes of game, no take backs, I'm going to be thinking, "Why did I put that much work into a character?"

* - Unless it is more fun for everyone if I forbid them from dying. Unlikely, extremely.To play of course! I've had entire plot lines change simply because a player character those plots revolved around died. It happens. The game morphs, there's a new bit of history, possibly some new complications for the remaining (and replacement) characters, and the game / story moves on.


What if my character concept requires only a small token?

Let me put you on the spot, Raum.

Let's say that you are running a game, pretty much any system. I come up with a character backstory that involves my character being an ex-slave. My character has a hatred of slavers and slavery, and wants to overthrow that system. I come up to you, the "referee", and say, "Look, this is part of my character background. I would like the chance, maybe a scene or two, in which my character gets the spotlight. Could you do something that highlights my hatred, maybe get a chance to attack some slavers, and then give me another scene where I get to make a speech to get the slaves to rise up in revolt?"

So... what would you do?For purposes of discussion I'll assume the character wasn't made in a vacuum and slavery is part of the setting. If it wasn't I'd either direct you back to the game concept I'm pitching or ask you why / how you think the setting should be changed to enable your concept to fit. Depending on how far away it was from the setting concept, I might or might not agree to such changes.I'd say "Great! We have a concept / background which will add interesting conflict to the game!" Now tell me more...why do you hate slavery? Any personal experiences? Enemies? Allies? Are you perhaps an escapee? If so, is anyone hunting? What are the laws about escapees? Etc.


The way I see it, a good Storyteller would give me those two scenes. An excellent Storyteller does it so subtly that no one knows.The second sentence is something I don't understand. Why should a GM have to hide incorporating any player's background into the game? Frankly, I'm happiest when players leave obvious hooks to build on. When someone doesn't have some tie to the game I'm going to try to figure out what their character's goals and desires are so I can tie them into the game. Subtlety is reserved for how they all blend together into a seamless whole.


But a referee is under no obligation, written, implicit, or otherwise, to give me those scenes.Hmm, not sure I agree completely. While 'obligation' is too strong a word, I do expect games to be interactive and stories to be cooperative. When a referee isn't incorporating a character's story into the game I tend to wonder if the player needs to be there. The player has been left with no input. Four people can't play poker if you only deal cards out to one.


They might come up in the course of the game, and even so, if the slavers are supposed to show up in Chapter 9, there is no guarantee that the referee would bother stepping in in Chapter 8, when my PC is about to die for whatever reason**.

** - Including a mistake by the referee in overestimating the difficulty of the encounter my PC would face.As GM, it's always my fault. I simply don't want to make it my choice. And if I'm choosing when PCs live, I'm also choosing when they die. You can't have one without the other.


So if I find myself in a situation where the person is going to just run the adventure, letting the dice fall where they may, with no regard for my character at all, then my character becomes pretty much interchangeable. I could play an ex-slave, a noble, a street urchin, a prostitute, a merchant-turned-adventurer, an avenging parent - it wouldn't matter. My character, my backstory, becomes less and less relevant the less the referee bothers to take it into consideration. In that case, why don't I just play an MMO?I agree. Letting chance alone tell a story (if you could call it a story) is just as bad as GMs who are so fixed on telling a story their way they don't allow material player input. Of course I haven't advocated either of those two positions.

[Avilan the Grey]

As I am sure people have said above: It has to be a balance, and personally I do not enjoy the though of nothing but really bad luck with the dice kill off characters. However player neglect / stupidity sometimes combined with bad luck with the dice should mean no holding back of the punches.

[Somebloke]

I aim for both approaches as a DM, personally. I ended up reducing hp across the board for my characters and monsters to 75% because I felt they were getting too complacent.

In the past I have involved myself with sprawling epics where characters have been killed in brutal fights they should have stayed away from.

I agree about really bad luck not being allowed, however. I've had what seemed to be arbitary character deaths before and they hurt in a way ordinary deaths did not.

[Umael]

Letting chance alone tell a story (if you could call it a story) is just as bad as GMs who are so fixed on telling a story their way they don't allow material player input. Of course I haven't advocated either of those two positions.

I don't have time right now for a lengthy rebuttal, so let me focus on just this last part.

"Of course, I haven't advocated either of those two positions."

Well, neither have I!

And frankly, it feels an awful lot like you are assuming that I have advocated the later (which is a bit insulting)!

Going back to the slavery/ex-slave story... do you want me to just send you a copy of the story? I actually wrote a short story (for an Exalted game*) to serve as the background of said character.

* - It seems like slavery can be a part of the setting. The guy running it had no problem with the concept of it existing in his world.

In any case, having come up with said story, and put six** hours worth of work into the character (three for the story, three for the character), I would like a few scenes where my character gets the spotlight in a manner I prescribed. Nothing game breaking, nothing demanding.

** - This is an estimate. Could be more. Might be less. Probably not less though.

As player and as DM, the stories I create tend to have large holes. Actually, the stories are more like islands, in an ocean of chance and interaction out of my control. My stories, my games, have never been seen as railroaded, nor as a Choose-You're-Own-Adventure.