PDA

View Full Version : "You mean I don't have to roll a new character!?!": An Alternate Take on PC Death



DabblerWizard
2011-04-19, 08:46 PM
In a recent thread concerning character death, I posted the following statements (slightly edited here) about my way of integrating death into a character's story, where it's essentially just another part of the adventure.

Please lend me your thoughts.

I just want to point out that PC death doesn't have to mean the end of the character.

In my campaign, which is based in d&d 4E, I set up the notion that (most) PCs that die would descend to the Shadowfell. This is partially based on the lore given in the texts. You can certainly insert whatever other afterlife you want.

This way, a player could still play their character, though they'd end up taking on their own mini-adventure to try and get back to the mortal plane, assuming that was their goal.

Also, the Shadowfell as I conceived it, wasn't just inert. For instance, there would be soul-slavers who would try to enslave the PC.

Super high level PCs would have an easier time of getting back from death, if they so choose... or perhaps they should have a harder time of it? Something to think about.

As an addendum, deva (which are a 4e PC race) wouldn't descend to the Shadowfell, being directly connected to the astral plane and the deity that gave them permission to enter the material plane.

Masaioh
2011-04-19, 09:30 PM
In low-level games I just introduce the PC's long-lost twin brother/sister. Same character sheet, new name. Repeat as often as necessary.

In high-level games the party goes on a sidequest to rez the PC or just abandons him, in which case the player rolls a new character.

Weasel of Doom
2011-04-19, 10:41 PM
@Dabbler

I think that's a really good way of running things if the pcs don't want to roll another character or continuity would be upset by a new character joining.

I tend to play Dark Heresy (set in the distant future of Warhammer 40k) and part of that system (to compensate for the potential lethality of combats) is that each character has a set of Fate Points which can be 'burnt' to avoid death. Avoiding death can be as simple as having the last plasma cannon shot miss but sometimes it has to be a bit more elaborate. Burning the fatepoint could result in the character being rebuilt from scraps of nervous tissue as a cyborg (with vat-grown organs, steel plating over their body and fairly substantial SAN loss) or a pact with a demon (at the cost of the character's soul and a large risk of execution for heresy by the party if they find out).

@Masaioh I'd find the long-lost twin method really destructive to the story but I guess it could work if the game wasn't too serious. Doesn't the complete lack of danger detract from the game though? The character's know they can just come back as a twin so where's the risk in anything?

Urpriest
2011-04-19, 11:18 PM
The whole "quest to come back to life" thing is fun, but it gets gimmicky if it happens more than once, especially if it doesn't tend to happen to NPCs. It's also a poor choice for 4e, where the system is team-based enough that combat really doesn't work properly for a solo quest.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-20, 02:03 PM
Thank you, Weasel of Doom. Being upset about re-rolling is one reason I came up with this. My players are sensitive. :smallsmile:

Masaioh, pulling out the twin-character gig would be too gimmicky for my serious-minded players. Resurrection in my campaign world is highly guarded by certain groups, and isn't easy to come by. Divine intervention might also come to pass as well.


The whole "quest to come back to life" thing is fun, but it gets gimmicky if it happens more than once, especially if it doesn't tend to happen to NPCs. It's also a poor choice for 4e, where the system is team-based enough that combat really doesn't work properly for a solo quest.

Coming back to life shouldn't be easy. In fact, I would make the whole experience kind of harrowing and intense. Some sort of bargain that might (i.e. would) bite the character later on, for instance. This would be especially true with lower level characters that don't have the power, resources, or prestige to get their way otherwise.

I would allow returning over and over, but I know that my players would do everything in their power to avoid character death, so this is less of a problem in my group.

Theoretically, I might bring about some sort of cosmic intervention, or major consequence if it happens multiple times.

NPCs could come back this way, but because many of them are not heroes, with the awesome-sauce to figure out how, it just isn't likely to happen, unless the NPC is themselves pretty great, and willing to return.

EccentricCircle
2011-04-20, 02:28 PM
I like the idea of a dead character following along parrallel to the main group within the shadowfell, trying to steer them in the right direction while trying to get some sort of spell/ artefact/ person to return them to life. you could use characters with shadow step or similar abilities to go into shadow to speak with them and keep in touch, maybe they could figure out how to manifest like an ethereal creature can in 3.5. its a nice idea and will be a fun one to try at some point.

gbprime
2011-04-20, 02:28 PM
I tend to tie plotlines to each PC, and as a result I don't like people's characters getting snuffed out. Death is easy to recover from in D+D when you're high level. At low levels, though, this takes some DM fiat.

I never just hand out a Raise Dead. That's lame. Instead, something or someone will intercede and make the character's life (or lack thereof) difficult. Things I have used in the past...


A sword that captures the weilder's soul, allowing any raise/reincarnate/revivify to work with no level loss. The downside... it forces levels in a shadow soul PrC.
The sands of the Kazath Desert do not give up their dead. The dead character is ethereal, following as the PC's cart his body off, but discovering he cannot leave the desert itself. Soon he is picked up by a patrol of the desert's ghostly inhabitants... as a slave.
A demon who has been watching the PC's for some time offers to do him a favor and return him to life. Price to be named later...
An artificer reanimates the PC using an alchemical process and (s)he is now a construct... who secretly cannot disobey their creator's orders.


Death... is never the end. You just WISH it was. :smallbiggrin:

Eldan
2011-04-20, 02:30 PM
Well, in high-level Eberron, you can beat someone out of Dolurrh.

In Planescape, which I normally play, you can either resurrect someone (amongst other things, but dumping their body into the right spot of the positive energy plane), or just visit them in their respective paradise. Though talking to petitioners is a bit dull.

My favourite alternative to dying is Ghostwalk, by the way.

hoff
2011-04-20, 02:32 PM
I once had a character with 4 twins, I only used 3 of them though...

valadil
2011-04-20, 02:38 PM
That's actually what happened in Herc's Adventures on PS1, which was a really underrated and underappreciated game. When you died you went to Hades and had to fight through skeletons to get out. Each time you died the fight out was harder and harder, until you eventually didn't make it. For all intents and purposes you had lives, since after 5ish deaths you weren't making it through again, but the flavor was so much cooler than just having another dude.

I think this would be more interesting if the setting was based on this option. Is this something that just the PCs can do or have people been returning from Shadowfell for centuries? If they have, I feel like that would be reflected by society somehow.

What about keeping someone dead? If you were assassinating someone in this universe, you'd probably want them to stay dead, right? Well why not put some people in Shadowfell who will fight to keep someone else there. I kinda like the image of these elite assassins who get themselves killed if only to keep someone else in Shadowfell. That might be a fun way to keep the party on their toes after everyone's been through Shadowfell and no longer impressed by death.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-20, 09:43 PM
Eldan - Visiting the character might be an interesting morale boost, especially if the other characters could help the journey along. EccentricCircle, you seem to be saying something along that line of reasoning.

gbprime - I like all your suggestions. :smallbiggrin:

Valadil's Quote
That's actually what happened in Herc's Adventures on PS1, which was a really underrated and underappreciated game....

I think this would be more interesting if the setting was based on this option. Is this something that just the PCs can do or have people been returning from Shadowfell for centuries? If they have, I feel like that would be reflected by society somehow.

What about keeping someone dead? If you were assassinating someone in this universe, you'd probably want them to stay dead, right? Well why not put some people in Shadowfell who will fight to keep someone else there. I kinda like the image of these elite assassins who get themselves killed if only to keep someone else in Shadowfell. That might be a fun way to keep the party on their toes after everyone's been through Shadowfell and no longer impressed by death.

These are interesting points.

I conceive of the Shadowfell as a kind of limbo. "Real" death would occur after an unspecified time on the 'Fell, when the soul disintegrates and is reintegrated into the cosmos (i.e. the Astral Plane) as some sort of ether, assuming no intervention in the meanwhile. Most in-game mortal scholars have little to no understanding of this phenomenon. Deities and other super powerful beings might have knowledge of it, though.

Some beings, like the Raven Queen would take it upon themselves to intercede on this process, to capture souls, put individuals into indentured servitude for a time, in exchange for re-life, etc. This whole thing could become a major plot point in a high level story where characters are asked to fix the problem of a stalled cosmic-recycling.

I would say that the general mortal populous on the Material Plane has no knowledge of planar travel, partially out of magical ignorance, and partially because political figures want to keep them ignorant. If too many people knew that death wasn't "permanent", then these tyrannical rulers would have a weaker hold on the people. So, a relatively small number of people know that you can travel through planes at will, and an even smaller number die and come back to brag about it. In fact, I would say that most people who come back to live another day would try and keep it a secret: because (1) talking about it openly might bring unwanted attention from the government which wants to hide the fact, (2) many people just wouldn't believe them, (3) if the death was caused by a killing, the killers might still be alive, and ready to try a second time.

I really like the idea of Shadowfell assassins trying to stop souls from regaining their bodies. Luckily the Manual of the Planes brings up a number of interesting "natural" inhabitants on this plane, like the Shadar-Kai, who would make great assassins with good motivations, since they are indebted to the Raven Queen.

Masaioh
2011-04-20, 09:57 PM
@Masaioh I'd find the long-lost twin method really destructive to the story but I guess it could work if the game wasn't too serious. Doesn't the complete lack of danger detract from the game though? The character's know they can just come back as a twin so where's the risk in anything?

It was for the first campaign I ran. Our orc barbarian got OHKO'd twice in the same session at...4-5th lvl IIRC. One of the deaths was at the hands of a troll who rolled a natural 20 on his greataxe. The convo went something like this:

Me: Uhhhh...how much HP do you have?
Him: 43
Me: You now have -17 HP. The troll sliced you in half.

Before you ask why his HP was so low for a barb, he was running a leadership build for some Orc-only Faerun PrC, and his secondary stat was Dex.

Daftendirekt
2011-04-21, 12:23 AM
Eldan - Visiting the character might be an interesting morale boost, especially if the other characters could help the journey along. EccentricCircle, you seem to be saying something along that line of reasoning.

gbprime - I like all your suggestions. :smallbiggrin:

Valadil's Quote

These are interesting points.

I conceive of the Shadowfell as a kind of limbo. "Real" death would occur after an unspecified time on the 'Fell, when the soul disintegrates and is reintegrated into the cosmos (i.e. the Astral Plane) as some sort of ether, assuming no intervention in the meanwhile. Most in-game mortal scholars have little to no understanding of this phenomenon. Deities and other super powerful beings might have knowledge of it, though.

Some beings, like the Raven Queen would take it upon themselves to intercede on this process, to capture souls, put individuals into indentured servitude for a time, in exchange for re-life, etc. This whole thing could become a major plot point in a high level story where characters are asked to fix the problem of a stalled cosmic-recycling.

I would say that the general mortal populous on the Material Plane has no knowledge of planar travel, partially out of magical ignorance, and partially because political figures want to keep them ignorant. If too many people knew that death wasn't "permanent", then these tyrannical rulers would have a weaker hold on the people. So, a relatively small number of people know that you can travel through planes at will, and an even smaller number die and come back to brag about it. In fact, I would say that most people who come back to live another day would try and keep it a secret: because (1) talking about it openly might bring unwanted attention from the government which wants to hide the fact, (2) many people just wouldn't believe them, (3) if the death was caused by a killing, the killers might still be alive, and ready to try a second time.

I really like the idea of Shadowfell assassins trying to stop souls from regaining their bodies. Luckily the Manual of the Planes brings up a number of interesting "natural" inhabitants on this plane, like the Shadar-Kai, who would make great assassins with good motivations, since they are indebted to the Raven Queen.

I'm not sure why you think the Raven Queen would give anybody "relife" or a second chance or anything. That is completely against her dogma. To quote the compendium:

"She expects her followers to:
* Hold no pity for those who suffer and die, for death is the natural end of life.
* Bring down the proud who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the Raven Queen, you must punish hubris where you find it.
* Watch for the cults of Orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The Demon Prince of the Undead seeks to claim the Raven Queen’s throne."

Also, "She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath."

Urpriest
2011-04-21, 12:24 AM
@Annulus: Revenants are kind of a precedent.

stainboy
2011-04-21, 12:30 AM
My favourite alternative to dying is Ghostwalk, by the way.

@DabblerWizard: Ghostwalk is a lot like what you're describing. It's 3.5 but it might be useful for fluff or a homebrew adaptation.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-21, 07:24 AM
@DabblerWizard: Ghostwalk is a lot like what you're describing. It's 3.5 but it might be useful for fluff or a homebrew adaptation.

Could you describe the fluff of how this works stainboy?

Annulus, most of my precedent for how the Raven Queen acts has to do with my memory of my reading of the 4e books that I own. This is to say that I don't have the compendium, and that I'm going off of my memory.

[Taking time to look through Open Grave, PHB 1, and Manual of the Planes]

I can see where you're coming from Annulus. However, since the Raven Queen's home is housed in the Shadowfell, which is essentially a place of death, I could see her taking a new stance on death once souls are actually without their bodies. At least, this is how I'm deciding to fluff things.

The motivation could be: "Don't mind dying my little pretties. I'll make death seem appealing because I want you to reach my abode in the 'Fell, at which point I plan to X,Y,Z..." She could try to monopolize a kind of hideous "soul trade" towards whatever end.

Also, she might consider undeath a curse, but that doesn't mean that regular death is a curse in her eyes.

Zaranthan
2011-04-21, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure why you think the Raven Queen would give anybody "relife" or a second chance or anything. That is completely against her dogma.

Just an aside: one of the things people tend to lose sight of when designing fantasy worlds is that mythology is supposed to be comprised of MYTHS. Sure, the church of the Raven Queen might BELIEVE that's her thing, and it might be close enough to her actual ideals that she draws strength from their prayers, but it might all just be a sham to produce souls of a certain attitude to fit into her true plans. Dabbler's soul trade scheme is an excellent example. Convince the populace that being brought back from death is a bad thing, and you won't have all those mourning parents begging for their children back.

BRC
2011-04-21, 01:17 PM
I tend not to kill off player characters. If I did, I would hope to avoid the simple "Find a temple, pay lots of money" method of bringing them back. Maybe something would approach the dead character, offering to revive them if they performed some service. Or there would be an adventure where the dead character, operating as a ghost, and the living party need to work together to bring the dead character back.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-21, 01:43 PM
BRC - Operating as a ghost PC is interesting. I haven't figured out how spirits function in the campaign. Talk about astral projection, though! ... or more like... Shadow' Projection! ... Some sort of being allows you to have a temporary "presence" on the Material Plane for a price... Something to think about.

Zaranthan - Mythology has a definite historical precedent that can be nice to consider. Anybody who studies the Classics will encounter Greek / Roman stories about deities and the like. We may call those stories "myths" today, but around the time that they were created and employed "world wide", these stories and beliefs were more or less considered fact, while even older tales took on the title of "myth".

Considering this, you bring up a good point having to do with a sort of epistemological trickle down effect. The knowledge / facts that I consider true, are based in a set of beliefs that have been handed to me by some authority. Where did that authority get those facts, how reliable are they, how reliable is the source? Where did that source get those facts, how much have they changed, what was the source's source? This applies directly to the way NPCs understand their world.

In some respect, I'm referring to a kind of post-modernism. What's considered truth is really dependent on the one holding the truth in mind. What I believe is what is "real".

Is the high priest correct about his beliefs about the Raven Queen? How about the Raven Queen's thralls, or the deity herself? Each of these people, and others, might be "correct" about some element of the "real" truth. Maybe the Raven Queen is mistaken as well!

navar100
2011-04-21, 01:56 PM
I use "karma points". When a player does something outstanding, whether a role playing moment, a game mechanics maneuver, a big risk that pays off - something that makes me impressed, I give the character a karma point. Karma points are used as "Get Out Of Jail Free cards".

If at some future event the player does something stupid and realized he screwed up, he can spend a karma point to undo it. The game reshapes itself as if the player never did his stupid thing. Recently a player ignored/did not realize it was applicable a warning given by an NPC resulting in his character getting Cursed of -2 to all attack rolls, permanently. He spent his karma point to say he never did the action that got him Cursed.

If a character dies, he spends his karma point to live. Another player in an earlier session had his character die in combat against an elemental. He spent his karma point so that he was stable and unconscious instead.

If a player is lost, either literally for his character or figuratively he inadvertently fell off the adventure goal path he wanted, he can spend a karma point for a deus ex machina. Early in the campaign the party stranded themselves in the middle of nowhere, having lost their horses and choosing not to partake of the adventure hook of the cause for their losing their horses. They knew who took their horses. They just chose not to pursue the matter. One player spending a karma point, coincidentally a caravan happened by that could lead them to civilization.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-21, 02:41 PM
If the characters get shunted to the Shadowfell, you might want to have them encounter other major NPCs. Especially if they died in the middle of a major combat.

The trip back could get harder the more npc villains the party has killed.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-21, 10:06 PM
Your point is well received Odin the Ignoble. It'd be like Survivor: Redemption Island (for you folks watching American TV). Brilliant! NPCs that appear to die and come back for more!

I had this sort of thing happen when the players faced a vampire muse. This creature had fluff that allowed it to live on as long as the blood of its mortal beneficiary was unharmed, much like a phylactery. They were displeased to learn that the vampire hadn't died when they "killed" it. They rolled with it and the story moved forward.

Navar100, I've definitely thought about allowing players some sort of "karma points" type mechanic. Though, being a guy that grew up with Super Nintendo, I imagined giving them a once-a-game reset button. I'd even be super nice and let them choose where they'd start from in the story. They were so protective of their characters, that I never had to use it.

stainboy
2011-04-22, 12:10 AM
Could you describe the fluff of how this works stainboy?


(Working from memory here, so I may get stuff wrong.)


Fluff - There's a city at the gate to the afterlife. Ghosts walk there before passing on to their final reward/punishment/whatever; no one actually knows what's on the other side of the gate. Some ghosts stay in the town. Resurrection is quite common there.

In a Ghostwalk campaign the PCs constantly die and get resurrected. If you're dead at the moment, you're a ghost, and you're still a functioning member of the party. The DM is encouraged to mercilessly kill PCs to send them through the revolving door as often as possible.

Because everyone in the setting is doing this (you're assumed to play in that one city), it's not a huge deal for PCs to be incorporeal, because its easy to structure encounters with a mix of corporeal and incorporeal opponents.


Mechanics - Ghosts advance in two classes called Eidolon and Eidolomancer. Those classes give ghosty powers, obviously. (If you know 3e they're completely generic classes - Eidolon is basically a fighter, Eidolomancer is squishier and advances another spellcasting class.) If you get resurrected you cash in your Eidolon/Eidolomancer levels for levels in a regular class. If you ever have more Eidolon/Eidolomancer levels than regular class levels you die for real and walk through the portal to the afterlife.

If you wanted to port this to 4e you'd probably handle the Eidolon/Eidolomancer thing by replacing powers rather than changing class.

BayardSPSR
2011-04-22, 02:17 AM
All these ideas are cool; I can't really add to them in a meaningful way (I use fate points too).

However, I do have a suggestion: keep a way to bring the PC back in the event of death (ideally not just a Raise Dead) - as in real death, not fate-point dodged...

But don't tell the players. Keep the fear of death and the unknown in them by making them think it is the end. You do want them to be afraid, right?

That is the extent of my suggestion.

Jan Mattys
2011-04-22, 02:28 AM
The story:
In a long campaign I played with my group, my character (a neutral evil assassin) died a couple sessions before we were forced to enter Hell to retrieve a McGuffin.

My DM told me I was dead, and that was apparently it. I kept going to the roleplay meetings waiting for a chance to be resurrected, and everybody was focused on bringing me back one way or another.

Meanwhile, the DM told the group that I was temporarily appointed with playing a NPC, their guide through Hell (a cloaked figure similar to Virgil in Dante's Inferno).

Secretly, my DM had informed me that the cloaked figure was, in effect, my old character, who had bargained with the devils a way out of Hell. The point was to be their guide through, but at the same time trying to arrange the death of a PC because, in order to leave Hell, I had to pay with another soul.

So I played the mysterious guide for a couple sessions, at the same trying to bring my group to the mcguffin and back out of Hell AND planning the death of another member of the group so that I could get out of Hell instead of him.

It was awesome.

In the end, with a move that granted me much respect from the DM and the other players, I managed to sacrifice the sentient sword of our fighter (a very, very powerful sword firing fireballs with an ancient wizard's soul trapped in it), assuming it could count as a "soul" too. My DM was caught by surprise, but ruled it made sense.

So all the party managed to get back to safety, and everybody loved me for it. Except for the fighter, who was very fond of his sword and grew to hate my guts even more than before :D (but the player had to admit it was a great move by my part... surely better than to simply slit someone's throat while in Hell).

Just my two cents to show how my DM improvised on the spot a GREAT way to turn my original death into a very interesting situation that I was forced to roleplay out of. Everybody was a winner.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-22, 07:56 AM
I like that idea Jan Mattys.


All these ideas are cool; I can't really add to them in a meaningful way (I use fate points too).

However, I do have a suggestion: keep a way to bring the PC back in the event of death (ideally not just a Raise Dead) - as in real death, not fate-point dodged...

But don't tell the players. Keep the fear of death and the unknown in them by making them think it is the end. You do want them to be afraid, right?

That is the extent of my suggestion.

The cat's already out of the bag on this one. They know I'd keep letting them play after their character's death. Unfortunately, not telling them they can keep playing would mean that they would start making a new character and or throwing a hissy fit for a few hours. Some of these players have even painted their own minis from scratch. Worked on back story for hours. Talking like and thinking as the character. They've done everything short of evolving into the character.

I would let them decide when to end their character's reign, instead of me imposing it on them.

To differentiate this: I don't mind if the character is afraid of death. That's appropriate. However, my players won't necessarily be afraid. They're good about keeping knowledge in-game vs. out of game.

Tengu_temp
2011-04-22, 09:38 AM
Here's how I like this: PCs downed in normal combat are never dead. Instead they're knocked out or heavily incapacitated and dying, enough to survive when they get help from the others after the combat ends. And readily available means of returning back to life don't exist. If someone dies, they're dead for good. Character death, be it PC or important NPC, should be a dramatic event and not something that can be easily reversible.

Jay R
2011-04-22, 10:13 AM
My usual solution is something like this: "This is a game, in which it is possible to win, and possible to lose. That means characters can complete quests, and characters can die. If you're not mature enough to play that way, you need to avoid games for older kids that include the possibility of losing. Later on, when you're older, you can play these kinds of games, but for now, you're just not ready for games like D&D, Candy Land, and Hungry, Hungry Hippos."

Tengu_temp
2011-04-22, 02:05 PM
So, in other words, your usual solution is arrogant and condescending towards players who don't share your gamist playstyle?

Jamin
2011-04-22, 04:36 PM
My usual solution is something like this: "This is a game, in which it is possible to win, and possible to lose. That means characters can complete quests, and characters can die. If you're not mature enough to play that way, you need to avoid games for older kids that include the possibility of losing. Later on, when you're older, you can play these kinds of games, but for now, you're just not ready for games like D&D, Candy Land, and Hungry, Hungry Hippos."

Wow:smalleek: Do you tell this to peoples faces?

Lurkmoar
2011-04-22, 05:32 PM
This is one I've used with a few variations.

Another chance

You find yourself in an wide open field, full of amber waves of grain that stretch as far as you can see. You're on a well maintained cobble stone path. Behind you, is a hazy shadow that engulfs the entire skyline. But ahead is of you lies pure radiance. You cannot make out any distinct shapes, but the light is beyond anything you have experienced, filling the depths of your soul with peace and contentment.

"Well, fancy meeting you here. We weren't expecting you for a long time, traveler."

To your right is a tall man making his way through the grain toward you. He appears to be middle aged, a few gray hairs mingling in his black short cropped hair. The man is wearing simple plain spun brown robes and an amused expression on his face.

Player can go ahead and talk here.

"No, you're correct/I'm sorry but you died. You're on the Path and ahead of you is the Clearing, where all good souls go to rest. According to the Fates, you were supposed to die much later... just shows that even Gods can't always get it right eh?" *small laugh* "I suppose we should get going."

Player interaction or prod them here.

"Yes, I suppose I'm your guide. My name? Well, I have a lot of names, still like the name my father gave me the most. Bright Star. Well, shall we be on our way?"

Player does what he wants here.

"You know... there are such things as second chances/Wait, you're in such a hurry for your final rest? You are special do you realize that? Most folk's fates are flawless, written in stone. They can't fight it, simple cogs in the great machine of the universe. But you and your friends are different... for the most part, your fates are written. Some general things, like your first trip oversea, the time that the you met that princess in the tavern or your birth. Those events were out of your control. But still..."

Bright Star strokes his chin and smiles.

"You and your fellows have the power to alter fate. That's something most mortals lack. It's far more important then you realize! Say... for instance you meet a boy in a hamlet. His fate is to die in a raid by brigands. But you and your company fight the brigands off, saving the boy. This child becomes inspired, and eventually goes on to become a great general, winning a decisive victory for his country that they would have lost otherwise in the far future. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you've set so many important things in motion on your adventures. What I'm offering for you is a chance to continue that. To wrest control of Fate from uncaring, distant beings that dwell in Purgatory and into the hands of mortality."

Player interaction again.

"Me? What do I want? I want this stupid war between saints and sinners to stop. It's futile... tiring. You have/n't been in war. You know/don't know what it's like. I can't promise that your actions will have a meaningful impact. I'm sorry, it's just something I can't in good conscious promise you. But I always believed it's better do something then nothing. Here's the deal, I send you back and you perform a service. I need you to rescue a young girl from that ruined temple your party is heading to. She has the potential to be important, but if she stays... that potential will dry up like a rain drop on the sun. Just a straight deal."

Player interaction.

"Yeah... there's a downside. Agents for another team will have the option to offer a similar deal... to someone that doesn't share your same mindset. And... if you break the deal... you lose your ticket to there."

Bright Star points to light.

"What do you say?"

That's mostly from memory. Not the most original thing on the block, but it's loose enough for me to twist every which way to Sunday. May not be as good as I think it is. :smalltongue:

Jay R
2011-04-23, 12:29 AM
So, in other words, your usual solution is arrogant and condescending towards players who don't share your gamist playstyle?

No, of course not. I over-emphasized it here for effect. But the main point is clear - if you aren't willing to lose, don't play a game you can lose.

The last time I ran a game, I let people know that characters can die, just as the rules allow. If somebody had disapproved, I'd have let him know that this game wasn't for him, and left it at that. (In fact, I offered the game to six players, and very soon an additional eight wanted in.) The others helping to design the world agreed that death should be possible, and I gave my reasons to them as I gave them here. But this thread was asking for more than what we tell the players. The exact words were "Please tell me your thoughts."

But if you don't want to play the game as written, with death a possible option, feel free to play some other way. I've certainly changed rules I didn't like; you can too.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-23, 07:21 AM
Jay R quoted
No, of course not. I over-emphasized it here for effect. But the main point is clear - if you aren't willing to lose, don't play a game you can lose.

The last time I ran a game, I let people know that characters can die, just as the rules allow. If somebody had disapproved, I'd have let him know that this game wasn't for him, and left it at that. (In fact, I offered the game to six players, and very soon an additional eight wanted in.) The others helping to design the world agreed that death should be possible, and I gave my reasons to them as I gave them here. But this thread was asking for more than what we tell the players. The exact words were "Please tell me your thoughts."

But if you don't want to play the game as written, with death a possible option, feel free to play some other way. I've certainly changed rules I didn't like; you can too.

Thank you for sharing your point of view Jay R.

I disagree with your implicit assertion that d&d has to be played within a win-lose mentality, or within a "gamist" mindset.

Using that perspective, I'm much more simulationist and narrativist, and I believe that d&d can easily handle these perspectives.

My aim is to consistently enhance a player's game experience. I try hard to immerse them in a fun, exciting world. Creating that escapism and that entertainment is part of my role as a DM, in my mind.

When a player's character dies in the standard gamist sense, simulationism and narrativism are broken (if they were even there in the first place). We have to stop the story, and cut the immersion cord. I don't much enjoy that, and neither do my players.

Anticipating a rebuttal on your part: Can't a permanent character loss be proper with a simulationist mindset? Sure it can. However, I want that character death to occur within a framework that the player is happy with. I'm catering my story-making to the players, not to the rules, or the game itself. I want to make the players happy, rules be damned (to a degree).

The gamist mindset and a d&d tradition claim that you don't keep playing a character that's been killed. This harkens back to d&d's war game ancestor, where individual characters were essentially meaningless, and it was the throes of war that were the focus of the play. That's all fine.

I choose to do things differently. My players and I invest energy and emotion into our game play. Ignoring that investment, and allowing it to flutter away in the wind because "death has to be permanent" would be cruel, if you ask me.

stainboy
2011-04-23, 10:27 AM
How would your proposed change interact with Raise Dead, by the way? Would that option still be available?

DabblerWizard
2011-04-23, 01:10 PM
How would your proposed change interact with Raise Dead, by the way? Would that option still be available?

I'm assuming you're talking to me.

I reviewed the d&d 4e PHB 1 text on Raise Dead and I'd still allow it. Here's why.

Mechanical Reasons
1. 4e raise dead is learned in a very different way than the SRD version. As a spell, the SRD raise dead can be essentially auto-learned by certain classes given that they reach level 5. Not so with the 4e version. As a ritual that has to be mastered by studying a complete (i.e. non one-shot) scroll for several hours, it is fair to say that the powers of the world would want to significantly limit the availability of such scrolls.

I would make it so that there would be no more than 4 such scrolls on the material plane. You can imagine they'd be heavily guarded, protected, watched over. Luckily I've already created powerful magical institutions in the campaign. But just for intrigue, one scroll might be lost or in the possession of some "rogue" agent.

How about one-shot scrolls that are used up, and from which the character can't master the spell? These would also be available, with a greater number circulating, but would still be hard to get.


2. 4e raise dead is learned at a higher level than the SRD version. Let's say, below paragon tier. I'm being vague since it's not open content. Accordingly, in my campaign, the number of spell casters (including clerics) that could master the ritual are fairly limited in number. There are some hot shots around, but most in-game NPC casters above the heroic tier are "theoretical" magicians that don't actually practice magic like the PCs could. (I admittedly got that idea from the Dresden Files books). It's still heroic tier though, which makes for some interesting in-game drama. Some humanistic-minded players might attempt to share the power so that more people could come back from death. Oh the potential intrigue!


3. One aspect that would need to change in the 4e version is the low market price that involves just buying the scroll if it could be found in a market, (being under 1,000 gold). The campaign fluff that I've instituted would make purchasing such a scroll either impossible, or very difficult. Probably worth several million gold if I had to quantify it, even higher tier players might be hard pressed to purchase a scroll like that. At that point they might just start trading magic items (which are also fairly rare).


4. Component costs (involved with using the mastered ritual scroll in the 4e version) grow by 10x each tier, but are still fairly cheap. And I think I like that. This aspect would be another element to instigate conscientious characters. They would fume at the people holding onto these scrolls when they find out that the monetary price of bringing back people is really affordable.


5. The 4e text specifically mentions instances when souls might not be able to travel back to the material plane even if the ritual is accurately performed. Ideas include divine intervention, soul entrapment, and old age. All these ideas fit nicely with my changes.

Fluff Reasons
Mechanics aside, Raise Dead presents as a earth shattering power. Too much reviving would get the attention of deities and other colossal beings, and at least a few mortals would be aware of this, and would want to avoid getting in trouble with the higher ups.

A power this significant would be used in a very elitist way. Perhaps the government stores one-shot raise dead scrolls for the King and his family. Even if his family totals more than 30 people, they would never stop to think about some lowly peasant that just died.

Also, as mentioned before, raise dead would be kept secret, or sanitized into a "miracle" for the masses, to make sure they still fear death, and cherish the lovely life their tyrant is providing them.

Imagine owning your eternal gratitude to an evil king that just Raised you.

In my campaign, wizards are capable of casting Heal rituals (including Raise Dead), as long as they are "trained" in the skill. They are restricted by magical and mortal law from doing so, but that doesn't mean that would stop some of them.

Essentially, keeping raise dead as a potential ritual meets rule of cool. I'm all for enhancing story and immersion as long as people are having fun.

So what about potions of life? Similar to raise dead, to put it simply.

Jay R
2011-04-24, 11:31 AM
I disagree with your implicit assertion that d&d has to be played within a win-lose mentality, or within a "gamist" mindset.

...

The gamist mindset and a d&d tradition claim that you don't keep playing a character that's been killed. This harkens back to d&d's war game ancestor, where individual characters were essentially meaningless, and it was the throes of war that were the focus of the play.

I have no intention of arguing your point of view. Play the way you like. But I do want to correct one error of fact.

The idea that people stop acting after they die does not come from a "gamist" mindset, or from D&D tradition, or even from earlier war games. It's much older than D&D, or games in general.

Greylond
2011-04-24, 02:08 PM
HackMaster 4th Edition has a system of Proteges. Basically, after you go up to at least 2nd level, you can roll up a new character and have that as a "backup." When you gain XP you are allowed to transfer up to 50% of what you earn to your Protege, so that character can go up in levels and be ready to step into your PC's shoes if/when the Mentor character dies.

gbprime
2011-04-24, 02:22 PM
HackMaster 4th Edition has a system of Proteges. Basically, after you go up to at least 2nd level, you can roll up a new character and have that as a "backup." When you gain XP you are allowed to transfer up to 50% of what you earn to your Protege, so that character can go up in levels and be ready to step into your PC's shoes if/when the Mentor character dies.

Minus all his stuff, of course, since the other characters have called Dibs. :smallamused:

Greylond
2011-04-24, 02:41 PM
Not at all. Depends on the alignment and personalities of the other PCs. Wills and what to do with dead fellow PCs are usually covered in any Party Charter in HM, if the party in question has a Party Charter. Now, if an Evil Party who has no previous agreement on the property of a dead PC and any registered Will that PC may have, then yea, Dibs Protocol would called for...

Mr. Zolrane
2011-04-24, 06:07 PM
Here's how I like this: PCs downed in normal combat are never dead. Instead they're knocked out or heavily incapacitated and dying, enough to survive when they get help from the others after the combat ends. And readily available means of returning back to life don't exist. If someone dies, they're dead for good. Character death, be it PC or important NPC, should be a dramatic event and not something that can be easily reversible.

That's an interesting take. My DM does this sometimes depending on the circumstance. He does the same thing with enemies too, if them being alive and talking for a bit longer would make things cooler for us, the players.


My usual solution is something like this: "This is a game, in which it is possible to win, and possible to lose. That means characters can complete quests, and characters can die. If you're not mature enough to play that way, you need to avoid games for older kids that include the possibility of losing. Later on, when you're older, you can play these kinds of games, but for now, you're just not ready for games like D&D, Candy Land, and Hungry, Hungry Hippos."

Look. I don't have a problem with those who hold to this idea. I really, honestly, don't. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. What gets under my skin is this kind of dogmatic, absolutist, imposition upon others of ones own interpretation of a deeply open-ended game. The role of a DM is to make the game fun for the players first, and then him/herself. If the players are not having fun in a game run in the way you described, you are failing as a DM. A good DM should have a flexible DMing policy that molds itself to accommodate the players for which he/she is presently DMing. If the group says "Yeah, a campaign with merciless lethality is fine by us." then there is nothing wrong with you running it that way. If, however, they say "No, I'd prefer to play in a campaign where character death is handled [insert alternative death philosophy here]." Then it's time to think about how you can adjust your DMing policy to the players' point of view.

EDIT: Wow, I got ninja'd like a boss.

Anyway, some of my personal thoughts.

I've yet to DM myself, but in the setting I'm working on, there are no raise dead/resurrection spells per se, and one and only death god, Hades, and he is in charge of everything involving death. All resurrections must be authorized by him. If he's taken an exceptional fondness to you (say, if you're one of his favorite clerics or another devoted servant) he might just send you on your way, no questions asked, but usually there must be a deal. Neutral characters, as well as Good or Evil characters who didn't act out their alignment in any spectacular manor reside in a city called Sheol when they die. Residents of Sheol manifest as shades (it's a template in this setting) when called back to the material realm. One common means of achieving resurrection is to spend some time serving a cleric of Hades as a shade. Failing that, a character might return as a shade and serve Hades in some other means, apart from servitude to a cleric. Other kinds of deals are possible, but this is generally what I would default to.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-26, 09:30 AM
Mr. Zolrane - I'm all for having deities control character death, to a degree. If it's internally consistent within your campaign, then that's awesome. The deities in my world are somewhat aloof, apathetic, and distant.


I have no intention of arguing your point of view. Play the way you like. But I do want to correct one error of fact.

The idea that people stop acting after they die does not come from a "gamist" mindset, or from D&D tradition, or even from earlier war games. It's much older than D&D, or games in general.

I concede that character death leading to no longer playing that character is older in origin than d&d.

However, within the role playing game sphere, and more specifically, within d&d itself, of the three "types" of play, game-ism seems most likely to impose ending a character for mechanical reasons, which was the basis of this whole thread.

Narrativism might be hardcore about ending a character when it's the "right" time in the story, and simulationism might be hardcore about ending a character when some in-game preconceived "ending" is reached.

Essentially, only game-ism ends a character's existence for out-of-game, mechanical, meta-play reasons.

It's this kind of character end that I find unappealing. That's all I'm saying.

Morghen
2011-04-26, 10:22 AM
As a player, I would be extremely dissatisfied with a game/GM who refused to let my character die.

If/when my character died, I'd take my (theoretical) hand-painted mini and put it in a little-bitty display and keep it with all my other nerdy gear. And then I'd make a new character.

I don't want to play 2nd Life. I don't want a world where my character can only die where or when I want him to.

I played in a twice-a-month VtM larp a number of years ago where I played the same character for about two years. By the time this anecdote took place I was just about the most powerful dude in the city (in both combat (8th-gen Tremere) and non-combat terms). One night I went looking for trouble and the guy I chose to pick on had Celerity and Potence over 9,000. (Also, enough Protean to make his damage Aggravated.) Totally twinked-out character who had never raised his head during any of the physical stuff in-game. I got ashed in about three rounds. I was bummed for a while, and I skipped the next game, but I moved on and made another character. I still think about that combat and the simple little trick I should have used to just run away from that guy. But it changed who I was as a player for every game/system I've played since then.

I disagree that GMs should deny their players that experience. Those GMs are level-capping the players.

Jay R
2011-04-26, 11:09 AM
However, within the role playing game sphere, and more specifically, within d&d itself, of the three "types" of play, game-ism seems most likely to impose ending a character for mechanical reasons, which was the basis of this whole thread.

Actually, the issue of character death is completely independent of Ron Edward's GNS theory. Either your position or mine is consistent with any of the three.

Simulationism involves simulation. If a battle leads to a death, a true simulation leaves that character dead.

Narrativism involves narrative, relating a story. People can and do die in stories. (When my character Bleddyn died saving the rest of the party, I thought is was a fitting narrative end.)

In fact, while I think the distinctions are over-drawn, within that structure I'm more of a simulationist than a gamist. That's why I dislike most of the weird stuff in 4E -- it doesn't simulate either classic fantasy or medieval culture.


Essentially, only game-ism ends a character's existence for out-of-game, mechanical, meta-play reasons.

It's this kind of character end that I find unappealing. That's all I'm saying.

Huh? "Consumed in dragon fire" or "stabbed by swords" is not an out-of-game reason, nor is it meta-play.

You seem to be opposing character death on the exact ground that I think it's necessary -- because what we're simulating can cause it, because the narrative sometimes leads there. Undoing that a death sequence to preserve a favorite character is a meta-play action, taken for an out-of-game reason.

Play however you like - that's fine. But the idea that a character who picks up a sword and attacks monsters might die is at the heart of narrative, and of simulation, and of a game.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-26, 01:41 PM
The following is in response to both Morghen and Jay R.

Morghen's Quote:
As a player, I would be extremely dissatisfied with a game/GM who refused to let my character die.

If/when my character died, I'd take my (theoretical) hand-painted mini and put it in a little-bitty display and keep it with all my other nerdy gear. And then I'd make a new character.

I don't want to play 2nd Life. I don't want a world where my character can only die where or when I want him to.

.... I got ashed in about three rounds. I was bummed for a while, and I skipped the next game, but I moved on and made another character. I still think about that combat and the simple little trick I should have used to just run away from that guy. But it changed who I was as a player for every game/system I've played since then.

I disagree that GMs should deny their players that experience. Those GMs are level-capping the players.


I certainly allow characters to die. I even help it along :smallbiggrin:. My thought is that character death doesn't have to be permanent in the usual sense. If the player wants the death of their character to mean "no longer allowed to play that character", then they can roll a new one. However, if they want to be able to play their character even after that character "dies", then the stuff I've been talking about in this thread goes along with that.

Essentially, I just want to give them options, the right to choose the fate of their character. So many other things in life are out of our hands. I give players the chance to really control their world in a small but meaningful way.

Jay R, I get your point that GNS theory is neutral or pluralistic in terms of death.

Simulating the "after life" is just as valid as simulating grieving a character death.

A character's story could "end" when they die, or at some other point (even when they're still alive).

Game mechanics can deal with character death in multiple ways, including just re rolling a new one.

I never suggested undoing a death sequence. When a player's character hits the threshold for "death", I would ask them whether they wanted to keep playing that character, or whether they want to just drop it and make a new one. I imagine you might find this to be unappealing.

Death doesn't have to be an ending, especially in a role play setting. That is, death can mean multiple things. Character death can mean going through whatever afterlife sequence is fitting for that setting. I think players (1) deserve a chance to experience that afterlife through their characters if they want to, and (2) they deserve a chance to play with the idea of life/death by possibly having their character "live" again.

I resist the suggestion that character death can only mean "no longer playing that character".

To give a concrete example that might seem less like DM fiat: When a devout and favored Paladin is slain, it's reasonable to conclude that their deity might decide to intervene, and not just "forget" about them, or just say, "oh well, there's no need for another go".

Finally, to be clear, even in this case, I'd confer with the player about how they want things to turn out. Some people might disagree with this level of mutuality between DM and player, believing that players should have to "just take" whatever the DM gives them, but that's not the way I roll, so to speak.

stainboy
2011-04-27, 04:47 AM
Huh? "Consumed in dragon fire" or "stabbed by swords" is not an out-of-game reason, nor is it meta-play.

You seem to be opposing character death on the exact ground that I think it's necessary -- because what we're simulating can cause it, because the narrative sometimes leads there. Undoing that a death sequence to preserve a favorite character is a meta-play action, taken for an out-of-game reason.

Play however you like - that's fine. But the idea that a character who picks up a sword and attacks monsters might die is at the heart of narrative, and of simulation, and of a game.

Just curious, do you also ban Raise Dead/Resurrection in your games?

Morghen
2011-04-27, 09:15 AM
Essentially, I just want to give them options, the right to choose the fate of their character. So many other things in life are out of our hands. I give players the chance to really control their world in a small but meaningful way.But they already chose the fate of their character when they decided to pursue a dangerous profession. That's part of the equation when you decide to become an adventurer. Occasionally, I'll see a news story about a free-climber (or really any extreme sport enthusiast) falling to their death. Without fail, people will rush out and proclaim the death a tragedy. Without fail, I am amused by those people. Death makes me sad and I wish that person was still alive, but that's not a tragedy. The deceased person took a calculated risk and suffered the foreseeable consequence of it. I already know what you're going to say: "But RL sucks and we want to be heroes!" I know. Call it a difference of opinion, then, but I find that attitude to be too Pollyanna for my tastes. I like knowing that my character could die without my skilled guidance through the things I choose to undertake.


I never suggested undoing a death sequence. When a player's character hits the threshold for "death", I would ask them whether they wanted to keep playing that character[snip]Wait. What? You've just undone a death sequence.


Some people might disagree with this level of mutuality between DM and player, believing that players should have to "just take" whatever the DM gives them, but that's not the way I roll, so to speak.But you didn't "give them" anything. I'm a high school teacher and I constantly hear kids complaining about the grade "Mr. SoAndSo gave me". It irritates me to no end because in 99.99 percent of all cases, the students' grades are directly tied to their own actions. They are the ones who decided to sleep through class, blow off studying for the mid-term, kick in the door of the demon-king's throne room, etc.

But I suppose we can just go "Well gawrsh, I guess it's just a difference of opinion!" and not worry about it.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-27, 01:32 PM
But they already chose the fate of their character when they decided to pursue a dangerous profession. That's part of the equation when you decide to become an adventurer.

Put simply, understanding consequence, and accepting consequence, are not the same thing.

Speaking first about characters choosing their fate when they choose to become adventurers:

If the word fate actually represents a real phenomenon, then that experience is a series of external forces that impose themselves on a person, free from any input by that person. Fate is not a chosen behavior, thus individual volition can never cause it. Thus, technically speaking, it is nonsensical to suggest that characters choose their fate, despite what colloquial speech might suggest otherwise.

Characters (and real people) can choose to take risks, but they don't choose the outcomes that come about as a result of that risk. Nor do they have to want or accept the outcomes.

Deciding to become an adventurer means choosing a set of behaviors for some purpose (money, fame, prestige, "good will"). Death and harm are merely potential consequences of those behaviors, and they aren't what adventurers choose to take on (or seek out) when they decide to become adventurers.

In other words, accepting that a behavior is dangerous is not the same thing as accepting that that dangerous behavior might lead to death or harm. This last piece also covers your comment about players choosing characters who are adventurers.



Occasionally, I'll see a news story about a free-climber (or really any extreme sport enthusiast) falling to their death. Without fail, people will rush out and proclaim the death a tragedy. Without fail, I am amused by those people. Death makes me sad and I wish that person was still alive, but that's not a tragedy. The deceased person took a calculated risk and suffered the foreseeable consequence of it.

Taking a calculated risk doesn't mean having to accept or be okay with the potential consequence of that risk, no matter how foreseeable.

When a child places their hand on a hot stove, despite having been told that they can get burned, no good parent would say "accept the burn son, it was bound to happen, just go with it".


I already know what you're going to say: "But RL sucks and we want to be heroes!" I know. Call it a difference of opinion, then, but I find that attitude to be too Pollyanna for my tastes. I like knowing that my character could die without my skilled guidance through the things I choose to undertake.

There's nothing blindly optimistic about wanting to have a character experience the afterlife, or letting them return to life.

I agree that we differ on what we hope to get out of role play games. I want the chance to deal with permanent character death in a fictional setting. That's your take, and I'm okay with that as well. However, I want to ALSO deal with non-permanent character death. How is that overly optimistic in an attempt to avoid reality? So what if people really die? So what if characters can "really" die? Those realities are not the only ones that can be experienced in this kind of game.

When a DM suggests that character death has to mean the end of a character, I would find them to be setting a spurious limitation, choosing real life constraints over potential creativity and novel experience. Trying out potentials (like an afterlife or resurrection) that can't be achieved in real life is part of what can make role playing so great.


Wait. What? You've just undone a death sequence.

Playing with the afterlife is actually extending the death sequence, not undoing it. Kubler-Ross, one of the first people to talk about death and dying in a public forum, said that death is not an ending, and I tend to agree.


But you didn't "give them" anything.

Oh I did. Letting the player (1) role a new character, or (2) keep playing the current one into an afterlife sequence, means letting the player "choose the fate" of their character. I gave them a choice.

Imposing my will on the outcome of the player's character would be making the player "just taking it". By coming to a collaborative decision concerning the outcome of the character, I avoid this imposition.


I'm a high school teacher and I constantly hear kids complaining about the grade "Mr. SoAndSo gave me". It irritates me to no end because in 99.99 percent of all cases, the students' grades are directly tied to their own actions. They are the ones who decided to sleep through class, blow off studying for the mid-term, kick in the door of the demon-king's throne room, etc.

But I suppose we can just go "Well gawrsh, I guess it's just a difference of opinion!" and not worry about it.

In real life, people have to deal with the consequences of their actions. In general, I think player characters should as well, as a matter of simulationism. But I make a special case for character death. I don't erase the behavior, or ignore it. I also don't erase or ignore the potential creative spin on letting a character's soul travel to the Shadowfell where they have to bargain for re-life, let's say.

I don't care for the implication that I'm like your students, nor that snarky remark.

Ignoring one's behavior and complaining about it, isn't the same thing as experiencing the outcome of the behavior AND getting to take on a new beginning.

Jay R
2011-04-27, 03:41 PM
Just curious, do you also ban Raise Dead/Resurrection in your games?

No. (But I'm currently playing in a game with no Raise Dead or Resurrection.)

Having said that, I have little interest in games at high enough level that PCs can cast Raise Dead, so the PCs would need some other method -- a high-level priest who needs them, or some such.

In fact, I've only run one D&D game in the last ten years, and the only PC who died was brought back by a wish.

If they hadn't had a wish, Forlong would not have survived.