PDA

View Full Version : I Feel Bad! I Just Killed My First Pc!



INoKnowNames
2013-05-19, 08:21 PM
So, I decided to Dm my first game ever, on these here forums. Yay!

And now we're in our first combat! Yay!

Unfortunately for firsts, I just killed my first player... and I feel bad now... not yay....

It's a level 5 Gestalt game with now 7 players.... and 6 characters. The players are fighting a bunch of animals, upgraded through a template to be even stronger and more dangerous... but they were actually doing rather well through the fight... until one player decides not to take any defensive action against an enemy that did 20 damage to him in a single hit, and is now in range for a full attack. He didn't stand a chance...

He knew he was going to die, and even private messaged me not to feel bad... but I still feel bad... I gave them around of buffing before the fight, made sure the CR was high but not impossibly ranked, and even labeled the enemy as the boss of the encounter. And I rolled honestly in front of them.

And yet, I feel like a jerk because of what I did... there's a chance that I made it too hard, and I could have hidden the rolls so I could have fudged them and let him live.... I just killed one of my players... I'm a monster... :smallfrown:

Grinner
2013-05-19, 08:26 PM
These things happen.

If it makes you feel any better, I too would be concerned about difficulty. CR can be very wonky sometimes, and I imagine it's even harder to judge when you're dealing with gestalt characters.

Geordnet
2013-05-19, 08:53 PM
PCs die. It's a part of the game. You did everything right; the player was unlucky. It sounds like it's early on in the game, and that player hasn't had a chance to get too attached to his character yet, anyways. There's no need to panic, just figure out how to get that guy raised or work a new character in. :smalltongue:


In fact, I'd take this as a good sign, since you know you aren't making things too easy. Whatever you do, don't panic and nerf all future encounters to the point where they even a challenge anymore. :smallyuk:

Stake A Vamp
2013-05-19, 08:54 PM
don't feel bad, sometimes if my players get uppity, i actively try to kill them (the fact that i couldn't kill even 1 member of my level 3 party with a CR m10 encounter should tell you about the level of luck my players have when they are uppity though)

StreamOfTheSky
2013-05-19, 09:06 PM
The first time you kill a PC, it will make you feel really uneasy and guilty.

The second time, a bit less so.

The third time, you'll have grown fairly accustomed to it.

Latter times thereafter will begin to feel perfectly normal and not induce one bit of remorse.

:smallwink:

TuggyNE
2013-05-19, 09:53 PM
The first time you kill a PC, it will make you feel really uneasy and guilty.

The second time, a bit less so.

The third time, you'll have grown fairly accustomed to it.

Latter times thereafter will begin to feel perfectly normal and not induce one bit of remorse.

:smallwink:

I don't think this is tremendously comforting. :smallsigh:

Slylizard
2013-05-19, 10:17 PM
The first time you kill a PC, it will make you feel really uneasy and guilty.

The second time, a bit less so.

The third time, you'll have grown fairly accustomed to it.

Latter times thereafter will begin to feel perfectly normal and not induce one bit of remorse.

:smallwink:

In fact, after a while you'll begin to enjoy it just a little :smalltongue:

Mr Beer
2013-05-19, 10:57 PM
The above posters are correct, you feel bad at first, then you get numb and then you start to like it. Much like real life murder. You can never recapture the excitement and tension of that first kill though.

Tengu_temp
2013-05-19, 11:03 PM
If you don't want to kill PCs, I suggest either using houserules (increase the amount of negative HP, for example), or play a game where PC death is less luck-based than in DND 3e.


In fact, I'd take this as a good sign, since you know you aren't making things too easy. Whatever you do, don't panic and nerf all future encounters to the point where they even a challenge anymore. :smallyuk:

Too easy is better than too hard. A game that's too easy can still be enjoyed for the story and characters. A game that's too hard is just frustrating.

Sylthia
2013-05-19, 11:45 PM
Everybody remembers his first time.

I remember a careless rogue who died at the hands of rolling a 1 on his disable device check. He took out an NPC along with him as well.

I may be in the minority, but I don't impose negative levels for player death. It's not an issue in my current campaign, but in my previous one, I ran a near-epic high-powered campaign, where at least one character death per session was the rule, not the exception. My players liked the challenge and raising the dead was easily obtainable, but I don't think the campaign would have lasted if the PCs never leveled due to dying all the time.

StreamOfTheSky
2013-05-20, 12:06 AM
I may be in the minority, but I don't impose negative levels for player death. It's not an issue in my current campaign, but in my previous one, I ran a near-epic high-powered campaign, where at least one character death per session was the rule, not the exception. My players liked the challenge and raising the dead was easily obtainable, but I don't think the campaign would have lasted if the PCs never leveled due to dying all the time.

I also would never penalize a character for dying. IME, it's often the characters that were trying to do something helpful.

Maybe I'm just bitter from all the parties w/ a guy who jacks AC, hides in a corner, and "roleplays well" while the rest of us are dying trying to overcome the monster attacking.

Alleran
2013-05-20, 12:36 AM
And now we're in our first combat! Yay!

Unfortunately for firsts, I just killed my first player... and I feel bad now... not yay....
Your first player?

I'd advise calling your lawyer and not saying anything further. :smallwink:

More seriously, PC death happens. In a game based heavily around combat, it should be expected that it will occur from time to time, especially if the PCs happen to get in over their heads, make bad decisions in combat, or the players consume the last of the snacks and drinks when you aren't looking.

Geordnet
2013-05-20, 12:53 AM
Too easy is better than too hard. A game that's too easy can still be enjoyed for the story and characters. A game that's too hard is just frustrating.

Arguable. I for one like hard games, like Dwarf Fortress and Nethack. They're just more Fun (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Fun). :smalltongue:

Vizzerdrix
2013-05-20, 01:14 AM
don't feel bad, sometimes if my players get uppity, i actively try to kill them

oooh! I've had a DM try to do this! Boy was he mad when I soloed my "assassin" (A very big cloaker) with shapesand. :biggrin:

Sylthia
2013-05-20, 01:39 AM
oooh! I've had a DM try to do this! Boy was he mad when I soloed my "assassin" (A very big cloaker) with shapesand. :biggrin:

Once a DM decides he wants to kill a PC, they're pretty much dead, unless he's trying to be subtle. They could pretty much just have them roll saves against death if they wanted until they failed.

TuggyNE
2013-05-20, 01:45 AM
Arguable. I for one like hard games, like Dwarf Fortress and Nethack. They're just more Fun (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Fun). :smalltongue:

But can you still enjoy less-difficult games at all?

Geordnet
2013-05-20, 02:37 AM
But can you still enjoy less-difficult games at all?

Not when there is zero chance of failure/death. :smallyuk:

Alaris
2013-05-20, 05:04 AM
Seriously, don't feel bad. PCs will die, it happens. And the player appears to be fine with it (as he messaged you as such), so you have no reason to feel bad.

While I cannot tell you whether or not the CR of your encounter was too high, I do not believe you should feel bad. Analyze the encounter (create a thread detailing it, and let others help you if you want), find out if it was truly balanced, and if not, use that information for future encounters.

But really, the message to take away is that you shouldn't feel bad. Don't get kill-happy on the PCs, and you should make a fine DM.

EDIT: I'll give you the story of when I killed my first PC.

The players were running through a dungeon of sorts, and they decided to rest after a rather hefty encounter

While doing so, a rather large monster attacked (Demon of some sort, if I recall), and one of the PCs said "I take my wife and run down the hall from it!"

I ran a side-scene with him, where he encountered a rather complicated trap. It more or less required multiple people to get passed it. He started pulling levers, hoping something would work, and ended up getting himself and his character's wife killed.

I felt bad initially, but the player looked at me and said "So, can we roll Central Casting and stats for my next character?" He said it sucked that his current PC died, but he had a BLAST with his next one, so it all worked out.

Don't stress it man, you'll do fine.

Rhynn
2013-05-20, 05:22 AM
:smallwink:

The first time you kill a PC, you should feel like you won.

The second time, it should get a bit old.

The third time, you should realize it's not the point.

:smallamused:


It's a level 5 Gestalt game with now 7 players.... and 6 characters.

Unless you're running a game that's about PC relationships and history and complex roleplay, PCs are going to die. They should die. If they never die, the players are going to feel like there's no risk of death. If there's no risk, success at challenges isn't worth very much.

However, your game should then also be able to accommodate introducing new PCs, preferrably within a session rather than between them. There's several ways: even if the PCs can't beat a retreat to regroup and get reinforcements, they can run into a PC on his/her own mission (that conveniently parallels the party's), they can find a PC imprisoned or otherwise in trouble (trapped under a fallen tree, whatever).


Not when there is zero chance of failure/death. :smallyuk:

For D&D, same. It's obviously a balancing act. But, for me, the point is to make the players think about what they do, and reinforcing the need for cleverness and tactics by letting the game punish them when they don't think before acting; not with TPK, but with losses.

Arranis Thelmos
2013-05-20, 10:23 AM
Posting for relevance:



This encounter was not planned
Not my intention
Players left guard post unmanned
who's on watch they did not mention
It's not what, they should do
sleeping with no armor on
I roll their listen, all less than "2"
Cast "blacklight", now their fire's gone

I killed a PC and I liked it
The way his character sheet ignited
I killed a PC and I liked it
Hope W O T C don't mind it
It felt chaotic good
It felt chaotic bad
it don't mean they're gonna TPK
I killed a PC and I liked it
I liked it

DrBurr
2013-05-20, 10:32 AM
I recently killed the first character in my campaign too and of course he had alot of unfinished plot threads. He was fleeing from a ghost when he Stepped on a trap of course I had to crit in the open.

I felt kinda bad at first but my player didn't seem to mind so I felt okay then i realized a new character of equal level would be hard to wedge in so there's that.

Point being it sucks at first but its not so bad usually a Character death can mean large developments for a party even if its to a poor step.

Fable Wright
2013-05-20, 11:16 AM
don't feel bad, sometimes if my players get uppity, i actively try to kill them (the fact that i couldn't kill even 1 member of my level 3 party with a CR m10 encounter should tell you about the level of luck my players have when they are uppity though)

Better than one of my old DMs, though.

He tried to kill a few members of the level 8 party with a CR 21 encounter (Great Wyrm White Dragon) and failed to even damage any. In fact, we weren't supposed to defeat it at all: it was just supposed to show up, kill the irksome PCs, and send the party on a quest.

Needless to say, we killed it with no casualties, ending up with a dragon body (worth a lot of cash itself) and its entire hoard, after leveling up to 10. The game ended there, rather abruptly, for entirely unrelated reasons.

NM020110
2013-05-20, 12:21 PM
Take a run through the Tomb of Horrors to celebrate.

The real one, not the fake Tomb they made for 3.5.

Rhynn
2013-05-20, 12:27 PM
The real one, not the fake Tomb they made for 3.5.

:smallbiggrin: Is that a pun?

Ozfer
2013-05-20, 01:03 PM
Arguable. I for one like hard games, like Dwarf Fortress and Nethack. They're just more Fun (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Fun). :smalltongue:

I'm with you here. Dying in a game lends to the tension, and epic storytelling. Personally, I hate any game where it is expected for me to succeed without fault. Why are we introducing combat encounters if no-one is ever going to die?

PS- Nethack and DF are awesome. Just had to get that off my chest.

Ravian
2013-05-20, 01:50 PM
I remember my first, it was no fault of his and only incidentally the fault of another player but he took it very well.

It was 4th edition Dnd.
Basically they were fighting the leader of a raiding band after they had fought the rest of her raiders (combats are always harder when the party fights things in waves) they were all hovering around near death and the cleric was making heal checks nearly every round (he had used up all his healing spells by this point). It was actually a little annoying since my raid leader couldn't get to him and the DC for first aid was low enough that he was making it consistently.

And then he rolled a nat 1 to heal the fighter.

Figuring that such a failure would probably cause more harm than good, I decided to impose a failed death saving throw for this result (4e uses a three strikes you're out system for PC's under 0 hp).

Unfortunately the fighter was already down a strike and when his turn came around he failed his last one, so he died.

They did eventually won, (though another player was also down to no healing surges by the end of it making him permanently out for the encounter) and the player took it all in stride and started on a Paladin character.
(He also resolved to have more constitution for this one and take the toughness feat since in hindsight the fighter was fairly fragile for a front-liner).

I also resolved to avoid waves of enemies (too much) and encourage players to not waste energy on the minions before the main event.

The Fury
2013-05-20, 06:12 PM
The above posters are correct, you feel bad at first, then you get numb and then you start to like it. Much like real life murder. You can never recapture the excitement and tension of that first kill though.

I'm not so sure. The circumstance of the PC dying makes a lot of difference to me.
I once killed a PC that the player had developed quite well, had a cool history and was clearly having fun playing. That character was dropped below zero in a fight with a wyvern and later eaten after the rest of the party fled.
Honestly I still feel bad about handling it that way, even after the player told me that it's not a big deal.

tensai_oni
2013-05-20, 06:30 PM
Not when there is zero chance of failure/death. :smallyuk:


Dying in a game lends to the tension, and epic storytelling. Personally, I hate any game where it is expected for me to succeed without fault. Why are we introducing combat encounters if no-one is ever going to die?


Failure and death are not the same thing, unless you're playing DnD. You can fail without character death.

Actually, scratch that. In DnD it's not the same thing either, but from the other side. For higher level characters, death becomes just mundane. As long as it's not a TPK, there's no tension or consequence.

Jay R
2013-05-20, 10:30 PM
So, I decided to Dm my first game ever, on these here forums. Yay!

And now we're in our first combat! Yay!

Unfortunately for firsts, I just killed my first player... and I feel bad now... not yay....

It's OK. You're new to this.

When you get experienced you'll realize that the referee of a game has no business cheering for either side. Your job is to be neutral.

StreamOfTheSky
2013-05-21, 12:12 AM
It's OK. You're new to this.

When you get experienced you'll realize that the referee of a game has no business cheering for either side. Your job is to be neutral.

I also don't agree with this...

It's a game, you want people to have fun. To some, that may mean being completely "neutral" (which is in any case impossible when you make the calls about what they encounter whether it's monster X or slightly-stronger monster y), but to most that means not arbitrarily or suddenly having their character drop dead.

*shrug*

Mr Beer
2013-05-21, 12:22 AM
It's OK. You're new to this.

When you get experienced you'll realize that the referee of a game has no business cheering for either side. Your job is to be neutral.

I consider I should appear to be neutral but actually make sure characters don't die pointlessly unless their owners make it hard to avoid.

Rhynn
2013-05-21, 12:52 AM
I consider I should appear to be neutral but actually make sure characters don't die pointlessly unless their owners make it hard to avoid.

I'm with Jay R. It's not my job as DM to cheat or make decisions about "pointlessly." It's my job to adjudicate and describe. Death happens.

StreamOfTheSky
2013-05-21, 01:10 AM
And in what "neutral" way do you determine exactly what challenges the party faces? Random die rolls off encounter tables for everything? Never modify a monster from the manual to avoid making it weaker or stronger than normal?

A DM can't actually be totally neutral. It's a myth.

Rhynn
2013-05-21, 01:19 AM
A DM can't actually be totally neutral. It's a myth.

Sure, but I can not cheat. It's up to the players to fail or succeed and to give things meaning.


And in what "neutral" way do you determine exactly what challenges the party faces? Random die rolls off encounter tables for everything?

In D&D: mostly. Random encounter tables are awesome. Pre-placed monsters are just there - it's up to the players to decide what challenges they want to face and what challenges they want to run from. (It's also their responsibility to scout.)


Never modify a monster from the manual to avoid making it weaker or stronger than normal?

In D&D: pretty much. Too fiddly to bother modifying them.

SowZ
2013-05-21, 02:26 AM
And in what "neutral" way do you determine exactly what challenges the party faces? Random die rolls off encounter tables for everything? Never modify a monster from the manual to avoid making it weaker or stronger than normal?

A DM can't actually be totally neutral. It's a myth.

To me, neutrality isn't being a robotic arbiter. It's never fudging die rolls. I'll modify encounters I planned and move NPCs around as is convenient and change loot. But I won't fudge dice.

So if the PC takes 50 damage? He takes fifty damage. If the PCs kill my uber boss before he acts? So be it. I've had PCs fight things +10 CR above them and win with cleverness, luck, and to be fair pretty low-op wizards based on the fluff of my world.

Rhynn
2013-05-21, 02:51 AM
So if the PC takes 50 damage? He takes fifty damage. If the PCs kill my uber boss before he acts? So be it. I've had PCs fight things +10 CR above them and win with cleverness, luck, and to be fair pretty low-op wizards based on the fluff of my world.

Exactly this. My players get to decide what they take on and how and when. If they want to survive, they play it clever. When they succeed this way, it's awesome. When they fail, it's tragic or funny, depending. I've had two gestalted PCs get strangled by one choker each because they stupidly crawled after them into Small-sized vents (funny!), but I've also had three PCs use node-tapping and glamours to ambush and completely wreck a company of Inquisitor-Templars (awesome!).

SowZ
2013-05-21, 05:15 AM
Exactly this. My players get to decide what they take on and how and when. If they want to survive, they play it clever. When they succeed this way, it's awesome. When they fail, it's tragic or funny, depending. I've had two gestalted PCs get strangled by one choker each because they stupidly crawled after them into Small-sized vents (funny!), but I've also had three PCs use node-tapping and glamours to ambush and completely wreck a company of Inquisitor-Templars (awesome!).

Haha, sounds memorable!

Yeah, I have kind of a high risk high reward policy. Some parties will get way beyond wealth by level because they punch far above their weight class. Those groups definitely have deaths, though.

Case in point. Ran two games this week. One ended in a TPK, (it was a one shot so no biggie,) the other had a party of four level ones defeat a group of warriors that included 10 level 2s and a level 3 lesser werewolf. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. And even though I am the DM, the outcome isn't up to me.

Jay R
2013-05-21, 09:07 AM
Note: I realize that different people run games differently, and I'm not saying that other ways are wrong. I am describing how I design and run games for people who want to face real challenges that might defeat them.

Specifically, I am responding to somebody who is treating to very different parts of the job of DM as if they should be approached exactly the same.


And in what "neutral" way do you determine exactly what challenges the party faces? Random die rolls off encounter tables for everything? Never modify a monster from the manual to avoid making it weaker or stronger than normal?

A DM can't actually be totally neutral. It's a myth.

Designing the scenario and running the scenario are two different things, done differently.

I teach college algebra and statistics. When I'm designing the classroom activities, I am fundamentally on the students' side. I'm trying to find the best way for them to learn the material.

When I design the tests, I write them based on what they know (or what they are supposed to know), so that they have a fair chance to make good grades if they've learned the material. I'm hoping that they will all make A's, and I'm writing the test to allow it.

But when I'm grading the test, I am not either for them or against them. I am a neutral judge, grading their actual responses. My job is to provide a completely fair judgment.

Similarly, when I design an encounter, I am on the players' side. I write it based on what they can do (or should be able to do), to make a fun, challenging adventure that they should be able to overcome.

But when I run the adventure, I am a neutral judge of what effects their actual responses cause. My job is to provide a completely fair judgment.

[Every once in a great while, I see that a test question is much harder than I intended, and I eliminate it from the grading. Similarly, every once in a great while, I see that an encounter is much harder than intended, and I tone it down. But If I do either more than once or twice a year, then my design of the test or encounter is wrong. I shouldn't keep adjusting in the middle of the test or encounter, but learn to design better encounters or tests.]

The crucial fact is this: The designer of the scenario is doing it for the players' benefit. He or she should make a fair, fun challenge, neither so hard that death is likely, nor so easy that death is impossible. The DM on the day should be a neutral observer and judge, being neither for nor against the players. These are different attitudes, even if they are the same person.

Morghen
2013-05-21, 09:47 AM
^THIS. So hard.

Yes. It drives me bananas when people (who have every right to play however they want and have every right to fiat that their players win all the loots and asplode all the monsters and kiss all the girls and then are king of everything because PCs should succeed by merit of being PCs - all of that is OKAY and you SHOULD NOT feel bad if that's your play style) create threads asking for advice on how to get the players out of hot water.

LET THEM BOIL. Running away is a perfectly valid tactic. What is the opening scene from The Matrix? Trinity running the hell away. If she'd stayed, that Agent would've shot her a dozen times so she ran away EVEN THOUGH SHE'S A HERO.

Play how you like, there's no wrong way to play, etc. But if you keep saving the PCs... you're going to have to keep saving the PCs.

EDIT: I'm sigging you again.

Rhynn
2013-05-21, 10:38 AM
The crucial fact is this: The designer of the scenario is doing it for the players' benefit. He or she should make a fair, fun challenge, neither so hard that death is likely, nor so easy that death is impossible. The DM on the day should be a neutral observer and judge, being neither for nor against the players. These are different attitudes, even if they are the same person.

This is all so very true. Well said.


kiss all the girls

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/38036554.jpg

... did I just make it creepy?

Geordnet
2013-05-21, 12:02 PM
Similarly, when I design an encounter, I am on the players' side. I write it based on what they can do (or should be able to do), to make a fun, challenging adventure that they should be able to overcome.

But when I run the adventure, I am a neutral judge of what effects their actual responses cause. My job is to provide a completely fair judgment.

I seem to remember an article that mentioned this; and in fact was planning on linking it even before I read your post:
http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/

Basically, it comes down to the "two hats rule" (mentioned near the end of the article). When designing encounters, the GM tries to favor the PCs, make every one of them beatable. But when running them, the GM does his level best to defeat the PCs, but will not 'cheat' in either side's favor.

navar100
2013-05-21, 12:02 PM
It's good for a DM to feel bad when a PC dies. That's not to mean it should never happen. It's when the DM feels nothing or even worse, happy about it, that the DM needs to give up the chair. The DM has lost the whole point of the game.

Geordnet
2013-05-21, 01:24 PM
It's good for a DM to feel bad when a PC dies. That's not to mean it should never happen. It's when the DM feels nothing or even worse, happy about it, that the DM needs to give up the chair. The DM has lost the whole point of the game.

Also, don't forget that sad is not bad. The game needs both its highs and it's lows, if it is to be a memorable one. :smallwink:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-21, 02:33 PM
I think bias has something to recommend it if the alternative is 'render a substantial investment moot'. :smallsigh:

Geordnet
2013-05-21, 02:59 PM
I think bias has something to recommend it if the alternative is 'render a substantial investment moot'. :smallsigh:

A "substantial investment"? Rendered moot? :smallconfused:


Nay I say: the death of a character does not destroy the 'work' invested in him, but rather completes it. Just as every story has a beginning, so too must if have an end, lest it grow wearisome; and a quick death is by far preferable to the wasting sickness -especially if it is a dramatic or a noble one.

And not only does death act as a capstone for one character, it can serve as a cornerstone for the next. Thus can a character's story extend well beyond his own death. And when this cycle repeats itself, it can form arcologies far grander than could ever have been accomplished in one lifetime.

Verily, the death of a character is occasion for morning: but that grief is a good thing! Channel it into your roleplay, build upon it! From the ashes of sorrow you shall forge a greater triumph than would ever have been possible before; for when victory is finally yours, the bitter memories of the hardships you endured along the way shall merely make it taste all the sweeter. :smallcool:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-21, 03:10 PM
Nay I say: the death of a character does not destroy the 'work' invested in him, but rather completes it. Just as every story has a beginning, so too must if have an end, lest it grow wearisome; and a quick death is by far preferable to the wasting sickness -especially if it is a dramatic or a noble one.

And not only does death act as a capstone for one character, it can serve as a cornerstone for the next. Thus can a character's story extend well beyond his own death. And when this cycle repeats itself, it can form arcologies far grander than could ever have been accomplished in one lifetime.

Verily, the death of a character is occasion for morning: but that grief is a good thing! Channel it into your roleplay, build upon it! From the ashes of sorrow you shall forge a greater triumph than would ever have been possible before; for when victory is finally yours, the bitter memories of the hardships you endured along the way shall merely make it taste all the sweeter. :smallcool:

... we're going to have to agree to disagree. I seem to like putting more effort into individual characters than you. Working a character into the backstory of others again and again is a contrived coincidence, too. :smallyuk:

I, quite simply, hate the idea of putting substantial time and effort, not only into the mechanical aspects of a character, but then every other thing about them, only to have to go and start again, because of random chance? Even worse if it's some climactic fight, everyone else gets interesting loot or what have you, and I'm having to start over with no part in this. Eugh.

Rhynn
2013-05-21, 03:30 PM
I think bias has something to recommend it if the alternative is 'render a substantial investment moot'. :smallsigh:

How is it moot? Characters cannot and should not live forever. The best you can hope for is an entertaining death or a glorious retirement. You invest time and get, fun, some stories, and some memories.


Nay I say: the death of a character does not destroy the 'work' invested in him, but rather completes it. Just as every story has a beginning, so too must if have an end, lest it grow wearisome; and a quick death is by far preferable to the wasting sickness -especially if it is a dramatic or a noble one.

Exactly!

Also, many RPGs actually let you invest in your next character while playing the current one: The Riddle of Steel and Adventurer Conqueror King spring to mind immediately. When I run (A)D&D I prefer to have henchmen hanging along, and they accumulate treasure and XP; when a PC dies, the player can promote one of the deceased's henchmen to PC status.


... we're going to have to agree to disagree. I seem to like putting more effort into individual characters than you. Working a character into the backstory of others again and again is a contrived coincidence, too. :smallyuk:

I, quite simply, hate the idea of putting substantial time and effort, not only into the mechanical aspects of a character, but then every other thing about them, only to have to go and start again, because of random chance? Even worse if it's some climactic fight, everyone else gets interesting loot or what have you, and I'm having to start over with no part in this. Eugh.

Well, there's the problem. You're investing a lot of time up-front.

I think a much less work-intensive approach is to come up with enough material to start playing (a paragraph maybe, or just a concept), and invent more stuff during play. Some of the best RPG material (characters and campaign settings alike) is made up slowly over time. Backstories are over-rated and rarely enter play anyway; if you want hooks for the GM to use, you can just come up with a short list. What really matters is what your character has done during play.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-21, 03:38 PM
Because an ignoble death of the kind 'missed a trap and got incinerated', does not 'complete' a story, it's the equivalent of an unsatisfying literary cop-out. It's not as if there's any choice about when to die. Again, being screwed over by random chance. Possibly satisfactory if at the very end of the story, or something climactic, but when it's basically halfway through Act 2 and looking around something of rather minimal importance? :smallannoyed:

The assumption I'm making here is that the story is relatively serious but not horror. Genre conventions and all.

Investing time for fun and stories is good. Investing extra time because of pot luck, whilst everyone else is either held up (so under pressure) or continuing anyway (so having more fun)? Um... no. Frustration is not my idea of fun.

Promoting henchmen... the idea makes my skin crawl.


I think a much less work-intensive approach is to come up with enough material to start playing (a paragraph maybe, or just a concept), and invent more stuff during play. Some of the best RPG material (characters and campaign settings alike) is made up slowly over time. Backstories are over-rated and rarely enter play anyway; if you want hooks for the GM to use, you can just come up with a short list. What really matters is what your character has done during play.

I like backstories. :annoyed:

Geordnet
2013-05-21, 03:47 PM
... we're going to have to agree to disagree. I seem to like putting more effort into individual characters than you. Working a character into the backstory of others again and again is a contrived coincidence, too. :smallyuk:

I, quite simply, hate the idea of putting substantial time and effort, not only into the mechanical aspects of a character, but then every other thing about them, only to have to go and start again, because of random chance? Even worse if it's some climactic fight, everyone else gets interesting loot or what have you, and I'm having to start over with no part in this. Eugh.

Why do you seem to think character death means starting from scratch, and not taking part in proceedings? :smallconfused:

In fact, the opposite is more true: your now-expired character should be the immediate focus of things for the next few moments following his death. It is not just your own duty to make that death meaningful, but the duty of the other players as well. Wherefore else are you playing together, and not apart?

The task of forming a meaningful backstory should be easier than the first time as well, for now you have the entire campaign up to this point to draw upon! Set out with the intention of making your character's motivations complementary to the developing story, not supplementary; seek out ways to tie them back into the prior course of the story, and the opportunities will appear. If you can tie the beginning of this new story directly into the actions of the old, then all the better.

Finally, concerning the looting: what care you for such trivial trinkets? Their gain is a few new baubles, maybe a few options to tweak their build, but yours? To you is granted infinite possibility to craft and design as you see fit. In fact, what keeps you from forming your new character to be the equal or better of any of your comrades, save the will of the GM? Absolutely nothing; not that it should really be important to you.

Still, I say to you that your loss is imagined; that you are simply missing the opportunity. If you enjoy making a backstory, you've a fresh excuse to do so; if you enjoy seeing the story develop, this death is but one more development; and if you merely sought the vainglory of imaginary treasures, then it was never any more than an illusion...

Raineh Daze
2013-05-21, 03:55 PM
Why do you seem to think character death means starting from scratch, and not taking part in proceedings? :smallconfused:

In fact, the opposite is more true: your now-expired character should be the immediate focus of things for the next few moments following his death. It is not just your own duty to make that death meaningful, but the duty of the other players as well. Wherefore else are you playing together, and not apart?

Yes, because if I'm dead, the fact I'm dead is surely the most pressing matter, and not, possibly, whatever killed me, or even making sure someone else hasn't died to the same thing.

Also, a few moments of focus is basically equivalent to speaking. :/


The task of forming a meaningful backstory should be easier than the first time as well, for now you have the entire campaign up to this point to draw upon! Set out with the intention of making your character's motivations complementary to the developing story, not supplementary; seek out ways to tie them back into the prior course of the story, and the opportunities will appear. If you can tie the beginning of this new story directly into the actions of the old, then all the better.

Only if I felt inexplicably beholden to having a character that exists as an accessory to the plot. Why, exactly, should my character be made to fit the plot? I may as well hand the character sheet to the GM and go home by that point. Also, I don't want a backstory that is 'footnote in other characters' lives', because I'm already of less narrative importance by dint of coming late.


Finally, concerning the looting: what care you for such trivial trinkets? Their gain is a few new baubles, maybe a few options to tweak their build, but yours? To you is granted infinite possibility to craft and design as you see fit. In fact, what keeps you from forming your new character to be the equal or better of any of your comrades, save the will of the GM? Absolutely nothing; not that it should really be important to you.

The entire concept of reward, perhaps, is more important than getting to choose initial gear. Any excitement, curiosity, or tension is missed out upon, because I'm busy doing arithmetic as I add up the costs for things.


Still, I say to you that your loss is imagined; that you are simply missing the opportunity. If you enjoy making a backstory, you've a fresh excuse to do so; if you enjoy seeing the story develop, this death is but one more development; and if you merely sought the vainglory of imaginary treasures, then it was never any more than an illusion...

I enjoy making a backstory in my own time, when I have time to think about it. I don't enjoy being rushed. Same goes for coming up with a character concept. Rush me, I end up with a throwaway character I don't care about and don't really want to use.

Funnily enough, I don't particularly enjoy stories that throw in deaths because drama. Never seen the appeal of it.

Geordnet
2013-05-21, 04:04 PM
Because an ignoble death of the kind 'missed a trap and got incinerated', does not 'complete' a story, it's the equivalent of an unsatisfying literary cop-out.
Ah, well in this case the death must be exploited to its fullest extent. The scene must be acted out in minute detail, preferably with an artistic license for heroic last words and passing off significant heirlooms. The other players need to describe their characters' reactions appropriately, and taking on new motivations related to finishing the departed's goals, avenging his death, etc. encourages. The character needs to be buried, or if that's impractical then there needs to be roleplayed objections to leaving the body behind.

This is especially important because the character's death cannot be the end of his story, if his legacy is to be honored. It must become the Climax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climax_%28narrative%29), since it is unfitting for the role of Catastrophe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_%28drama%29).

You are correct that if the story ends there, then it is pointless; but that just means that the story cannot be allowed to end there! :smalltongue:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-21, 04:09 PM
... what, so it's not pointless because everyone else has the possibility to put extra effort in to make it interesting, whilst I sit there doing nothing? Er, still pointless. Whether other people take time to put excruciating detail into it or not, the death served no purpose except frustration. :smallannoyed:

Geordnet
2013-05-21, 04:46 PM
Yes, because if I'm dead, the fact I'm dead is surely the most pressing matter, and not, possibly, whatever killed me, or even making sure someone else hasn't died to the same thing.
Avenging your death would be. :smallamused:

And if immediate attention is impossible, then it needs to be given as soon as is possible. When the battle is over or the beast is slain, your compatriots should rush to your side, setting the stage for dramatic death, grieving, and burial scenes.



Also, a few moments of focus is basically equivalent to speaking. :/
I meant actual attention, not mere lip service. :smallyuk:



Only if I felt inexplicably beholden to having a character that exists as an accessory to the plot. Why, exactly, should my character be made to fit the plot? I may as well hand the character sheet to the GM and go home by that point.
You're looking at it the wrong way, is all. :smalltongue: You aren't an accessory to the plot, in fact it's the other way around: you are fitting the plot to your own ends, you are making it serve you! It is a tool in your hands, not the other way around! Because no matter what, you aren't beholden to the story. You merely chose to make use of certain parts of it because it suited your purposes.



Also, I don't want a backstory that is 'footnote in other characters' lives', because I'm already of less narrative importance by dint of coming late.
A footnote in other characters' lives? Perhaps for them, but for you it is certainly more than that. For the PCs, where they bought that 10 ft. pole from may be so trivial to not even be worth mentioning, but for the poleturner they bought it from, it could be the start of a complete turnaround in economic fortune. It's up to you to make it more than just a footnote, to make it significant.

Not to mention the myriad ways to tie a character into the story without being directly connected to the characters at all. Think back to the GM's descriptions of the world around the PCs, pick whatever unexplored detail looks most interesting, and run with it. Or you could even work something up from scratch, and figure out why this new character is traveling the same road as the PCs.

Likewise, "Narrative Importance" is entirely what you make of it. For instance, what did Frodo really do besides carry a piece of jewelry from a manor to a volcano? Gandalf and Gollum did the pathfinding, Sam took care of him, and everyone else did all the fighting! Similarly, the Emperor didn't really get more than a few minutes of screen time until Episode VI, but does that make his defeat any less the crux of the entire series? You focus too much on the superficial, methinks... :smallsigh:



The entire concept of reward, perhaps, is more important than getting to choose initial gear. Any excitement, curiosity, or tension is missed out upon, because I'm busy doing arithmetic as I add up the costs for things.
Then find another way to do it. Perhaps ask your GM to assign magic items, or roll them up on a table. You just need to get creative. :smalltongue:



I enjoy making a backstory in my own time, when I have time to think about it. I don't enjoy being rushed. Same goes for coming up with a character concept. Rush me, I end up with a throwaway character I don't care about and don't really want to use.
Then plan ahead of time. You don't need to know the specifics, but at least enough so that you aren't rushed. Always keep a rough idea in the back of your mind of what your next character is going to be like if (when) this one kicks the bucket. :smallamused:

Or at least ask the GM if you can run a temp character for a few sessions, while you finely craft your next 'permanent' one. :smallwink:



Funnily enough, I don't particularly enjoy stories that throw in deaths because drama. Never seen the appeal of it.
It's supposed to increase adrenalin a bit, from the tension inherent in not knowing who's going to die next.



... what, so it's not pointless because everyone else has the possibility to put extra effort in to make it interesting, whilst I sit there doing nothing?
Are you not at the same table as them? Can you not talk out of character, even ask the other players to honor your character's memory a certain way? Talk to the GM about making your death (and new character) meaningful and significant to the story? :smallconfused:

Also, they other players have more than a possibility to make it more memorable: it is in fact their duty to do so.



Er, still pointless. Whether other people take time to put excruciating detail into it or not, the death served no purpose except frustration. :smallannoyed:
Only if you let it, my friend. Only if you let it...

tomandtish
2013-05-21, 04:51 PM
So, I decided to Dm my first game ever, on these here forums. Yay!

And now we're in our first combat! Yay!

Unfortunately for firsts, I just killed my first player... and I feel bad now... not yay....
:smallfrown:

Mom always told me I'd come to a bad end if I kept playing role-playing games.... I didn't realize she meant literally!!! :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, was the death in nature with the tone of the game? Was it realistic by the standards of the game? Did you avoid making any substantial errors that caused it (major misrulings, etc.)? Above all, did everyone have fun?

If you can answer yes to all the questions (esp. the last one), then I wouldn't worry about it. It sounds like an enjoyable time was had, and that's the whole point!

Raineh Daze
2013-05-21, 04:54 PM
No, I'm not using the plot to my own ends, I'm being an uncreative hack riding on previous work and letting something else define my character. Nope.

Working something out from scratch is what I would end up doing anyway, so I don't know why you're putting it in the same sentence as trying to argue I should have an integrated backstory...

I said narrative importance. Someone that shows up not having been even a background character in the plot for X percent of the story is less important because of that.


Then find another way to do it. Perhaps ask your GM to assign magic items, or roll them up on a table. You just need to get creative.

... this sounds like a good way to guarantee I'll be doing the same thing again within an hour.


Then plan ahead of time. You don't need to know the specifics, but at least enough so that you aren't rushed. Always keep a rough idea in the back of your mind of what your next character is going to be like if (when) this one kicks the bucket.

I have at least three ideas in my head right now. The problem is choosing. Then there's ideas that aren't really appropriate for whatever's going on. This doesn't really cut out the majority of the work. Honestly, the only way I can make use of this suggestion is maintaining several character sheets at the same time, which makes me look paranoid. :smallsigh:


Are you not at the same table as them? Can you not talk out of character, even ask the other players to honor your character's memory a certain way in-game?

I refuse to tell people how to roleplay their characters. That's their choice. :|


Only if you let it, my friend. Only if you let it...

One way or the other, I've missed out. Hence, frustration.

Geordnet
2013-05-21, 05:06 PM
No, I'm not using the plot to my own ends, I'm being an uncreative hack riding on previous work and letting something else define my character. Nope.
It takes more skill to take something that already exists yet make it your own than it does to make something up from scratch. :smallamused:

I mean, it's not really like there's such a thing as a truly original idea anyways...



Working something out from scratch is what I would end up doing anyway, so I don't know why you're putting it in the same sentence as trying to argue I should have an integrated backstory...
Because you are focusing on the wrong detail, and miss the point I was trying to get across. :smallsigh:



I said narrative importance. Someone that shows up not having been even a background character in the plot for X percent of the story is less important because of that.
And in what way does this make the character any less worthy? :smallconfused:



... this sounds like a good way to guarantee I'll be doing the same thing again within an hour.
Only if you have a fairly poor GM. :smallyuk:



I have at least three ideas in my head right now. The problem is choosing. Then there's ideas that aren't really appropriate for whatever's going on. This doesn't really cut out the majority of the work. Honestly, the only way I can make use of this suggestion is maintaining several character sheets at the same time, which makes me look paranoid. :smallsigh:
Ask someone else about it, collaborate a bit. It helps a lot. :smalltongue:



I refuse to tell people how to roleplay their characters. That's their choice. :|
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that you mustn't even ask a favor of them! RPGs are a group activity, and you are a part of that group even when your PC is dead. Just ask politely, the worst that can happen is that they say "no". But it's even worse when they would have been glad to oblige, if you had only asked...

Raineh Daze
2013-05-21, 05:14 PM
It takes more skill to take something that already exists yet make it your own than it does to make something up from scratch. :smallamused:

I mean, it's not really like there's such a thing as a truly original idea anyways...

I can do it, I just don't want to do it. Besides, lack of original ideas or not, it's fun to see what I can come up with rather than how I can repurpose things.


And in what way does this make the character any less worthy? :smallconfused:

Compared with other PC's, who are more important, more integrated (they know each other better), have experiences together...

Faramir is less important than Aragorn.


Ask someone else about it, collaborate a bit. It helps a lot. :smalltongue:

Every time I do that, I just end up with more ideas. I should not be given a sounding board. :smalltongue:


Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that you mustn't even ask a favor of them! RPGs are a group activity, and you are a part of that group even when your PC is dead. Just ask politely, the worst that can happen is that they say "no". But it's even worse when they would have been glad to oblige, if you had only asked...

But I don't want to ask people to roleplay in a particular way to amuse me because I died.

Jay R
2013-05-21, 11:02 PM
... we're going to have to agree to disagree. I seem to like putting more effort into individual characters than you. Working a character into the backstory of others again and again is a contrived coincidence, too. :smallyuk:

Well, actually, I like creating characters. That's why it isn't a bad thing to have to do it again - because I actually enjoy it. (My backstories run 5-8 pages, on average.)


I, quite simply, hate the idea of putting substantial time and effort, not only into the mechanical aspects of a character, but then every other thing about them, only to have to go and start again, because of random chance? Even worse if it's some climactic fight, everyone else gets interesting loot or what have you, and I'm having to start over with no part in this. Eugh.

By that logic, I guess that the work put into developing Boromir, Sirius Black, D'Artagnan, King Arthur, Beowulf, Hamlet, Hercules, etc. was worthless, because they died at the end of the story.

But .. they were the subjects of great, stirring stories. Isn't that the real point of this, more than than just getting loot?

The Fury
2013-05-22, 12:42 AM
By that logic, I guess that the work put into developing Boromir, Sirius Black, D'Artagnan, King Arthur, Beowulf, Hamlet, Hercules, etc. was worthless, because they died at the end of the story.

But .. they were the subjects of great, stirring stories. Isn't that the real point of this, more than than just getting loot?

I guess if you experience RPGs in the same way you experience novels then you'd have a good point. That said RPGs aren't really like other media at all, each individual player might care for their own character but it's rare for them to feel empathy for other PCs or NPCs. Not saying that it never happens, it's great when it does happen I'm sure, but it's a little unreasonable to expect. It's also quite unreasonable to compare some D&D character to a beloved character from classic literature or theatre.

TuggyNE
2013-05-22, 12:56 AM
I guess if you experience RPGs in the same way you experience novels then you'd have a good point. That said RPGs aren't really like other media at all, each individual player might care for their own character but it's rare for them to feel empathy for other PCs or NPCs. Not saying that it never happens, it's great when it does happen I'm sure, but it's a little unreasonable to expect. It's also quite unreasonable to compare some D&D character to a beloved character from classic literature or theatre.

There's also the point that the deaths most players tend to get annoyed/upset about are usually the ones that are not, as it were, at the end of the book. The audience for "everyone dies" books is generally considerably smaller, from what I know. (And I know I am not super-thrilled at reading a book in which the apparent protagonist dies on page 37 by mistake. I have very nearly fired such a book across the room in disgust, in fact!)

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 01:43 AM
Well, actually, I like creating characters. That's why it isn't a bad thing to have to do it again - because I actually enjoy it. (My backstories run 5-8 pages, on average.)

Part of it's the time pressure, and part of it's that I can't keep developing the character I had made, instead having to go back to square one and build everything up again.


By that logic, I guess that the work put into developing Boromir, Sirius Black, D'Artagnan, King Arthur, Beowulf, Hamlet, Hercules, etc. was worthless, because they died at the end of the story.

But .. they were the subjects of great, stirring stories. Isn't that the real point of this, more than than just getting loot?

But all of those people died at climaxes (and at least three of them--Beowulf, Heracles, Arthur--have the stories named after them and died right at the end), not random fights/walking down a boobytrapped corridor. :smallconfused:

Mr Beer
2013-05-22, 01:59 AM
Basically, it comes down to the "two hats rule" (mentioned near the end of the article). When designing encounters, the GM tries to favor the PCs, make every one of them beatable. But when running them, the GM does his level best to defeat the PCs, but will not 'cheat' in either side's favor.

This is the ideal way to do it. But I'm prepared to fudge, and the following are factors in my deciding to do that:

1. Whether I'm to blame e.g. did I make the encounter too hard by mistake.

2. How stupid the players are being.

3. Whether the deaths will be pointless or heroic.

4. How long a campaign I'm aiming for.

5. The tone of the game.

Not being prepared to fudge for any those reasons seems silly to me, though the only indefensible "never fudge even if..." on that list is item 1. So yeah, matter of taste yadda yadda.

Rhynn
2013-05-22, 03:20 AM
Well, actually, I like creating characters. That's why it isn't a bad thing to have to do it again - because I actually enjoy it. (My backstories run 5-8 pages, on average.)

This is easily the best reason to write backstories, IMO, because it makes the most sense.

Jay R
2013-05-22, 09:58 AM
I guess if you experience RPGs in the same way you experience novels then you'd have a good point. That said RPGs aren't really like other media at all, each individual player might care for their own character but it's rare for them to feel empathy for other PCs or NPCs. Not saying that it never happens, it's great when it does happen I'm sure, but it's a little unreasonable to expect. It's also quite unreasonable to compare some D&D character to a beloved character from classic literature or theatre.

An RPG is experienced like some blend of a novel and a game. To the extent that it's like a novel, the character's death can be either satisfying or unsatisfying, depending upon whether he dies serving a cause worth dying for.

To the extent that it's like a game, well, sometimes I lose the game. Sometimes my team doesn't get it done. That's part of the game.

It's rare to have empathy for other characters? Do you never play Good characters? Caring about others is crucial to being Good. Why in the world would my PC risk his life against the incoming hordes except to protect the village behind him?

I suppose I agree that the death of a murderhobo, who's only in it for the loot, would always be maximum frustration and no satisfaction, but I don't play such characters. That may be the difference.

And why is it unreasonable to compare my D&D character, usually patterned off one or more literary characters, to a literary character?

From the Introduction to the first RPG:


Those wargamers ... who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, whop do not enjoy the De Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste.

If Gygax compares D&D to that sort of literature, I conclude that it's not unreasonable for me to do so as well.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 10:08 AM
An RPG is experienced like some blend of a novel and a game. To the extent that it's like a novel, the character's death can be either satisfying or unsatisfying, depending upon whether he dies serving a cause worth dying for.

To the extent that it's like a game, well, sometimes I lose the game. Sometimes my team doesn't get it done. That's part of the game.

That is also the most frustrating part of the game, and the ratio of unsatisfying deaths to satisfying is likely to be highly skewed in the 'unsatisfying' direction.

The Fury
2013-05-22, 11:02 AM
An RPG is experienced like some blend of a novel and a game. To the extent that it's like a novel, the character's death can be either satisfying or unsatisfying, depending upon whether he dies serving a cause worth dying for.

To the extent that it's like a game, well, sometimes I lose the game. Sometimes my team doesn't get it done. That's part of the game.

Games are unique as forms of fiction in that the audience takes on the role of the protagonist. Once their character dies they're literally no longer in the story. Conversely if your favorite character in a book or a movie dies, you might be frustrated but you can still continue the story as ably as ever.


It's rare to have empathy for other characters? Do you never play Good characters? Caring about others is crucial to being Good. Why in the world would my PC risk his life against the incoming hordes except to protect the village behind him?

I suppose I agree that the death of a murderhobo, who's only in it for the loot, would always be maximum frustration and no satisfaction, but I don't play such characters. That may be the difference.
Sure, it's common for a player character to feel empathy for the people around them. What I meant is that it's uncommon for a player to empathize or care about a character in an RPG that's not their own.



And why is it unreasonable to compare my D&D character, usually patterned off one or more literary characters, to a literary character?


It's unreasonable for this topic because in good literature character death serves a purpose. In D&D, characters usually just die and are replaced next week.

Rhynn
2013-05-22, 11:28 AM
It's unreasonable for this topic because in good literature character death serves a purpose. In D&D, characters usually just die and are replaced next week.

RPGs originally, and still often, did not tell "stories" in the sense that people usually mean - it's not a story written then acted out. It's a story ex post facto (http://grognardia.blogspot.fi/2008/10/picaro-and-story-of-d.html). Nothing has to "serve a purpose" - nothing even has a purpose until you give it purpose after the fact, until you tell the story.

Nevermind that many of the most memorable RPG moments in my experience have been character deaths... The thing is, RPGs are not (necessarily) about telling some grand epic story. They're about telling a story in the sense of "so this one time..." later on. At the table, some things happen, usually in a coherent way. Then you put it together into a story. Some of my favorite stories are about characters dying, often in stupid or ridiculous ways, and me and my friends still laugh about them years later. Some of those stories we've recounted so many times I can't separate the retelling from the original event anymore. I don't see that RPGs can serve a purpose much higher than giving you an experience you still enjoy or talk about years afterwards.

So, in short: nothing in a RPG necessarily does or needs to have "a purpose" until you give it one after the fact.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 11:41 AM
RPGs originally, and still often, did not tell "stories" in the sense that people usually mean - it's not a story written then acted out. It's a story ex post facto (http://grognardia.blogspot.fi/2008/10/picaro-and-story-of-d.html). Nothing has to "serve a purpose" - nothing even has a purpose until you give it purpose after the fact, until you tell the story.

Nevermind that many of the most memorable RPG moments in my experience have been character deaths... The thing is, RPGs are not (necessarily) about telling some grand epic story. They're about telling a story in the sense of "so this one time..." later on. At the table, some things happen, usually in a coherent way. Then you put it together into a story. Some of my favorite stories are about characters dying, often in stupid or ridiculous ways, and me and my friends still laugh about them years later. Some of those stories we've recounted so many times I can't separate the retelling from the original event anymore. I don't see that RPGs can serve a purpose much higher than giving you an experience you still enjoy or talk about years afterwards.

So, in short: nothing in a RPG necessarily does or needs to have "a purpose" until you give it one after the fact.

So... basically, you're assuming that there's no internal narrative to start with? That's... not inherently true, and pointless, random deaths aren't going to be fun just because they give you (not you specifically, you in general) something to talk about later. :/

Rhynn
2013-05-22, 11:54 AM
So... basically, you're assuming that there's no internal narrative to start with? That's... not inherently true, and pointless, random deaths aren't going to be fun just because they give you (not you specifically, you in general) something to talk about later. :/

No, you're strawmanning. :smallcool: Note key words such as "often," "Nothing has to," "necessarily does or needs to" ...

See, while you're arguing that "(common) character death is always wrong" I'm not arguing that "(common) character death is always right." My argument is "there's nothing wrong with it in itself," and if you were simply arguing "I don't like it" then we'd both be right.

Amphetryon
2013-05-22, 11:57 AM
Unfortunately for firsts, I just killed my first player... and I feel bad now... not yay....Were the police notified, or did you - perhaps - kill the Character and not the Player? :smallwink:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 12:13 PM
No, you're strawmanning. :smallcool: Note key words such as "often," "Nothing has to," "necessarily does or needs to" ...

See, while you're arguing that "(common) character death is always wrong" I'm not arguing that "(common) character death is always right." My argument is "there's nothing wrong with it in itself," and if you were simply arguing "I don't like it" then we'd both be right.

I'm arguing that there is something wrong with it in itself. Namely, the (common) part. :smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon
2013-05-22, 12:35 PM
I'm arguing that there is something wrong with it in itself. Namely, the (common) part. :smallbiggrin:

I'm curious: If you don't think Character death should be possible in random (rather than climactic) battles, then 1) why do your Characters engage in them, and 2) have you considered investigating other systems with greater narrative authority given to the Players, because it seems like D&D isn't a great fit for your preferred play-style and RPG-goals.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 12:54 PM
I'm curious: If you don't think Character death should be possible in random (rather than climactic) battles, then 1) why do your Characters engage in them, and 2) have you considered investigating other systems with greater narrative authority given to the Players, because it seems like D&D isn't a great fit for your preferred play-style and RPG-goals.

Because I like D&D, aside from the possibility that one piece of bad luck sets me back to square one (such as being the only person to get hit by something). Not a particular fan of Save-or-Dies and low level stuff for that reason.

Why the hell is 'try something else' the standard response to 'I don't like one thing' around here? :smallannoyed:

Amphetryon
2013-05-22, 01:16 PM
Because I like D&D, aside from the possibility that one piece of bad luck sets me back to square one (such as being the only person to get hit by something). Not a particular fan of Save-or-Dies and low level stuff for that reason.

Why the hell is 'try something else' the standard response to 'I don't like one thing' around here? :smallannoyed:

In this case, it's because that "one thing" can crop up with relative frequency (depending on your group), and because it can be all but entirely eliminated in some other RPGs.

Seriously, you've put several posts together in this thread explaining how much this "one thing" bothers you in D&D, when there are many other systems where is simply doesn't come up. Why is it a bad thing to ask whether you've looked into systems that eliminate what is apparently a big problem with the system for you, based on your prior responses in the thread? :smallconfused:

Jay R
2013-05-22, 01:18 PM
Games are unique as forms of fiction in that the audience takes on the role of the protagonist. Once their character dies they're literally no longer in the story.

Yup. That's not the story part; that's the game part. Half the people who play chess lose. 3/4 of the people who play a 4-person game of Monopoly lose. Losing is an acceptable outcome when playing games.


Conversely if your favorite character in a book or a movie dies, you might be frustrated but you can still continue the story as ably as ever.
...

In D&D, characters usually just die and are replaced next week.

Which is to say that you can still continue the story as ably as ever.


Sure, it's common for a player character to feel empathy for the people around them. What I meant is that it's uncommon for a player to empathize or care about a character in an RPG that's not their own.

Really? You can play a character and not care about what he cares about? I assure you that since my PC became the Earl of Devon, I have worked to make things better for the people of Devon.

I have worked to provide horses for the followers of Glen's Fighter Primus and those of Nolen's Cleric Torbin. I risked the life of my PC Ornrandir to save April's Paladin Lorelei. I helped set up a wizard lab for Diane's Wizard Rowena.

I have helped put King Edward on the throne, saved the life of Queen Susan, protected the ladies of Portsmouth from a hag, saved a colony from an infestation of skeletons, rebuilt a ravaged town out of my own money, defended orphans from potential slavers, paid to build new, safer orphanages, etc. And yes, I care about them. That's what it means to play the character.

If Ornrandir had died defending any of these people, I'd have been proud of it. I'd also have been annoyed at losing Ornrandir - as annoyed as I was at watching the Ranger lose to the A's last night.

I acknowledge that players who run murderhoboes might not ever have a reason to feel good about their deaths, but I don't play such characters, and nobody else in my group does, either.


It's unreasonable for this topic because in good literature character death serves a purpose.

No.

Just no.

You cannot maintain that it's reasonable to talk about what you care about and unreasonable to talk about what I care about.

You can say that you don't play that way, but not that such considerations are unreasonable for those people who care about them.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 01:21 PM
I have fun arguing about things that irritate me; it's not as serious as it seems. :smalltongue:

Serious about disliking having to come up with a new character under pressure, though. I don't enjoy stuff I'm made to do. :smallsigh:

Amphetryon
2013-05-22, 02:02 PM
Games are unique as forms of fiction in that the audience takes on the role of the protagonist. Once their character dies they're literally no longer in the story. Conversely if your favorite character in a book or a movie dies, you might be frustrated but you can still continue the story as ably as ever.


Sure, it's common for a player character to feel empathy for the people around them. What I meant is that it's uncommon for a player to empathize or care about a character in an RPG that's not their own.



It's unreasonable for this topic because in good literature character death serves a purpose. In D&D, characters usually just die and are replaced next week.1) It is not uncommon, in my experience, for Player Characters to empathize with other members of the party, though the empathy may not extend to ALL the members of the party, just those closely associated with each other. That's often part of the collaborative storytelling experience. 2) It is the job of many a good DM to make sure that any Character death (outside a TPK) feels like a meaningful death, either at the time or through the lens of hindsight as the story progresses. I fail to see the issue, other than the fact that you're comparing disparate mediums.

Rhynn
2013-05-22, 04:37 PM
I'm arguing that there is something wrong with it in itself. Namely, the (common) part. :smallbiggrin:

Right, but you haven't actually presented persuasive arguments for that stance, since they all come down to "well I don't like it for reasons X Y Z" and other people (not just GMs!) do like it as part of their games.

It's not an issue where you can make an argument for or against the concept itself being good or bad, you can only express preferences. It's bad because of your personal preferences and what you want from a game. For others, it's not good or bad. For others, it's specifically good.


Why the hell is 'try something else' the standard response to 'I don't like one thing' around here? :smallannoyed:

Because even if you don't like just one thing, it's entirely possible there's RPGs out there - among the unnumbered variety - that would work better for you. Trying out new RPGs is always a good idea. Often you'll find new things to like you never even thought about.


2) It is the job of many a good DM to make sure that any Character death (outside a TPK) feels like a meaningful death, either at the time or through the lens of hindsight as the story progresses.

I don't think "meaningful" is even necessary; for my group, "hilarious" has worked well, too. If we get a good laugh out of it, all's well.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 04:45 PM
Because even if you don't like just one thing, it's entirely possible there's RPGs out there - among the unnumbered variety - that would work better for you. Trying out new RPGs is always a good idea. Often you'll find new things to like you never even thought about.

I'm fine with trying new RPG's (I also like looking at them, anyway)

I dislike 'use another system' as a solution for one thing. Overreaction, much?

Rhynn
2013-05-22, 04:58 PM
I'm fine with trying new RPG's (I also like looking at them, anyway)

I dislike 'use another system' as a solution for one thing. Overreaction, much?

I don't think so, personally. I'm not saying it's the answer here, but personally, I think anyone not liking a particular flavor of D&D, for instance, should try out all the other ones (because there are so many - just look at my sig!). That wouldn't help you, in particular, because late 2E, 3.X and 4E are the ones that run with the "PCs shouldn't die" idea, and most of the older ones and retroclones are all about the real risk of death. At least one retroclone goes whole hog with character death: in Dungeon Crawl Classics, each player creates 2-5 PCs (depending on the number of players and the DM's wishes) at 0 level, and the first adventure murders most of them (hopefully leaving each PC with at least one living) and the survivors get to 1st level and choose a class. I've not played it yet, because "only" half our group loves that idea (also because of the Zocchi dice).

Cool thing about death in old D&D, though: as PCs rise in level (and come to have more of a history and become more involved in the world and the story their adventures create) their risk of death decreases, and ways to cheat death usually become available. The generally agreed-on number is that once you get to 4th level and above in old D&D (OD&D, BECMI, 1E-2E), you're much more likely than not to make it to high levels.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-22, 05:05 PM
I don't think so, personally. I'm not saying it's the answer here, but personally, I think anyone not liking a particular flavor of D&D, for instance, should try out all the other ones (because there are so many - just look at my sig!). That wouldn't help you, in particular, because late 2E, 3.X and 4E are the ones that run with the "PCs shouldn't die" idea, and most of the older ones and retroclones are all about the real risk of death. At least one retroclone goes whole hog with character death: in Dungeon Crawl Classics, each player creates 2-5 PCs (depending on the number of players and the DM's wishes) at 0 level, and the first adventure murders most of them (hopefully leaving each PC with at least one living) and the survivors get to 1st level and choose a class. I've not played it yet, because "only" half our group loves that idea (also because of the Zocchi dice).

Cool thing about death in old D&D, though: as PCs rise in level (and come to have more of a history and become more involved in the world and the story their adventures create) their risk of death decreases, and ways to cheat death usually become available. The generally agreed-on number is that once you get to 4th level and above in old D&D (OD&D, BECMI, 1E-2E), you're much more likely than not to make it to high levels.

Ironically, sounds like the oldest D&D games would suit me most, because that means the characters I've put the most time into are the least likely to drop dead.

Rhynn
2013-05-22, 05:57 PM
Ironically, sounds like the oldest D&D games would suit me most, because that means the characters I've put the most time into are the least likely to drop dead.

That's exactly the thing, for me. The trick is not to front-load the development of your character: start simple, and then describe more and more of your character during play. Basically, you start at a point on a timeline, and then you expand your character's "known life" in both directions - back in time (through stuff you make up, maybe with the DM and even other players) and forward in time (through stuff you experience during play).

There's wonderful examples of players helping create the world this way at, say, the Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.fi/) blog: after James (the DM) reluctantly allowed a dwarf and an elf in a game he'd envisaged as "traditionally" human-centric OD&D, the players of those characters went on to practically define their races in the setting by bouncing ideas off James (because it was an inside-out campaign creation: start with a single settlement and a dungeon, develop outwards as the game requires it). The elf considered everyone else "ephemerals," was philosophically atheistic, etc. The dwarf was adventuring, like all dwarves, to obtain the gems and gold to pay back his father and to create his own son: the dwarves procreate by a sort of magical parthenogenesis, by crafting a splendid statue with gems and precious metals, then imbuing it with life; being very debt-minded, dwarves pay back their parent the cost of their creation, then begin their own work. (Each dwarf can only make one child ever, which is why they're a dying race.)

The Fury
2013-05-22, 06:37 PM
Really? You can play a character and not care about what he cares about? I assure you that since my PC became the Earl of Devon, I have worked to make things better for the people of Devon.

I have worked to provide horses for the followers of Glen's Fighter Primus and those of Nolen's Cleric Torbin. I risked the life of my PC Ornrandir to save April's Paladin Lorelei. I helped set up a wizard lab for Diane's Wizard Rowena.

I have helped put King Edward on the throne, saved the life of Queen Susan, protected the ladies of Portsmouth from a hag, saved a colony from an infestation of skeletons, rebuilt a ravaged town out of my own money, defended orphans from potential slavers, paid to build new, safer orphanages, etc. And yes, I care about them. That's what it means to play the character.

If Ornrandir had died defending any of these people, I'd have been proud of it. I'd also have been annoyed at losing Ornrandir - as annoyed as I was at watching the Ranger lose to the A's last night.

I acknowledge that players who run murderhoboes might not ever have a reason to feel good about their deaths, but I don't play such characters, and nobody else in my group does, either.


All that is great for you, I honestly think that's awesome. I also think that it's uncommon, and I'm not even making a distinction between actual roleplayers and "murder-hobos" either.
For most players empathy between their own character and another seldom goes further than declaring, "My guy is sad that whatshisname is dead."
Now, I'm sure that in the context of the fictional gameworld any such statements are true and the character really is upset, the player isn't likely to be impacted in any meaningful way though. Sure, empathy and involvement from the player are present and genuine when dealing with their own characters story arc but it's rare for players to have that investment beyond their own individual characters.
This isn't to say I've never seen players do things like make funeral arrangements for their fallen comrade, take up his or her personal mission "because that's what they would have wanted," or just making people aware that their friend died honorably. I have, but the number of times I have seen it I can count on one hand. If such things happen all the time in your group, that's wonderful and hope you consider yourself lucky.



You cannot maintain that it's reasonable to talk about what you care about and unreasonable to talk about what I care about.

You can say that you don't play that way, but not that such considerations are unreasonable for those people who care about them.

What? I said that? OK, if you say so. That's not really how I meant for it to come across though. I didn't mean your way of doing things is "bad" or "invalid," I mean that it's not fair to hold everyone else to those standards.

Jay R
2013-05-22, 07:55 PM
All that is great for you, I honestly think that's awesome. I also think that it's uncommon, ...

This isn't to say I've never seen players do things like make funeral arrangements for their fallen comrade, take up his or her personal mission "because that's what they would have wanted," or just making people aware that their friend died honorably. I have, but the number of times I have seen it I can count on one hand. If such things happen all the time in your group, that's wonderful and hope you consider yourself lucky.

Absolutely I feel lucky in the people I play with.


What? I said that? OK, if you say so. That's not really how I meant for it to come across though. I didn't mean your way of doing things is "bad" or "invalid," I mean that it's not fair to hold everyone else to those standards.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. It sure looked like you were saying "It's unreasonable in this topic" to talk about what mattered to me.

In any event, I'm not holding anybody up to any standards; I'm talking what I enjoy in the game.

Rhynn
2013-05-22, 08:21 PM
Absolutely I feel lucky in the people I play with.

My players constantly and regularly form connections to the gameworld and its characters, including in weird ways. "A whore tried to rob one of my mates? I'll tell admonish her (critical success social test) and make her part of our entourage." :smalleek:

In a really "basic" D&D campaign, they all ended up settling down in a random village and building their own shops and temples and started working to improve the people's lives in small ways for no benefit at all.

It's sort of the point of RPGs to me. If I'm not presenting a world that the players start forming connections to, I'm doing a bad job as GM.

... incidentally, I think this also helps get around the "my character died" problem. The player is forming these emotional connections. They'll retain them if the PC dies, and may seek to re-establish connections to specific places or communities, or just seek to make new ones elsewhere.

The Fury
2013-05-22, 08:37 PM
Absolutely I feel lucky in the people I play with.


As well you should! At least we appear to agree on that much.



If I misunderstood you, I apologize. It sure looked like you were saying "It's unreasonable in this topic" to talk about what mattered to me.

In any event, I'm not holding anybody up to any standards; I'm talking what I enjoy in the game.

I feel I owe you an apology as well. I'll warn you ahead of time that I suffer from a terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease, so I'm pretty terrible at explaining my own terms.

Jay R
2013-05-22, 10:54 PM
I feel I owe you an apology as well. I'll warn you ahead of time that I suffer from a terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease, so I'm pretty terrible at explaining my own terms.

No problem. Working our way through our misinterpretations of what each other said until we understand each other is internet discussion at its finest. I feel lucky in who I've been disagreeing with lately, too.

Thanks.

tasw
2013-05-22, 11:59 PM
Killing PC's in a fair fight is a joy akin to a linebacker smearing a quarterback or a point gaurd sinking a shot from half court to win the game. Enjoy it, it wont happen often.

As to the whole "i died so my hard written backstory is wasted argument" as a DM i just dont care. If you want to write a long detailed 5 page piece of fan fic for your backstory awesome..... email me a 2 paragraph synopsis and keep the rest in your head. I'm not bending the other 5 players and the rest of the campaign world around your story.

If theres 1 or 2 very important plot hooks for you then include them in paragraph 2. Preferably as bullet points.

And if you get butthurt over the dice killing you in a fair and neutral way and want me to change things around for you so that doesnt happen? No. Sorry but no. If thats a requirement for you then you know where the door is, you walked in it to get here.

Playstyles are important. Something like is being described over and above is what I would consider a problem player who should probably not be invited back.

Fates
2013-05-23, 12:05 AM
Eh, my first kill was ruined because my players already had resurrection magic by then, and I was too naive to know that that it has limited to no place in my campaigns.

Anyway, it's probably a good sign that you feel bad about it. As others before me have said much more eloquently, don't chicken out when it comes to these things, but don't be needlessly cruel either. Set up what you think will challenge your players enough that death is neither destined nor out of the realm of possibility. It's a fine science, but it's really a necessary part of DMing well.

Rhynn
2013-05-23, 01:08 AM
As to the whole "i died so my hard written backstory is wasted argument" as a DM i just dont care. If you want to write a long detailed 5 page piece of fan fic for your backstory awesome..... email me a 2 paragraph synopsis and keep the rest in your head. I'm not bending the other 5 players and the rest of the campaign world around your story.

:smallbiggrin: Bluntly put but I so agree. I'm not interested in reading a random amateur's prose, really. But I think anyone can write a decent paragraph or two to summarize a character. (Or even just a list!)

Averis Vol
2013-05-23, 03:08 AM
Eh, my first kill was ruined because my players already had resurrection magic by then, and I was too naive to know that that it has limited to no place in my campaigns.


Heh, I know your feeling. In my game PC's get to play a game of their choice versus Nasthos the Fallen (Basically a jacked up and criminally insane grim reaper with Split personality syndrome that chills in limbo). If they win the game they can be returned to life, and they get to reach into his pocket and pull out a random item; which may be an artifact, a cursed item, and intelligent item, or a really rusty spoon. But if they lose.......well, he takes a small part of their soul and adds them to his necklace before sending them to their respective deities. There are a very rare few instances where powerful beings (nearly gods) can call a soul back from the gods realm, but that hasn't happened in thousands of years.

To contribute to the topic at hand though! welcome to the darkside, soon your blood lust will be unquenchable. But seriously, PC deaths happen. If you don't want them to as a DM, find some way to spice it up (Nasthos was my way, and the PC's are scared ****less of him) or just don't be so open about your rolls. I warn my PC's that I will not inhibit them in the slightest with their character goals and aspirations, but I do not mess with the dice gods, they are the law. And this works for my group, and I'm glad I found it.

Every group is different, and it will take a few deaths before you find how your group handles things.

tasw
2013-05-26, 06:59 PM
That sounds awesome. I think I'm gonna steal that idea.

INoKnowNames
2013-05-27, 10:19 PM
To everyone that commented, trying to help in your own way, I thank you. The jokes, the different viewpoints, and the stories, I appreciate it.

For those with the notes that things just happen, I'm a bit more accepting of that now. One player gets a lucky crit and takes an enemy twice as strong as herself down in 1 hit, another player stays in the full attack range of a foe that just did 1/3rd of his hitpoints... the Pcs are willing to play the game, and that's their risk. I'm mainly just here to keep score and keep setting up the pieces.

Yes, it is early on in the game. 2nd Combat Encounter (1st one I actually controlled, I was in the hospital for the one before it). Only level 5, but this and the previous give enough that everyone, including the new pc, will be at level 6. I think I will go over the encounter here once it finishes winding down, and see what others think about it...

As opposed to difficulty, I need to be careful. I like the Lawful Good Afterlive Attraction: "Dungeon of Monsters That Are Just Strong Enough to Really Challenge You." But I'm sorta new at designing encounters, and just because it seems -awesome- in my head does not make it at all fair... I don't like things too easy unless there's a point to it being too easy, but I'm not a fan of it being -too- life threatening either. Challenges are fun, but this isn't I Wanna Be The Guy: The TableTop Game.

Though I don't think I'm quite as scary/eager to kill pcs as some of you seem... :smalleek: That song was -awesome- And I am in no way ready for the Tomb of Horrors...

Speaking of which, I found a way to make some good of this situation: The 2nd to Last Boss will be a group of Evil Clerics trying to revive a Super Ultra Mega Demon (tm) that will ravage the world, ala Castlevania and Dracula.... but maybe instead of a bunch of Clerics, it can be a couple.... and the reanimated husks of former heroes imbuned with raw, vile energy... Super Zombie Evil Champions, including the freshly slain PC? I kinda like it, myself. Maybe use some of my former characters as Fallen Champions (TM).

And in this game, Revival doesn't work. It would take a True Ressurrection just to achieve the affects of Raise Dead in this campaign. Though Revivify works. Otherwise, by the time the spell is complete, the soul has already been captured by the forces of Evil trying to bring back the Dark One. This has been made clear IC already, before they even started fighting.

Amphetryon
2013-05-27, 11:37 PM
Remember that, as DM, it is sometimes difficult to gauge how difficult an encounter is, relative to how difficult the Players perceive it to be. If, for example, your Players all needed to roll a 15 or higher on their respective best saves to avoid catastrophe - and all did so, due to a streak of luck - they may well all feel like they "barely escaped" while you can only note a 100% save ratio and the minimal effects that went with it.

Threadnaught
2013-05-29, 12:49 PM
I just killed one of my players... I'm a monster... :smallfrown:

I allowed my players to go up against a god. And savoured the two rounds it took for them to be on the receiving end of a TPK.

It felt really good. :smallamused:


Especially since one of the guys who died, was taken down non lethally in a single hit from someone who never intended on fighting him. Every time my players fought this group of Goblins.
This player's character (a Bard) was the target of the Goblins' Druid. Whose Animal Companion was eventually, and brutally, slaughtered by that ******* Druid (formerly that ******* Bard) due to a combination of DM naivety and munchkin level whinging from t*D. His OoC behaviour made the TPK so very sweet.

I should probably stop filling the current campaign setting with Aspects of the Elder Evils. :smallbiggrin:

Samshiir
2013-05-31, 03:22 PM
I killed one of my players three times in one session once.

First character of the night, he was an elf monk. After a few battles, he got beat down to ONE HP, and the group decided to rest because the casters were out of spells. The monk decided to go scouting anyways, so the next planned encounter (a huge gelatinous cube) ate him. The rest of the party saw their comrade floating around in it when they beat the monster down.

So he rolled a new character, a very stupid half-orc barbarian named Yu. (The character always spoke about himself in the third person. "Who are you?" "Yu is Yu.") ...Once again, decided to go scouting by himself, this time to get ambushed by an ogre chief and three normal ogres. That fight didn't last long. So I had the ogre chief loot the half-orc so that he was better equipped when the rest of the party arrived.

Third character of the night, he rolled a gnome bard, which I accidently critted (truly accidently, I rolled open on the table and everything) with a greataxe.


I didn't feel bad for the first two idiotic characters, but somehow ganking the gnome with a greataxe made me feel like a murderer.